Climate science

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

209 Thoughts on “Climate science

  1. THREAD on October 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm said:


  2. THREAD on October 16, 2010 at 8:10 pm said:


  3. THREAD on October 16, 2010 at 8:13 pm said:


  4. THREAD on October 16, 2010 at 8:32 pm said:


  5. THREAD on October 16, 2010 at 8:34 pm said:


  6. THREAD on October 16, 2010 at 8:35 pm said:


  7. THREAD on October 16, 2010 at 8:36 pm said:


  8. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 7:45 pm said:

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

  9. Ocean and Heat

  10. Ocean Heat Content and ARGO Project

  11. THREAD on October 19, 2010 at 1:03 pm said:

    Water Vapour

  12. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 9:40 am said:

    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.

  13. THREAD on October 20, 2010 at 4:34 pm said:

    Climate Driver Hypotheses – Google Search

  14. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2010 at 10:06 am said:

    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

  15. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2010 at 10:20 am said:

    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.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2010 at 10:30 am said:

    by Roy Clark | September 15, 2010

    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 a powerful technique for climate trend evaluation. This technique may be extended to other regions using the appropriate local ocean surface temperature reference. The analysis found no evidence for CO2 induced warming trends in the California data. This confirms prior ‘Null Hypothesis’ work that it is impossible for a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to cause any climate change.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2010 at 10:44 am said:

    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!”

  18. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2010 at 2:24 pm said:

    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 Models, Pennell, C.; Reichler, T., 2009 – Fulltext Article not available

    What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?, John R. Christy, Benjamin Herman, Roger Pielke, Sr., Philip Klotzbach, Richard T. McNider, Justin J. Hnilo, Roy W. Spencer, Thomas Chase and David Douglass, 2010

    Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing


    Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, and Chad Herman, 2010, [MMH10]

    Evaluation of tropical cloud and precipitation statistics of Community Atmosphere Model version 3 using CloudSat and CALIPSO data, Y. Zhang, S. A. Klein, J. Boyle, G. G. Mace, 2010 – Abstract only, behind paywall

    The two following links are from The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered

    Global Climate Models and Their Limitations

    Feedback Factors and Radiative Forcing

  19. THREAD on October 21, 2010 at 3:07 pm said:

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

  20. Richard C (NZ) on October 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm said:


  21. THREAD on October 22, 2010 at 9:17 pm said:

    Maximum ‘Residence Time’ of Atmospheric CO2

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

  22. Google maps – Argo project status

  23. Richard C (NZ) on October 23, 2010 at 8:56 am said:

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

  24. That’s a Google Earth file.

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

  26. “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!”

  27. THREAD on October 23, 2010 at 7:12 pm said:

    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.””

  28. THREAD on October 24, 2010 at 1:05 pm said:

    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.”

  29. Richard C (NZ) on October 24, 2010 at 6:16 pm said:

    Water vapor mischief

    Climate Etc.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2010 at 9:39 am said:

    Global Warming Science

    by Alan Cheetham

  31. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2010 at 10:20 am said:

    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

  32. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2010 at 10:36 am said:

    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’

  33. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2010 at 4:31 pm said:

    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

  34. THREAD on October 25, 2010 at 7:38 pm said:

    Climate Models

    NON IPCC and Natural Forcings ONLY

  35. THREAD on October 25, 2010 at 7:48 pm said:

    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” ?

  36. THREAD on October 25, 2010 at 7:50 pm said:

    Simple Climate Model Release, Version 1.0

  37. THREAD on October 25, 2010 at 8:04 pm said:

    Dr Roy Spencer’s Blog

    Classic Posts

    Research Articles<

    Simple Climate Model – NON IPCC Natural Forcings only

  38. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2010 at 9:58 pm said:

    See “Consultation begins on forest carbon measurement”

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

  39. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 8:37 am said:

    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.

  40. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 8:45 am said:

    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.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2010 at 9:20 am said:

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

  42. Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2010 at 12:30 pm said:

    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”

  43. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 1:44 pm said:

    Global Warming’s Corrupt Science

    By Patrick J. Michaels, October 20, 2010

  44. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm said:

    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:

  45. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm said:

    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.

  46. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm said:

    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.”

  47. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm said:

    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.

  48. THREAD on October 29, 2010 at 5:42 pm said:

    Bottom Falling Out of Global Ocean Surface Temperatures?

