Michael - I think that you have annoyed Marc. He was about to publish the Man U theory but you beat him to it.

Michael, thanks for the response. I know many would find this inconceivable, but I do follow the links provided in the original post even if they are of an alarmist bent. Which, I need to thank you for. I love to find humor in the climate discussion the SkS home page provided it. They never fail to deliver for me. (It goes to your comment about doodling, straight lines, and skeptics.)

As to your link, I'm not convinced of the approach. Further, to quote the footnote of the graphics, "Coincident measurements of the infrared emission spectrum of the cloudfree atmosphere.." I, typically, include clouds when discussing the effects of water vapour in the atmosphere. Spencer and Braswell have a good body of work towards this discussion. I can provide links if you wish.

Thanks again,

James

Michael. stop with the "failure of the referee" lark. I'm again shocked about some of your statements. You can't really be referencing Dessler's work. Michael, you need to pop your head out of SkS and breathe for a second. Here's a news flash for you. Cook puts an ideological bent on the views he presents. While I understand that method, you need to look elsewhere for balance, and to see what he's not telling you. Dessler's 2011 rebuttal to SB11was refuted in about all of 15 minutes. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/hot-off-the-press-desslers-record-turnaround-time-grl-rebuttal-paper-to-spencer-and-braswell/

Hilariously, it was pre-released prior to official publication. After the blogs got some of the more glaring errors taken out, he actually collaborated with Spencer on some of the other issues. If you want a decent chronology of the back and forth of Dessler/Spencer, go here.. http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/the-spencer-braswell-dessler-papers/

Another recent study that asserts clouds cause a large cooling effect... http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Allan11MA.pdf

Incidentally, Dessler has changed his tune on climate change..... a recent quote..... "In other words, I was not terribly worried about runaway climate change before this. After all, we know that the Earth’s had much higher CO2 in the past (and the temperature were correspondingly much higher), and the Earth did not turn into Venus." ------- Dr. Andy Dessler

Less than 3 deg C...recall, this is per doubling the atmospheric CO2.(from a base of 280ppm).....so we're less than 2 degrees away from that...... you honestly believe that's something to worry about? And now you're suggesting that Andy Dessler has always had essentially the same outlook on CO2 sensitivity as Pielke Sr?

The Earth/Venus comparison was one of the early talking points as an example of runaway global warming..... indeed, it was Hansen that advanced that bit of lunacy.

I'm glad to hear the "consensus" is no longer worried about tipping points and whatnot. Again, we skeptics welcome them to reality.

Last I heard, the IPCC was predicting 3.3 deg increase. Has that changed?

Well, yes, if you want to say anywhere between 1 1/2 to 4 1/2...... as long as we're sure, then by all means continue with the dismantling of the world's energy generation and scrap the development of 3rd world nations.... quick!!

But, here's some food for thought..... a doubling of CO2, from a base of 280ppm.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880
We've increased ~ 0.7 deg C with ~ 43% increase of CO2... nearly 400 ppm..... comes to about 1.6 deg C total increase, or a total of ~ one more additional deg C...... assuming a direct CO2 correlation with temps. Before you go on about albedo, melt and the like, please note the most significant period of ice loss (albedo) hasn't resulted in increased temps. Also not, I haven't even introduced the log function into this calculation. So, given historical observation and current CO2 theory, it would be even less than 0.9 deg C to have from the next doubling.

Michael, the Earth is never in equilibrium. It has never been in equilibrium and will never be. Never even close. You're losing the plot. The relationship I assumed is the same relationship climate scientists are attempting to describe.

All of the variables and variations that go into our climate is included in the 130 year history that went into determining the historical temps, with the exception of events which occur beyond 130 years. That includes but isn't limited to, volcanic eruptions, every known and unknown oscillation event, solar variations, cloud formation, soot from coal, species extinctions, land use changes, urban sprawl, wars, intense agricultural land use, floods, droughts, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes..... etc, etc.....

So, tell me, what magical event has occurred that makes the (yes, very simple) relationship invalid? Because the simple relationship I showed included all of those things. INCLUDING the 43% of the doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Michael, history is a wonderful thing. You should give it a whirl some time. A bright fellow like you could gain many insights to how things work today by viewing how things worked a while back.

Rather than quibble over a few deg C, the reality is that ocean acidification, due to dissolved CO2 emissions, is already hurting the base of the food chain in Nordic waters. We've moved 1/2 way to a pH that will stifle carbonate ion accretion by plankton, etc. for their skeletal growth. This has already begun to be observed in the N. Atlantic.

So, playing around critiquing models that obviously can't encompass the full detail of earth's climate is avoiding problems that are far more serious and imminent. 70% of all human food protein comes from the sea. Fish harvesting peaked in 1994, despite no corner of earth's oceans going unfished.

Malnutrition now affects over 1 billion folks, and starvation is a close second, not to mention fresh water inadequacies, as for 90% of the Chinese.

Regardless of how we play games pretending to be skeptics, there are real problems needing quick attention by responsible adults. Be a skeptic, but don't expect favors when times get tough. Choose to be part of the problem, or of the solution, as you please;.

And, my bet is still available. Even Nicol won't take it and has gone silent after his latest round of un-science was punctured. Maybe that'll awaken him for another run at the fence?
;]
http://tinyurl.com/bueq2ev

Sorry Alex, I didn't catch your bet. I do agree with your perspective. That is, I choose to be part of the solution as opposed to the problem. This is why I participate in the general discussion. I'm trying my very best to help people understand what the difficulties are and why we're missing the mark by this obsession with a proxy for prosperity. The worlds greatest scourge throughout the history of mankind is poverty. It is poverty that kills, starves, angers, causes war, murders, envy, desperation, enslavement, ignorance and inequity of justice, just to name a few of the bedeviling traits of poverty.

