It was something that was noted with our dairy farmers here in WA Marian.

When asked what figures they used for their water calculations they all stated they used the past decade rather than the longer term figures. They had already taken into account the fact that there had been a 20% decline in rainfall, that their deciles had shifted, because they had to know exactly how much water they had.

Why isn't your name at the top Tim? Seems that most of this is your work.

PS Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0

Oreskes is not a reliable source on anything:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/oreskes-same-old-crap.html

LOLz

So for proof that Oreskes is unreliable to link to the website of a political entity ideologically opposed to the reality of what science has demonstrated to be likely? That is, a party that ignores any reality that does not accord with its beliefs...

Anthony Cox is even less reliable - a member of the fringe group called the Australian Septics (or is that Sceptics)?

I agree Mark. The article focussed on food because it is relevant to everyone, regardless of their ideals. The point is that farmers are also the largest environmental managers as well. I'd actually like to see some sort of program that sees "management grants" that provide a payment for upkeep of the environment. The USA have these sorts of payments, as do parts of Europe.

I grew up when Landcare started and it did a lot for the environment. The catchment approach we had in our district worked very well, as it did across much of the country. This sort of approach would definitely be needed again in the future.

Incorrect Pete.

There has been a lot of research done on extension in agriculture and how hard it is to produce change due to the conservative nature of farmers. David Pannell has written extensively on this. Even relatively simple changes take decades to be fully adopted.

Also, you are incorrectly stating that climate change is not happening. Part of the success of the extension work was from farmers having already noticed a change to climatic systems. They knew it was happening, but needed the information contextualised.

Peter,
The tenticles of neo-lysenkoism continue to spread!

Could farmers' views be presented as part of the climate change evidence? If they are environmental managers, surely their view counts? I'd suggest that an ordinary Australian might be more sympathetic towards a farmer rather than a scientist (in terms of accessibility?).

Found at Tim's place : "Deltoid Science Blogs" courtesy of MikeH.

Unified Theory of the Crank

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.

2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.

3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

Link: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/30/unified-theory-of-the-crank/

if the shoe fits...................................................

Deal: Two of the papers Cook links to are by cranks, namely (1) Li et al who claim that AGW implies droughts that will reduce NPP yields by 90% by 2100 even though the "science" is that rising temperature produces more atmospheric water vapour, which for all except climate scientists like Trenberth necessitates rising precipitation aka rainfall.

And (2), Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture ‐ reduction options
Richard Eckard, DPI Victoria and The University of Melbourne.

Eckard is not aware that ruminants cannot emit what they have not eaten, so their CH4 etc are the result of their consumption of the carbohydrates in their feed which in turn derives from CO2, H2O, and light. That is also why Garnaut 2008 strongly advised cessation of all livestock production other than kangaroos, being equally as ignorant as Peter Singer that livestock are carbon neutral.

Eckard like Cook also fails to mention the role of rising atmospheric CO2 as the feedstock for rising crop yields. Garnaut in a lapse of concentration allowed his commissioned CSIRO study to appear with its projections (Table 6.5) that [CO2] at 550 ppm by 2100 results in rising wheat yields almost everywhere across Australia.

Mr Curtin makes an excellent point about rising temperatures leading to elevated atmospheric water vapour content (which itself causes further warming).

However, just as uniformly increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations do no produce uniform temperature increase, expectations of uniformly increasing rainfall increase are already proving ill-founded.

Increasing rates of evaporation also result from increasing temperature, increasing the susceptibility of food crops to being affected by even short periods of dry weather.

Like picking small cherries to hide from "An Inconvenient Truth", do we?

"Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes"

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0

(hint the first twenty minutes effectively covers the big picture nicely)

Thanks Mr Deal.

My intention is not to support Mr Curtin's contribution as set out its failings.

Is that some kind of "psychic business failure"? It must be given that their agribusiness failed in 2010 and the Carbon Tax was not annouced until January this year...

In any case the Thompson's case was about environmental concerns relating to their feedlot and complaints about its smell - not carbon emissions.

For what it is worth, my take on the Thompsons is that Jo Nova (and Anthony Watts) has been up to her dirty tricks again.

The glaring omission in Nova’s spin is that hundreds of affected citizens of Narrogin had presented a petition to the Shire:

1) “We the undersigned petition the Shire of Narrogin and the Department of Environment and Conservation, to take immediate action to stop emission of odour from the Narrogin Beef Feed Lot.”

2) The Thompsons had in fact violated their licence agreement where the preamble to the licence stated that a maximum of six thousand head of cattle could be held at the feed lot.

3) The Thompsons were holding 10000 head of cattle at the feed lot. The Thompsons had not made written application to the DEC for an increase in cattle.

4) The information you provided was a subsequent petition submitted by the Thompsons to hold 14,940 head of cattle.

5) Hilariously some of the petitioners (listed on the subsequent petition) resided in different shires, miles away from the beef feed lot. They could not have been affected by odour.