    October 28th, 2010

  49. Richard C (NZ) on October 29, 2010 at 8:00 pm said:

    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.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on October 29, 2010 at 8:03 pm said:

    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

    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 conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.

  51. THREAD on October 30, 2010 at 9:40 am said:

    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.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 10:05 am said:


    The InterComparison of Radiation Codes in Climate Models – III

  53. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 10:14 am said:


    Continual Intercomparison of Radiation Codes

  54. The ARM Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project

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

  55. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 1:01 pm said:


    Radiative Transfer Models:

    Atmospheric Profiles
    Cloud properties
    Aerosol properties
    Shortwave surface albedo values

  56. THREAD on October 30, 2010 at 1:11 pm said:

    Cloud Resolving Model – Google Search

  57. THREAD on October 30, 2010 at 1:23 pm said:

    Cloud Resolving Model – Google Scholar Search

  58. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 1:37 pm said:

    Cloud Resolving Model Superparameterization – Google Scholar Search


  59. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 1:45 pm said:

    Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive

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

  60. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 1:48 pm said:

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

    Posted on August 28, 2010 by Anthony Watts

  61. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 2:26 pm said:

    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 C = Alarm!

    But is this argument credible? Or is global temperature like our body temperature kept almost constant by vaporization? Yes, the oceans absorb heat energy radiated from the Sun, which is used to vaporize water, which is convected to higher levels of the atmosphere, where it condenses and releases heat energy, which is finally radiated to outer space. The Earth thus can keep surface temperature constant under varying forcing by sweating: Radiative forcing can be balanced by increased sweating under constant temperature. In principle.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 2:48 pm said:

    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 is crucial for predicting climate and making smart policy decisions.

    What does that mean? It means the climate models used so far were nothing more than junk, thus the same applies for their predictions. They completely neglected the water vapour factor (and who knows what other factors).

    Climate forecasting is best left to real forecasters, and not tainted modelers.

    See – “Atmosphere” “Carbon Dioxide (CO2)”

    National Science Foundation (NSF)

    Press Release 09-001
    Scientists Take off on Historic Mission to Measure Greenhouse Gases That Have an Impact on Climate

    HIAPER, one of the nation’s most advanced research aircraft, is scheduled to embark on an historic mission spanning the globe from the Arctic to the Antarctic.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 8:55 pm said:

    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 twice as much as direct sunlight and in violation of the 2nd law. Kevin “missing heat” Trenberth’s energy budget is indeed, in his own words, “a travesty.” The reason Trenberth’s budget has “missing heat” is because it never existed in the first place, since ‘greenhouse gases’ cannot provide added energy to warm the Earth; only the Sun and geothermal energy sources can add heat to the Earth’s surface.

  64. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2010 at 6:27 pm said:

    See – “Climate” Climate Model Papers

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

  65. THREAD on November 2, 2010 at 9:04 am said:

    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

    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) the frequently mentioned di fference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifi ed.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2010 at 9:11 am said:

    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.

  67. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2010 at 9:29 am said:


    Department of Chemistry, Howard University, Washington, DC
    Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Physics Department, Rochester Institute of Technology
    Quality Management, Deutscher Wetterdienst

    March 2010

    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, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2010 at 9:37 am said:


    Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina
    Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dipl.-Phys.

    March 2010


    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 their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2010 at 9:54 am said:

    “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.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2010 at 11:52 am said:

    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.

  71. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm said:

    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 air pressure gradients that cause the air to move. (By consequence, natural forests known for their high evaporation potential become a major player in atmospheric circulation .)

    Remarkably, the effects of condensation/evaporation on air pressure via removal/addition of vapor molecules have managed to escape wide attention for a very long time. This to such a degree that, as documented in our paper, there is now a confusion among scientists as to whether condensation increases or reduces moist air pressure. In other words, even the sign of the effect remains unclear to many meteorologists, let alone its quantitative magnitude. This is despite the recognition that namely the lack of theoretical concepts to treat moist effects is a major obstacle for the development of the atmospheric circulation theory (Schneider 2006 p. 682).

    In the above paper just made available for public discussion at the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), we review the recently available knowledge on the dynamic effects of the phase transitions of water on air circulation and advance the physical foundations of the biotic pump theory in all its integrity. We want the new theory to be scrutinized openly and as widely and deeply as possible, and we are ready to invest efforts to clarify and defend our findings in public in the coming weeks. We hope that the EGU platform will be a guarantee that the discussion, including criticisms, will be constructive and of essence.

