The hallmark of good science is the testing of plausible hypotheses that are either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in BEST’s own data and in other data we have analyzed is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun causes climate change, especially in the Arctic, China and the United States. BEST’s data also clearly invalidate the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important cause of observed temperature changes across the United States.

Given the wide, and perhaps at times excessive, interest in tying carbon dioxide to climate, there has been relatively little work investigating the solar-climate connection. The scientific community has proved the wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, “The sun shines and warms and lights us and we have no curiosity to know why this is so.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/

Keep clearing out that closet!

HANSEN MARS CHALLENGE

Norm Kalmanovitch, P Geoph

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf

It only takes a minute amount of CO2 to fully “capture” the energy at the resonant wavelength, and additional CO2 progressively captures energy that is further and further from the peak wavelength. At the 280ppmv CO2 preindustrial level used as reference in the forcing parameter, about 95% of the energy bandwidth that could possibly be captured by CO2 has already been captured. There is only 5% of this limited energy available within the confines of this potential “capture” band left to be captured.

The greenhouse effect from CO2 is generally stated as 3°C, so an additional 100ppmv above the 280ppmv level is only capable of generating a maximum 5% increase or 0.15°C. The forcing parameter is based on a full 0.6°C which is four times the 0.15°C absolute physical limit of warming from CO2. Furthermore if this 0.15°C increase has used up the full 5% of the remaining possible energy as the concentration reached 380ppmv, there is zero warming possible from further increases in CO2.

This is why the CO2 notch is virtually identical in the two spectra; the CO2 band was virtually saturated at the 325ppmv concentration level, so even nine times more CO2 has almost no appreciable effect.

Unless all these points can adequately be addressed, the climate models based on this forcing parameter must be declared invalid, and all work based on these models as
as a reference for global warming mitigation must also be declared invalid.

An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 1: Scientific Discussion
John Eggert P. Eng.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf

Wrt radiant energy absorption by CO2 at increasing concentrations, John Eggert describes some IPCC sleight-of-hand:-

Figure 2 shows 4 curves. One is a direct plot of ΔF = α ln (C/Co). This is called “forcing” by IPCC scientists and represents an approximation of the impact of a change in CO2 concentration from the impact at some arbitrary point. The math symbol “ln” means natural logarithm. Taking the logarithm of a quotient is the same as subtraction. Another way of writing the IPCC curve equation is: ΔF = (α ln C) – (α ln Co). This equation implies that the absolute radiant heat loss from the atmosphere (the correct symbol for this is q) is q= α ln C. This is the second curve. The third and fourth curves are obtained using the emissivity as determined from Leckner’s curves. This is then used in the equation q=εσ(T^4). In this equation, ε is emissivity of the intervening gas, σ is the Stephan Boltzman constant at T is temperature of the radiating surface in Kelvin. This equation is not a simplification, if one assumes that the absorbing surface is space and further that the temperature of space is 0k (it is actually closer to 4K).

Figure 2 shows the two curves relative to each other. They are nearly identical in shape. The IPCC curve artificially offsets the 0 at 278 ppm atmospheric CO2. The IPCC curve does not reach a maximum. Rather it continues to grow up to 100% CO2. The IPCC curve closely models the curve generated using standard engineering methods, though offset by the artificial requirement to have a 0 at 278 ppm. The deviation of the IPCC curve from the Eggert curve after about 200 ppm, is not supported by the well documented and tested methods of calculating radiant heat transfer through an atmosphere.

Conclusion
Beyond 200 ppm, the Leckner curves indicate that there is a negligible change in emissivity and hence a negligible change in forcing. That is: Above 200 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 there is no increase in the greenhouse affect due to CO2, and changes to human emissions of CO2 will have no affect on climate.

The IPCC manufactured a straight line to represent a curve with a maximum.

Unfortunately, the pdf’s have reproduced in bacterial manner so that I’ve now accumulated another 2 (Sigh):-

An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 2: Layman’s Discussion

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf

What It Means

The short summary of what it means is: CO2 increases will not increase the greenhouse effect. Full stop. That is it. CO2 is not a pollutant, it will not change the weather or climate. There is no basis whatsoever for trying to control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations. The IPCC reports discuss the impact on forcing of doubling CO2. This is because they believe the relation is logarithmic. Indeed for most of the range of CO2 concentrations, it does resemble this.

The doubling table above shows that there is a strong case to be made that this doubling does not continue for all concentrations of gas. This effect is not seen in other fields that calculate radiant heat loss in the atmosphere. It is a precept of science that the laws of science that hold in one area are the same everywhere. Thus, radiant heat absorption in climate science will behave the same way as radiant heat in engineering. Utilizing the climate science model for calculating radiant heat absorption results in inaccurate values for radiant heat absorption at higher levels of CO2. As atmospheric CO2 increases, this error increases as well.

An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf

In Part 1 of this series, a detailed description of the use of the engineering method (known as the path length approximation) for radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect) shows that:

► The IPCC method for calculating the greenhouse effect of CO2 generates similar results to the engineering method for levels up to 100 ppm CO2;
► At levels above 100 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the IPCC method overestimates the impact of CO2 on the greenhouse effect, compared to the engineering method;
► The engineering method shows that for levels of CO2 above 200 ppm, increases in CO2 have a negligible impact on the greenhouse effect;
► The engineering method predicts that increasing CO2 from current levels to 800 ppm (more than double) will have AT THE MOST, the same effect as has occurred in the last 100 years (from 278 ppm to about 350 ppm).
► The maximum effect possible from increased CO2 will be equal to or less than the Copenhagen protocol. That is, the effect of no action is to meet the Copenhagen protocol.

It is important to note:

► The engineering method has been successfully used for decades in numerous fields, with designs based on it working in many areas;
► The IPCC method has never been tested except in computer models;

That is, the engineering method has been proven to work, while the IPCC method has not.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go

A recent study in Nature by A. P. Ballantyne and colleagues has shed new light on the short term carbon cycle with a painstaking survey of carbon sources and atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 50 years. The main result of the study can be gleaned from the letter’s title, “Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years.” More detail is available from the paper abstract:

One of the greatest sources of uncertainty for future climate predictions is the response of the global carbon cycle to climate change. Although approximately one-half of total CO2 emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs, models predict a decline in future carbon uptake by these reservoirs, resulting in a positive carbon–climate feedback. Several recent studies suggest that rates of carbon uptake by the land and ocean have remained constant or declined in recent decades. Other work, however, has called into question the reported decline. Here we use global-scale atmospheric CO2 measurements, CO2 emission inventories and their full range of uncertainties to calculate changes in global CO2 sources and sinks during the past 50 years. Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4 ± 0.8 to 5.0 ± 0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale. Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.

The relationships in that case should really be something like this perhaps:-

Ocean surface temperature regulates => ocean surface air temperature response

Ocean surface temperature regulates => CO2 response in the air.

Ocean surface air temperature response leads => CO2 response in the air.

It’s clear in Fig 5 on the other hand that ocean surface air temperature regulates release or uptake of CO2.

Remind me again, why do we need an ETS to combat this natural phenomenon?

If indeed the oceans are getting more acidic overall it is pretty miniscule and there are many possible culprits. From my calculation if all the carbon from the total known world reserves of fosil fuels – about 1000 GTC – were transferred as CO2 to the oceans and stirred up a bit the CO2 in the ocean would have increased by about 2.5%. Big deal.