Interpret this as you will but I think Flannery is as relevant to the Australian climate debate as Al Gore is to the US. In his latest speech he enthuses about the uptake of new renewable energy. He fails to mention for example the cost of CO2 avoided by solar PV is over $400 per tonne nor is it much good in the low or no light conditions that can prevail about 80% of the hours in a year.

Flannery seems careful not to upset his political masters. Therefore nary a word about the hypocrisy of coal exports nor the potential of nuclear to replace coal. Via carbon tax I think we will achieve very modest emissions cuts through price deterrents and slight displacement of fossil fuel. However real climate scientists want big cuts immediately. A decade from now we will still have petrol cars and most if not all of the big coal fired power stations. Flannery's recent enthusings will then seem short sighted and deferential.

Alright Anthony, the message being presented by Flannery and the Climate Commission may be a bit compromised and made to look overly positive in the way that the world is dealing with AGW or in the way that Australia’s efforts are conforming with efforts in various other countries.

But that’s about it. You are not suggesting that AGW is not real, that we shouldn’t be striving to do something about addressing it or that we shouldn’t have a climate commission.

It just seems to me that the point of your article doesn’t amount to much. You haven’t taken it on to any significant end.

continued

I’d make two very significant points about the Climate Commission:

Firstly, it should absolutely be considering the threat of peak oil or of changing oil economics as it becomes a lot more expensive as we move into more sources that are harder to extract. This is surely a much more tangible motivation for the development of renewable energy than AGW!

And secondly and even more importantly, it should be a Sustainability Commission and not just a Climate or Energy Commission!

If the taxpayer is going to fund something like this, then it should be a body which looks at our future in a holistic manner, rather than just dealing with one part of our future energy supply issues. It should be looking at the ever-increasing demand for energy, both in Australia and the world and having a lot to say about how this demand can be stabilised if not reduced, rather than apparently only dealing with energy supply problems and mechanisms.

We need to look at both the supply and demand sides of the energy equation and strive to balance them in a way that can be maintained in an ongoing manner. That’s what the commission should be about, surely!

The continuously rapidly increasing demand for energy in Australia sits in stark contradiction to efforts to reduce emissions.

Flannery has been good on sustainability. But it would appear that he is currently only dealing with part of the energy supply side of the equation, and is therefore effectively helping to facilitate continuous expansionism in this country, which really is taking us strongly away from a sustainable future.

Ludwig. You say: "You are not suggesting that AGW is not real, that we shouldn’t be striving to do something about addressing it."

If it were me, that is exactly what I would be saying. Where is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous problem to mankind? Where is the evidence that the feedbacks to increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions are strongly positive? Where is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the main contributor to observed climate change, and natural cycles and land-use factors are minor?

Do some of your own research rather than accept the propaganda being purveyed by those in authority.

PS. The Climate Commission NEVER answers any of the tough questions. They just regurgitate all the alarmist stuff from the rent-seekers.

Ludwig, you say this:

"You are not suggesting that AGW is not real, that we shouldn’t be striving to do something about addressing it or that we shouldn’t have a climate commission."

AGW has a LOT of evidence against it:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

The THS is ESSENTIAL for AGW, yet it has been disproved; where does that leave AGW?

As for Flannery; he is hopeless; he was advocating the Steig paper on the warming of the Antarctic; and his predictions make him look foolish.

It’s the hypocrisy of many proponents of AGW that feeds skepticism. Just lately we’ve had Tim Flannery bemoaning that some are “play[ing] the man and not the ball”. Yet wasn't Flannery who went around like some old testament prophet making apocalyptic predictions about dams drying up? Flannerly should perhaps consider himself lucky since in past ages prophets who got their predictions wrong faced much harsher judgment.

And it’s the exponents of AGW who have made “ play[ing] the man and not the ball”. We have this gem from Andy Pittman (UNSW Climate Change Research Centre)“ whereas the climate scientists have day jobs … the skeptics are being funded to put out full scale misinformation campaigns…”
And one comes away from Naomi Oreskes’s much revered "Merchants of Doubt" believing that all sources who challenge the official version of AGW are in the pay big tobacco or big oil, or both. And witness the personal attacks Ian Pilmer, Christopher Monckton, Robert Carter, in fact anyone who dares to challenge any aspect of the AGW orthodoxy.

Ludwig, you seem to be saying that AGW is real. Are you confusing it with global warming which ceased about 14 years ago.

