I think this is the least convincing argument of climate sceptics I've ever come across. And the most boring, because it has been repeated here and refuted so many times. Unfortunately repeating nonsense doesn't make in any more sensible. However it looks that people got tired of replying to the same non-sens over and over again.
All arguments appear to be suspiciously similar to these given here:
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-carbon-tax-and-the-climate-overboard-affair-1579
by Douglas Cotton. Is that the same author?
Perhaps the author post his views here and hopes that no one replies so he can claim the victory in an argument. And probably help earth-climate website search ranking by pasting the link where ever he can. Unfortunately simply ignoring such posts would only leave the impression that the author won an argument. Therefore I feel obliged to respond.

Author estimates that from seasonal global mean temperatures changes of 0.6 deg, due to 6% of solar radiation changes due to earth’s orbit eccentricity, the remaining radiation can be only responsible for the for 10deg above absolute zero. Rest if supposed to come from earth’s interior.

This claim is in total disagreement with basic physics, astronomy and geology.

Temperature of earth without atmosphere can be estimated from the balance between incoming solar radiation from sun and outgoing radiation of the earth.The radiation from the sun can be directly measured. The radiation from the earth can be estimated using Stefan-Boltzmann law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law), which basically says that the amount of energy that a body emits via radiation is proportional to it’s temperature to power 4. This is well established physics, originating from experiments and theoretical calculations in 19th century and well documented and used in many application including astronomy. Temperature of earth derived from this law is -18deg (255K). According to John Writer, the temperature of earth should be 10K (above absolute zero), and only heat from earth interior saves us from freezing. I’m not sure why the author chooses to ignore the effect of atmosphere and seeks for mysterious gravitational forces heating the earth somehow.
So who should we trust, well established physics or suspicious data manipulation?

The author doesn’t seem to be worried about posting comments that have been thoroughly refuted before, so I will repeat here my previous argument. If most of the heat was generated in the earth interior, we should see high heat fluxes from the interior. But geothermal flow from the earth interior has been widely researched (and this was done completely independently of any climate scientists) and is estimated to be about 0.082W/m2, comparing to solar radiation of about 1400W/m2.
As I mentioned, geothermal heat flow is quite well researched, and the geothermal heat is used to produce energy. If heat fluxes from the gravitational forces were as high as claim, they would have generated anomalies in the geothermal gradient, such as temperature oscillations in borehole temperature logs, corresponding to claimed 60 and 900 years cycles (as claimed on earth-climate website). I have not read about any such discoveries. However, anomalies in geothermal gradient have been identified (e.g. in the areas that have been subject to glaciation). It would be strange if all geoscientific missed all claimed 60 and 900 years cycles.
I also don't understand why, if we receive more heat from the interior of the earth then from the sun, our planet is hotter around equator and cooler around the poles. Surely, if 90 % of heat came from the inside, the temperature would be more evenly distributed. But it isn't, as we all know it.
Actually we can easily test the theory about 94 % heat coming from the earth. Just think what you feel when lying down on the grass on a sunny day. You can feel heat from the sun on your skin. Do you feel any heat from the soil? Maybe after long sunny day... But try to do this at night, you’ll not going to feel this 94% of heat coming from the earth! I’d rather bet that you bottom will get cold. Surely, if all this 94% of heat was coming from the ground, it should be clearly felt under our feet!
The truth is that heat generated in the earth interior is negligible comparing to heat coming from the sun, and if it was otherwise we would have known it 100 years ago.

Let’s face it, what the author presents is not a theory, which would normally try to explain all observed phenomenons and describe a mechanism. Instead, this “theory” ignores basic physics and facts, and justifies it with only some suspicious extrapolations of cherry picked data.

The interesting thing is that John Writer refers to Lindzen, who is an atmospheric physicist. I don’t recall lindzen saying anywhere that atmoshpere has no effect at all on the climate. At best he claimed that the models are over predicting impact of CO2, are oversimplified or that feedback mechanisms are incorrectly modelled. I suspect that Lidzen would not be to happy to be associated with such unscientific “theory”.

Pavel do you have a source for the Refutation of these arguments?
You state that Winter says the temperature must be ~10K. I read it that only 10 degrees comes from solar insolation, the rest cames from the Earth's interior. (which is deposited there by the forces of gravity 24/7 not just during the day..)
You talk about feeling heat from the sun but question do we feel heat from the interior. Are you saying that at night when there is no sun, that the temperature of the ground at night does NOT exist? If the 10 degrees from solar insolation is valid then what is left (ie 287 less 10=277K (277/287=96%))comes from the interior AND IS radiated according to Stefan-Boltzmann which causes a lesser amount of Greenhouse effect even when the Sun is not shining at night). SO YES every night we feel the heat from the interior. My question is How does it get there? Lets try the force & energy of gravity. Which is known to be greater than the force of solar insolation. Which then leads to the basic question WHY do IPCC & the climate scientists ignore the energy from the force of gravity? Especially when we know that it varies and has been increasing from 1970 through 1998 when the solar insolation was flat but the temperature was increasing.

Thanks John,

here you go:
heat transfer from the Earth's interior:
http://anquetil.colorado.edu/EPP3/readings/Pollack_etal_1993_Rev_Geophys.pdf
more colours and answerst to your question where the heat comes from: http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
and more here:
http://www.heatflow.und.edu/

suwalki geothermal anomally:
http://www.thinktosustain.com/ContentPageViewPoint.aspx?id=%20479

derivation of earth radiative balance without atmosphere:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html

amount of solar radiation and earth energy balance:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page2.php
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

you write: "Are you saying that at night when there is no sun, that the temperature of the ground at night does NOT exist? " I don't know what you mean by that. I think you'r mixing temperature with energy here. Anyway, there does not need to be any external source of energy. Energy can be RETAINED in the rock and atmosphere. This is what happens at night. Solar energy is absorbed during the day, and released at night. Energy is not released, but released over a period of time. Similarly if you turn on the boil water in the kettle, the water will remain warm for some time. If you have infra red view goggles , you can see the heat being released in a form of IR radiation.

you write: "If the 10 degrees from solar insolation is valid" from the references i posted before it can be clearly seen that the claim is false.

you continue"then what is left (ie 287 less 10=277K (277/287=96%))comes from the interior AND IS radiated according to Stefan-Boltzmann which causes a lesser amount of Greenhouse effect even when the Sun is not shining at night)" as I showed in my kettle analogy, the radiation (heat or energy transfer) may occur even if there is no current source of energy. Energy retained during the day can be radiated out. As I said before, the geothermal heat flow is a tiny fraction of percent of heat provided by the sun.

you write: "My question is How does it get there?" you should ask first how much of heat is transferred. As I demonstrated before, the answers is, insignificant to comparison to solar energy.

you write:"Lets try the force & energy of gravity. " Why don't you try the obvious : radioactive decay. There is evidence for it (radioactivity of granite rock has been measured experimentally), there is theory behind it that matches observations, unless you have new data that so not match the old theory, why do you want to bring a new one? Especially if you don't really have any physical mechanism that would explain it.

You write: "Lets try the force & energy of gravity. Which is known to be greater than the force of solar insolation. "Can you be more precise and say how much "energy of gravity" is transported to earth. Can you please give a number in Watts, so we can compare this with known solar radiation and geothermal heat transfer?

you write: "Which then leads to the basic question WHY do IPCC & the climate scientists ignore the energy from the force of gravity?." Simply because to process that you talk about requires high heat fluxes from the earth interior, which have not been observed. On the contrary, the heat from earth interior is known to be so small, that is insignificant in climate calculations.

you write: "Especially when we know that it varies and has been increasing from 1970 through 1998 when the solar insolation was flat but the temperature was increasing." But we also know that the CO2, know greenhouse gas has been increasing.