Yes, there are millions if not billions that have a food difficulty. Of course, it isn't missed on some of us that the reason these people do, is because some of us are doing our level best to deprive them of what they so desperately need. Cheap, reliable, abundant energy. You want to increase their food supply? Give them the energy and fuel to run their irrigation. Give them the technology to till their land...... with machines. Energy deprivation, in my estimation, isn't a proper way to show we care about our fellow man. They don't need whirly gigs and pinwheels, they need electricity generation plants.

We could also try to quit pouring our food down our fuel tanks. Food as our fuel was an incredibly vapid idea.

As far as fresh water goes, we all know that what is necessary is giving them the tools to make the water fresh. This is one of the most irritating arguments I hear. Water doesn't go away, it isn't used up. It moves, it becomes contaminated. A fresh water supply is storage (dams) and the technology to clean the water.

Ocean acidification is a lark and again, causation hasn't even remotely been demonstrated. Of course, it is more proper to say less base.

Alex, I thank you for your time. Its very late here, so I'll just bid all good night.

James

James, do you think this might represent hyperbole or "alarmism"?

"by all means continue with the dismantling of the world's energy generation and scrap the development of 3rd world nations"

Several economists have looked at this notably, Stern ( UK ) and Garnault ( Aus ) and found the longer term economic benefits to decarbonisation outweigh the costs on inaction. Similarly the charge that 3rd world development is dependent on not decarbonising our economy is disingenuous and offensive. For many people ( eg Lomberg, Monckton, Coalition politicians etc ) who make this claim have done nothing to advocate increasing our overseas aid to the levels stipulated in our Millennium goal commitments.

We already know that we can supply global energy needs through renewable sources. This has been demonstrated in staudies in several countries. Perhaps most notably by Mark Jacobson in USA. Yes there is a cost, but the real costs of fossil fuels in both climate change and other externalities eg air pollution, are usually ignored by detractors. Once the external costs are excluded, renewable energy actually becomes competitive and with maturation of technology and economies of scale once more plants are built will likely become cheaper than fossil fuel for stationary energy.

"Ocean acidification is a lark" ... so you're a serial denier.

It seems you don't accept either atmospheric physics, satellite observation, a variety of biological and physical observation, paleontology, computer modelling and now basic chemistry as well.

How exactly are you part of the solution ?

I agree that poverty is a major problem. So is inequity. As the world has become rich from the one off windfall of easy to access fossil fuels and globalised trade we have not reduced the number of poor and malnourished people in the world. We have increasing inequity between rich and poor countries and we have increasing inequity within society. On this measure our democratic "free market" economies have failed.

They have not resulted in equitable development and we have created an even more inequitous future. Carrying on the same philosophy is not likely to make things better.

James, thanks for your comments. See my comment down a ways, where I put in some links. Indeed inexpensive, non-polluting power is what many around the world need and are working on. Actually, a form developed in the US in the 1960s is now again being moved to prototype by the Chinese, & others, even maybe the Aussies!

One of the links below shows what JFK requested & got on how to power the US entirely without coal/oil/gas by 2000. We screwed that up in 1974, but it's coming back.

We need but two non-emitting sources: local solar electric on existing structures, and safe nuclear power. That's what's happening now, because with peak daytime loads met via solar, some good storage and 24/7 high-temperature. low-waste nuclear we maximize power, minimize cost and eliminate environmental disruptions. With those sources, we can even make liquid fuels, for things like aircraft, directly from CO2 & water vapor in the air.

Of course, there's still the reality that already present, accumulated air & sea emissions will do great harm for many millions, regardless of what we might commit to doing tomorrow. This is the legacy we leave to our descendents via our laziness and insensitivity to reality.

It's intriguing that we today have folks claiming to be "skeptics" when, if they studied, they'd see thousands of scientists & engineers 50 years ago knowing exactly what to do -- eliminate fossil combustion & land destruction. A report around 1970 to US Congress even explained that offsetting current combustion required planting 1 trillion trees each year -- 200 per capita in just the US.

And look where our laziness of thought has us today. Sleep tight.

Michael, we've been through that already. No, the water doesn't instantly boil, but the energy transfer does immediately start to occur. And, you're neglecting to acknowledge that I provided 130 years worth of time passing. CO2 doesn't increase energy, it simply emits what ever energy that molecule receives. And the time it takes is the time it takes for that molecule to get excited.

Alex, I'm all for advancing thorium technology. It is conceptually feasible. As you have probably discerned, I don't share your concern about the dreaded CO2 molecule, so I'd advocate a different source for demand variants.

I haven't looked at it as much as I would like, but it certainly seems promising. Energy output adjustment would be my main concern. Do you know how easy it is or isn't to alter the output of such reactors? That is one of the difficulties of current nuclear generation, one can't easily adjust its output. Thus, it is excellent for base load demand, but not peak.

Satellites observe pH variances? George, show that pH doesn't normally fluctuate. Or show me the fluctuations are caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2. "Serial denier"? No, its is more likely a discerning adult that doesn't believe everything people blather.

How am I part of the solution? By attempting to prevent the lunacy that comes with fearing a proxy for wealth creation, the CO2 molecule.