AGW is a dishonest assertion, because although it is plausible, it is trivial, and of no significance.

There is no measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

If you know of any science which shows otherwise, please let us have it.

The established science is that climate follows natural cycles, and no variation to evidence any role of human emissions has been shown to exist.

AGW, as promoted by the PC “consensus” which never was, is a fraud.

If you believe otherwise, please put forward a basis for so doing.

I know of none, other than believing the unsubstantiated nonsense of the fraud backers.

Herbert, where’s the conclusive evidence that AGW is not real?

In the absence of any such evidence, and some pretty strong indications that it is real, is it not pertinent to err on the side of caution?

Everyone should be advocating a cautious approach, which is basically the same approach as those who totally believe that AGW is real and serious would want us to take.

Only those complete denialists should be advocating otherwise.

And there cannot be any such thing as a real credible denialist, because we simply don’t have the data to be able to say conclusively that AGW isn’t real!!

In the absence of compelling data either way, we should all be sceptics and should all be supporting a careful approach, rather than the quite absurd rapidly-expansionist business-as-usual she’ll-be-right-mate approach!

But we shouldn’t really even be particularly concerned with AGW because there are two other things that are more important, and if we properly addressed those, we would be doing much more in the interests of reducing climate-changing emissions, or purported climate-changing emissions, than we would be if we continued to try and address AGW in isolation.

These two things, as I mentioned above, are peak oil or the increasing price of oil and its alternatives and the massive effect that this will have on our whole economy and society, and….

…. the ever rapidly growing demand for energy. Instead of just vainly trying to deal with one side of the energy demand-supply equation and letting the other one run rampant, we should be concentrating on balancing the two!

Seems so obvious really. But it just isn’t happening. Not only do the 'denialists' (who like to erroneously call themselves sceptics) miss this completely, but so do the vast majority of ‘warmists’!

Ludwig, have you heard of the null hypothesis? It's an important part of science. It says, in effect, that the person who claims that X is affected by Y has the responsibility of proving it; and unless they can do so in a reasonably convincing way, there is no compulsion to accept their claim.

You've been pointed to one failure to prove the AGW hypothesis: let me show you another by pointing out that the single most important underlying claim for AGW -- the idea that adding CO2 to an atmospheric mixture including 'greenhouse gases' produces greater heat retention than either the CO2 or the gases alone -- has NEVER been empirically proven. Wouldn't take much, would it? Two chambers, a couple of heating pads, two thermocouples, a few replications for reliability.... and yet despite having $100 billion to spend on 'research' the AGW community has never been willing or able to verify their most basic assumption. Interesting, wouldn't you say?

Why not think again? If you're prepared to abandon the smarmy Flannery then common-sense can't be too far to find.

Climate lunacy will not end. Its like the entire planet is out looking for an imaginary creature with people like Gore and Flannery leading the charge.Apparently these fools have nothing better to do than create imaginary doomsday scenarios, NONE of which has come true to date.

When can we disband this lunatic, money sucking scare machine otherwise known as the Climate Commission?

What a waste of our valuable money.

Ludwig, you say this:

"In the absence of any such evidence, and some pretty strong indications that it is real, is it not pertinent to err on the side of caution?"

This is the precautionary principle [PP] and, along with the consensus and the argument from authority, or as Lord Monckton says, the argument ad verecundiam, it has been the mainstay of justifications for the huge amounts of money being invested in failed renewable schemes and the tainting of the science to do with climate.

The PP is derived from Pascal's Wager where a sceptic considered the pros and cons for believing in something which was unprovable, that is the existence of God. That should tell you the falsity of using the PP because it applies where the evidence does not satisfy a sufficient standard which would otherwise apply in science or law.

Do you understand that: there is no evidence for AGW which satisfies sufficient standards of proof?!

I have given you a conclusive DISPROOF of AGW above, yet you would prefer to believe your gut feeling. Well, I'm sorry Ludwig but your alimentary canal should not be the barometer of whether vast amounts of money should be spent or not.

For those who are interested here is an interesting article on the insidious nature of the PP:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf

Also, as a matter of interest the PP already exists in Australian legislation:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1330

Leo, Jon and Atman, I think you’re all on the wrong track entirely.

It is surely not up to anyone to prove or show beyond a reasonable doubt that AGW is real before we undertake actions in that direction.

Surely you can see that it is eminently sensible to move forward cautiously, and that if we are to err, then it should be on the side of caution.

