Climate science

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


209
Leave a Reply

avatar
34 Comment threads
175 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
MagooMike JowseyRob TaylorJim McKMike Jowsey Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud By John O’Sullivan Friends, I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101 was terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles published over a two-year period with them are now removed from the Internet. I believe this is in retaliation for my latest article ‘New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory’ revealing the shocking fact that the Japanese ‘IBUKI’ satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations. […] It appears a self-serving and influential clique of zealots, fearful that the story may go viral, is desperate to kill it. This morning my Suite101 article had already gotten over 400,000 crosslinks a mere two days after publication. This evening a Google search shows that number cut to 297,000; so much for free speech and easy access to information on the Internet. But what these ecoloons fail to understand is that they may shoot down one or two bloggers, but there are legions more waiting to step up to the plate. By such egregious censorship they merely draw… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

It appears that one of the outlets for his articles, Suite101.com, has finally noticed his tenuous connection with reality and removed all his posts. The real pity is that they allowed them on their servers in the first place. I wonder if Treadgold will run that bit of news as well?

That was a quote from GR at HotTopic

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

GR hasn’t got a clue. He thinks Ibuki/GOSAT is “really talking about” reducing estimation error of ground observations and cites H. Takagi et al — “a rather technical read, to be sure, and not at all the thing for bedtime reading” (all of 4 pages counting References). But that paper is just a spin-off from the project titled “On the Benefit of GOSAT Observations to the Estimation of Regional CO2 Fluxes”. It’s no different to using satellites for any other metric that is also measured by ground stations e.g. GAT and reducing estimation error (or introducing more – whatever the case may be). smartypants may be on to something though “The graphics that Sky Dragon is showing are actually showing levels of uncertainty for CO2 measurement, NOT absolute measurements of emissions”. O’Sullivan has a problem if that is true but but all anyone has to do is look at this Press Release:- May 28, 2009 (14:00) Initial Analysis of Observation Data (Greenhouse Gas Concentrations) from “IBUKI” Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/20090528_ibuki_e.html “While data is currently in the preliminary stages of being calibrated and validated, an initial analysis of carbon dioxide and methane… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Update plots in this October 30, 2009 Press Release:-

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html

Figure 2: Column averaged dry air mole fraction distribution of carbon dioxide
for the month of September, 2009, obtained from IBUKI observation data (unvalidated)

Figure 3: Column averaged dry air mole fraction distribution of methane for the month of September, 2009, obtained from IBUKI observation data (unvalidated)

The evil emitters seem to be Northern China, Central India and North-Central Africa. Shame on them.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

JAXA Ibuki/GOSAT

CO2 jpg plot

comment image

CH4 jpg plot

comment image

The most heinous CO2 emitter on the planet seems to be a secret Australian fossil fuel installation in the Great Victoria Desert on the WA-SA border.

Where’s James Bond when you need him?

Richard Treadgold
Guest

It appears that one of the outlets for his articles, Suite101.com, has finally noticed his tenuous connection with reality and removed all his posts. The real pity is that they allowed them on their servers in the first place. I wonder if Treadgold will run that bit of news as well? – GR at Hot Topic Ah, Gareth Renowden, our local champion of free speech. But only his own. Not an inspiring hero, is he: “the real pity is that they allowed them on their servers in the first place”? What the hell are you afraid of, Gareth, you jellyfish — someone pointing out the flaws in your climatic fantasies? Someone suggesting (perfectly reasonably) that no ETS in Kiwiland will change the climate anywhere? Someone stating as a fact that closing down the entire NZ economy and requiring each of our 4.4 million people to subsist on what they might find or grow in their own neighbourhood will go spectacularly unnoticed by the global climate? That’s only using the IPCC’s view of things, which is that carbon dioxide is the supreme driver of weather. Or are you afraid of something else? Like not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Reply to article from Joe Bastardi: Heidi Cullen – Stop pretending it’s not climate change- Salon.com Open question for Heidi Cullen and her ilk by Joe Bastardi: Do you even follow what is going on beyond anything that serves your agenda. Have you even looked, or even thought about, the physical implications of the energy loss that the cold PDO creates to the entire climate system? DO YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE RECORD COLD MID TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES, ESPECIALLY 400 MB WHERE THE TRAPPING HEAT WAS SUPPOSE TO SET OFF THE TIPPING POINT FEEDBACK, AND ASK HOW CAN RECORD COLD BE GOING ON HERE IF ALL THIS IS A SIGN OF WARMING? How can we cool the central tropical Pacific, and then the atmosphere above, and then come to the conclusion that warmth is occurring and leading to the perceived increase in extremes. If defies all logic of any rational, free thinking person, yet alone scientist. You need to explain this, and also need to tell us if you even look at these things. I can not believe you have watched these levels and it not present a major challenge to your thinking on… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Understanding The Missing Heat

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Steven Goddard

If the heat is where Spencer says it is and where our radiative transfer models say it is, we lose our funding. More likely a bunch of lower density warm water sank to the bottom of the ocean – undetected by sensors on its way down.