    Please, feel free to join the commentators or to encourage to comment those scientists who you believe might be interested in the topic. The discussion is open until 10 December 2010 during which time the authors will be available to share their insights, for what they are worth, into this really exciting question: Where do winds come from?

    Yours sincerely,
    Anastassia Makarieva

  72. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2010 at 9:13 pm said:

    World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)

    Science Highlights – Archive

  73. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2010 at 9:34 pm said:

    Special Collections in AGU Journals


  74. Richard C (NZ) on November 8, 2010 at 9:53 am said:

    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.”

  75. Richard C (NZ) on November 9, 2010 at 9:37 am said:

    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.

  76. Richard C (NZ) on November 14, 2010 at 11:48 am said:

    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 integrated Global Radiosonde Archive contains more than 28 million soundings, from roughly 1250 stations.

  77. Richard C (NZ) on December 1, 2010 at 4:38 pm said:

    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.

    Cosmic Rays and Climate

    By: Nir J. Shaviv

    In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization Clouds.

    Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980’s. By the mid 1990’s, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.

    The solar-activity cosmic-ray-flux cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.


  78. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2010 at 6:01 pm said:

    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.


    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 significantly warmed by direct sunlight alone.

    The surface atmosphere therefore gets its warmth from direct contact with the oceans, from infra-red radiation off its surface being absorbed by greenhouse gases, and from the removal of latent heat from the ocean through evaporation. This means, therefore, that the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean. In other words, it is necessary for the oceans to warm up first before the overlying atmosphere can warm.

    Inland locations are less restrained by the oceans and thus experience a wider temperature range. However, land cannot store heat for very long, which is why hot days in desert regions are quickly followed by cold nights. However, in terms of global averages, the more dominant ocean temperature fixes the air temperature for most of the Earth. There are several reasons for this. –

    1) The oceans transport heat around the globe via massive ocean currents which sweep in grand circulations around the various oceans. The effect is to keep the tropics cooler than they would otherwise be, and to keep high latitudes warmer. The global circulation of heat in the oceans tends to moderate the extremes of hot and cold that would otherwise occur in many parts of the world.

    2) Due to the high density of the oceans, a mere two metres depth of water can contain the entire heat of the atmosphere above. This enonrmous storage capacity enables the oceans to “buffer” any major deviations in temperature, moderating both heat waves and cold waves alike. Land, by contrast, has very little heat storage capacity.

    3) The oceans are evaporating all the time. This is very strong in the tropics, and weakest near the poles. The effect of evaporation is to cool the oceans, and thereby cool the surface atmosphere. The removed heat reappears when clouds condense at high altitude, and above the main greenhouse traps.

    The slight cooling of -0.1 deg at Thursday Island, Queensland, (lat 11 deg S) since the early 1950′s, in spite of steadily rising greenhouse gases is indicative of the ocean’s ability to remain cool through evaporation, in spite of actual or theoretical changes in energy inputs to the oceans, and lends support to Newell & Dopplick’s (1979) calculations that tropical temperatures cannot rise any further.


    A must read

  79. Richard C (NZ) on January 2, 2011 at 5:03 pm said:

    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 the regions with a great difference between potential and actual specific humidity are the ones with high temperature increase, like continental areas in mid to high latitudes. The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable.

    If the warmer power of solar irradiation is the independent driver for decadal and multidecadal cycles, the expected changes in insolation and no increase in green- house power may imply the recurrence of multidecadal cool phase, recalling the years of the third quarter of past century, before a new warming wave. The last decade stable temperature seems to be the turning point.

  80. Richard C (NZ) on January 2, 2011 at 5:07 pm said:

    See The Primary and Secondary Climate Drivers.

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

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

  82. Richard C (NZ) on January 17, 2011 at 1:07 pm said:

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

  83. Richard C (NZ) on March 7, 2011 at 8:31 pm said:

    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

  84. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2011 at 9:44 pm said:

    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 (globally averaged 87 mW/m2)

    Douglas-Knox then go on to compare the assumed solar flux of 340 W/m2 to this ridiculously low 0.087 W/m2 for Earth’s fission. There is intuitive evidence that Earth’s fission energy is far greater than this, given the core temperature estimated at least 8,000o F and a uniform temperature world wide of at least 2,500o F just 40 miles below the crust. This is NOT left over heat of origin and can NOT be from solar input. The question is how is the excess heat of Earth’s fission controlled and manifested at the surface?