Now, can you explain to me how this theory of gravitation forces heating up earth more then sun can explain the presence of day - night, winter - summer, tropics-poles temperature variations , which clearly are caused by changes to solar radiation? If all heat came from the inside, and very little from the sun, we should see the world with equally distributed temperatures regardless when and where on the planet we were.

This part of the discussion appears to have drifted off into fantasyland.
It is extremely well accepted that, treating the earth as a passive black body with arbitrarily high thermal inertia, its mean surface temperature would be -18C. See e.g. that doyenne of AGW sceptics, Dr Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/.
Annual variations in insolation lead to only modest temperature variations because of the high thermal inertia. This is Pawel's point about kettles not instantly returning to room temperature when they're turned off. If the earth were to move 3% further from the sun and stay there for millennia then the mean temperature would gradually drop to a new staedy state. But it would not drop by 6%; the steady-state absolute temperature is not directly proportional to incoming energy, but to its fourth root. So the temperature drop would be about 1.5%, or 4K.
We can calculate heating due to crustal tides from the slowdown in earth's rotation. That, after all, is where the energy comes from to do this (some goes into speeding up the moon, but most ends up as heat in the earth). The slowdown is under 2ms/century, or 7E-16% per second.
Earth's MI is 8E37 kg/m2 and rotates at 7E-5 rad/s. This gives a rotational energy of 2E29 J. The slowdown therefore draws 2*(7E-18)*(2E29) = 3E12W. Insolation is over 1E17W after allowing for reflection, or 30,000 times that from crustal tides.
Guys, please at least try to sanity check your ideas before posting.

John, you persist in not taking into account thermal inertia. Until you do that, and demonstrate that insolation still can't account for the steadiness of earth's temperature, your arguments are groundless.
Consider this: seasons lag behind insolation by between two and eleven weeks, depending on geography. If that were due to gravitational effects then the anomalously warm periods would be the same in both hemispheres instead of six months apart. For further reading see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_lag

Wrt your carbon cycle contribution, there are two (at least) cycles to consider. The shorter cycle is organic, the longer geochemical. Burning fossil fuels moves carbon from the long cycle to the short one. Adding to the short cycle increases average atmospheric and oceanic CO2, even though the extra CO2 spends part of its time in organic form. And we're moving it far faster than the long cycle is, currently, moving it the other way. Yes, the long cycle may well adjust to a new equilibrium over millennia, but that's small comfort if it means atmospheric CO2 has reached 1000ppm in the meantime.

Richard

Select whole years at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ and you will see some warming across most of Antarctica. Better still, pick a recent decadal range.

As you point out, there is strong evidence of medieval warming centred around the North Atlantic ocean. What is not clear is how much warming was across the rest of the northern hemisphere and when that was coincident with the North Atlantic warming.

"and you will see some warming across most of Antarctica..."

Errm, two problems there, Mr David.

First, it isn't true. Look at the polar projection; it shows that most has a negative temperature "anomaly"*.

Secondly the GISS data is based on a tiny number of stations in Antarctica. The main warming spot is has been suggested to be massively exaggerated by poor data analysis.

* The word anomaly is itself incorrect. It implies that the reference temperature is normal, which is incorrect. Temperature has varied over the history of the planet.

Byron

I can't take away the same meaning you do from that last sentence - although I confess I can't work out how it fits with the rest of the paragraph at all. It doesn't seem to say anything about how the MWP affects the models.

Derek

That's a plausible reading of Monckton's words, but I don't think doubting the models is the same as disproving the AGW hypothesis. I was at a public lecture by one of the scientists Abrahams quoted and he pointed out that the inability of models to recreate the MWP (the timing rather than the magnitude) was a problem. This would seem to me to tally with your representation of Monckton's words ("doubt the models") but is rather different to "disprove global warming".

Hi Anthony, though I would check out your link. You say the paper suggests the MWP was probably warmer than today, on a global scale, correct?? Well didnt have to read far to see you yourself have not read the paper, at least not carefully. In the introduction they say..

"We propose our own reconstruction of NORTHERN HEMISPHERE (my capitals) average annual land temperature over the last millenium, assess its reliability,
and compare it to those from the climate science literature"

There are many other points but I dont think they are really needed after that, do you??

If you really are a sceptic Anthony, you should be sceptical about a couple of statisticians having a go at interpretating scientific data (and leaving out 50% of the data at least!!) and a bit more supportive of Manns efforts, which have now been agreed with by over a dozen major scientific studies which all reproduce his findings, using all sorts of different proxies, that it is warmer now than at any time in the last 1000 years.

These forums give you "sceptics" all the chance in the world to show us something robust, and I would absolutely love global warming to be untrue, but you just keep coming up with rubbish I'm afraid.

This analysis of McShane & Wyner is an interesting read: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/responses-to-mcshane-and-wyner/. Haven't found a response from them.

Yeah Nick, I read and understood it. You didn't.

M&W is a critique of Mann 08 and the Hockeystick and the so-called proof that modern temperatures are higher than any other in the last 2000 years. The criticism you are offering, that the MWP wasn't global, because M&W did a reconstruction based on Northern Hemisphere proxies, means you don't understand what Mann did. Mann in both his hockeystick papers calibrated Northern Hemisphere regional proxies with other regional proxies seperated by time and space on a global basis; the proxies Mann used were calibrated to but were “less than or equal to” the base proxy but could be anywhere or anytime; they could also be used more than once and were averaged against the criteria and each other. The proxies were then calibrated with the instrumental data which had been infilled back to 1850; any proxy which did not calibrate with the instrumental data was discarded. The final proxy/instrument hybrid was averaged to give hemispheric averages even though favourably calibrated proxies may not have come from the hemisphere.

So, is this a better ‘method’ of extracting a meaningful temperature history then what M&W do, which is to calibrate each proxy against hemispheric temps? Arguably it is not because it reflects the old dispute about whether a GMST or a world average temp is a proper reflection of regional climate effects. [ see: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf ]

The Mann method smooths the regional effect and ultimately submerges it in the hemispheric averages. The M&W method preserves regional integrity and correctly uses that to generate a meaningful picture of hemispheric and GMST

To start you off Derek, try this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/rcs-response-to-mcshane-and-wyner-the-teams-steaming-pile-of-snip/

That is laughable mate. You claim to be able to extrapolate more information from this paper than every other scientist in the world. If M&W had disproved global warming the finest minds in the world would be scrambling to get on board the greatest scientific discovery maybe ever!!!!!! You claim a global trend from a paper that states they have a go with only the northern hemisphere data, and critisize people who collected the data on the ground. You claim, against all the experts, that Mann got it wrong.......... so did Wegener, Soon, Baliunas et al get it right did they? Hahaha what a joke they are. I will believe anything with proof but any attempted critisism of Mann et al with this rubbish passing as "evidence" is complete rubbish. Your evidence to disprove global warming is still only convincing to those who's IQ is south of 80

Anthony, could you also clarify relevant positions of Mr Monckton. Has he cured graves? Did he end the Falklands war? Is he a Lord? Has he won the Nobel Peace Prize? Has he cured MS? Has he cured Influenza? Is every single major scientific body in the world guilty of conspiracy? Was he so important to Ms Thatcher that she completely forgot to mention him in her biography? Has he actually said anything at all about climate science that hasnt been completely debunked by all and sundry.......including himself?????

Please answer those easy questions.

Oh, also could you clarify why the very scientists Mr Monckton refers to, and uses for his "evidence", state unequiviocally that he cant interpret their work?