-Kev T

http://www.real-science.com/understanding-missing-heat

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Precipitation within the Waikato Region of New Zealand Reference Dravitzki, S. and McGregor, J. 2011. Extreme precipitation of the Waikato region, New Zealand. International Journal of Climatology 31: 1803-1812. Background The authors write that “Trenberth (1999) proposed that globally, extreme precipitation events would account for a larger proportion of annual precipitation as the globe warmed,” as was additionally suggested by Trenberth et al. (2003). And they state that “this is also supported by the fourth IPCC report (IPCC, 2007),” which “expects the change in the intensity of precipitation events to be proportional to changes in total precipitation.” Thus, they decided to see if any of these projections have occurred over the past century or more in New Zealand’s Waikato region, which is an important farming district that also produces 13% of the country’s electricity by means of hydro-generation. What was done Working with data from 18 meteorological observation stations located in and about the Waikato region, Dravitzki and McGregor developed daily precipitation time series covering the period 1900-2007, where they averaged the precipitation values, as they describe it, “both spatially and temporally to approximate the total volume of precipitation within the region,” and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

New paper supports Miskolczi’s theory of saturated greenhouse effect A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases. The Miskolczi theory of a ‘saturated greenhouse effect’ instead predicts relative humidity will decrease to offset an increase in specific humidity, as has just been demonstrated by observations in this paper. The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the ‘greenhouse effect’ or increase in global temperature. Journal of Climate 2012 Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948-2010 V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden Abstract Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied. The water vapor pressure was determined and seasonal averages were computed. Data were first examined for inhomogeneities using a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ya gotta love this from NASA:-

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

From ‘Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere’

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Carbon dioxide intake soars

Using data from 1958 and mathematical techniques that haven’t been widely used in the field, scientists took the amount of emissions and subtracted what was retained in the atmosphere and what the oceans took up, leaving the land component for the study.

They noticed the abrupt shift in 1988, when the intake of 0.3 billion tonnes of carbon per year surged to one billion tonnes.

>>>>>>>>

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7265266/Carbon-dioxide-intake-soars

Kevin Tate, research associate at Landcare Research, said he was ”intrigued” by the findings.

”One thought struck me and that is that perhaps to this point we have underestimated the size of the terrestrial sink, and this work may be correcting that.”

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Or another possibility:

If phytoplankton respond like most plant species do, we may find that the modest increases in CO2 levels we have experienced over the last 50 years may actually create a bounty of micro plant growth in the oceans, which would in turn create the food supply necessary to support an increase in the oceans’ animal population.

At the same time, it would explain where the excess atmospheric CO2 has been going; much of it converted into additional biological matter, with only a limited existence as raw CO2.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/unexplored-possible-climate-balancing-mechanism/

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

The science is beyond me but in the calculation of Global Warming Potential of minor gases “Radiative Efficiency” is one of the parameters. Numbers universally quoted are
CO2 0.01584
CH4 0.37
NO2 3.1

Any views on the credibility/appropriateness of these parameters?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Jim, I had a look at RE in the “Methane methane” thread. Remember this:- The Astrophysicists compute “radiative efficiency” simply as per the definition I gave up-thread, that was:- Radiation efficiency: At a given frequency, the ratio of the power radiated to the total power supplied to the radiator. [energy in : energy out] I found myself reading (with an element of disbelief that I was) “DIRECT CALCULATION OF THE RADIATIVE EFFICIENCY OF AN ACCRETION DISK AROUND A BLACK HOLE” https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/06/methane-mthane-methinks-it-stinks/#comment-59811 But the IPCC’s RE is NOT the conventional radiative efficiency ratio used in Astrophysics. Down-thread, I got this far on it:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/06/methane-mthane-methinks-it-stinks/#comment-60146 Note the exclamation “Ye gads, this is painful” I think I found the provenance of the IPCC’s RE in the next comment here in the paper that Andy dredged up:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/06/methane-mthane-methinks-it-stinks/#comment-61011 RE revisions are detailed in Myhre et al 1998 that are determined by.LBL model, NBM model and BBM model. Also this caution:- We need to be VERY careful with units and state when necessary e.g. Radiative efficiency of CO2 from Chap 6, 6.12.2 is 0.01548 Wm−2 ppmv−1. Radiative efficiency of CH4 from Chap 6, Table 6.7 is 3.7×10−4 Wm−2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Also, don’t forget the RE of WV:-

Calculating the global-warming potential

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/06/methane-mthane-methinks-it-stinks/#comment-59791

“A diligent search of sources other than Climate Change 2001 reveals that the radiative efficiency of water vapor is fifty to sixty percent greater than that of CO2.”

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Thanks richard,

Yes I got the units sorted some time ago. I have just been accepting that the use of RE is appropriate and accepted science and wanted to know whether thinking has moved on at all.

Will get into those refs over the weekend.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard Treadgold
Guest

Richard C, you know more about this than I do. Jim does, too! Could you comment when you get a minute on the relative merits of Thayer Watkins’s site Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases and Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System at Geocraft.com?

Also, Geocraft gives water vapour’s relative contribution to the “greenhouse effect” as 95.000% and carbon dioxide’s as 3.618%, which seems to make WV about 26 times more effective than CO2. Which is orders of magnitude away from 60%. What do you think?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

First the Geocraft question:-

Geocraft gives water vapour’s relative contribution to the “greenhouse effect” as 95.000% and carbon dioxide’s as 3.618%, which seems to make WV about 26 times more effective than CO2.

I think this is reasonable given the references for the figures as long as it’s not taken as hard-and-fast (“about” as you say). As numerous experts and laymen (myself) continually point out, this is easily demonstrated using the dry Sahara – humid Singapore example.

Which is orders of magnitude away from 60%. What do you think?

Be careful to make like-for-like comparisons here, I think you might be using radiative efficiency (RE) for your 60% figure as in Watkins’ “the radiative efficiency of water vapor is fifty to sixty percent greater than that of CO2” but Geocraft’s Table 3 is “Relative Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect””.