6) ODOUR EMISSIONS – NARROGIN BEEF PRODUCERS HBS-CATTLE
Moved Cr Hoysted Seconded Cr Hardie

(Narrogin) Council endorses the following position on the issue of odour emissions from Narrogin Beef Producers:

1. The concern of the Narrogin Community about odour being experienced is
recognised and understood,
2. Narrogin Beef Producers need to demonstrate an improvement in its control of odour emissions,
3. Encourage the Department of Environment and Conservation to issue an ongoing licence to Narrogin Beef Producers, but limiting cattle numbers to no more than 10,000 head at the present time. Support to go to 14,940 is conditional on the company being able to demonstrate it is able to manage odours to an acceptable level. Further, the licence include a specific reference to odour management as a condition,

It appears the Thompsons’ odour management failed the sniff test. What else would one expect when a cattle herd increases from 6000 to <15000? The saga is yet another example of climate sceptics sufficiently deluded in believing it is their right to pollute the surrounds of others.

The Thompson’s current financial situation is a result of greed and arrogance and a total disregard for affected residents, a fragile environment and the laws to protect it. Texas is welcome to the Thompsons.

Anthony that is incorrect.

Whether or not the carbon tax is the best tool we could have come up with (the debate that we should have had rather arguing over whether climate change was real or not) does not change the fact that GHG emissions are a market failure. The correct for this market failure is to make sure that this externality is accounted for in the supply chain costs. Thus the carbon tax should aid in redressing this market failure.

So business practices will need to change. Reluctance to change or lack of financial leverage to enable change, shows that the businesses involved were not suitable to the reality of the market place. This is why we ran the program, to make sure that people were cognisant of the reality of the market (GHGs now being included rather than ignored and why) so that they could adapt their business model. By showing people the reality of climate change, the need for change, the businesses can effectively adapt. Those reluctant to were never going to be able to function in the future anyway.

1 Here is a copy of the petition supporting the Thompsons:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/politics/thompsons/petition-narrogin-beef.pdf

No doubt Shirley has a copy of the petition allegedly against the Thompsons.

2 Not true; the DEC actually admitted the Thompsons had been treated unfairly by the DEC's own standards. The original 6000 head lot had been increased to 10000 and the application for 15000 was submitted and preliminary approval had been given; that conditional approval was changed on the basis of this condition:

ODOUR CONTROL
A1 The licensee shall ensure that odour emitted from the premises does not unreasonably interfere with the health welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of any person who is not on the premises.

An impossible condition making any business unbankable and at the mercy of vexatious anti-farm groups.

3 Not true; as above.

4 So what?

5 A gross exaggeration. And where were the complainants.

The Greens will not be happy until this country is starving in the dark.

"The Greens will not be happy until this country is starving in the dark."

No Anthony - at least, not the whole country... just the suburban lawyers, the Institute of Public Affairs and those who have invented a whole new physics for themselves like "Jo Nova" and her ilk without any sort of edjerkashun whatsoever. Politics of the worst kind dressed up as science. And heavily funded by vested interests via the Heritage Foundation.

Hope you lot aren't left to starve in the dark ... I want to watch.

Anthony your Herring is no less red or malodorous for having been bolstered by a petition to save it - the Carbon Tax and carbon policy was unrelated to the Thompson case no matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. As far as I can see your argument is:

The Thompsons started an agribusiness. They were vocal against AGW so the DEC trumped up a reason to shut them down.

Is that about the strength of it?

Care to share some evidence to back that theory because everything on Jo Nova's own site, even the statement by Cory Bernardi contains not a shred that suggests any real link between their outspoken views and the actions of the DEC.

If you feel the department has acted inappropriately then there are avenues to pursue that - and hey, the current political incumbents in WA are sound supporters of agribusiness over the environment.

Oh wait, they were in power the whole time this occurred - do you think that if there were not some serious non-carbon issue that genuinely existed here that a Liberal government in power only by the grace and will of the National Party (with 25% of state revenue to allocate for Royalties for Regions) would not have bent over backwards to absolutely make sure that any viable farming business would be allowed to progress?

The problems faced, and the failure of the business are not able to be laid at Julia Gillards door (via the carbon tax) no matter which way you spin it.

You can't say that! I object Your Honour... this is the best hearsay evidence one could hope for - from a respected source of objective truth like "Ms Nova" ... what more is necessary?

I wonder if Anthony's lawyering is as good as his science. Must check.

No Anthony that is what I got of your introducing the case into this argument as proof that the carbon tax is bad - the issues arose way before the carbon tax was looming and the reasons given on Jo Nova's own site don't support an argument otherwise.

Unless you subscribe to wild conspiracy theories.

Errr, would that be the same pettifogger who claims to have a degree in climatology?

http://www.climate-sceptics.com.au/the_team.html

Just askin'.

The very same fella Shirley. Interesting the sort of characters who are drawn to the skirts of Alan Jones and the Jo Codlings of the world isn't it?

Enough of your warbling Anthony Cox. The Thompsons were holding 10000 head of cattle, which by all accounts was in breach of licence conditions. Your slithy comrade-in-spin Nova slyly implies the Thompsons were licensed in 2005 to hold 10000 head when the 2005 licences stated 6000.