Could you explain why your party consistantly refers to Christoper Monckton as a "Lord"?? False credence at all Anthony?

Not true:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf

Professor Pinker's paper is a major contradiction for AGW as this shows and which, I'm sure, you'll read with an open mind:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/lamberts-pinker-tape-ambush-pr-stunt/

You really are scrapping the bottom of the barrell Nick; why? Manners and because it is correct:

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

Oh dear Anthony....

"Although Monckton is a hereditary peer, his father's membership of the House of Lords was ended by the House of Lords Act 1999"

" The House of Lords has said he is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member ( as Monckton claimed before US Congress)

Other claims Anthony......Aids cure? Nobel Peace Prize????? Influenza cure? Graves cure? Nearly single handedly ending the Falklands War? Treasury predictions? Election predictions (mentioned after election) Worldwide orchestrated conspiracy by EVERY scientific body of national standing?? Scientific fraud from every proponant of AGW? Psephological modeling?

Please answer, especially on the Nobel Prize ( complete with pin they dont have!)

He is a either completely incompetant, a liar or a charlatan.

The man you support.....

"...some very spectacular cold-weather records were also broken both in early 2010, when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow for the first time since satellite monitoring began 30 years ago, and in December, which was the coldest final month of the year in central England since records began 352 years ago."

In another breath......

"Cherry-picking individual extreme-weather events that point in one direction only, when there are thousands of such events that also point in another direction, is neither sound science nor sound journalism."

Lol.. Apart from the obvious, there are 48 contiguous states and as one blogger put it..

It is a fact that *some* snow was reported *somewhere* in each of the mainland states at that time........If a blanket is only on my left big toe at night, I don’t consider myself “covered”.

I'm scapping (sic) the bottom of the barrell? All I am asking is why the scientists who actually do the work, collect data that Monckton uses, say Monckton is misrepresenting them either wilfully or ignorantly and you cant answer. Does his training allow him to better interprate data than specialists actually there, doing it? Why are so many saying things like, "Hi John. He (Monckton) is wrong." Instead you give me a link to a climate blogger who does the same thing as Monckton...presents other peoples work. Have you actually read this article?

C'mon Anthony I am not a member of a political party, you could have a new member, just give me something........relevent and reviewed.

Oh, and your Pinker reference.....

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/09/testimony_responseRachelPinker_05_18_2010.pdf

Shows Monckton is incompetent, at best!

Nick, my link above is to what Professor Pinker says not what Lambert asserts. Now I'm really interested in Rachael Pinker's paper and I would be interested to know what you think Pinker has found. For my part I agree with what cohenite says about Pinker and Lord Monckton's interpretation of Pinker's paper as quoted by Jo Nova at the link I provide above. This is what cohenite says:

"In fact this is what LM spoke about; the forcing of less cloud in the 1983-current period; this is a period, as Tim noted, which has featured the lowest sunspot activity in over 100 years; but this is irrelevant because less cloud means more insolation and SW forcing. If radiative forcing from extra SW is as high as Pinker found than 2XCO2 CS must be lower than the IPCC figure given the ^ Temperature during that period. Pinker has some further insight in response to Tim’s slide 12:

“The statement: “is not forcing at all” because “it only accounts shortwave radiation” is not the key problem here. As said before, we can talk about shortwave cloud forcing and LW cloud forcing, as long as it is clear what we mean. The problem is that it is not the accepted definition of SW cloud forcing and should have been labeled as “impact of clouds on the surface downwelling SW”.The net values of both SW and LW is: Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud)”

This was LM’s error in saying the extra SW reaching the surface was cloud SW forcing; cloud SW forcing is a negative forcing as Ramanathan found: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57

And cloud SW forcing is much larger than cloud LW forcing. So, while LM has muddled these terms as Pinker says, LM is still right about the CS issue because the 0.16Wm2 PA is sufficient to explain ^T."

Can you respond to that without hyperbole, as our PM would say.

OK, looked at that. First thing that strikes me is that it doesn't address many of the points. This is the most important that it does try to address:
a) From Schmidt/Mann/Rutherford:
"MW’s inclusion of the additional poor quality proxies has a material affect on the reconstructions, inflating the level of peak apparent Medieval warmth"
b) WUWT response:
"You can’t [know] whether it was inflated or not without knowing what the temperature actually was"

Now, that's just nonsense. SMR are saying that including doubtful proxies (ones which had insufficient datapoints to be trustworthy) resulted in a higher reconstructed temperature for MWP than if they had not been included. There is no claim to know what the actual temperatures were.

Derek, you say "There is no claim to know what the actual temperatures were." That is extraordinary; the whole point of the hockeystick is to establish that today's temperature's are exceptional; that is what Mann set out to do; M&W contradict him.

In any event M&W have specifically replied to Mann's response to their paper here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/mcshane-wyner-hockey-stick-smackdown-redux/#more-29354

M&W's response is the rejoinder at the end of the list. Every failing of Mann's papers is laid out in clear, controlled and concise fashion. Mann is not a statistician, M&W are; they know what they are talking about; we know Mann doesn't from independent sources:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/

M&W take up this point and sections 2.2 and 2.3 are particularly informative about Mann's statistical analysis.

In addition, what has to be borne in mind is that M&W do not question Mann's data, just his statistical analysis. For a critique of that data see McIntyre and McKitrick's response; they note that M&W's findings about Mann's hockeystick is a BEST case scenario because M&W assume Mann's data is good.

Not sure where the hyperbole was, but anyway lets try again

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/09/testimony_responseRachelPinker_05_18_2010.pdf

Abrahams article points out that Monckton does this stuff consistantly. Do you honestly read that link above and see something other than a very polite statement saying Monckton did not correctly use their research, and used data sets from outside of their study, presented as their work? You cannot falsly credit or present scientific work.

Doesn't really matter what I think Pinker et al have found, just the experts in the scientific industry. They distance themselves away from Moncktons science and how he presents theirs. Sorry but I think I will stick with Pinkers own interpretation of her work (as well as all the other scientists who have had their work presented back to front by Monckton) and the IPCCs rather than a libertarian with IPA ideals publishing unreviewed critiques in a blog. The fact is and my link shows it clearly, Monckton misrepresented Pinker! And this is just one example, brought up by you, that doesnt even support your case.

Do you have an answer for Moncktons errors and misrepresentations with the scientists work mentioned in this article?

Any answers to my other questions about Moncktons claims?

He is certainly not a rogue genius setting the world alight with science and study beyond the collective intellect and understanding of every single scientific body of national standing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

he is the very antithesis of that and you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

Pinker's paper shows for the period from 1983-2001, she finds a decline rate of 0.17W/m2 for the 20S-20N TOA compared with SW surface increase rate of 0.18W/m2 [fig 4]. She postulates that cloud decline may be the reason assuming there was no increase in TSI.

Let's be clear here; Pinker found sufficient SW at the surface, s, to explain the warming of the modern era, almost 3W/m2; compared with the IPPC power from 2XCO2 of 3.7W/m2. But she did not conclude that.

Lord Monckton took Pinker's findings and mistakenly described them as a response to cloud forcing, that is less clouds during this period, and did not explain that cloud forcing is based on the forcing from the top of the clouds which affects incoming SW, s, as well as forcing from the bottom of clouds which affects outgoing LW. Cloud forcing therefore is the difference between the SW reflected from the top and the LW blocked by the bottom.

Lord Monckton only dealt with the top; that is less clouds allowed more SW, s, to reach the surface. But his conclusion about the significance of Pinker's findings still stands.