Your last two paragraphs are where the rubber meets the road. George, there isn't anything wrong with advocating a different economic system. What is wrong is advocating a different economic system while pretending to advocate science. You can be of good cheer though, I believe you are not alone in such an endeavor.

James, while I appreciate your expression of support for what's being done with Thorium reactors, you could have gotten the answers to your questions above by reading just one of the links I gave.

You, for example, wouldn't have written "It is conceptually feasible", because you'd have seen immediately that the class of reactor described was operated for 4 years in Oak Ridge TN, starting in 1965, and only discontinued because we needed bombs, etc. to scare those nasty Russians. Thus the Chinese, Czechs, Indians, etc. are running with our long-public and free R&D results.

That you're not concerned with the "dreaded CO2 molecule" seems to stem from the same lack of interest in study.

So, just to be clear, convincing you, or anyone else, of anything isn't my goal. My goal is simply to afford those who do read & study, an alternative to bogus information. You can believe whatever makes you comfortable, but don't expect misinformation you put out to go unchallenged.

James, few of your paragraphs have 'rubber' meeting any road. But, since you seem too above the masses to do your own research, you can Google ocean acidification, or start here...

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

And, maybe you'll learn something so your descendents won't swear at your intellectual laziness, when they're confronted with the problems you appear to be happy to leave for them.

The oceans contain ~40% of all the CO2 mankind's burning has emitted, and are closing in on saturation. The measurements you can look up, if you dare, are done in a variety of ways, including directly, by oceanographic transits from pole to pole. The Nordic folks aren't liars, though you may try that gambit, and realize the deformities they now sea in animals forming the base of the N. Atlantic food chain are due to both acidification (carbonate solvency) and sea warming.

If you want to utter future words from knowledge, rather than from comfortable ignorance, do some research in the subject. You can start with any reputable journals, from Nature through AAAS Science.

And, as I offered before, you can email me for supporting documents. So far you haven't. Nicol did, and went quiet. Why haven't you dared to meet such a basic, ethical challenge? No gust no glory, James.
;].

.cannara at sbcglobal dot net

There goes James again! CO2, and we must suppose, all the other GHG molecules, simply emit what they receive and that magically disappears to space, despite gazillions of other molecules immediately around them and between them and space.

Remember, I asked you what the mean-free-path in air is James?

James continues to hide from my offer, the one Nicol had the courage to take, to do an email exchange of documents. So, again, James, why should your words be listened to?

cannara at sbcglobal dot net

For anyone still listening, James needs to explain how a crowd of people (molecules) pushed at one end by cops (photons) end up feeling that push all the way to the poor folks at the rear, even if the only molecules (GHGs) directly 'feeling' the cops, are in the first rows.

What James has proven, above all else, is that he's no scientist or engineer, yet, he appears to need people to listen to him as if he were.
.
.

"What James has proven, above all else, is that he's no scientist or engineer, yet, he appears to need people to listen to him as if he were. "

I am with you there Alex. He has attempted multiple times to "verbal" Dr Dessler by cherrypicking part of comment that Dessler made on the Schmittner sensitivity paper. (see Michael Brown above). If he had any science at all he would not resort to cheap tricks.

Utter rubbish. Mr Cotton has been refuted time and again and been shown to have no knowledge of the science what so ever. He just lacks the wit to understand it.

GHG's do NOT act as a conduit for cooling the atmosphere - it is actually quite the reverse. Some of the IR they absorb contributes to heating the atmosphere when they collide with the rest of it.

The net effect is a REDUCTION in blackbody type radation at TOA as shown by satellites data http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg

That reduction in radiation leaving the planet keeps it warmer that it otherwise would be - more GHG's, more reduction, warmer planet. That's it.

Mr Cotton sprouts utter nonsense again

James, there you go again "normal variations", yet you know what they are without researching? Cool. I'll be happy to send you the document refs, since you have my email, but even the ones you could have gotten, as I suggested above, would have given you all the information you'd then have to figure out how to reject.

We in Calif. also have begun seeing acidification effects. And, since you want factual support, do you even know how ocean acidification is measured? Do you even know how CO2 in water is identified as uniquely of human combustion derivation?

Study up, dude.

Doug, since your mis-statements have indeed been refuted at every turn, go ahead & pretend not. But, what I really like is this comment I can't now find below...

Doug Cotton commented:

"(1) I don't sell any health products (2) I have a thick head of hair which i am not losing, excellent eyesight (never requiring glasses,) high levels of certain hormones (comparable with teenagers) and reasonably smooth skin, just for starters. (3) Heat is thermal energy in transit and is measured when there is such transit. As such, it is not contained as is energy. In contrast, thermal energy includes potential energy, such as latent "heat" in water vapour and chemical energy involved in reactions such as those involving O, O2 and O3. "

Since you are indeed selling lot's of things, even your "thick head of hair", are we to believe you're looking to be picked up by some slave trader who sees your great value on the market? If not, why the goofy self promotion above?

A more natural look for your age would be far more authoritative.
;]
But, your last sentence above indicates you still don't understand heat and energy. Did you tutor your kids (victims?) on E = mCT? You know, the energy contained in a mass m, thermal coefficient C, at T above absolute zero? That "heat" energy is independent of chemical/gravitational/electromagnetic potential/nuclear energy. Know why? Know how total energy for a body is written?

Good James, let's start at the bottom, so you know how Carbon isotopes are used to date naturally built Carbon compounds, including CO2. So, now you know how anthropogenic CO2 in seas is measured. The results indicate about 40% of all emissions from the age of steam on are now in the seas. That chemistry can't continue linearly so present & future CO2 emissions will more & more stay airborne. Problem?