I don’t get it. Why is anyone so loathe to address this point? It seems that the logic of the precautionary principle can’t be countered, so everyone just ignores this inconvenient glitch in their arguments.

Well sorry, but it is an all-important thing. So please carefully consider the precautionary principle and rethink your positions accordingly.

The other thing I don’t get is why are you so desperately wanting to continue with business as usual, with the most enormous rate of fossil fuel consumption; a finite resource, a resource that has got to become more expensive, and allow it to happen an ever-increasing rate?

Can’t you see the folly in this…. and the need to change our ways and strive to balance the demand and supply capability, and do it in a manner that can be continued far into the future?

It seems very clear that those who insist that AGW is false are doing so not because of a genuine belief that this is so, but because they are afraid of the changes to our society or the restrictions that they think our government will impose upon us in order to address it.

Well, as I have said above, we should be doing much of the same sort of things as we would for AGW regardless of whether it is real or complete bunkum, because of peak oil / changing fossil fuel economics and the imperative to develop a sustainable society.

So broaden your outlooks, get away from the narrow insistence that AGW isn’t real and have a look at the bigger picture. Hopefully you will then see that we do indeed need to act, and pretty dam decisively at that.

Ludwig
You mention risk. There may be doubt about global warming but why don't we do something anyway to be on the safe side? Sorry, but its not an insurance situation. Its not possible to take out an insurance policy with a low cost premium. Whether or not the problem is real, doing anything effective about it is proving just so costly and difficult that adaptation is really the only option.

The best policy repsonse is then to appoint a group of non-lunatics to watch climate trends to see what might or might not happen, and recommend policies.

This is why the climate commission is so dangerous. Not only are they refusing to acknowledge the reality that concerted international action to reduce emissions is not happening, they are producing propaganda to try to convince people of the exact opposite.

An illustration of this can easily be found in country-by-country analysis in the report. In the item for Canada, for example, the commission neglects to mention that Canada formally dropped about of the Kyoto protocol last year. There are many more such ommissions.

Curmudgeon raises a good point, which is the cost of risk; that is, even if you believe in AGW, IN THE FACE OF CONSIDERABLE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, is the cost of damage from AGW in excess of the cost of stopping that damage.

This is the classic insurance equation: if the potential damage to your house from a source is $10,000 do you spend $20,000 to stop it, or spend $5000 on adaptation.

There have been plenty of these cost/benefit analyses which include the obvious but always overlooked by the likes of Flannery aspect of AGW, which is, it has BENEFITS.

People like Lomborg, Nordhaus and Monckton have all done cost/benefit analyses of AGW and found the most cost effective way of dealing with it is to adapt and enjoy; see Nordhaus:

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf

On page 218 at Table V-3 it is plain, as I described above, that all abatement programs have higher costs than benefits.

Hi all,

I see the regular alley cats are here getting themselves in group hissy fits.

As the author is an A-grade denier of the first order with his egregious misrepresenting or ignoring of the facts it is a bit of a chore hopping on the horse again to even begin to dissect another offering.

But to his credit he has been a bit more forthcoming with links than in the past.

Let's look at the first statement that caught my eye.

“Flannery's fellow commissioner, Robert Beale compounds Flannery's erroneous statements by saying that Australia is the "developed" world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide "by quite a way". This is true but neglects to mention that compared to all nations, Australia ranks 11th per capita.”

So who are these 10 other 'countries'? Well included as one of them is the Falkland Islands with a population of just 3,140. There is Aruba with just over 100,000 and the Netherlands Antilles with just over 175,000. In fact half of these 'nations' have less than a million residents and the combined population of all ten is less than 75% of Australia's. Pretty shameless effort really.

Ah but it does look good on paper doesn't it.

Given the author's past efforts I'm not sure I'm inclined to bother with the rest of the article so just to put things in perspective; Australia gets 5.2% of its energy from renewables. The figure for China is 17%, over three times ours. In most people's book that would have them doing 'hugely well' in comparison.

Skeptics have shut the gate. AGW does not exist at any cost.
The cyclics say it's all happened before. 7 billion people and fossil fuel.
Others want more evidence. How drastic a evidence.
Some have noticed climate becoming increasingly volatile. Caution is needed.
Nature is in a compromised position.
Ice melt in Greenland and antarctic, are gaining momentum. There is no cure.
An ocean temp; rise of just one degree, is causing great change.
What caused the ocean temp to rise.