Ok so we are clear then, Monckton was mistaken. Why do you seem to think that this Pinker paper is the be all and end all of climate sensitivity? It is merely one part of thousands of lines of evidence the IPCC uses to come to its conclusions. Is it because climate sensitivity is the last bastion of the sceptic?

Would you care to address the dozens of other scientists work Monckton has "mistaken"? Those in this article perhaps? I can provide you with a list of many others for your rebuttal if you like.

Everyone makes mistakes but Monckton has a near perfect record of them.

Also still seeking some answers on Moncktons other claims...Nobel Peace Prize, various medical breakthroughs, membership of the House of Lords etc. If these are true he is an amazing man who not only knows more about climate science than any climate scientist but also more about medicine than any doctors, finance than economists, maths than any mathematician etc.

Really looking forward to some answers on this Anthony

Lord Monckton was mistaken about an aspect of the Pinker paper; he was right about the significance of Pinker's findings which were based on observations. You obviously don't appreciate the significance of that.

LM has replied to professor Abraham's so-called faults and this is the latest in the Abrahams/LM disagreement:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/#more-9427.

As for me I am interested in the attitude of AGW supporters like yourself and would like to know what evidence you would consider as being sufficient to disprove the theory of AGW?

Think I will just leave that one to George Monbiot. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/09/madder-and-madder/

Cant really put it much better. Have followed the Monckton v Abraham, Monckton v Monbiot and enjoyed some great laughs.

Abraham describing himself:

"I am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas, a private, Catholic university in Minnesota. I have taught courses in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, numerical simulation, and thermodynamics. Topics in my courses include radiation, convection, and conduction, the same physical processes which govern energy flows in the climate. My PhD thesis dealt with combined convection and radiation heat transfer. My thesis is held in the library at the University of Minnesota, it is available to the public.

My published works span many topics including convective heat transfer, radiative heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and numerical simulation. My work on numerical simulation is at the very forefront of computational fluid dynamic (cfd) modeling. I am an expert in non-linear fluid simulations. My background does not span the entire range of topics related to climate change (no one is able to claim this), it does cover many of the essential subtopics.

Monckton describing himself:

"have read up quite a bit on the subject"

I will answer your question at the end of your post when you answer my repeated request for answers on Moncktons other wild claims.

I am waiting for his next great discovery! Maybe he will prove there are no fish in the sea by going down to the shore and filling a tea cup?

P.S Abraham has not surrendered, he wrote the article you are avoiding commenting on!

I don't speak for LM; just myself; I thought you wouldn't answer the question; is that because nothing would change your mind? Perhaps if professor Abraham made a pronouncement you would change your mind; at least Abraham has changed his original complaint:

http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Monckton%20Presentation%20June%2022/index.htm

Maybe if Monbiot changed his mind which does seem to be flexible if not highly fanciful:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jul/08/jellyfish-overfishing-ocean-acidification

What do you think Nick, will the jellyfish take over?

I am not asking you to speak for him, I am asking for a reason you support the words and science of a compulsive liar with no scientific training? He is certainly no Ramanujan. Do you support him misrepresenting the scientists mentioned in this article? You wont even comment on it. Tell me is this the sort of practice you support in a debate? Legal threats to people who disagree? Is that a good debate? Vitriole toward your challengers? Is that a usual scientific debate tactic? Inflating ones credentials, any need for that in a debate?

Monbiots mind follows the evidence, and he isnt so insecure that he can admit openly in print when he gets it wrong. What Moncktons mind follows is anyones guess. He can contradict himself regularly in the same breath so I have a suspicion is even he doesnt know.

If Professor Abraham made an announcement it would certainly not change my mind. If it was then however backed by an agglomeration of evidence and verifiable research from the most repected scientific bodies we have ( that have been responsible for the major scientific achievements of the human race ) it would certainly give it enough gravitas to change my mind.

All you come up with are the same old same old long debunked arguments (Miskolczi hahaha among others), posts from extremely biased blogs and trot a certifiable, although charismatic, non expert around the country making your party look like a bunch of idiots. Cant wait till Klaus gets here, your case is going to look even more insane than it already does.

Surely as a lawyer Anthony you are familiar with the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt", I dont think it has ever applied more. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the most robustly challenged theory in science, ever. By all means keep up the scepticism, but at the moment your scientific proof AGW isnt happening is about as solid as a marshmallow and aligning yourself with Monckton gives you even less cred.

Please i would just love one comment on Moncktons CV, you trot him around the country as a mouthpiece for your parties views, you must realise his character is of importance. Aids cure? Graves cure? Influenza cure? Herpes cure? Nobel Peace Prize? Honourary member House of Lords? BBC association during the Falklands War? Embryological research? Hydrogeological work? Public Service investment analysis single handedly saving billions of pounds? Quarantining AIDS sufferers? Better modelling than the Treasury? Multiple sclerosis cure?.........Oh and of course I forgot the biggest feather in his cap...... debunking nearly all the climate science and disproving the Global Warming Theory. Wow what a guy! I must have it all wrong, he is obviously one of the finest minds we have ever known.

I know Christopher Monckton, having arranged for him to speak twice at Newcastle. I don't know how he does it; he makes no money from it and cops the vitriol from all sorts of supercilious types. I think the utter hypocrisy and faux outrage to do with his comments about Garnaut got to him a bit this time.

Anyway the spleen directed at him raises a couple of interesting points.

The first is that in a democracy rights are equal; what we see in the AGW climate scientist category is an attempt to establish a superior right. It is transparent and contemptible.

With many years of legal experience I have had a fair bit to do with experts over the years. They are wheeled out to give their often meagre insight but at best they go to establishing fact. Whether the fact is salient or probative is left to judges and juries.

Reasonable doubt is the criteria of criminal proof, balance of probabilities is the civil standard. In either case the prosecuting party seeking to assert a fact must prove their case. AGW supporters have not done this.

"Anthropogenic Global Warming is the most robustly challenged theory in science, ever." is simply false. From its incept the IPPC accepted that AGW was true:

http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html

This is not science, this is policy, aided and abetted and exploited by gutless politicians, spivs and opportunists, vainglorious media, assorted criminals and sundry ideologues.

People who crow about consensus and every scientist supporting AGW just don't get it.

Sorry Anthony I wasnt challenging Moncktons right to speak, as in a democracy. Yes it is his right to say whatever he wants.

Anthony, I never mentioned Garnaut at all. I never mentioned anything about Moncktons finances. I was talking about his science (and various other claims) and science is not a democracy! Ideas and theories ARE NOT equal, some carry more wieght than others. He chose, as his right, to lie under oath to Congress, he chooses as his right to make wild claims about amazing cures, nobel prizes, diplomatic miracles, removed titles and refuses to drop science that has calmly been shown to him as flawed.

My questions, which you refuse to answer, or waffle around like a politician, is why champion and associate yourself with a known, proven liar? Why, if you support genuine scientific debate, support someone who in this very article, has been categorically shown to have once again misrepresented genuine scientists work? This is not isolated! He does it consistantly Anthony.

Am I to infer from your complete unwillingness to answer any of the questions I pose in relation to the very article we are commenting on that you do not have either an answer or explanation for THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO DID THE WORK saying what they have said about Moncktons interpretation of their work?...Anthony, why do all these scientists say he has their work wrong?

I have replied to the claim made that LM misrepresented what Pinker found; that to my understanding is LM's main error. I understand this in particular since I was at the debate between LM and Tim Lambert.

I have read professor Abraham's original and amended list of alleged LM errors and LM's response to them. I don't see anything substantial in Abraham's complaints. If you want me to respond further I suggest you make a specific case.