The pH measurements across all oceans show pH variations with depth & coordinates. They clearly show increases in acidity over time, when correlated with sediments. .Problem?

I'll certainly try to drop off on your site the doc that shows why you would have lost my bet, as Monckton & Nicols were wisely afraid to make.

Ok. I have done the dirty work and actually looked at Spencer's devastating riposte at WUWT.

Spencer is talking about the Forbes article "New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism." which lead to the resignation in disgust of the editor or Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner when he realised he had been gamed by Spencer.

From Spencer

"The short answer is that, while the title of the Forbes article (New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism) is a little over the top (as are most mainstream media articles about global warming science), the body of his article is — upon my re-reading of it — actually pretty good.

About the only disconnect I can see is we state in our paper that, while the discrepancy between the satellite observations were in the direction of the models producing too much global warming, it is really not possible to say by how much. Taylor’s article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term. (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)"

One more time for Anthony

"Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it."

Climate Change denialism in a nutshell. I think it but I can't prove it.

Pehaps Spencer can join forces with Doug Cotton, prolific commenter on this thread.

Doug has a lot of theories he can't prove.

Doug Cotton: "Hence GHG molecules can also act as "conduit" and channel thermal energy out of the atmosphere"

And where, pray tell, in the spectrum does CO2 do this? Looking down from space: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html , CO2 is doing a pretty weak job of acting as a heat conduit around its absorption wavenumber of c. 1050 cm^-1.

I ask Doug Cotton again, at what frequency is CO2 supposed to be transmitting radiation out of the atmosphere?

For all his bluster about quantum mechanics and quantum thermodynamics, Doug Cotton doesn't even know the first thing about Radiation Physics 101.

Mr Nicol, if you mean "Mark" rather than "Michael" (as your post seems to be a reply to me".) - I make no apologies for lampooning and refuting Mr Cotton.

I do not regard "ridicule" of the ridiculous to be rude. I freely admit to using ridicule (including acrostic appelations) against Mr Cotton and others who mispreseent the science but haven't the intellectual integrity to submit their claims to proper peer reviewed scrutiny.

I have resorted to humour and ridicule since Mr Cotton seems to be totally immune to evidence and basic science (believe me I and others have patiently tried). Readers may note that I am FAR from alone in this view.

I ask you - which is more offensive? To misrepresent the science, self promote un reviewed blogs and constantly assume a greater knowledge of the topic (despite being shown on numerous occasions to have no idea - such as when Mr Cotton completely failed to understand the IPCC defintion of net forcing on this thread http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-a-real-climategate-out-there-4428#comments(despite such knowledge being publicly available) OR to indulge in lampooning of such misrepresentation?

Perhaps you should reflect on your own "skepticism" on the topic by reviewing this link http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2011/12/an-ethical-analysis-of-the-climate-change-disinformation-campaign-is-this-a-new-kind-of-assault-on-h.html

Sicne you claim to be a geniune sketpci I also urge you to consider what Lawrence Torcello has to say about true skepticism (Lawrence Torcello is a prominent ethicist and holder of the Ezra A Hale Chair in Applied Ethics at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York)

Torcello points out that actual skepticism is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly). Pseudoskepticism, on the contrary, makes a virtue of doubt per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational.
he also says
(1) Ethical obligations of inquiry extend to every voting citizen insofar as citizens are bound together as a political body;
(2) It is morally condemnable to put forward unwarranted public assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation;
(3) It is imperative upon educators, journalists, politicians and all those with greater access to the public forum to condemn, factually and ethically, pseudoskeptical assertions without equivocation.

I have NEVER put forward an unwarranted public assertion contrary to the scientific concensus - I always endeavour to reference the evidence and peer reviewed science in support of any claim.

Mr Cotton CONSTANTLY makes such unwarranted claims. I find it unethical and I will continue to unashamedly say so.

Is this a new approach Anthony.

We are used to getting claims from climate change denialists that lack any supporting evidence or references to peer reviewed science.

Now you are alluding to a claim but not actually making it. That is one way of preventing it from being debunked.

Interesting, if neither of you can "accept" that CO2/ N20/ CH4/ 03 / trace halocarbons ( ie all GHGs - H20 ) and you know that H20 is a feedback and not a forcing, then how exactly do you account for 33deg of greenhouse ?

You have inadvertently wedged yourselves.

Not only that you have both ignored sceintific reasoning and resorted to "belief" ( ie " cannot accept" ).

Case closed.

( Lost a few words when I edited that paragraph - should read )

Interesting, if neither of you can "accept" that CO2/ N20/ CH4/ 03 / trace halocarbons ( ie all GHGs - H20 ) account for the greenhouse gas forcing, and you know that H20 is a feedback and not a forcing, then how exactly do you account for 33deg of greenhouse ?

Mr Nicol, your critiques of the Harries papers (strange that you lack the ability to link to them) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI4204.1

http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no

may indeed be valid. I look forward then to your letter to nature or similar establishing where they are wrong. However given that there have been numerous published papers in support of the Harries et al findings your failure to establish such a critique in a proper peer reviewed journal amounts merely to unethical science denialism. It is morally condemnable to put forward unwarranted public assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation.

In any event - if you wish to argue that the observed warming or around 0.5 to 0.6 degrees which has been found time and time again to be NOT due to natural causes(see here for example http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf or here Nature 453, 353-357.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
or here http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf) you are obliged to be able to substantiate an alternative mechanism

What is it? It isn't fairies. It isn't even Trolls (though lord knows they generate more heat than light on this subject on the internet)

WV certainly has a greenhouse effect. I am not sure how I can say it any clearer.