Radiative efficiency and relative contribution are two very different concepts. The first is a term in a parameter of the Beer Lambert Law, the second is nominal relative quantities.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Ah. The contribution of each gas is weighted by its relative abundance. Naturally. Thanks.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Now the Thayer Watkins article. I can’t identify anything untoward where he works through the saturation, nonlinearity and overlap situations. I can’t recall any dispute elsewhere of what he covers either. What he highlights is where the IPCC (IGCC typos in text unless there really is an IGCC I haven’t heard of) constructs get weird and the glaring omissions. That’s in the sections (my numbering):- 1) The Radiative Efficiencies of the Greenhouse Gases, 2) Radiative Forcing and Global Warming Potential And paragraph at bottom of page, 3) Cloudiness So the merits of those 3 sections as I see them (actually IPCC demerits) are:- #1 Omission of H2O (liquid and vapour) from the radiative efficiency table. As Thayer puts it:- “It is incredible how the scientific works on global warming can leave H2O entirely out of the picture“ #2 GWP is a weird construct that sets CO2 to 1 and all others relative to it. This presupposes that the workings for CO2 are rock solid because if it’s out, so are all the others. Andy is bothered with it (GWP) because he has not found how methane gets set to 23 x CO2. That… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve just read Myhre et al again and it ONLY deals with radiative forcing (RF) revisions. It does NOT deal with radiative efficiency (RE), I had my wires crossed thinking there was something in there about RE. Neither does Myhre go into GWP at all. Since this puts us back at square one I suggest looking at Climate Change 2001: The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Table 6.7, p. 388 because that is the source of the GWP for 100 years table in the Thayer Watkins article here:- http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff2.htm There should be references in TAR p.388 or thereabouts for the workings of the GWP values. Can’t find page 388 but 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change 6.12 Global Warming Potentials is a good start:- http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ The GWP has been defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC, l990): where TH is the time horizon over which the calculation is considered, ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be:-

“….back to SAR [and WMO (l999)] in combination with sources “in this section and in the headers and footnotes to the tables” “

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Richard,

Attached is the latest version of my replication of the IPCC GWP numbers

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzrVDoSVPu-tSmltZUNUdkF0SVk
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzrVDoSVPu-tVy1KODg0M3EyWEU

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I get Not Found Error 404 Jim.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“WMO 1999” from the only reference stating the full title I can find (couldn’t even get to it at the WMO website) is:-

WMO Report No. 44, “Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone”, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, 1999

Found here at The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy http://www.arap.org/adlittle/appendixb.html Worth browsing through this report.

About the Alliance http://www.arap.org/about.php Focus is HCFCs and HFCs and the Membership List seems to be all the big industry players.

WMO 1999 is no use for our purposes so can discard and look at SAR.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

SAR refers to the book: IPCC, 1994: Climate Change 1994. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emissions Scenarios.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=jZC_NciKps0C&pg=PA205&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

TAR WGI have copied from page 215 the screed I posted from 6.12 Global Warming Potentials . That begins:-

“The GWP has been defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC, l990):”

“IPCC 1990” is FAR so I should have gone there in the first instance. Chapter 2 of FAR has 2.2.7 A Global Warming Potential Concept for Trace Gases on page 58 text.and pdf.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf

This has all the references we need but another day for this, there’s only so much IPCC guff I can take at a time.

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Richard & Andy, It is difficult blogging with an excel which is the easiest way to deal with this but here goes Andy, this is how I believe IPCC calculate GWP for methane of 23 Inputs to the calculation are • Molecular mass of Methane (16) • Molecular mass of CO2 (44) • Radiative Efficiency of Methane (0.37) – IPCC • Radiative Efficiency of CO2 (0.01584) – IPCC • An arbitrary choice of time horizon (100 yrs) – IPCC (IPCC) • Lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere 150 yrs – IPCC • Half life of Methane (7.25 yrs) • Numerous adjustments as per IPCC The calculation is (RE CH4/Mass CH4) x Decay function of CH4, divided by the same calc for CO2. The Decay functions (in excel form) are calculated as: “Decay function = –(lifetime)x(EXP(-horizon/lifetime)-1).” This formula was from a teaching model left by mistake on Wikipedia since removed. Steady State or Burden Life – Half life of Methane in troposphere 7.25 years Pulse Adjustment 1 + 40% (IPCC/TEAC page 140) The primary calculations for GWP were performed in the late 1990,s when there had been a decade of rapid increase of methane.… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Thanks Jim. I have bookmarked this and will come back to it when I get time.
I think your figure of 6.4 for GWP is close to that derived by Wilson Flood who calculated it at 7.3

http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Dr.%20Wilson%20Flood%27s%20Paper.pdf

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Andy,

Dr Flood’s number of 7.3 came from simply dividing the headline number of 20 by the mass difference of 2.75. It was pointed out to me by a NIWA scientist who looked at my calcs that while we tend to drop the units in GWP calcs, as they cancel out, Radiative Efficiency is apparently calculated in mass terms so it is not correct to remove mass from the calculation. (see above)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Acknowledged too Jim. I’ve only been searching the provenance and development of the methodology so until I’ve read FAR and it’s references linked above that everything leads back to, I can only comment from limited background.

I’m a bit confused, you add 3 “indirect” effects to the “direct” effect to arrive at the “direct” GWP of 23 as tabled in TAR:-

6.12.2 Direct GWPs

Table 6.7: Direct Global Warming Potentials

I realize that indirect effects are detailed in TAR but why (if I’ve got this right) do the IPCC term GWPs that are indirect effect adjusted as direct GWPs? Seems to me that 23 is Direct + Indirect 1 + Indirect 2 + Indirect 3 i.e. a Cumulative Indirect Effect Adjusted GWP.

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Yes the terms direct and indirect are possibly confusing. It is more that the number was developed in stages

Basically I think the initial group manipulated the time in atmosphere for 7.25 yrs to 12.83 years as above and produced the GWP of 11.3.