2005 Licences:

“9 May 2005 L7873/2 (amendment) As above •6,000 head limit (preamble). 28 Sep 2005 L7873/3 2 years •6,000 head limit (preamble).” (Source: Appeals Convenor WA).

I know a little about licensing preambles, however, where are the Conditions of Licence Anthony Cox? Got none?

Mr Thompson claims he sent in an application to hold cattle up to 10000. He then duly increased the herd because he’d been given “verbal approval” by 'Officers of the Department'. So would that be verbal or Thompsons' verballing? Well try that caper when driving an unlicensed vehicle and see where that gets you.

The hillbilly Thompsons-in-denial sought trouble from the start, declaring that GHG was not a pollutant (though in the motherland, under the Clean Air Act, the USEPA states that ‘GHG in the atmosphere threatens the public health and welfare of current and future generations’).

It’s not us, it’s the piggery that stinks, the duckshoving Thompsons wail. GHG, water conservation, biodiversity, NPI, land clearing, heritage listing etc are “extremist agendas,” shriek the Thompsons whilst brandishing, to one and all, a copy of the Great Global Warming Swindle. All this grief they sob because of a “handful of complainants.” That Mr Cox is a load of old cobblers. Three hundred complainants in a tiny rural town are more than a “handful”:

http://www.narroginshire.wa.gov.au/council_information/meetings/minutes/2007minutes/17thmay2007minutes

There are approximately 700 accredited feedlots throughout Australia. And so it seems that 700 accredited licensees of feedlots can operate within the environmental regulatory and legal confines of this country though a couple of “blow-ins” cannot/will not. This is truly astonishing. Any community member who has had dealings with the DEC will tell you that the DEC is most assuredly, pro-industry.

Is it not pitiful when the only people spinning for the Thompsons are astroturfers, mostly lurking behind right wing stink tanks, greed merchants and fossil fuel planet wreckers? Names come to mind – the duplicitous Anthony Cox who seemingly could not distinguish between a VOC and a sock and who dupes the public with bogus credentials; the thoroughly debunked Anthony Watts and Jo Nova and of course Cory Bernardi who has the IQ of half a sensory neuron. And all sycophants to the ignominious Heartland Institute – cringe.

Anthony!

"Heresay"!!!??? Or is that Heresy? Surely you mean Hearsay? What sorta law you practising down there?

Anthony, I can see several fraudulent or half-truth statements in your post regarding the Thompson's feedlot case. Being a lawyer you should understand that you are committing slander and misleading the wider public with your comments on the matter.

If you want to know the truth, contact the DAFWA and DEC people involved. They have extensive records, as they are required to, and can give you the real information.

Also, the Australian Skeptics would disagree with you being a sceptic. You aren't seeking evidence, you are seeking confirmation of your thoughts. This is a logical fallacy called confirmation bias and unacceptable to the true skeptics.

I see you are continuing with your spurious assertions about the carbon cycle and claims about photosynthesis. I also see you are insulting Eckard's work which is actually directly measuring emissions, not casting aspersions.

You really should take my advice and actually look into the plant physiology basics. CO2 does not drive crop/plant "production". The plants (and animals) that currently live on this Earth have evolved with CO2 levels of ~280ppm, thus they don't need more, they can concentrate it for photosynthesis just fine. Yes, giving them more leads to improved WUE, but they need the water and nutrients before they need the CO2.
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

In direct answer to your yield questions, for Australian rainfed agriculture, the answer is a resounding yes. The current limitation in rainfed agriculture is water, as it has always been. The declines in rainfall that have been experienced under climate change have led to measurable changes in yields.

In answer to your drought statement, you have completely confounded seasonal variability (of which farmers already have to deal with) with climate change. The south-west of WA has had a complete change in its climatic systems. http://www.ioci.org.au/publications.html In fact most of the key agricultural areas have seen a change for the worse in their climatic systems, leading to overall drier climates that are and will be producing less food.

Scanlon, you are beyond redemption I fear. Do you really think today's cereal and other food production would have been possible with [CO2] at 280 ppm? Of course there was production then, but life was nasty brutish and short. You clearly believe today's cereals etc production feeding 7 billion at 390 ppm would have been possible at 280. I really do give up on you.

As for rain, we have had 3 years now of rain way above the average, so far this year more than 100 mm more than in the whole of 2006. Get lost!

Your statement is completely at odds with the reality of agricultural production. You seem to think that CO2 is the reason we have increased yields of crops in the past 30-40 years, yet that means you think nothing has been gained from all the research and innovation in the sector. Are you honestly implying that no-till did nothing, that the improved plant varieties weren't improved, that nutrition, rotations, disease and weed management did nothing?

Curtin, it is you who is deluded and talking nonsense. You finishing statement is once again confounding seasonal variability with climate and climate change. By your logic: I hear it is really cold at the south pole as well, must be global cooling. Please consider opening your mind and reading up on what agricultural science and farmers have achieved, as you are currently insulting an entire industry.