Try this. If there were no forcing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere ( ie CO2 etc ) then what would the temperature be ? Answer -18 deg C.

OK, so if we were able to remove all the CO2 etc. from the atmosphere what would happen to the H20 ? It is an equilibrium that is set by the atmospheric temperature. That is fairly easy to demonstrate, as if you go to Antarctica you will will find very very low humidity. Conversely in the tropics .....

OK so far ?

Having ( theoretically ) removed forcing greenhouse gasses, the temperature falls and as it does the levels of water vapour follows.

This is why C)2 is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect "

So, what would happen .... NASA reports it like this:

" The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect."

Now can you "accept" it ?

No I don't think I am.

The contributions of CO2 and H20 are difficult to distinguish in the "outgoing long wave flux" ( your ref ) or absorption spectrum because overlap etc. That is why there is a range quoted for relative contributions.

But the Water Vapour is a feedback, is disappears once gaseous forcings are removed.

Perhaps you could explain why you do not "accept this" ( notice Doug has gone rather quiet as well ).

Now this is just Plain Stupid. Mr Cox says "The Lacis paper wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. This ignores the evaporating/condensing water process which generates energy fluxes that exceed 1000 W/m2 each and every day."

Which part of a Watt being a measure of power - i.e. the RATE at which energy is measured - and a Joule of energy every second does Mr Cox not understand? Obviously he understand NOTHING

It is not "3.7 W/m2 over a century" compared to a "1000 W/m2 each and every day" - in fact the statement is physically nonsense.

Mr Cox has no indea what he is talking about.

Anthony Cox: "making an estimation about climate sensitivity for 2XCO2 from the studied 31 period is entirely reasonable"

OK, 0.5 deg C from 1980 to 2010 during which CO2 increased from 339 ppm to 390 ppm means a sensitivity of 0.5/(log(390/339)/log(2)) = 2.5.

You're right. It does co-incidentally produce an entirely reasonable sensitivity estimate.

"In any event F&R's findings are for a CONSTANT rate over the 31 year period; why can't you extrapolate a CONSTANT rate Michael?"

Why don't you ask F? He's got a blog. Are you worried he knows more about statistics than you do?

"Attempting" would be about the most accurate thing you've said on this thread. Your statement clearly is wrong and shows you have no understanding of the fundamental physics involved

Mr Cox claims I am "rude and insulting" in pointing out that he made a statement that was utter physical nonsense. At no stage I have called Mr Cox rude names - I have labelled his statements as stupid nonsense. I stand by that - because they are.

No amount of obfuscation by Mr Cox can alter the fact that he made these ridiculous statements. This from a man who claims to be qualified in climate science (apparently on the basis of taking geography during a BA) and routinely makes statements that attempt to refute the overwhelming concensus on climate science in the credible peer reviewed literature.

Mr Cox clims to be a "sceptic" - well, real sceptics do not make any claims based on ignorance. Mr Cox statements indicates that he does make claims based on ignorance.

As to the rest of Mr Cox's post - this again reflects ignorance or deliberate attempts at obfuscation. The energy flux WITHIN the planetary system is indeed quite large. The water evaporation/condensing system moves a lot of energy in and out of the atmosphere but NOT in and out of the planet.

The ONLY thing that maters for determining global average temperatures (or more properly the thermal equilibrium of the planet) is how much/how quickly the planet can raadiate away the total energy it receives to maintain thermal equilibriu. Increasing GHGs means less is able to be radiated away and so results in a higher thermal equilbirum. Ultimately that results in higher measured temperatures.

The IPCC defines ""Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2)."

It is fairly well explained here http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html

Any increase in net radiative forcing places the earth at a higher thermal equilibirum.

The projection of the IPCC of 3.7 W/m2 associated with a doubling of CO2 over pre-industeial levels is found on page 140 (Ch 2 - Arg-Wg1.) Any valid scientific disputations of that figure do not depend on the sort of obfuscation practiced practiced by Mr Cox above

If Mr Cox fails to understand my answer I can't help him. Not surprising from someone who fails to understand even basic physics.

If Mr Cox wishes to make a claim concerning climate sensitivity (a legitimate area of uncertainty with respect to climate science although the consensus view is clear and consistent with the IPCC estimates) then he is free to submit his claims to a proper peer reviewed journal and have them properly tested.

It's not my job to help him with that task here.

Mr Cox claims to be a "climate sketpic"

The eminent ethicist Torcello points out that actual skepticism is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly). Pseudoskepticism, on the contrary, makes a virtue of doubt per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational.
he also says
(1) Ethical obligations of inquiry extend to every voting citizen insofar as citizens are bound together as a political body;
(2) It is morally condemnable to put forward unwarranted public assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation;
(3) It is imperative upon educators, journalists, politicians and all those with greater access to the public forum to condemn, factually and ethically, pseudoskeptical assertions without equivocation.

I see no evidence of Mr Cox adhering to these suggestions. In fact I see quite the opposite.

His pseudo-sketpical posts have no substance.

Mr Nicol, I find your misrepresentation of the science, along with other pseudo-skeptics such as Mr Cox and complete and utter gibberish from Mr Cotton to be offensive in the extreme and unethical - as I have posted.

If you find my use of the word "laughable" rude, or other ridicule I have expressed when people have made plainly ridiculous statements, then that is your issue, not mine.