I then think that the formula was essentially locked away. In the form I found it in a US University Chemistry course it was considerably less approachable that the unbundled version above.

Later ‘Researchers” then took the GWP number and competed in the TAR over hypothesising further corrections they could make to the GWP number without revisting the basic calculation.

Sounds crazy but there are the numbers.

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

My interpretation is that Table 6.7 as it applies to CH4 and NO2 includes direct and indirect influences and not just direct as shown in the header. If this was not the case IPCC would be screaming from the roof tops

With inputs of 3.7 x 10-4 and adjusted lifetime of 12.0 years the GWP calculates to about 11 slightly different from above.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Radiative Efficiency is apparently calculated in mass terms so it is not correct to remove mass from the calculation” No don’t agree with this, there’s another reason not to drop RE and that is that in TAR equation 6.2 for GWP(x) found in 6.12 Global Warming Potentials 6.12.1 Introduction, ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the substance in question (i.e., Wm-2 kg-1) and ar is the reference. RE (ax) with units (Wm-2 kg-1) is peculiar to climate science and the reason that IPCC REs can ONLY be used for GWP calculations. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration ρ of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber α, called its radiative efficiency. Except that climate science does not calculate a simple energy in to energy out unit-less efficiency ratio as any other discipline would e.g. astrophysics, radio or mechanical engineering, they even use a different symbol for efficiency. For example, Thermal Efficiency: (η) = the simple ratio of Output / Input http://www.learnthermo.com/T1-tutorial/ch04/lesson-F/pg06.php In this paper, Cherubini et al http://www.societalmetabolism.org/aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS_files/PAPERS/O_186_Francesco_Cherubini.pdf you can see in Equation (0.2)… Read more »

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Richard C,

I am getting a bit lost with the arguement around RE and mass.

What I have been focusing on is replicating the IPCC calculation as per the formula above as I have not seen this published before and everyone has been bandingly around all sorts of numbers and arguements.

Once that is accepted there is a separate debate to be had around its reasonableness.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’m a bit lost with the GWP formula.

Is your formula a simplification, rearrangement or alternative to the GWP(x) 6.2 formula from TAR?

GWP(x) 6.2 herecomment image

Where TH is the time horizon over which the calculation is considered, ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the substance in question (i.e., Wm-2 kg-1), [x(t)] is the time-dependent decay in abundance of the instantaneous release of the substance, and the corresponding quantities for the reference gas are in the denominator.

No mass and integration 0 – TH. That does not look like anything that can be rearranged to what you have:-

RE CH4/Mass CH4) x Decay function of CH4, divided by the same calc for CO2

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Richard C

Its a re- arrangement – the Decay Function is my term, defined above – which brings in “decay in abundance” as variuously defined for each gas and chosen TH. Mass is there

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Yes Jim, mass is in your formula but it’s not in IPCC TAR GWP(x) 6.2.

Also 6.2 is an integration with respect to time (dt) in both numerator and denominator but yours is not. Decay functions occur in both yours and 6.2 but are included in the integrations of 6.2.(numerator and denominator) whereas yours are cumulative adjustments to an initial calculation.

6.2comment image

I think what you have is an approximation of 6.2 or alternative calculation that returns the same values by some quirk but I don’t see how it can be a rearrangement.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Guys, I urge you to read FAR WGI Chapter 2, Radiative Forcing of Climate, page 58, 2.2.7 A Global Warming Potential Concept for Trace Gases http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf The term “radiative efficiency” does NOT occur. What is referred to in TAR, Wiki etc as “radiative efficiency” (α) is merely “instantaneous radiative forcing” (a) in FAR. This tallies with my assessment that αCO2 = ΔF CO2. and that (α) has NOTHING to do with the conventional concept of efficiency (η). The FAR GWP expression on page 58 is similar to TAR 6.2 except for the description of terms, quoting:- “……where a1 is the instantaneous radiative forcing due to a unit increase in the concentration of trace gas, 1, c1 is concentration of the trace gas, 1, remaining at lime, t, after its release and n is the number of years over which the calculation is performed The corresponding values for carbon dioxide are in the denominator” No “radiative efficiency”in there. I think we can forget about the unconventional “radiative efficiency” along with it’s phony symbol (α) being anything more than just the same old “radiative forcing” with a different name. We still have to accept the… Read more »

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Richard, think you are testing me.

The TAR was written by a committee as a summary document and is full of inconsistencies and various views on the adjustments required. I doubt very much that you could replicate a GWP calculation solely from the Tar – indeed that is why no one outside IPCC has done so.

I agree that the cummulative adjustments to the initial calculation are not science just IPCC politics but the alternative would have been to create an improbably long atmospheric life time for CH4 (27 years).

Happy to provide the original model from Chemistry Dept Hope University MI I unbundled if you are interested. The calculation above also works fine for NO2 so this is not a co-incidence.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

That “The calculation above also works fine for NO2 so this is not a co-incidence” is what has got me flummoxed.

I need a better explanation for the differences between your formula and IPCC TAR Equation 6.2 that I’ve identified here https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-105490

I’m not testing you Jim, I’m testing the equations for GWP (yours vs the IPCCs) one against the other and the provenance of both. Although FAR Chapter 2 gives some references to early attempts at defining a concept of GWP, the provenance of the expression the IPCC uses is FAR WGI Chapter 2. The following people came up with it:-

K.P. SHINE, R.G. DERWENT, D.J. WUEBBLES, J-J. MORCRETTE
Contributors:
AJ. Apling; J.P. Blanchet; R.J. Charlson; D. Crommelynck; H. Grassl; N. Husson;
GJ. Jenkins; I. Karol; M.D. King; V. Ramanathan; H. Rodhe; G-Y. Shi; G. Thomas;
W-C. Wang; T.M.L. Wigley; T. Yamanouchi

I cannot determine the provenance of your formula to the same degree even though it seems to come up with the same values – this is really curious.