As to LM's other business and science/medical endeavours; they are none of my business.

Going to have one last try....

.Anthony, why do all these scientists say he has their work wrong?

Forget Abraham, I am talking about the scientists working on the individual projects Monckton then presents.

I you cant provide an answer (and Monckton himself certainly hasnt) I will have to agree that the scientists in question are right, which lets honestly face it could the alternative be true? Me thinks an easterly sunset is more likely.

Name one Nick, you pick where LM has got it wrong and I'll respond. All I see is a lot of hand-waving and name-calling.

I'll stick to the article for the moment. Pick any name you like from those mentioned. Monckton used their work as proof for the MWP being warmer than today. They have said that their work does not prove that. Eg "“certainly does not disprove AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of climate science.”

I have discussed the Pinker incident and the McShane and Wyner paper dealing with the hockeystick and the MWP.

You and Abrahams are the ones making the assertions about LM. Your onus of proof has not been fulfilled.

Pick one Nick.

In what way are actual quotes straight from the actual scientists involved that their work has been interpretated incorrectly not proof? I am not making any assertions, I am asking why you think the scientists involved assertions are at odds with Moncktons? Has he made a mistake? Are they all mistaken?

This article has nothing to do with Pinker. (Pinker said the same thing as these scientists)

You claim to require proof then ignore vast vast swathes of it that refutes Monckton and yourself.

Once again, just pick any of the scientists metioned and explain to me how Monckton comes up with his assertions their work proves the MWP was warmer, when they clearly state their work DOES NOT show or cannot prove that.

Have you even read what the scientists quoted by Abraham's say.

Bradley disavows any interpretation that the MWP was warmer.

Tierney is circumspect but on balance says the MWP was not warmer. And then says something disingenuous, namely that a "warm" MWP does not disprove AGW. What a 'warmer' MWP does prove is that today's temperatures are not exceptional which is what M&W also established.,

Stott amplifies what Tierney says, namely that even if the MWP were warmer it does not preclude current warming being due to AGW.

Lorrey is even more circumspect, as is D'Arrigo and Wilson restates Stott's position.

To recap, only Bradley unequivocally states that the MWP was not warmer. The message from the others is summed up by Wilson, namely that underlying causes are relevant not a direct comparison between the MWP and today.

But it is the advocates of AGW who are pedalling the worse than ever description of today's temperature; they have hid behind the MWP comparison to justify their scare-mongering.

LM has called them out and I don't see any comfort for you and Abrahams in his quotes. You can buy Bradley a beer though; oh sorry, you superior types drink wine don't you.

Anthony, the charge is that Monckton, wrongly, said these various papers all showed the MWP was warmer than present. You quote the authors as saying that whether or not the MWP was warmer than present their papers did not support such a conclusion. Guilty as charged.
Whether a warmer MWP would disprove AGW is a separate question. Monckton, AFAIK, only said it would invalidate the models which support AGW, so he stops short of saying quite that. I'm baffled as to why you consider Tierney's remark disingenuous.

Btw, I would advise against resorting to anti-intellectual jibes - it gives people the impression you've lost the argument.

Congratulations Derek, Anthony has finally admitted to the

"huge defects in LM's presentation".

Since that is the general point of the article, and the point we were trying to make, I think we can call this one case closed.

Might buy a bottle of Rothschild to celebrate....Oh no my pub has run out. Those damn climatey sciency thingy superiority guys must have been in again last night! Alco's! Guess it will have to be a VB.

I just feel I should call you out on your "makes no money from it" statement when your party is paying him $20000 to come out to speak. Comments like this and claiming to not have an agenda whilst being a foundation member of a political party severely undermine your credibility.

And another thing; I thought there was to be transparency at this place with no commentators being allowed to hide behind puerile pseudonyms.

If I wanted to be insulted by anonymous ignoranti I'd read the Drum.

Apologies, it appears the guardian has it wrong then: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/13/climate-scepticism-talk-lord-monckton

This is my public persona, deal with it.

That report is for LM's LAST visit!! That visit was organised by John Smeed and Case Smit as private individuals.

THIS visit is being organised by TCS and there is NO appearance fee; we are paying LM's expenses, such as they are.

You mean this child, do you Daryl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4&feature=player_embedded

Wrt Singapore (and likewise Darwin etc.): In humid areas, the ground air temperature cannot go much above 31 or 32 deg. The reason is convection. Humid air, contrary to what you might expect, is less dense than dry air.
Wrt "we cannot tell that the high end of that range actually comes from the ground." Prof Humbert is talking about where the high end of the range of temperatures occurs, not where the heat comes from.
Wrt: "Douglas Cotton, B.Sc (Physics)", there is growing reason to doubt this. Which academic institution?

Pierrehumbert's insights about the greenhouse effect have been superseded in at least 3 areas:

The Wood experiment has been confirmed: http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

Saturation of CO2 absorption has been observed: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

H2O does not provide +ve feedback but has its emissivity reduced in the overlapping spectrum: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/04/determining-the-total-emissivity-of-a-mixture-of-gases-containing-overlapping-absorption-bands/

Let's see if Michael can comment without resorting to ad hom.

Wrt Wood experiment: It is of course unfortunate that the trapping of heat by atmospheric gases has become known as the "greenhouse effect", when it has been known for a century that it's not how actual greenhouses work. It has however become an accepted terminology and Pierrehumbert uses it that way consistently. If you want to call it something else, feel free, but it doesn't change the science one jot.
(Reproducing the experiment and pretending it somehow discredits the "greenhouse theory" is definitely disingenuous.)

Wrt Harde: First, he ignores feedbacks, so you have to compare his 0.45C sensitivity with the IPCC no-feedback figure of 1.2C. Harde's atmospheric model is extremely crude, considering only two layers. In consequence, it overlooks what happens when the overall opacity to IR migrates higher into the atmosphere. This reduces the ground level's ability to shed heat by convection (i.e. the ALR allows a greater temperature difference between ground and that level). That probably accounts for the difference quite easily. This is what Pierrehumbert lists as the second error in Angstrom fils's argument.

Wrt Nasif Nahle on Marohasy's blog, I read the long exchange between Nahle and "Neutrino". You can take from it what pleases you, but it left no doubt in my mind that Nahle has blundered and won't admit it.

Anthony, you fail to see that the greenhouse effect is merely an simple analogy. I read the Wood experiment and nowhere did I see in his list of equipment, materials or tools a cylinder of CO2. His experiment might be a little more weighty if we were throwing paynes of glass into the atmosphere.

Harde doesn't ignore feedbacks; he treats them as not being positive. The figure of 1.2C you refer to from the IPPC is in fact a NON-feedback figure:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf

Nahle didn't blunder; perhaps you would care to explain this:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/spectra-h2o-co2-15um.png

Umm.. treating feedbacks as not being positive is somehow different from ignoring them in the analysis? I didn't say he ignores the possibility.

I said the 1.2C was a "no feedback" figure. We agree on that, right?

I've no idea what you're asking me to explain in the two graphs out of context. Nahle's blunder, as repeatedly and clearly spelt out by Neutrino, is confusing a pressure with a pressure * distance ("atm.m). That led him to misuse the work of Hottel et al. Nahle's silly "I'll teach you some physics" responses don't inspire confidence. Neither does the fact that he was the one that reproduced (and misrepresented the significance of) the Wood experiment. (Were you really taken in by that?)
Is his paper published in a peer-reviewed journal anywhere? I couldn't find it.

This is the point Derek; is the balance of the feedbacks positive or negative. Spencer and Braswell's work on clouds show that they act as moderators of any trend; the significance of that is lost on pro-AGW commentators. On any reasonable examination of the paleo-climate history that must be the case otherwise runnaway conditions would have been established on Earth.