In case you haven't noticed the "tenor" of the on-line debate - especially from those who attempt refutation of the climate science - is "robust". Mr Cox, for example, is hardly making frequent snide remarks.

AGW is a serious matter. I think It is morally condemnable to put forward unwarranted public assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation. Especially when the people putting forward these assertions so obviously have no idea what they are talking about (as demonstrated by Mr Cox and Mr Cotton).

I have no problem with anyone wanting to debate what actions should be taken - as that is a matter of opinion and rightly everyone should have a voice. I take exception to people continually polluting these threads with pseudo-skeptical climate science denialism - especially when they won't submit their claims to be tested via the proper channels.

I invite you to reflect on this statement

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2011/12/an-ethical-analysis-of-the-climate-change-disinformation-campaign-is-this-a-new-kind-of-assault-on-h.html

made by prominent ethicists at Durban and ask yourself - what,truly, is really offesnive?

I really like this one, for its disinformative goals!...

"The long and the short of it is that carbon dioxide has both a warming effect and a cooling effect which may cancel out most, if not all, of the warming effect." -- if one actually looked at the IR bands CO2 absorbs energy from and the effects of that absorption, you'd see it's not possible for CO2 molecules to re-radiate to space what they've absorbed during sunlit hours. The reason is as simple as you already know but seem to conveniently forget -- they couple their thermal energy to all manner of air molecules , thus broadening the distribution of IR energy across an extremely wide ranhge of frequencies, mostly absorbed by water vapor. same is true for other narrow-band absorbers, like N2, CH4, etc. In fact, XO2 shares a broad band with water vapor at about 20THz. The atmosphere, at night, re-radiates its heat in the 25-38THz band, which is the primary IR path back to space (and releasing <30% of the energy the sun gave us during the day).

In addition, Nicol is incorrect on how much CO2 directly contributes to atmospheric warming, simply because of its narrow absorption bands -- it's <20% currently, but rising, while water vapor, also rising, contributes the vast majority due to its many & broader bands from the ~300THz (near IR) range on down to microwaves.

So setting up all these straw men based on naive physics is remarkable for its cupidity. After all, we're dealing with serious issues. The real scientists have indeed looked at the history of sediments & ice cores and discovered that our emissions now are warming the planet about 1000 times faster than in any epoch since the Triassic-Jurassic Extinction -- the fastest seenh took >10,000 years to raise temps by 8C, 54 million years ago.

Whether you have fun advertising oneself as a skeptic (gets the girls?), or not, the responsible adult will think maybe we need to be doing something useful rather than generating fibs about data & imaginary physics.

My $5k bet still holds and that island in the Maldives is still available for all skeptics to play on, without rescue. Let's see some sign ups for the Fool's Wager!
']
PS, if you want to see what Nicol hasn't yet responded to, just send me an email. It's fun debunking folks that leave so many holes to poke facts through.

cannara@sbcglobal.net

Here we go again, so Mr. QM, when a GHG molecule absorbs a photon, it may re-radiate soon, as you say, in which case a nearby CO2 molecule or another GHG with similar or harmonic resonance (you know how guitar strings work, eh?) may absorb it, or the molecule's vibrations may simply be mechanically coupled to adjacent molecules of any sort -- heat. You do know how microwave ovens work, right?

So, we inevitably see a spreading of the energy coupled in from sunlight photons across a region surrounding any given GHG molecule (of any sort). And, since one of the broader CO2 absorption bands, which you apparently don't know, overlaps with a broad water vapor absorption, then it will couple quiet strongly when it reradiates, as you say happens often & quickly.

Again, your arguments stem from desire to make something wrong right, for very unscientific purposes. For a true scientist, that would be unethical.

"with young children and a wife 27 years younger than myself, I am not spending thousands or hours on studying physics, climate science, statistics etc " -- that;s obvious. But, if you were indeed not wishing your family to suffer in the future from your apparent propensity to make the Fool's Wager to do nothing re climate warming, acidification, etc., you might indeed consider a more responsible path.

The unscientific skeptic's comfort often comes at a very high price, which includes loss of respect..

The problem with half truths is that they may not even be that. "The GHG molecules become "conduit" channelling the thermal energy out of the atmosphere." -- all molecules above absolute 0 radiate in the IR, that's where we get to measure things like the cosmic background radiation at <3K.

So, indeed cooling is effected by the uppermost molecules in the air, otherwise we'd have melted long ago. However, the sun comes back every day to visit its radiation upon our atmosphere. <30% of what was coupled to the earth each day gets radiated back to space via IR (at the temp of our earth of >200K) gets reradiated back to space. ~30% gets reflected/scattered away from earth during the say, and the rest may be reflected/absorbed by earth/building/ice surfaces or clouds, or absorbed by open waters.

The current balance as measured by satellites is about 1/2 Watt per square meter, positive. In other words, earth is not in thermal balance with sun & space, but is net warming. Pollutants, volcanoes, etc. can increase reflectivity and each could subtract about 1/2W/sqm, if we wish to pray for volcanoes & not clean up air that kills millions each year.

So, the way in which energy is captured by all molecules in the air is important. Just because one molecule, say N2, gets warmed by being whacked by a GHG molecule, doesn't mean it's going to cool the earth by rising to the top of the atmosphere and cooling.. The mean free path for molecules in the atmosphere is miniscule -- they they hit each other quickly. Thermal equilibrium among nearby molecules is the norm. What you suggest isn't correct.