Scanlon: you refuse to comprehend my multivariate analysis of crop yields in my paper on climate change and food production (available at www.timcurtin.com). It is not honest to have said here what you just did when you are in fact well aware of that paper - and indeed of Garnaut's commissioned study from CSIRO by Crimp et al. If The Conversation had any standards for quality of its threads, yours would never have appeared.

A paper I have already pointed out the flaws in. It also comes up short on the very basic logic that I have pointed out: simply put you are ignoring all of the advances in agriculture in favour of a correlation.

I have also pointed out previously to you the perfidious way you interpreted the Howden and Crimp submissions to the Garnaut paper. To ignore the major caveats stated is nothing more than cherry picking.

In terms of your multivariate analysis, this has been torn to pieces by several mathematicians. It is clear that your analyses are not just fatally flawed but lacking analytical rigor as well.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/tc-and-dw/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/big-difference/
These are only two dissections of your work, there are many more, both lay (like these two blog posts) and scientific.

Watt a complete load of horse hockey, for your econometric paper, completely fails both "Occam's Razor" and the second law of thermodynamics.

"Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes"

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0

As they say Tim, you have neither the science nor the mathematics on your side of the fence, to defend the indefensible, nor detract from the real science in the IPCC AR reports, one through four and the new up coming AR5.

But since you are a fan of the trash well debunked science fiction called "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory", that comes as no big surprise!

My Climate Change and Food production paper (2009) discusses new crop varieties and othern variables. The fact remains that presence of [CO2] is a necessary condition for all plant growth and thereby for all life. Reducing it, all other conditions cet.par., will reduce yields and the essential carbohydrate content within plants.

I stand by the Crimp and Howden results as reported in Garnaut Table 6.5 2008.

Tamino spotted only one statistical error in just one of the many Tables in my TSWJ paper and its SI, and that error arose from my use in its Table 1 of all GHGs including methane etc as well as [CO2] in the radiative forcing measure, thereby removing the autoregression. Closed Mind refused to admit this, thereby justifying my renaming of him.

In his second attack on my ACE2011 paper "Big Difference" he made the same mistake he accused me of in TSWJ, as in its Table 1 the D-W statistic clearly shows autocorrelation when radiative forcing of just [CO2] is considered (as I have already noted here above). Again Grant Foster proved his Closed Mind by refusing to allow me to point out his own failure to use the Durbin-Watson Tables correctly.

Daryl, you rely too much on hearsay. Have you read Claes Johnson on the 2nd Law? It is Trenberth Fasullo and Kiehl along with Pierrehumbert whose cartoons shows "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the earth out of the 390 allegedly radiated from the earth which if true would turn it in to a fireball, as its 324 W/sq.m. that they show absorbed by the surface is nearly double that (168) absorbed from the sun. (See the first KT cartoon at AR4 WG1 p.96).

Do go to Johnson's website, you just might learn something.

You don't stand by Crimp and Howden at all, you've misquoted and cherry picked them, as I have pointed out on many occasions. Howden's work on modelling plant growth is well known and very good work, it is a pity you don't read it properly.

Once again I see you are continuing to push your flawed logic on CO2 and plant growth. CO2 is not a driver of photosynthesis, it is just a part of it. Plants have adapted to 280ppm over a million years, so your claims fail the basic tenants of logic.

But lets humour your absurd claims that it will reduce plant growth and plant carbohydrate for a moment. This statement suggests that CO2 is not concentrated in the leaf in way shape or form, yet sugars are produced in grams per kilo, not milligrams per kilo. Odd. Lignin ditto. Clearly carbohydrates can only be in high quantities prior to the industrial revolution to grow all of those trees because of Tim Curtin's magical belief in CO2 fairies.

Also, you have consistently attributed ALL of the improvements in yield of the past century to CO2 increases. Please explain how none of the breeding programs have worked, how none of the weed control methods have worked, how none of the technological improvements have worked. Once you have done this please explain how a ~2% efficiency gain from water-use efficiency under higher CO2 can offset the 15-20% decline in southern Australian agricultural rainfall. I look forward to you once again rewriting the laws of nature.
http://www.cse.csiro.au/publications/1999/wheatcropping-99-13.pdf
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Ecosystem-Sciences/MarkHowden.aspx

Tim Scanlon: you are not being truthful when you state (1)

"CO2 is not a driver of photosynthesis, it is just a part of it".

So you are saying photosynthesis is possible without CO2?

(2) That I "have consistently attributed ALL of the improvements in yield of the past century to CO2 increases". Show me where I ever said that. I NEVER did in my E&E paper Climate Change and Food Production paper (available at my website www.timcurtin.com).

The problem with you Scanlon is that you exhibit the Peter principle or Dunning Kruger effect whereby you combine ignorance with arrogance.

Surely, you jest TC?

To believe in CJ's monologue of complete nonsense, I would have to unlearn 5,000 years of basic science, since civilization first began.

Claes Johnson's, postulate of complete nonsense, fails "Occam's Razor Test", the basic laws of physics, including the second law of thermodynamics.