In respect of the Nasif/Neutrino exchange I think there was some cross purpose and terminology confusion which appear to be resolved when Nasif said:

"Neutrino’s confusion is because the partial pressure of any gas in the atmosphere is given by its percentage multiplied by 1 atm and after divided by 100. The addition of all partial pressures of the atmosphere must give 1 atm."

Nasif did take on board some of Neutrino's suggestions with the result that the decrease of H2O emissivity is increased in the overlapping spectral bands when extra CO2 is introduced. That H2O emissivity is less in those spectras is shown by the graph I presented. Are you suggesting that H2O emissivity is not less in the overlapping spectra with CO2 compared with the non-CO2 spectra?

Forgot to respond regarding the graphs...
There are two graphs, one labelled CO2 and the other labelled H2O. I don't see one for a mixture.
Moreover, this is only over a very narrow wavelength band, in which CO2 appears to be far more significant than H2O. To illustrate some reduction in total emissivity, the graphs would have to show, at least, that a mixture has less emissivity in the range than either gas by itself.

There is a figure 4a in "John Dodds Wobble Theory ..". paper in www.scribd.com that confirms Ray Pierrehumbert's statement in his opening paragraph of the Jan 2011 paper. that the electro-magnetic energy in the solar insolation is of the order of 1E17 or 1 times 10 to the 17th power (joules or Newtons at 1m/sec.) The figure also shows that the force of gravity (calculated as a function of time by simple Newton's Law), from the sun is about 3e23 newtons, or 5 orders of magnitude LARGER , from the moon is 2E20, from Jupiter is variable around 1e18, from Saturn is ~5e17,, and Venus varies from about 4E16 to 1E18. That is, ALL these sources of energy into the Earth are GREATER than solar insolation. Which should be obvious to the casual observer since the force of gravity maintains the Earth's eccentric orbit, in spite of the force and energy from solar insolation always pushing it trivially out. Now its true that much of the Sun' force of gravity will go into maintaining the Earth orbit and some goes into causing the Earth's rotation, which by the way causes core spin and friction, mantle and crust spin and friction and ocean current spin and friction etc, and the flexing of the crust by 30 cm each day & friction. So the question is why are the Climate Scientists and IPCC ignoring the larger energy from the sun's and planet's gravity? What do they have to hide? Are they stupid or just blindly following the dictates of Arrhenius in his 1896 paper that essentially concluded in IPCCs mantra "more GHGs means more warming" (AR4, WG1, Ch1,p116), when he should have said :"more energy photons means more warming" in the GHE. This is proven when the sun comes up & adds warming and also adds more Greenhouse warming to the excess of GHGs in the air,, BUT when the sun sets and lowers the energy in, the Earth cools, the GHE reduces, the reduction of GHE adds more GHGs to the air, as well as adding more by man's energy production AND directly contradicting Arrhenius's conclusion by the temperature going down while the GHGs go up., every single night, winter, 60 yrs etc. "More GHGs means more warming" is JUST plain WRONG & not even justified by the supposed Arrhenius source. Not to mention the supposed peer reviewers who missed it too!
Then we get Dodds figures 4.5h & i which show that the peak energy to Earth from the 60 and 900+ year Jupiter Resonance orbital cycles correspond exactly to the Energy peaks of measured temperature in 1880, 1940 and 1998, and the 60 year cyclic energy peaks back to 1400 in GISP2 ice core temperatures, and the 900+year cycles correspond to Earth energy peaks derived from the Vostok ice core back to 3000BC (including the MWP!). Why is it that these Earth temperature peaks agree with the gravity energy peaks from the Jupiter Saturn resonance orbits closest approaches/maximum energy to Earth that are ignored by IPCC? Don't you get even the slightest hint that maybe, just maybe, the gravity energy imparted to Earth by the larger Jupiter etc gravity cycles just might be causing the Earth warming AND cooling cycles? Especially since there is NO reputable source for "more GHGs to cause more warming". In the GHE it is either the absorbed photons or the GHGs that must dictate how much GHE warming (eg 33C max with left over GHGs) happens. Since there is left over unused unwarmed CO2 & H2O in the air & ocean then it MUST be the number of photons that dictate. All the IPCC analysis & computer models are bunk! (to be polite!)

So Michael I suggest you stick to the science & explain why you ignore the much larger energy from gravity, instead of poorly attempting character assassination

Overlapping graph:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/co2-h20-spectrum-spectralcalc.png

Consider Table 1 here:

http://vipclubmn.org/Documents/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf

As CO2 is increased the relative proportion of H2O emissivity [and to be clear here that is a measure of its heating/+ve feedback capacity] decreases.

The reason for this may be found in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook page 5-23 “Carbon Dioxide-Water Vapor Mixtures – When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects because each gas is somewhat opaque to radiation from the other in the wavelength rergions 2.7 and 15 micron”

For a fuller discussion of this effect, albeit as a peripheral aspect of the main focus of the paper see:

http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2809/1/Lapp_m_1960.pdf

I repeat this disproves +ve feedback from H2O; Hansen's sensitivity figure of 1.2C for 2XCO2 is the Worst scenario with the likelihood, as Lindzen and Choi and Spencer and Braswell, Knox and Douglass, amongst others have found, that feedbacks will REDUCE that basic CO2 sensitivity figure.

OK, that's enough of this nonsense. Claiming that a particular force is larger than a particular power source just proves you wouldn't pass HSC in physics. It's like saying 100 kg is bigger than 10 m.

"When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects"
Well of course, but that's an entirely more reasonable claim. Nahle appears to claim that adding CO2 to the mix acts as a net coolant, i.e. the combined effect is less than for the H2O alone. Now, I'm not sure whether he's claiming that it's a net coolant when summed over all wavelengths, or merely acts as a net coolant where they overlap. Either way it would be surprising, but if it's the summed case then that would be stunning. And if he's not claiming that then I don't know why you quoted his paper in the first place.

It's really not that complicated: H2O absorbs over a broad range of IR wavelengths but there are important gaps; CO2's absorption partly overlaps with that of H2O, but also fills in some of the gaps; where they overlap, the combined effect is less than the sum of the two taken separately, but more (I would assume until proven wrong) than that of either in isolation. And what matters for AGW is the combined effect integrated over all wavelengths, including those all-important gaps in the H2O spectrum.

There are reasons the IPCC figure for sensitivity might be too high, but they're nothing to do with calculating emissivity / absorption for gas mixtures.

I don't think Derek is quite expressing the issue correctly. Nasif concludes this:

"The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases."

CO2 is a lessor heater because of its emissivity than H2O; if you add more CO2, then in the overlapping spectra CO2 must reduce the emissivity of the dominant gas, H2O.

Derek says this, and it is a key point: "where they overlap, the combined effect is less than the sum of the two taken separately, but more (I would assume until proven wrong) than that of either in isolation"; this is one key point going to the extent of CO2's mitigation of H2O's heating potential; the other point still remains that "When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects". From this it must be the case that more CO2 will reduce the effect from H2O.

The point is correctly described thus: Is that reduction in H2O effect from extra CO2 greater than the extra warming from extra CO2?