Back again, csteele, and still no science to back your assertions.

Human emissions have no measurable effect on climate.

You need some science which says otherwise, before anything you say has credibility.

Why would you worry about lack of credibility, when all you are capable of doing is pointless smearing and making baseless assertions?

Forget AGW, there is now published science to show that we are in a global cooling trend:

"For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.“

Published: J. Esper et al., Orbital forcing of tree-ring data, Nature Climate Change, 8 July 2012

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

There is no science to back what you support, csteele, and plenty to show that you are wrong.

No doubt the number one criteria to be selected for a job by the Gillard Government is shameless. It seems our climate change commissioner fits the role well.

"Alley cats", "hissy fits", "A-grade denier".

Great contribution csteele.

Your only 'point' is this:

"Australia gets 5.2% of its energy from renewables. The figure for China is 17%, over three times ours. In most people's book that would have them doing 'hugely well' in comparison."

And it is wrong:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/china-power-renewables-idINL4E8J80J120120808

Hydro is far and away the dominant 'renewable' in China; so, csteele go and reread what Lomborg said about China; quite simply they are playing the West, particularly suckers like us, about renewables.

Are you really that gullible to think China is going down the 'renewable' path? Now how much do you think China is increasing its coal and nuclear power? By the same % as renewable, bearing in mind the VASTLY greater base coal and nuclear start from compared with the 'renewables', or by a larger %?

Japan sent up a satellite to gather information on CO2. They seem not to be bound by Political Correctness and published the truth about the results. The West absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had long claimed that, ‘there is a consensus among scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are harming global climate’.

The Japanese satellite map shows regions coloured the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.”

http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/15/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory/

This information has been available since October 2011, but there is no change in the misinformation of the AGW fraud backers.

No wonder it is impossible to measure any effect of human emissions on climate. We are net absorbers.

It also seems impossible to stop the false assertions of AGW by the fraud backers.

CSteele's contribution put me in mind of one of the many problems with the Climate Commission's report. It states that 9 per cent of electricity in China came from renewable sources in 2010, but neglects to point out that almost all of it would have come from hydro electricity. The country has major hydro projects, such as the Three Gorges Dam which long predates western obsession with emissions.

The entry for South Korean states, correctly, that the country will have an emissions trading scheme in 2013, but does not mention that the Korean government has declared that 90 per cent of the permits required will be issued for free.

The report is just propoganda and should be treated as such.

@Ludwig "Surely you can see that it is eminently sensible to move forward cautiously, and that if we are to err, then it should be on the side of caution."

In what universe is it 'sensible' and 'cautious' to slap a crippling tax on our most productive producers, and spend the resulting cash on hare-brained green schemes which have already failed overseas?

The first step towards framing a 'sensible' response to an alleged threat is to verify that the threat actually exists. Unfortunately this is the step that the Gillard government has chosen to omit.

If you're interested, Leo Lane, all of the available and recent GOSAT images are here…

https://data.gosat.nies.go.jp/GosatBrowseImage/browseImage/fts_l2_swir_co2_gallery_en.html

As I understand it anything above 390ppm is above current average – the sort of yellowy-red colours.

Certainly seems to be a trend over the last three years although I couldn't find an explanation of why their scale has change from 360-390 in 2010 to 370-400 this year.

Flannery's claim "if we go on stupidly burning fossil fuels the ocean will rise by 80 metres" shows he gives little consideration to even basic maths!

Co2 levels are increasing at a 45 % angle on a yearly basis since 1988.
1988 was said to be the maximun safe level for co2. The levels are recorded every month.

Hey guys. I've got an idea. Why don't we ask the Climate Commissioners, particularly Tim Flannery and Will Steffen, to come and respond to our questions. Isn't that their job.

They will be able to show us why anthropogenic CO2 is a major problem, explain to us why the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around 3.5 deg C, and why natural cycles and land-use factors are minor.

Funny. I don't think that I have ever seen them respond to any question from any sceptic ever. Now is their chance.

Greenland alone can supply 6.0 metres of that ocean rise.
Arctic, Antarctic, every glacier, Must add up to a fair total.
Biggest year to date for antarctic ice melt, and its winter.

Dear Leo Lane,

From memory in our last discussion I called you loopy. I have seen nothing to change my mind. Everything tells me not to engage you again but hell I'm a sucker for punishment. Is there a specific point you would like me to address? If so I will give it a go.