And saying "This simply must be the case." means what? We know the earth cools every night, but not enough to stop warming, as we indeed measure. Taking a half truth, like: "Even the models show plenty of energy radiated by the atmosphere" means nothing, because of course earth has to radiate "plenty of energy" day & night. this just shows you're desperate to find something to argue with. What it actually does ios show you don't care to discover the truth, which is your right, but it shows you're willing to mislead others, which is unethical, and even potentially endangering to your own family.

As to your LTSS or whatever model complaints, show me. I'll be happy to show you more. I'll be happy to send to you what I sent to Nicol, which seemed to give him pause.

I actually enjoy this, because desperate arguments are intriguing on one hand and instructive on the other.

Doug, when you can't find a successful argument, make up statements for others do you can knock them down. eh?

No one's talking about QM properties of N2, etc. The properties of concern for non-GHGs is their collisional energy transfers -- heat. At under 100 microns, mean free path between collisions, none of your mystical arguments hold. Take another breath of that dense air.

Doug Cotton: " If you knew any quantum mechanics you would know that in fact carbon dioxide molecules which have captured a photon actually radiate again within a very small fraction of a second"

And where does it say that it takes "a very small fraction of a second"? The rate of spontaneous emission from a molecule (called the Einstein coefficients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spectral_line#The_Einstein_coefficients) depends on the energy of the molecule. It is possible to calculate the mean time to emission of a molecule in a particular state. Show us that you can do this or it will be obvious that you're nothing but bluster.

Doug Cotton: "even though spontaneous radiation is in all directions,"

Radiation may be isotropic around a point but the atmosphere is not a single point or an optically thin layer of gas which fact you are willfully ignoring. Within a GHGs optically thick absorption band, radiation emitted at a point within the atmosphere has no direct relevance to the radiation that reaches the ground or reaches space unless that point is optically close enough to the ground or space respectively. "Optically close" means within several exponential decay distances at the wavelength under consideration. So at wavelengths where a GHG is optically thick, the radiation that reaches the ground is determined by the temperature of the air close to the ground and the radiation that escapes to space is determined by the temperature of the air that is approximately one radiation exponential decay depth from space.

All this is confirmed by the observed facts of atmospheric radiation (http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html) which you willfully and intellectually dishonestly ignore.

Well done Doug. I think you've just demonstrated every single one of the flaws Michael identified in sceptic viewpoints in one post. BTW concatenating flawed data is the ManU + Arsenal, Chelsea & Liverpool fallacy - except on the "denier" side we end up having been in an ice-age for the last 100 years.

Doug Cotton says "Just don't try to give me unsubstantiated garbage"

ROTFLMHO

"Hello Pot, this is Kettle Speaking"

Mr Cotton is the master of unsubstantiated garbage. (Jupiter warming planet, Nuclear testing warming it, CO2 has a cooling effect, It isn't warming anyway - just to name a few)

The Science and the Evidence says GHGs keep the planet warmer than it otherwise would be by reducing the amount of thermal radiation leaving the planet (pseudo science obfuscation from J Nicol, D Cotton and others arguing technicalities of the details notwithstanding) Human activities adding more GHGs increase warming.
No amount of obfuscation, cherry picking and pseudo science claims can obviate this simple observed fact.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg

CO2 results in less radiation leaving the planet than if there were no CO2 (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg ). That puts the planet in a higher thermal equilibrium. We had stable CO2 levels in pre-industrial times but now the amount we have added is overwhelming other natural factors and we are seeing planetary warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_Radiative_Forcing.gif

(see how the red line starts to dominate)
Temperatures are rising and even La Nina's can't hide it (last year the warmest La Nina on record - and they are supposed to produce lower global temps)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/gcs_fig_1_big.jpg

Multiple science studies establish recent warming is not natural
(here's just two - in whom do we trust - the prestigious journal nature - or spurious gibberish from an unpublished pseudo-skeptic on the web?))

Nature 453, 353-357.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf

http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538

You can't use anything less than 17 year trends if you want to detect real climate focsings

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011JD016263

"Trends >17 yrs are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temp"

Draw a 17 year trend on any of the temperature or sea level data from here http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ and the results are unambiguous (misrepresentations from Mr Cotton notwithstanding)

And if natural variations are removed from the tempearture data 2009 and 2010 were the warmest ever

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

Doug Cotton has NOTHING to add to this issue - he is just an impediment to rational discussion about the best course of action

Either submit your unsubstantiated claims to the rigours of peer review or please desist

Usual rubbish.

The evidence that CO2 results in less radiation leaving the planet is here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg

You can SEE that it has this effect.

Mr Cotton refuses to countenance the SKS website because they always reference real science and have BANNED him from the site because of his outrageous misrepresentations of the science and self pormoting unsunstnatiated tooth fairy science ramblings

Iin this case the graph comes from http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/index.html - A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation (2nd Ed.) - Mr Cotton should read it but I VERY much doubt he is capable of comprehending it given his plainly silly errors on this thread https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-and-the-acidifying-freshening-warming-southern-ocean-4489#comments where he can't even do basic arithmetic.