Anthony, I've read and reread that post and still cannot figure out what you're trying to say. My view that "where they overlap, the combined effect is less than the sum of the two taken separately, but more than that of either in isolation" does not imply CO2 would mitigate the warming from H2O. And it is the same as "When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects", not a different point at all.
Nahle's claim that the combined effect, even for a single wavelength, would be less than that of the H2O alone is remarkable. What mechanism could lead to that? The only one that comes to mind is if the CO2 somehow displaced some H2O from the atmosphere, which received wisdom says it doesn't. And there's so little CO2 in comparison the effect would be minuscule even then, much less than the warming CO2 provides by filling in gaps in the H2O spectrum.
So even if Nahle is right at specific wavelengths, it would be utterly astonishing if the effect were to come anywhere near cancelling CO2's warming where it fills in those gaps.

A few telling points constitute a more than adequate response to 10 screens of gibberish. I'll ask again, what academic institution awarded you a BSc in physics?

Ok, if the effect is "When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects", then the emissivity of H2O [ Eh2o] in a non-overlapping spectra is reduced when CO2 is present in the overlapping spectra by Eco2. When further CO2 [Eco2^] is added in the overlapping spectra the Eh2o is further reduced by Eco2*[Eco2^-Eco2].

Well, that's an odd-looking formula, but maybe you don't mean it literally.
Yes, adding more CO2 would presumably blunt the effect of both the H2O and the first lot of CO2, but the net of it all would still be a little more each time. At no point, I would think, would adding more CO2 reduce the total effect. Do you believe Nahle has shown otherwise?

From Wikipedia: The joule ( /ˈdʒuːl/ or /ˈdʒaʊl/); symbol J) is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m),...

So comparing 1e17Joules (RayPierre's solar insolation) to forces in Newtons by Newton's Law, is proper.
I will ignore your HSC assertion, but it sure says something about the quality of your scientific understanding.

I repeat the claim: Svante Arrhenius in 1896 claims that "if the quantity of carbonic acid (CO2) increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." or as used by IPCC (AR4, WG1, Ch1, p116) "More GHGs means more warming"
This is proven FALSE by Mother Nature because every night when the solar insolation (energy) decreases, and the amount of GHG CO2 is increasing then the temperature DROPS. Not only does the temperature drop, but the decrease in the number of energy photons, also means that more GHG CO2 molecules are freed up from the GHE to become even more excess GHGs in the air. Arrhenius would have been correct if he had said that more energy photons means more warming, (as in every morning the sun warms us)since the only things to change are in the GHE are energy photons or number of GHGs and there certainly are an excess of the latter in the air and ocean.
Now since all the computer models & IPCC analyses are based on the premise that more GHGs means more warming. then every analysis using computer models is just plain wrong. The entire global warming science is wrong and misleading. Every study using computer models is wrong, every climate model now taught in school is FALSE.

My summary paper Gravity causes Climate change, and the 250 pg John Dodds Wobble Theory of global warming" (which no Journal would publish) in www.scribd.com identifies the small changes in gravity from Jupiters etc orbital interaction with The Earth. It shows that the temperature from HADCRUT measurements from GISP2 ice cores and from Vostok ice cores for the last 3000 years varies in harmony with the Jupiter etc gravity as felt on Earth, Note that the energy from gravity changes is LARGER than the energy from Solar insolation . Gravity causes the Earths orbit is direct opposition to the energy from solar insolation which is trying to force the Earth out. Gravity effects dominate. This is a valid alternative for causing the small temperature changes (0.7degrees in 100years) attributed to the GHE and CO2. As a consequence every clobal warming study using the false assertion that more GHGs means more warming is JUST PLAIN WRONG. All tax plans and cap & trade plans and economic studies are worthless. All computer models by climate scientists, all education programs are WRONG.

You may ignore it at your peril and at a cost to your wallet. But when the temperature continues to fall , as my paper (& other "deniers") predict for the next 5-6 years years in spite of the increase of CO2, you will pay.

Odd or otherwise, it got you to the point: "Yes, adding more CO2 would presumably blunt the effect of both the H2O and the first lot of CO2, but the net of it all would still be a little more each time."

To which the answer must be no; because there has been no runnaway on this planet even though there have been periods in the past when both CO2 and H2O have been much higher than today.

As to whether Nasif is right when he postulates such things as this:

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf

I prefer the Spencer and Braswell approach in respect of clouds which moderate any trend:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

See also:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C2976%3APBOTES%3E2.0.CO%3B2

"comparing 1e17Joules to forces in Newtons is proper."
What? Because they're both using MKS units? Rubbish. Kg and metres are both MKS units, but you cannot compare a mass with a length, a quantity of energy to a force, or either to an energy flux (power).
The dimensions must match.

"the answer must be no; because there has been no runaway".
No, that does not follow.

The radiation increases according to Stefan's law, so the tendency will be to settle out at a new equilibrium. Runaway only occurs if, over some part of the range, positive feedbacks outweigh that negative one.

The marginal increase in absorption for each added delta in CO2 gets less. No argument there. And the same surely applies when adding CO2 to H2O or to a CO2+H2O mixture.
But how rapidly does it get less? There are three possibilities in principle:
a. the total effect converges to a limit
b. the total effect increases without limit, but so slowly that runaway does not occur
c. the total effect increases without limit, and fast enough to cause a runaway.
(a) seems unlikely, but (b) sounds very likely.

And as I said, claiming CO2 acts as a *net* coolant through this mechanism is a vastly different matter. That would require a mixture of H2O and CO2 to be so much less absorbing in the overlap spectrum than the H2O alone that it outweights the absorption by the CO2 where there are gaps in the H2O spectrum.
(Of course, it theoretically could act as a net coolant through some more complex mechanism, e.g. involving clouds, but that is not Nahle's claim.)

Had a look at http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf. Here's the glaring error: he takes data showing that there was more variation between daytime highs and nighttime lows when there were no contrails, and misinterprets that as higher average temperatures. The data he's using do not even indicate what the temperatures were, only the differences between max day and min night. E.g. the actual readings could have been:
Contrails day: 22
Contrails night: 21.5
Clear day: 20
Clear night: 19
And even if he had the actual temperatures, what would a single 3 day experiment prove?
This paper is the best evidence I've seen yet that Nahle has no idea what he's doing.

You're on surer ground with Spencer. He has articles on his website explaining that the greenhouse effect is real and is responsible for earth's not being a snowball. And yes, clouds are a very complex matter, and it may yet turn out that the climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC estimate, or will become weaker as temperatures rise. No-one can know for sure yet. But I don't see that as a good basis for inaction.

Unfortunately, I can't read your full comment, but the "new equilibrium" is the crux of the issue. AGW theory has broken this up into a transient equilibrium and a longer term one based on equlibrium climate sensitivity.

The IPCC assumes that the equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS] for 2XCO2 to be in the range of 3.26-3.8C +-0.69-0.92C.

The IPCC bases its assumptions about ECS on CO2 retention and delayed responses to increases in CO2. This is problematic. CO2 may not have a long atmospheric residency nor is there a delay in climate response to increases in CO2. Beenstock et al have shown that CO2 only has a warming affect as long as it is increasing; once CO2 stabilises there is no further affect. This is well grounded in physical phenomena namely that LW radiation, the method by which CO2 warms, cannot penetrate and therefore warm the oceans, only TSI can. Since the oceans are the Earth’s energy reservoirs if they cannot be warmed by LW and CO2 there is no delayed effect.

On this basis the warming effect of CO2 has occurred since CO2 started increasing in 1900; during this time temperatures have increased ~ 0.6C. TSI has been responsible for ~ 0.16C of this and natural variability for about 0.3C; that leaves about 0.14C for warming due to the increase in CO2, which has increased about 40% since 1900. If AGW were true temperatures should have increased by ~1.3C.

The question is; where is the missing heat?