Andy if you see this, can you explain why these two different mathematical expressions return the same values.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Jim this is wrong

“……the cummulative adjustments to the initial calculation are not science just IPCC politics”

You are NOT using the IPCC GWP expression. The IPCC GWP expression herecomment image does NOT make “cumulative adjustments to the initial calculation”.

It is your formula that does that Jim, not the IPCC’s.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

OK I’ve tracked down the provenance of your model Jim and the reason for the two different equations returning the same values becomes clear (see below). Here’s the paper:- Greenhouse Warming Potentials from the Infrared Spectroscopy of Atmospheric Gases Matthew J. Elrod Department of Chemistry, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423 J. Chem. Educ., 1999, 76 (12), p 1702 DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1702 Publication Date (Web): December 1, 1999 Abstract The greenhouse warming potential is a relative measure of the capacity of a specific chemical species to trap infrared radiation as heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, and is a scale that has been used to establish regulatory strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A model is described that allows a straightforward, spreadsheet-based determination of greenhouse warming potentials from the infrared spectra of atmospheric gases. On the basis of the numerical results of the model, students are able to investigate the molecular properties that are characteristic of greenhouse gases and thus are able to understand the rationale behind the recent agreement by the world’s industrialized nations to reduce certain greenhouse gas emissions. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ed076p1702 The paper is here:- http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch361/spring2006/greenhouse%20warming%20potential.pdf Elrod states the IPCC FAR GWP equation… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The above comment is irrelevant now that I’ve solved the mystery here https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-105521

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Richard,

Yes I thought over night I should point out the use of EXP being a standard excel function (exponential) used in my calc.

So where have we got to. Are you happy with the model above?

If you set up a working spreadsheet it becomes obvious that there had to be post calculation adjustments.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Jim you could have saved me a great amount of time and angst simply by linking to (as I have done):- A) Elrod’s paper where everything is explained, and B) The spreadsheet model. Please don’t lead me on a wild goose chase like this ever again when you could easily have shortened the process considerably by A and B – life is too short. Yes I am satisfied with the model because now I can see its basis in Elrod’s paper (mass), it’s provenance (IPCC FAR via Seinfeld et al), the formula and why it was different to TAR 6.2, modifications and simplifications to it by Elrod, and the parameters. The decay adjustments are documented in TAR so that’s where I’ll go for those. I’m not set up for Excel at the moment (long story, I’ll get it back one day) but I did load the model into Google Docs spreadsheet to have a look. I couldn’t use it as I would Excel but I could see what it is all about. I’m more interested in the historical development and evolution of GWP to be honest and my discovery that αCO2 = ΔF… Read more »

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Richard C

“Please don’t lead me on a wild goose chase like this ever again when you could easily have shortened the process considerably by A and B – life is too short.”

Well I beg your pardon -that was certainly not my intention. I posted the spread sheet model to Google docs which referenced Elrod but you were not able to pick it. I wrongly assumed the excel format I gave would be self explainatory.

Incidentally I have been trying to get this reviewed for about 2 years so thanks for making the effort and confirming you are happy with the model. I will put the working excel version through to Richard T.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Caveats being:-

The GWP per-mass basis in Elrod’s paper and model.

Elrod’s GWP equation 3 provenance (IPCC FAR via Seinfeld et al 1998).

Elrod’s GWP equation 4 per-mass basis and why it was different to TAR 6.2 per-molecule basis (modifications to TAR 6.2/Elrod 3 by Elrod for Elrod 4)

Simplifications to Elrod 4 by Elrod.for his spreadsheet model.

The whole caboodle (GWPs) still all hinges on (are relative too) the initial values for CO2 (set at 1) and the accuracy of CO2 forcing (and therefore “efficiency”) determination (note RF revisions and therefore RE revisions in Myhre et al 1998, and 1998b I think).

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Thats good enough for me.

At least we now have a simple spreadsheet model that can easily produce a number and we can examine the spurious adjustments made to get to the number 23.

I agree with you whole heartedly that the whole caboodle of GWP’s is flawed but while it is still recognised by governments it needs attention.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

More caveats this time from Wikipedia wrt the GWP(x) expression The radiative efficiencies ax and ar are not necessarily constant over time. While the absorption of infrared radiation by many greenhouse gases varies linearly with their abundance, a few important ones display non-linear behaviour for current and likely future abundances (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). For those gases, the relative radiative forcing will depend upon abundance and hence upon the future scenario adopted. Since all GWP calculations are a comparison to CO2 which is non-linear, all GWP values are affected. Assuming otherwise as is done above will lead to lower GWPs for other gases than a more detailed approach would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential Possibly why TAR WGI were considering a replacement for GWPs Also, where RF “CAPACITY” fits into GWP from the same Wiki article:- GWP is based on a number of factors, including the radiative efficiency (infrared-absorbing ability) [actually radiative forcing “capacity” below] of each gas relative to that of carbon dioxide, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of carbon dioxide.[3] The radiative forcing capacity (RF)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“I propose RFC” for radiative forcing capacity.

Something like IRaa for “infrared absorbing ability” would be a better descriptive perhaps, just as a mental aid and to define what’s being talked about in discussion.

Anything is better than using RF for everything.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

McKinlay GWP model

Jim McKinlay has sent me version 4 of his GWP model spreadsheet and asks me to make it available here. I’m very pleased to do so.

Anybody interested can download the model here from our Downloads folder.

Now also available from the sidebar.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Isn’t it the Elrod model?