  85. Richard C (NZ) on May 9, 2011 at 10:01 pm said:

    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

  86. Richard C (NZ) on May 9, 2011 at 10:07 pm said:

    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

  87. Richard C (NZ) on May 21, 2011 at 5:41 pm said:

    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).

  88. Richard C (NZ) on May 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm said:

    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

    1National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA.
    2Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
    3Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.


    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 decadal global surface climate change.

  89. Richard C (NZ) on May 21, 2011 at 6:06 pm said:

    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
    GPO Box 475, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

    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 with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data.

    Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.

  90. Richard C (NZ) on May 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm said:

    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.

  91. Richard C (NZ) on May 21, 2011 at 6:18 pm said:

    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.

  92. Richard C (NZ) on May 22, 2011 at 9:04 pm said:

    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):


  93. Richard C (NZ) on May 22, 2011 at 9:48 pm said:

    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 with less snow, making a mockery of the claims of Jeff Masters, Mark “death spiral” Serreze, Al Gore and others that warming causes more snowfall.
    Decadal variability in snow cover over the Tibetan Plateau during the last two centuries

    Key Points

    * Coherent variability in ice cores can be considered as a proxy for snow cover
    * This proxy for snow cover over the TP exhibits significant decadal variations
    * Its variations are highly associated with AMO

    Caiming Shen
    Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA

    Wei-Chyung Wang
    Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA

    Gang Zeng
    Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA

    Based on the coherency in decadal variability between the ice core data and the observed snow cover over the Tibetan Plateau during recent decades, we used three available ice core data to characterize the snow cover variability of the last 200 years. The analysis suggests that the snow cover exhibits significant decadal variability with major shifts around 1840s, 1880s, 1920s, and 1960s. Its variations are found to be closely correlated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation: Cool/warm phases coincide with large/small snow cover. A plausible mechanism linking the North Atlantic climate to Asian monsoon is presented.

  94. Richard C (NZ) on June 8, 2011 at 7:38 pm said:

    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.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on June 13, 2011 at 10:00 pm said:

    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)

    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 negative 36 feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers 37 generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are 38 negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks 39 can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including 40 all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics 41 alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST 42 fluctuations exceeds the zero-feedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, 43 the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed 44 SST are less than the zero-feedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize 45 these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

  96. Richard C (NZ) on July 24, 2011 at 10:24 am said:

    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”………

  97. Richard C (NZ) on August 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm said:

    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.

  98. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2011 at 8:04 pm said:

    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)

  99. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2011 at 8:28 pm said:

    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, which gives the pSCL vs temperature correlation for Armagh in Northern Ireland, and the Central England Temperature, the longest instrumental dataset we have available. If you use the correlation of pSCL vs temperature in Armagh, which is similar to the CET in climate and latitude, you’ll find the residual fits with a 2XCO2 of 0.8 C. This drops slightly as you add in other minor variables (AMO, volcanos, UHIE etc) so that the value comes out almost identical to the directly measured values of Lindzen & Choi and Spencer & Braswell, who use satellite measurement.

    This can all be done on a laptop with a spreadsheet – and since solar cycle length is easy to measure, and obviously independent from temperature measurement (mercury thermometers are not about to be influenced by the Sun or vice versa, except by measuring temperature of course), then it is very hard to ignore the correlation. The IPCC does, so unsuprisingly as soon as they extrapolate from their data fitting period of 1900-2000 the simulation goes wacko. Not so for the pSCL + low 2XCO2 model. The current cooling signal is fuly consistent with the length of the solar cycle which was completed in 2008/9.

    As to why this is the case, look no closer than the recent CERN results for a postulated mechanism. All you have to hypothesis is that solar cycle length is coupled to solar magnetic field strength, which is quite plausible. Indeed Butler and Johnston say:

    In conclusion we may remark that, even though the physical mechanism(s) for solar-activity induced changes in climate are still unresolved, there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

    In other words, global warming exists but is much weaker than the IPCC would want us to believe. For the rest of the temperature variance look to the Sun, particularly the magnetic effects.
    Just think, NIWA could have saved themselves millions – they could have used their receptionists PC during her lunch hour (I’m sure she wouldn’t have minded).

  100. Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2011 at 9:03 am said:

    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.


  101. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2011 at 10:06 am said:

    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.”


Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

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