Dear cohenite and curmudgeon,

You area pair if inseparable twins aren't you. Will either one or both of you tell me why hydro is only a so-called 'renewable'? It is a form of energy that is renewed when it rains and does not involve the use of ongoing fossil fuels. China has 18.5% of the world's hydro production and you two dismiss it like it is inconsequential.

And Lomborg is right in saying that China is the world's leading investor in environmentally friendly energy production. The crying shame is that a fair slice of that pie came from Australian research and technology that couldn't find friendly pastures here under the Howard government and the attacks from the likes of you two. Your ignorance, misinformation, denigration, and myopia has contributed to pissing all that up against the wall. It could have been so much different.

Dear cohenite,

I made several points, not just the one, in my post and the main one was to reveal even in a cursory glance how much you try to mislead on this issue. I am glad you are staying away from the science because you particularly suck at that aspect of the debate, but it turns out you are not all that flash on geography either. The Falkland Islands a country? Mmm.

<< Whether or not the problem is real, doing anything effective about it is proving just so costly and difficult that adaptation is really the only option. >>

Interesting comment, Curmy.

This amounts to just continuing with business as usual and making no attempts to soften the landing when things go awry.

I’d say that the sensible thing to do is to strive to change our ways. It will only take us so far, so we’ll have to do a whole of adapting as well.

But what we should be striving to deal with is peak oil and changing energy economics, population growth and an overall sustainability strategy. We should basically be setting climate change aside, because if we address these other things effectively, we’ll be dealing with climate change more effectively than if we try to address it in isolation.

Yesterday I wrote:

< So broaden your outlooks, get away from the narrow insistence that AGW isn’t real and have a look at the bigger picture. Hopefully you will then see that we do indeed need to act, and pretty dam decisively at that. >

As I thought would be the case, in the subsequent comments, there is not a mention of this all-important point.

It does indeed seem too hard for AGW detractors to deal with. They are only interesting in denouncing AGW and really don’t want to look at the bigger picture at all.

Ludwig,

You do realise you shouting in the desert here, don't you.

I was going to jump aboard and have a bit of a scrap with the deni....oops! skeptics, but cohenite spoiled the moment by mentioning Lord Monckton - and I've only just stopped laughing.

Oh well, best of luck anyway.

: )

There is not just denial, i suspect it comes with a religious component as well.

Ludwig,
I am a sceptic and when there is proof of AGW I expect Tim will let us all know. In the meantime I am aware that there are somethings that humans have no influence over, Like tides, earthquakes and others. Mother nature will keep on and I think we are placeing too much importance on Our own place in the overall scheme of things, to think we can change the worlds climate.

The thing that irritates me most about the AGW advocates is that at all the talkfests they hold about the matter, they refuse to even consider the influence of increasing population on the use of fossil fuels and the increase in CO2. If they consider humans are responsible then lowering the number of humans has to be the responce.

So much idiocy from the AGW acolytes.

csteele reinvents reality again by saying I suck at the science when he, and bonmot, indeed the lot of you are MIA; I gave a link to an analysis of the THS in the thread; none of the gang have any replies, just, as Lord Monckton says, the usual argument ad verecundiam, ad hominem, ad nauseum, to which the standard hubris and condescension comes thick and fast. And never has arrogance been underpinned by so little substance as when it gushes out from the Alarmists.

And the resident weirdo says:

"There is not just denial, i suspect it comes with a religious component as well."

You people have no capacity for self-criticism or irony do you; contrary to what 579 says it is AGW believers who are religious; it's official:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dismissed-employee-agrees-settlement-in-green-case-1949594.html

About the Judgement:

"Last year, a judge, in a landmark decision, ruled that his belief in climate change was legally akin to a religious belief and should be protected from discrimination".

So, AGW alarmists do not argue from a real world perspective but a religious reality; that explains the implacable and steadfastly devoted clinging to the belief in AGW, and why there is this attempt to set up a cloister between the saved believers in AGW and the disbelieving heretics.

The religion of latter day....what? Coolists, that's the opposite of hot/hell but it's been done; of course Flannery is a believer in gaia, so Gais: The religion of latter day Gias!

csteele

In fact, you are right. Hydro is a renewable, but that was not the point. The point was that its a renewable that the Chinese have been building up of their own violition,long before the Western obsession with saving emissions. the Chinese are, in fact, obsessed with building dams. There is nothing wrong with that (well, there wouldn't be if building dams in China was not part of a racket - but that's another story)but the Climate commission report presented the figure, without any explanation or breakdown, as if it was a part of a Chinese drive towards renewables. In fact its just a byproduct of the chinese system and geography.