Also I get “Not found” at the link above.and at the sidebar.

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

I agree, however I am pretty sure that Dr Elrod will not appreciate this rearrangement of his model being used to show up IPCC manipulation. Your call Richard T.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just a matter of stating that Jim’s model is an adaption of Matthew J. Elrod’s “Greenhouse Warming Potential Model.” and citing this paper that documents it:-

Greenhouse Warming Potentials from the Infrared Spectroscopy of Atmospheric Gases

Matthew J. Elrod
Department of Chemistry, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423
J. Chem. Educ., 1999, 76 (12), p 1702
DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1702
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 1999

Richard Treadgold
Guest

McKinlay GWP model

Let me try this again.

Jim McKinlay has sent me version 4 of his GWP model spreadsheet and asks me to make it available here. I’m very pleased to do so. The file is now in the right place, and my apologies for the inconvenient 404 errors.

Readers can download Jim’s latest model from the sidebar.

Jim’s model is an adaptation of Matthew J. Elrod’s “Greenhouse Warming Potential Model” from Greenhouse Warming Potentials from the Infrared Spectroscopy of Atmospheric Gases, Matthew J. Elrod, J. Chem. Educ., 1999, 76 (12), p 1702. DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1702. Publication Date (Web): December 1, 1999.

Thanks for your help and advice with this, Jim and RC. Let me know if the citation needs correcting.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Bonza RT. The citation’s from the source so I don’t see how there can be any problem and the download links work fine.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’m looking at GWP-modelling-v-4 via Google Docs Jim, so if there’s another sheet other than “Methane 100 yrs” that Docs hasn’t given me can you let me know please.

I’ll have to look up the rationale for cumulative adjustments because that’s what cranks up the number, but as of now I haven’t got a clue about it.

From my background, alarm bells always go off when I see anything cumulative (as in the NZT7).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The direct link to Elrod’s model from his paper is http://www.chem.hope.edu/~elrod/mathcad/gwp.xls

Excel, Version 7.0

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Richard,

I had models with different time horizons for testing but removed them as they a just confusing and IPCC has adopted 100years.

In the lower table (adjustments removed) you will find that you need to put a half life of 27 years for methane (rather than 7) to get to a GWP of 23. Hence the need to use post calc adjustments.

The adjustments described in notes above in some cases are averages of the range of possible numbers quoted as Tar 6 doesn’t exactly say the number adopted.

The main problem is the contrivances around a pulse of methane throwing out the natural balance of OH radicals and therefore lengthening its life. And the adjustment is made twice- we can see that by the use of 12.0 in table 6.7 as discussed earlier. Now methane is more or less steady state this has to be corrected.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

OK I’ve got it all then, thanks Jim. It will take me some time to catch up with your level of understanding of the adjustments because I keep going off on missions (see below) but you’ve given me a head start for what to look for when I do actually get around to the IPCC process in detail. I’ve only just started looking beyond v4 as received but I see the major effects in the 2 calcs:- Pulse => GWP => GWP (mass) Steady => GWP => GWP (mass) including the need to use half life 27 to get GWP 23. I set Radiative Efficiency CO2 to the AR4 value of 0.00001413 (CH4 is unchanged at 0.00037, Elrod used 0.000011 for CO2) and get GWP CH4 25.8 vs 25 AR4. There’s been a ton of revisions since Myhre et al and TAR e.g. from AR4:- Since the TAR, radiative efficiencies have been reviewed by Montzka et al. (2003) and Velders et al. (2005). Gohar et al. (2004) and Forster et al. (2005) investigated HFC compounds, with up to 40% differences from earlier published results. Based on a variety of radiative transfer codes, they… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Received Elrod Model (unbundled).xls by email, thanks guys. It’s in Dropbox here:-

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/Elrod%20Model%20(unbundled).xls

It loads into Google Docs spreadsheet no problem as did the former (bundled) ITS GWP Data so I’m still in the game.

However, in Elrods paper, the model link is to GWP.xls so we have:-

ITS GWP Data.xls => Elrod Model (unbundled).xls

But there’s also,

GWP.xls

It is GWP.xls that I cannot load into Docs and I will have to re-install Excel for. The internet address for GWP.xls is:-

http://www.chem.hope.edu/~elrod/mathcad/gwp.xls (Excel, Version 7.0).

Or

http://www.chem.hope.edu/~elrod/mathcad/gwp.mcd (Mathcad,Version 6.0+)

Question is: what is the difference between GWP.xls and ITS GWP Data.xls ?

Until I get Excel back up I don’t know but if you guys can make a comparison via Excel it would speed up the process.

ITS GWP Data.xls is in Dropbox here:-

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/ITS%20GWP%20Data.xls

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

For some reason the blog wont hyperlink the full Elrod Model (unbundled).xls Dropbox address but if you append “.xls” in the browser address box you should be able to get to it (I can).

Jim McK
Guest
Jim McK

Hi Richard C,

No don’t seem to be able to but If you can see the red box ” replicating cf3ch2f ” which is the unbundling thats fine. Not sure anyone else would be particularly interested.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Did you append “,xls” as per my following comment Jim?

Anyway, I’ve got Excel back up on my system (even tried getting an old version of Mathcad running but couldn’t) and I see the red box ” replicating cf3ch2f ”

What you’ve done Jim, is fulfilled Elrod’s objective. In his paper he describes how the model is a learning tool for students to fill in the necessary data and in the process, learn a great deal.