Definition of postulate : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/postulate

Top twenty logical fallacies : http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

*Circular reasoning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DElodsKobQ

Given your lack of basic understanding of physics from first principles, let us go back to the beginning.

Yale Lecture "Fundamentals of Physics" 24 in the series Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOKnWaLiL8w&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SPFE3074A4CB751B2B

I fear, even these relatively simple lectures, may be well beyond your basic circular reasoning* science comprehension skills.

I would thus recommend, an even more basic science text book. That is, one that is available in NSW and is issued to all 13 year old Year 7(K7) students and can be readily purchased on "ebay" too.

Claes Johnson unlike Trenberth and you is fully consistent with Occam's razor, as he dispenses with the otiose and invalid postulate of back radiation, invalid as it violates the Second Law by claiming that heat of 390 W/sq. metre rising from the earth to the cooler atmosphere then mostly (324 W/sq.m) returns from that cool to the earth.

If only Trenberth was right, because we would then capture more heat from the earth at night (324 W/sq.m) than from the pathetic 168 which is all the sun can manage and then only by day. No doubt your solar panels are already delivering energy at night from all that back radiation! If not, why not?

Wrong - photons are emitted from bodies producing energy. They don't get to "select" whether or not they travel TO a cooler body. The spectrum (or range of frquencies or wavelengths) of photons from a heat emitting body is a function SOLELY of it's blackbody radiation curve the spectral shape of which varies according to temperature. It does NOT vary according to what body those photons subsequently pass through, or are absorbed by, or are reflected by.

Mr Curtin just continues to demosntrate he is at the top the climate science Dunning-Kruger effect class - which is to say not only does he not have a clue what he is talking about but that he is astoundingly unaware of his total ignorance.

Oh yes, probably wasting my time with Tim "Dunning-Kruger" Curtin but this comment on Solar panels and IR radiation is so astoundingly silly it beggars belief.

Tim - photons come in quanta (discrete packets of energy) that are inversely proprotional to the wavelength and proprtional to the frequency. So High frequency photons (e.g. UV) have higher energy per quanta than low frequency (e.g. IR) \..

For a solar panel to work the quanta of the photon must be above the excitation energy (band-gap) of the panel which is a function of it's chemical composition. If the photon is too high frequency it passes through and doesn't get absorbed. If the photon is too low frequency (longer wavelength) it cannot produce electricty but just heats the panel.

Most solar panels have a very poor spectral response in the IR range.

In other words the Back Radiation (being IR) is irrelevant when talking about solar panels.

A simple explanation is here http://pvcdrom.pveducation.org/CELLOPER/spectral.htm

a more complex one is here http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/pv_cell_conversion_efficiency.html

One would have hoped you'd have the sense to stop embarassing yourself with the silly ignorant statements you make in this area - but apparently not :)

Once you mention Dunning Kruger, which fits you perfectly, I know it is a waste of time conversing with you.

The question you refuse to answer is what happens to Trenberth's back radiation to the earth of 324 W/sq. per second day and night. Neither you nor D-K have a clue.

Bye.

See my comment above. Curtin has no idea what he is even saying. A Watt (a unit of power) is a Joule (a unit of energy) per second.

To talk about W/m-2 per second is physics gibberish - which reflects Mr Curtin's understanding of the subject matter - which is to say less than zero.

And 342 @m-2 is the total incident Solar power at TOA - backscattered Ir is about 333 Wm-2

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at such persistent idiocy.

Tim - IPCC is 100% correct - you just 150% fail to understand it.

The amount of energy... per second (that's power measured in Watts) is indeed 1370 Watts (joules every second) per square meter

Let me re-word the IPCC statement in kindergarten terms for you to understand

The amount of energy (joules) reaching the top of Earth's atmosphere EACH SECOND on a surface area of one square metre facing the sun during DAYTIME is about 1,370 Watts (1370 Joules per second per m2), and the amount of energy per square metre per second averaged over the entire planet is one quarter of this (Fig.1) (that's the 342Wm-2 I have alluded to).

You know I've never before encountered someone so obdurately dense.

I have patiently explained the energy diagram to you on P96 before but it's plain you didn't get it.