You can see the same graph here patarnott.com/atms360/pptATMS360/NASA_ATRAINfor360class.ppt on slide 22

The rest of Mr Cotton's comments are irrelevant - as usual

Mr Cotton is a complete goose were comments on climate change are concerned

Correlation of temperature with Solar
here http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
Correlation of CO2 with temperature
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif

and to deal with his silly post above

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_Radiative_Forcing.gif

Dr Harrigan:

(1) You continue to show a lack of understanding of the "conduit" process described at length by John Nicols yesterday. You speak of carbon dioxide absorbing radiation (which it does, yes) but this has nothing to do with the process John and I are describing. We are talking about totally different energy coming from warmer oxygen and nitrogen molecules which collide with GHG molecules and, in the process, are able to transfer sufficient translational kinetic energy to raise them to a higher energy state, this leaving the GHG molecules in an excited state which is much the same as excited states caused by absorption of photons. Emission follows as they drop back one or more energy levels. I'm sure you know enough quantum thermodynamics to understand this, Dr Harrigan.

(2) I won't repeat my post today about the 120 year periods used by the IPCC - you'll find it on another thread in a reply to Michael.

(3) Elsewhere you spoke of 17 year trends being enough in order to negate the ENSO effect on climate.

Now, with November figures available, the good news (as in the plot below) is that the rate of increase is now down to 0.0135 degrees per year, or only 1.35 degrees per century - well below IPCC estimates which were more than double that rate.

Furthermore, it is obvious from the plot that, unless there is a very sharp upturn in the next three to four years, we can expect the 17 year trend to have even lower gradient by around 2015.

Hopefully this data will be brought to the attention of policy makers who may still be misled by earlier estimates which apparently date from a base around 1980..

http://theconversation.homestead.com/17years.jpg

This is standard 'sceptic/denier' strategy in the biological sciences as well. It seems to me there is a psychological syndrome at work here as the most vociferous have very similar interpersonal styles.

I note that a similar 'denier' group also argue that high cholesterol does not cause heart disease (despite Brown and Goldstein's Nobel Prize et al), and they use the same tactics of illogical extrapolation, straw-man targets, irrelevant reductionism, conspiracy theory, and of course, extreme cherry picking.

It's quite amazing how many people are fooled by all this. In the very early days of the internet with a national science organisation I thought the internet would herald a new era of rationality and education for the masses. It seems to me almost the opposite has occurred.

@ Paul Rogers:

At what point did you think labelling people as "deniers" would be helpful to the debate? I have been labelled as such more times than I can remember, but I am yet to solicit a response regarding what it is that I deny. I shall not Godwin the thread by explaining why the term should not be used in polite conversation.

You are quick to assume a "psychological condition" for those who do not simply kowtow to the established CAGW hypothesis by making a completely irrelevant reference to an unrelated group who think cholesterol is not causing heart disease. This is an absurd association, but I doubt to many here will agree with me. It is easier to jump on the bandwagon and abuse anyone critical of CAGW than to acknowledge cogent criticisms, no? As for debating "tactics" this is simply projection for the most part. It is easy to find CAGW advocates using these techniques in abundance (see Flannery below).

@ Alex Cannara:
Have you met and spoken with Lord Monckton? Might I suggest that it is not helpful to make assumptions on his part. Having had the opportunity to have a chat with him over a couple pints I can gurantee you that he is only too happy to debate any reasonable person, and even a few unreasonable ones like former VP Al Gore.

Also do you have records of Monckton's sources of payment? Do you simply assume he makes big bucks somehow from spruiking the sceptic case? I think you'll find reality is somewhat different to your perception of the situation. I think the billions of dollars flowing to the CAGW side of the debate have been adequately demonstrated. Odd that an under-funded (generally self-funded) group of sceptics seem to scare the establishment so, but I digress...

I shall give you a good example of someone well paid by the establishment, highly praised in academic circles, and who spruiks spurious statistics simply to support the CAGW side of the debate. Look no further than Prof Tim Flannery. No doubt you may have seen the latest publication to emanate from the Climate Commission? Apparently climate change is projected to increase the number of climate-related deaths in Australia by 2100.

When I read the statistics in the media release and associated report my BS meter immediately went off. Not because of the increased number of deaths reported (although it is ridiculous to assume we have any inkling of the technological state of the world in a couple decades, let alone 90 years from now), but because it was a poor statistic to make the case.

So I looked up the ABS population series estimates, grabbed the end-of-century data and applied them to Flannery's press release deaths in Australia. Guess what? Even using Flannery's upperbound for deaths and the ABS lowest growth estimate for population, the number of deaths per thousand by the end of the century due to climate-related impacts was lower than in 2010.

Why is it that it was so easy (took me 10 minutes research) to poke a gaping hole in the alarmist statistic touted by Flannery? Are we not paying him enough for his part-time position to research this material a tad better than that? Or is he simply an advocate for the Government's poistion on global warming (I refuse to use "climate change" as this is deliberately spurious terminology).

No doubt I shall get -'s next t my post... let me posit another model to the audience. Anyone who spruiks the CAGW case gets +'s regardless of the message quality, and sceptics get -'s. Take Rod Lamberts comment no 1 for example. Contributes nothing to the thread and yet +8 for simply praising the author. It is a common theme throughout this page. Sociologists have names to describe this phenomenon as well, but unlike some I shalln't stoop to derrogatory labels to describe anyone who might disagree with me.

Mike Wilson doesn't like the term 'denier'. Freud used the term 'denial' to refer to a person who is "faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence". (WiP). Thus, 'in denial'.

This is substantially different to the reasonable disagreements that scientific peers have over research issues. The example I gave of the 'cholesterol deniers' is completely valid and comparable.

Read the special report at New Scientist: 'Living in Denial'

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

Doug Cotton: "Rate for 1880 to 1940
Rate for 1940 to present"

So you think that means no cherry-picking do you?

Also, you think you can put a trend line anywhere you like.

Doug Cotton continues to re-write science. The perfect spokesman for science denial.