By your doing so you’re way ahead of the rest of us (well me anyway but I’m learning too).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

For the record and for anyone that stumbles on the preceding comments, the 3 model files are:-

gwp.xls – this is Matthew Elrod’s “Greenhouse Warming Potential Model”

Elrod Model (unbundled).xls – this is Jim McKinlay’s enhanced and extended interpretation (see the red box ” replicating cf3ch2f ”) of gwp.xls as per Elrod’s aims in his documenting paper linked up-thread and accessible here:-

http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch361/spring2006/greenhouse%20warming%20potential.pdf

ITS GWP Data.xls – this is a bare-bones version of gwp.xls and particularly useless – ignore it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The 4th GWP model titled “McKinlay GWP model” is:-

GWP-modelling-v-4.xls – this is Jim McKinlay’s very much more useful multipurpose model compiled in a format that demonstrates the sequence of GWP computation that Elrod’s model does not clearly and simply do.

There are 2 sections:-

IPCC PULSE MODEL

and

STEADY STATE MODEL – IPCC adjustments removed

Both sections demonstrate how an initial GWP is massively boosted by subsequent adjustments.

As accessed, the model will have TAR values e.g Radiative Efficiency CO2 0.01584 but any user can access the latest IPCC values in the most recent Assessment Report and adjust accordingly.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

How the temperature datasets tell us extra CO2 has little effect by TallBloke Since the sun went quiet and cloud cover consequently increased again, not as much sunshine has got into the oceans, and consequently they have started cooling slightly since 2004. This makes the sea surface has cool down, and since land surface temperatures mimic what the sea surface does a few months later, they have cooled too. But the lower troposphere higher up above the ground has warmed, because the excess energy stored in the oceans while the sun was very active and cloud diminished between 1975 and 2004 is now being emitted back out, warming the atmosphere at cloud level, and from there heading out to space. But how come this energy being emitted into the atmosphere from the oceans isn’t being trapped by the extra co2 and then re-radiated back down to the surface and warming it up? The answer is that it is trying its best, but the effect is much less powerful in relation to the effect of a more active sun in the warming period and a less active sun now, than the warmist theoreticians believed.… Read more »

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Gibberish….

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Josh Willis under the scope at Jo Nova.
—————————————————-
BobC
October 8, 2012 at 2:23 pm

There are, in fact, a number of engineers working on calibrating, testing, and perfecting the floats — that’s why they work as well as they do.

Willis, however, used none of this information in deciding which floats to remove from his data set. According to his own testimony [Hotlinked], his sole criteria for rejecting a float’s data was that it conflicted with his colleagues’s models. He reported no attempt to correlate his rejected floats with any other calibration data. He rejected no floats that were reading suspected anomolously high temperatures — only low temperature ones.

His goal, pure and simple, was to get the ‘right’ answer (coincidentally, I’m sure, also the answer that would most likely get him follow-on grants), whatever he had to do to the data to get there.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comment-1131855

Andy
Guest
Andy

New paper confirms findings of Lindzen & Spencer of very low climate sensitivity to CO2 A paper under review for Earth System Dynamics uses a novel technique based on satellite data and surface air temperatures to find that global warming due to increased CO2 is is much less than claimed by the IPCC. According to the author, the findings confirm those of Spencer & Braswell and Lindzen & Choi that a doubling of CO2 levels would only lead to an increase in top of the atmosphere temperature of 0.67°C, or global surface temperature of about 0.18°C, instead of the alleged 3°C claimed by IPCC computer models. The observations indicate a climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1, which is in very close agreement to that found by Spencer and Braswell (2010) of 6 Wm−2 K−1, as well as that found by Lindzen and Choi (2011). A climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1 corresponds to global warming at the surface of only [1 Wm-2]/[5.5 Wm−2 K−1] = 0.18 °C per doubling of CO2 levels [or 3.7/5.5 = 0.67°C at the top of the atmosphere], far less than the 3°C global warming claimed by… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Abstract: Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth’s climate system, but their direct impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention. Here we examine and advance a theory as to how condensation influences atmospheric pressure through the mass removal of water from the gas phase with a simultaneous account of the latent heat release. Building from fundamental physical principles we show that condensation is associated with a decline in air pressure in the lower atmosphere. This decline occurs up to a certain height, which ranges from 3 to 4 km for surface temperatures from 10 to 30 C. We then estimate the horizontal pressure differences associated with water vapor condensation and find that these are comparable in magnitude with the pressure differences driving observed circulation patterns. The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds. Our estimates suggest that the global mean… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor. The argument goes that as surface temperatures rise so more water will evaporate from the oceans thereby amplifying temperatures because H2O itself is a strong greenhouse gas. The fact that water vapor has instead declined indicates water vapor feedback is negative, overwhelming alleged warming from CO2, and accounting for the stall in global temperatures over the past 16+ years. As Dr. Best notes, “All climate models (that I am aware of) predict exactly the opposite. Something is clearly amiss with theory. Is it not now time for “consensus” scientists to have a rethink?” H2O decreasing while CO2 rises ! Reblogged from Clive Best by Clive Best [,,,] Fig1: Total precipitative H2O (running 30 day average) compared to Mauna Loa CO2 data in red. The central black curve is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Cause of the Southwest Heat Wave: Too Little Water Vapor’ by Carl Brehmer, PSI. […] As of now, the Southwestern United States is threatened with a heat wave and for good reason: there is not enough water vapor present in the air to keep the temperature down. Take a look at this snapshot of the distribution of water vapor over North America taken June 27th. As you can see there is a dearth of water vapor in the Southwestern United States at this time and without the presence of water vapor to keep the lower atmosphere refrigerated the temperature predictably goes up, just like what happens when you don’t put water in your swamp cooler. Humidity low = temperature high; Humidity high = temperature low. Thankfully for the people living in Kentucky and Tennessee they have plenty of water vapor present in the air to keep their June temperatures moderate this year. […] It is well understood that as the daytime sun heats the ground, which, in turn, heats ground level air that this high-energy air expands, becomes less dense and ascends skyward. This, in turn, draws cooler, more-dense air from aloft down… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Fascinating. Thanks, Rich.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Southwest U.S. Heatwave Cancelled. Reason? Too much Water Vapor’ by Carl Brehmer Good news! The 2013 Southwestern US heat wave has been cancelled because a deluge of water vapor has moved into the region and cooled everything down. […] This, of course, is opposite what the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis predicts. It asserts that water vapor is a “heat trapping gas” that is suppose to cause at least 22 degrees C (40 degrees F) of atmospheric warming. Here are a just a few statements that conflict with the above empirical observation that water vapor actually cools rather than warms surface level air. From NASA: “Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas . . . Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures. From sequestration.org: “Warmer air can hold more water vapor, which can trap more heat. This creates a positive feedback loop.” From NOAA: “As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere.” From the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas.” From the EPA: “Water vapor… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The influence of water vapor absorption in the 290-350 nm region on solar radiance: Laboratory studies and model simulation’