I'll try again :)
Of the approximately 342 Wm-2 Incoming Solar radiation around 102 Wm-2 is reflected back to space (by the atmosphere and the surface). Thus - assuming no GHGs the surface temperature would be about 255K or minus 17 degrees centigrade
Of the remaining 240Wm-2 (not reflected) around 78 Wm-2 is absorbed by the atmosphere itself - only 162Wm-2 is available to heat the surface. If there were no GHG's (and no heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere - which of course is not the case) - that would produce a surface temperature of minus 42 degrees C - a frozen hell hole pretty much the equivalent of Antarctica across the globe.
Roughly 97 Wm-2 (net) is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere via Evaporation and Thermal transfer (there is obviously exchange both ways).
So (now follow carefully) that means the atmosphere now has 175 Wm-2 of energy.
The Earth's surface radiates about 396Wm-2 - only about 40Wm-2 (or 10%) goes through the atmospheric window.
But wait (I hear you day). Where did this extra 332 Wm-2 come from?? Didn't we only have 161 Wm-2 incident and didn't we lose 97Wm-2 via evaporation and thermal transfer? Surely that only leaves 64Wm-2
But such a question fails to understand that the planet ALSO needs to radiate away the Back radiation from GHGs in order to maintain a stable equilibrium.
Measured (by satellite) outgoing Longwave radiation at TOA is about 239Wm-2
Of this 40Wm-2 is directly from the surface (unabsorbed - though the transparent window) and 199 Wm-2 is emitted by the atmosphere (that's upgoing thermal re-radiation from GHGs)
Upwelling radiation from the surface is 396Wm-2 (again measured though with some uncertainty)- of which 356Wm-2 is absorbed (by GHGs - the only thing that can). That corresponds to a blackbody radiator(at the surface) of 16 degrees Celsius - roughly consistent (within uncertainties) to the observed average surface temperature of the earth of for the period 2000-2004 of 15 degrees (after all the earth is NOT a perfect blackbody radiator)

What's the balance?

Well the 356Wm-2 going into the atmosphere by IR absorption (by GHGs - mostly CO2 and water vapour) PLUS the 175Wm-2 going into the atmosphere by shortwave (solar incoming) radiation (78Wm-2) and evaporation and thermal transfer (97Wm-2) gives a total of 531 Wm-2.

Clearly this has to go somewhere or the atmosphere would heat up.

Well - 199Wm-2 is radiated to space and 333Wm-2 is RE-RADIATED back down toward the earth.

So - of the TOTAL energy being moved around by absorption and radiation (199 up and 333 down) - the bulk (more than 60%) is DOWN.
As noted above this downward back radiation is the reason why the earth's surface temperature is NOT -17 degrees Celsius but is in fact the pleasant climate we have enjoyed for the last 12000 years or so.

The PROBLEM - that so comprehensively are in denial about is that adding to the NET CO2 in the atmosphere means more thermal radiation is trapped and the planet heats up (measured as increased ocean heat content - about 90% of measured warming to date and increased surface temeperature).

A historical review by an Israeli agriculturalist of agricultural yields by and Israeli who looked at the yields reported in Biblical, Crusader, Byzantine, Ottoman and any other records from his area of the Middle East over a period of about 3000 years seems to indicate that the relationship of wheat yield / rainfall has not changed much. As crops were hand sown, the nominal sowing rate was about 50 kg/ha. Crop yield were reported as the amount harvested compare with that used for sowing. So reports of a good crop returning 100 fold, equals a 5 ton /ha crop was not considered to be unattainable, just exceptional. (Memo – ensure that files are salvaged from old computers properly so references do not vanish)

The reported yields seem to be consistent with current rainfall for the areas

His conclusion was that the maximum yields reported were totally consistent with the rainfall limiting yields of which when translated into today’s yield models equating effective rainfall into wheat yield are extremely similar. The major conclusion is that the bulk of advances in wheat yield has been in improving the harvest index, disease prevention, fertilization, rotations etc. We are just much more likely to reach the maximum yield for the available moisture than say King David’s farmers, or traditional Palestinian farmers of the last 200-300 years.

The implication is that we have not improved the efficacy the photosynthetic systems of wheats. So any loss of effective rainfall = lower potential yields. If CO2 concentrations affected yields at about 400 ppm we should have seen that by now.

Sure if we were to insert the systems which corn and other tropical grasses have, we could change things, but they do not seem to work so well at lower temperatures and light intensities.

Well done Tim.

You have found a typo in the IPCC report. Well not really the Report, more the FAQ's associated with the report. But nonetheless, good spot.

"The amount of energy reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere each second on a surface area of one square metre facing the Sun during daytime is about 1,370 Watts, and the amount of energy per square metre per second averaged over the entire planet is one-quarter of this"

Obviously this should read

"The amount of energy reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere each second on a surface area of one square metre facing the Sun during daytime is about 1,370 JOULES, and the amount of energy per square metre per second averaged over the entire planet is one-quarter of this "

However, this comment doesn't make a lot of sense:
"Matthew: what is the heat content of the photons? If it is the 342 W/sq.m.PER SECOND backradiated to earth according to Trenberth & co, what happens to that incredible amount of heat? We would all be fried critters by now if Trenberth is right"

In addition to not knowing the 'heat content' of a photon isn't the same as the total heat flow from all those photons, you then repeat the very mistake you had previously identified. Watts per second is a measure of the rate of change in a heat flow, not a measure of the heat flow itself. Like the difference between speed and acceleration.

Timothy.

It i a totally physical concept. Each additional methane molecule added to the atmosphere has a much greater warming impact than the addition of a CO2 molecule. Eventually the the Methane molecule is oxidised to become CO2 but that takes on average around 12 years. So if we want to reduce the immediate warming impact, and we are going to be releasing carbon in some form, we are better of releasing it in the form of CO2 rather than Methane.

And just to avoid confusion. This much greater warming impact from Methane isn't due to the molecule being in some way a more powerful absorber than CO2; it isn't. And in fact Methane absorbs at the end of the IR spectrum where there is less energy available than the other end where CO2 operates.