BECAUSE the conversion factor is 1m or it;s inverse which is still 1.. Do you have ANY scientific education? It sure doesn't show, or can't you read the wiki entry copied above? - end of discussion. (except for the deleted expletives of frustration!)
The point IS gravity is larger than solar insolation. Why else do we maintain an orbit instead of flying away due to the force or energy from solar insolation which is directed out from the sun? Changing the gravity felt on Earth by Jupiter orbital changes, changes the energy levels on Earth , both up & down, & the Jupiter forced changes correspond timewise to the changes in temperature.on Earth . ie Gravity causes the changes in temperature attributed to CO2, Since IPCC & CO2 theory ignores gravity and its changes then CO2 theory can NOT possibly be valid. So try the paper "Gravity causes Climate Changes in www.scribd.com. It at least accounts for increases AND decreases in temperature & works for at least 5000 years.

I asked Michael Modest if he'd mind taking a look at your paper.
Here's his reponse:

... this article contains a lot of facts (and wrong statements), interpreted totally wrong. For example, it IS true that the emissivity of an h2o-co2 mixture is less due to overlap, as opposed to the same species added without overlap. But, if you add co2 to h2o, the emissivity will rise above the h2o only. Overall, I’m afraid, the article is horrible garbage, that guy ain’t no scientist….
Cheers,

mfm

________________________________________________

Michael F. Modest

Shaffer and George Professor of Engineering

School of Engineering
Science & Engineering Building, Rm 392
University of California, Merced 95343
e-mail: MModest@eng.ucmerced.edu; Tel.: 209-228-4113

URL: https://eng.ucmerced.edu/people/mmodest/

Ok, Michael has contributed his 2 bob; now can we get to the main point which Michael has conceded: "it IS true that the emissivity of an h2o-co2 mixture is less due to overlap, as opposed to the same species added without overlap."

So, what we are essentailly arguing here is HOW much less; Michael obviously thinks not much, Nasif a lot.

Quantifying the effect, especially in the context of increasing CO2, would seem to be an important aspect of AGW and its dependence on +ve feedback from H2O, but Nasif seems to be the only one working on the issue.

No, Michael is more specific than that. He says:
"if you add co2 to h2o, the emissivity will rise above the h2o only"
That directly contradicts Nahle's claim.
Remember, it's not as though Nahle has done some new experimental work. All he has done is to (mis)apply some equations.
As far as I'm concerned Nahle has no credibility left, so I'll not bother responding to any further on that thread. I'm already having to repeat points ad nauseam.

Right, cheerio then Derek, I'll just potter around here in the specificity of Michael's wisdom.

You know, H2O is a +ve feedback but as you add more CO2 the emissivity of H2O is less than it would be in isolation; how plain is that?!

You say Michael says that the combined total of H2O AND CO2 is > H2O; well praise the days; does that answer these questions:

1 How much more than H2O alone is H2O + CO2
2 If you keep adding CO2 does the CO2 + H2O total come close to H2O alone
3 Does this impact on the official climate sensitivity estimates which sustain AGW

1. Bear in mind that this subadditivity [max{e(H2O),e(CO2)} < e(H2O+CO2) < e(H2O)+e(CO2)] applies separately at each wavelength. Even if, where they overlap, the CO2 did not increase the e() at all, it would still have a major effect where CO2 plugs gaps in the H2O.

2. Adding more CO2 isn't going to make it go back down again, so it isn't going to get closer to H2O alone. It just goes up more and more slowly.

3. Haven't done the numbers, but based on the above I would have thought the impact was negligible. Besides, for all we know it has already been fully taken into account in the official estimates.

Yes, of course you must do conversions as necessary - that's what I meant by 'consistent': kg in, kg out.
A useful trick is to treat units as though they're algebraic unknowns. E.g. a man drives 120km at 30 mph, how long does it take?
120km/(30(m/h)) = 4 km.h/m
Now 5m = 8km (roughly), so km/m = 5/8
4 km.h/m = 4*5/8 h = 2.5 h
Doing this also ensures you get the dimensions right. Note there are two rules here:
a. If you add, subtract, or compare quantities the dimensions must match
b. You must keep track of the units in those dimensions and convert as necessary.
So, going back to the point at issue:
As I understand it from your exchange with Neutrino, there is some formula involving a quantity that should have dimensions pressure * distance (in whatever units you care to use). Neutrino says you're plugging in a value whose dimensions are pressure only. That will break rule (a). In this instance, the units you used for the distance dimension was metres. If he's right, repeating the calculation with all distance units in cm or km or whatever will produce a different result. Or you could just repeat it keeping all the units in the equation as though they're variables, as illustrated.

That link didn't work for me, but is this the one:
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Bands.html?
There I read this line still:
"the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide at the present atmosphere is 0.0051 atm cm"
That is clearly wrong since a partial pressure is still a pressure and has that dimensionality. atm.cm has dimension pressure * length, which is different. I'm prepared to accept that this is merely a typo, but you should correct it. Indeed, later in the text you have:
"the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide is 0.00039 atm"
which is correct.
Next I see this:
"To obtain the total emissivity of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we need to know the equilibrium partial pressure of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide"
'Equilibrium partial pressures' are to do with figuring out what will happen in a reversible chemical reaction; what reaction are you contemplating between water and CO2?. Maybe this is just terminology.
But now we come to the crux of it: the formula you use effectively means that increased CO2 will displace water vapour in the atmosphere. That isn't how partial pressures work. The partial pressure of the water vapour is dictated by the temperature and water's SVP curve. Adding CO2 increases the total pressure - it does not displace any of the water vapour. You have effectively assumed total pressure remains constant at 1 atmosphere.

CO2 doesn't 'replace' the WV but it does attenuate the radiative properties of the WV; I think this is Nasif's point. Isn't the relevance of the equlibrium partial pressure to calibrate the mixing ratios of the gases so that the reduction in emissivity before and after the addition of CO2 can be noted?

I know it doesn't replace it, but that is what Nahle's equations effectively assume. He keeps the total pressure at 1 atm, so when CO2 is included the partial pressure of H2O goes down.
See also the response from Michael Modest I've posted in direct reply to Nahle elsewhere in this conversation.

And see my comment to Michael above.

""paL = 1 bar cm". Do those units tell you something?"

Yes, they tell me that paL is not a pressure. If it were a pressure the units would be just bar, or atm, or pascals, or pounds weight per square inch, etc. Those units prove it is the product of a pressure and a distance.

"paL: pressure of the absorbent gas in a length of one cm, m, km, etc."
What does that mean? The average pressure over that distance?
Let me paraphrase, replacing pressure with speed and length with time:
Your version:
v: speed of the vehicle
T: time
vT: speed of the vehicle over some specified time (meaning?)

My version:
v: speed of the vehicle
T: time
vT: distance travelled

Why can you not grasp that paL is a pressure path length, i.e a pressure multiplied by an optical path length, in the face of all the evidence, and in the face several people now trying to explain this to you?

"solve for (paL)m in the formula"

which formula?

"Regarding your claim that Hottel's, Leckner's, Sarofim's, Lapp's and other scientists' is not valid because they conducted CONTROLLED experiments "

I said no such thing. I'm sure their experiments were perfectly valid within the range of those controls. But you always have to be careful that the results are applicable in a given situation. Looks to me that they were mostly concerned with sealed environments, and in conditions where they could reasonably ignore convection. Neither of those applies to the atmosphere.
Anyway, the point about the sealed environment, as I recall, was to do with the way you calculate the partial pressure of the H2O. In your equation, when you added CO2 the H2O became less. That was because you assumed a constant total pressure. That is not what happens in the atmosphere. Add CO2 there and the total pressure goes up correspondingly. The H2O partial pressure won't change (unless the temperature does).