Juan Du, Li Huang, Qilong Min, Lei Zhu

Abstract

[1] Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere. Absorption of the solar radiation by water vapor in the near UV region may partially account for the up to 30% discrepancy between the modeled and the observed solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere. But the magnitude of water vapor absorption in the near UV region at wavelengths shorter than 384 nm is not known. We have determined absorption cross sections of water vapor at 5 nm intervals in the 290-350 nm region, by using cavity ring-down spectroscopy. Water vapor cross section values range from 2.94 × 10-24 to 2.13 × 10-25 cm2/molecule in the wavelength region studied. The effect of the water vapor absorption in the 290-350 nm region on the modeledradiation flux at the ground level has been evaluated using radiative transfer model.

>>>>>>>>

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/new-paper-finds-up-to-30-discrepancy.html

Andy
Guest
Andy

The Rob Wilson thread on Bishop Hill is interesting
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/wilson-on-millennial-temperature-reconstructions.html

Rob Wilson is a climate scientist who dared to crticise Mann and is now getting blasted by Mann on Twitter

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I liked David Rose’s response:

“The new climate orthodoxy: if you question the work of Mike Mann, you must be a “denier”. At least it has the virtue of simplicity.

https://twitter.com/DavidRoseUK/status/392294705196576768

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The ocean is broken’ Nothing could have prepared Ivan Macfadyen for the devastation all around him as he sailed the Pacific. […] They told us that this was just a small fraction of a day’s by-catch. That they were only interested in tuna and everything else was rubbish. It was all killed, all dumped. They just trawled that reef day and night and stripped it of every living thing.” […] ”After we left Japan it felt as if the ocean itself was dead,” Macfadyen says. ”We saw one whale, sort of rolling helplessly on the surface with what looked like a big tumour on its head. I’ve done a lot of miles on the ocean in my life and I’m used to seeing turtles, dolphins, sharks and big flurries of feeding birds. But this time, for 3000 nautical miles, there was nothing alive to be seen.” But garbage was everywhere. ”Part of it was the aftermath of the tsunami that hit Japan a couple of years ago. The wave came in over the land, picked up an unbelievable load of stuff and carried it out to sea. And it’s still out there, everywhere… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest

A fascinating dialogue is developing amongst knowledgeable scientists regards residence time of C14 CO2,,,, (Be sure to read the comments),
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/co2-residence-times-take-two/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Good for a giggle. ‘Climate change: The case of the missing heat’ Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. * Jeff Tollefson, 15 January 2014, Nature | News Feature http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525 # # # First they allude to an alternative explanation for the IPCC’s 1976 and 1998 anthro warming period”, Blowing hot and cold “An analysis of historical data buttressed these [NCAR’s} conclusions, showing that the cool phase of the PDO coincided with a few decades of cooler temperatures after the Second World War (see ‘The Pacific’s global reach’), and that the warm phase lined up with the sharp spike seen in global temperatures between 1976 and 1998 (ref. 4).” Then it’s back to GHGs again for post 1998. Heated debate “That opens the door, he [Mark Cane, Columbia Univ.] says, to the possibility that warming from greenhouse gases is driving La Niña-like conditions [post 1998] and could continue to do so in the future, helping to suppress global warming. “If all of that is true, it’s a negative feedback, and if we don’t capture it in our models they will overstate the warming,” he says.” Can’t wait… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Finally some serious questions being asked by some serious climate scientists at the American Physical Society in an open and public forum. I thoroughly encourage everyone to read this:

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/

About time these question were asked, and we all know the ramifications the answers will have.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Magoo, this is a spectacular development. I’m elevating your comment and link to a post so it’s more visible and hope to have time for more comments on it soon. Thank you!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Hansen et al (2005) have an estimate for planetary oceanic thermal inertia (as do others in the literature). Here’s a synopsis for the record. The article, and Hansen et al, make a crazy miss-attribution but the point is the lag time between planetary energy input change and atmospheric temperature response: Mostly citing the above-linked Science study by Hansen et al Earth’s thermal climate inertia is often quoted as being ’40 years’ [“10 -100 years” – Trenberth]. The study [Hansen et al 2005 – see link in article] says something quite different though. It offers a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value. http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-climate-system-thermal-inertia-7086/ >”a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value” I think this is a very realistic estimate, it is longer than some others e.g. Abdussamatov’s 20 yr ocean-only and 14+/-6 land+ocean, and certainly a lot longer than “time constant” experts from other fields (think Electrical Engineers and David Evans N-D Solar Model series – many heated arguments over the oceanic time constant). For example, solar change occurred circa 2005 and is continuing. Using Hansen et… Read more »