The reason that an additional Methane molecule has a much higher impact than an additional CO2 molecule is because there are far fewer Methane molecules in the atmosphere. The GH impact of different GH molecules is roughly logarithmic. Everytime the concentration of a GH gas doubles in the atmosphere its heating impact increases by a fixed amount. Since the concentration of Methane in the atmosphere is over 2 orders of magnitude lower than CO2, it takes far fewer Methane molecules to double the Methane concentration compared to the number of CO2 molecules needed to double the CO2 concentration. Therefore, per molecule, a methane molecule has a greater warming impact because it is adding to a much smaller pool of molecules.

No Tim, I don't need to check my maths.

If you refer to Myrhe et al 1998 (you know this paper, you have cited it in at least one of your papers), and go down to Table 3. There they give the formulae for calculating the forcing due to changes in different GH gases. I suggest you read those formulae and absorb what they mean.

So If we take Methane and CO2 levels at 1998 since that is the AR4 baseline you have referred to. Then we look at how the impact of adding either 11 ppb of Methane compares to instead adding 11 ppb of CO2. Applying the fumuilae (and using a pre-industrial reference level for Nitrous Oxide of 280 ppb in the Methane formula since Methane and Nitrous oxide absorption behaviour are coupled) we get the following results.

Methane - adding 11 ppb causes a forcing of 0.00409 W/m^2
CO2 - adding 11ppb causes a forcing of 0.000165 W/m^2

The ratio of these two is 28.6. Adding carbon to the atmosphere in the form of Methane rather than CO2 causes a greater than 28 times greater forcing.

And this still sunstantially underestimates the impact of reducing Anthropogenic Methane emissions. Prior to around 1700 methane levels in the atmosphere hovered at around 650-700 ppb. since then they have climbed to nearly 1800 ppb due to all sorts of human activities. So this previous low level represented the equilibrium netween the ntural background Methane emission level and the rate at which Methane decomposes in the atmosphere - it has a half lif of about 12 years. So Anthropogenic emissions have caused a rise of around 1100 ppb.

So lets do a what if calculation. Suppose we could reduce all Anthopogenic emissions by half. That would be enough to maintain a long term Methane level of about 1250 ppb (700 + 1100/2). The remaining methane in the atmosphere above this level would no longer have an emission source to maintain its atmpospherc concentration. So this would begin to decompose at it's half life of 12 years. So after 12 years half of the methane in the atmosphere above the 1250 ppb level would have vanished, taking total levels down to around 1525 ppb. Plug a drop like that into the formula for methane relative to the 1998 value and we would have a radiative forcing change of:

-0.1328 W/M^2

In contrast to achieve the same change in radiative forcing by managing CO2 emissions we would need to get CO2 levels down to around 384 ppm. To do that we would need to reduce CO2 emissions to zero. Then draw back out of the atmosphere around 5 years worth of CO2 emissions then draw back out about a further 3-4 years worth of emissions to compensate for the CO2 that would outgas from the oceans as the atmospheric level drops.

So perhaps tackling Anthropogenic Methane emissions might be a simpler short term answer. Obviously thats onlt a stop gap action but it my buy us some time.

I have seen your other questions and will try to respond to some of them over the next couple of days. I have also read one of the Econometrics papers and am working on some responses to its faults. Keep an eye on your website Tim.

Oh, by the way, you the tone of your response is extremely rude. To myself and to 1000's of other people. Is this how you see discussions progressing Tim. You feel free to spit out bile and venom at will when someone such as myself treats you politely. Interesting double standard in that.

If you actually listen to what people have to say here you might learn something Tim.

You describe yourself as a retired Economist. Well I am not at retirement age yet - 10 years to go I hope. But my undergraduate degree included 3 years of University level Physics, 4 years of Thermodynamics, 4 years of Fluid Mechanics, 4 years of Mathematics, 3 years of Statistics, 3 years of Chemistry.

Would you care to list the educational background you have in subjects comparably relevent to Climate Science; how much Thermodynamics do you study during an Economics degree?

Tim, since you are willing to apply your background in Econometrics to Climate Change in reality you are saying you have the mathematical background for thinking about subjects like this. Therefore, go back to Myrhe et al, look at the formulae that describe the radiative forcing in Table 3 and then think seriously about what the form of the equations tells you about the impact of more or less of each gas.

Before you dismiss the 'illusory' radiative effect of CO2, perhaps you could explain the underlying physics for why it is illusory. Starting point for such an explanation might be your reasoning as to why the molecular dipole of different molecules actually has no relevence to their absorption/emission characteristics. And in the process you will be making yourself quite famous; proving Einstein was wrong after all these years would be quite a coup.

However, make sure you drop a line to the Pentagon. Because they are under the, obviously misguided, notion that they understand why their air-to-air heat seeking misiles work. When in reality they are obviously totally useless since the Infra-Red gas absorption characteristics of GH gases that form the basis of their ability reliably discriminate targets through 10's of 1000's of meters of the atmospheren are appaerntly illusory; decades of intensive military research and all along they deluded themselves. Whoda thunk it?

Curtin, you have insinuated that John and I have made a claim that we haven't. This mendacious strawman is insulting, especially considering the linked Eckard paper in all about minimising emissions, especially from livestock.

Also your points about radiation are woeful. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-molecules.html

There are few better personifications of the Dunning-Kruger effect in relation to climate science than Mr Curtin :)

If it's not "CO2 is plant food" it's his latest foray into a "real scientific paper" (published in the Scientific World Journal). Not too long ago Mr Curtin was crowing on these threads about the papers imminent publication.

By his own admission on this thread by Tamino

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/tc-and-dw/

and further examined here

http://thepoliticus.com/content/tim-curtins-incompetence-basic-statistics-deltoid

It's riddled with mistakes, even in the stats about which he claims some mastery - not to mention errors and basic complete misunderstandings of the physics of climate science.

I note he's not crowing about it anymore? Just continuing to spread pseudo-skeptic ill informed climate science denialism

Harrigan: Tamino (aka Closed Mind) spotted only one statistical error in just one of the many Tables in my TSWJ paper and its SI, and that error arose from my use of all GHGs including methane etc as well as [CO2] in the radiative forcing measure, thereby removing the autoregression. Closed Mind refused to admit this, thereby justifying my renaming of him - as he never cited an error in ANY of the remaining Tables of my TSWJ paper including its SI.

In his second attack on my ACE2011 paper, "Big Difference", he made the same mistake he accused me of in TSWJ, as in its Table 1 the D-W statistic clearly shows autocorrelation when radiative forcing of just [CO2] is considered (as I have noted here above). Again Grant Foster proved his Closed Mind by refusing to allow me to point out his own failure to use the Durbin-Watson Tables correctly.

You are in dangerous territory by associating yourself with a serially economical with the truth Grant Foster (aka Closed Mind).

Tim: you and John are twerps, like Garnaut, for supporting the ludicrous Eckard paper with its actionably fraudulent claim that livestocks emit more GHG than they have ever absorbed.

If I lived in WA I would have you reassigned to child care,as that is the level of your intellect and knowledge, provided you had no access to my grandson.

Timothy

"Notable is also the complete absence of physicists in the debate, leaving room for all sorts of free inventions such as IR-photons busy traveling around the universe carrying little units of heat energy which they deliver to everybody without asking anything, in particular not about the temperature of the recipient."

If Claes said that then he has managed to demonstrate in one sentence his complete and utter ignorance of the subject he claims he is revolutionising.

All our understanding of Electro-magnetic radiation, including IR is the province of physicists!

And yes, IR photons do travel around with their units of energy; heat has a more limited definition. As do visible light photons, UV photons, XRay photons, Microwave photons, Radio photons etc.

Claes comment implies a reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - I haven't seen his full comment but have read some of his other writings. It sounds like a reference to the question 'How can a photon from a cooler source travel to and be absorbed by a warmer source? Doesn't that violate the 2nd Law?"

No it doesn't because the questioner doesn't understand the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law applied in this context says that the NET heat flow between two objects cannot be from cooler to warmer. Heat can and does flow in both directions, but the flow from warmer to cooler is larger so the net flow is from warm to cool.

In the context of individual photons, what this means is they don't have and don't need any restriction on where they can travel. What enforces the 2nd Law is that a warmer source is radiating more photons than a cool source.

Claes suggests that he has put up an alternative mathematical description that allows him to do away with wave/particle duality in light - an idea that seems to affront his sensibilities. What he doesn't seem to realise is that he can't overturn that idea in isolation. W/P Duality applies to all matter as well. And it is grounded in things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Which he presumably is also overturning. Without HUP, the entire Bohr Model of the atom doesn't work. And so on....

Essentially he is overturning large parts of Quantum Mechanics. The most successful scientific theory of the last century. And incidentally, the basis for the invention of the transistor, that allows you and I to have this conversation.

So if Claes is doing that he needs to develop a complete and coherent theory that explains the huge body of experimental results that support Quantum Mechanics. Including the body of experimental evidence supporting Wave/Particle Duality. His theory needs to show why we obtain those results without W/P Duality. And suggest additional experimental tests that would support his ideas.

And his single paper doesn't even remotely do that. It reads as something quite amateurish. After all, Claes isn't a physicist. His field is Applied Mathematics.

I call bullshit distraction Danderson! His association with Skeptical Science is overtly stated in his bio.

I expect it is there rather than right under his name as he has a number of relevent affiliations that make for a lengthy statement. The information is one link away for the curious which you find out by clicking on his name up top of the left which leads you too his bio statement:

"John Cook is currently the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He also runs skepticalscience.com, a website that makes climate science accessible to the general public and examines the arguments of global warming skeptics. He co-authored the book "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand" with environmental scientist Haydn Washington and the popular booklet "The Debunking Handbook" with Stephan Lewandowsky. He is also an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Western Australia."

O'really?

Merchant of doubt much, do we?

cui bono?