Chinese investment in PV and solar equipment is mostly to supply the western obsession with emissions, not for domestic use. Any investment in domestic systems is for show.

As you can see the point about the Climate commission report being straight propaganda stands. Its a government body and should not waste public money and resources producing reports that simply present the activist case for controlling emissions.

Ludwig, the big picture is that AGW is the greatest attempted fraud in human history.

There is no demonstrable effect of human emissions on climate. If you know of any such science, demonstrating any measurable effect, you are again invited to let us have the reference.

Otherwise, your stance has no basis. AGW has been put forward as a theory, and has no quantifiable basis. Any effect of human emissions is trivial, and not measurable.

How have you managed to keep yourself on the dark over the matter, Ludwig?

Why do you think that the word of the IPCC, run by a non scientist, and with a proven track record of dishonesty, should be taken over the assertion of 31,000 scientists in a petition that no action should be taken until a scientific basis is established?

The AGW scam is dead, and will eventually lie down. The baseless faith of people like you, Ludwig, give the corpse lifelike twitches.

“Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 "Climategate" e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship”

This is an extract from an excellent summary of AGW. Read the article at:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7mvumju

<< …they refuse to even consider the influence of increasing population on the use of fossil fuels and the increase in CO2. If they consider humans are responsible then lowering the number of humans has to be the responce. >>

Exactly Banjo. This is the most enormous and extraordinary oversight in the whole AGW business.

I find it flabbergasting that all this concern over AGW hasn’t automatically extended itself into much greater concern over population and sustainability, and led to a concerted effort to address the whole shebang!

This biggest criticism from the AGW detractors should not be that some efforts are being made to address this issue, but that these efforts are basically being far too narrowly focussed or misdirected and should be about the achievement of sustainable societies all over the world and within this, balancing energy supply and demand in an ongoing manner.

As I keep saying it should hardly matter if we think AGW is real or not, we should be addressing the whole sustainability bit, and in doing so, we would be addressing AGW inadvertently if you like… and doing a far better job of it than if we continued to address it in isolation.

This is of paramount importance, but alas, practically all those who are interested in the AGW subject, on both sides of the debate, don’t seem to be interested in this part of the picture at all!!

This really is mind-boggling in the extreme!

.

Thanks for the response Leo, but you have just indicated what I am saying beautifully. A well-considered response, but not a thought for the bigger picture of sustainability!!

.

Cheers Poirot ( :>)

You know what, Ludwig. I think that I might be agreeing with you, at least to some extent. My concern about the whole mad campaign to blame anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the only culprit for all observed climate change is that not only is it wrong, misguided, and entirely unsupported by evidence (assumptions in computer models do not constitute evidence), and not only that the overwhelming influence of natural cycles is dismissed as minor, but that the serious human impacts relating to land-use are effectively ignored.

Man is having major impacts on local and regional climate in many parts of the world through land-use factors. By land-use factors, we can include deforestation, urbanisation, draining of swamps, industrial agriculture with its use of pesticides, herbicides, monoculture, and GM seeds, and interference with natural hydrological cycles.

Effects of anthropogenic land-use factors are widespread. In the US in the 1930s, they led to the dust-bowl issues. Today, there is desertification going on around west of Beijing, around the Ural Sea, and in other places. The human impacts are profound, and dangerous.

And to the extent that the wider population thinks that there is climate change, it can be that they are observing these local and regional effects, and conflating them with AGW.

The reason that I bang on about CO2 being such a minor problem is that it is vitally important that we begin to address these wider issues. Sustainability if you like

This is it; Flannery rabbits on about China and renewables when in fact the only renewable China is progressing with is hydro, which is opposed by the Greens!

In fact, however, nuclear is renewable too because the first stage enrichment creates a better fuel source; and Thorium can use 'waste' plutonium. China is also proceeding with nuclear, another renewable opposed by the greens/Gais.

It really would make the nonsense science of AGW irrelevant if the Gais would advocate workable alternative energy sources to the fossils; but the fact that they persist in completely failed renewable energies such as wind, solar, wave, geothermal etc informs any reasonable person that the real agenda of the Gais is to restructure society into a poorer more miserable form, as advocated by the likes of Hamilton in such books as "Growth Fetish".

Seen in this light AGW is not about science but about lifestyle ideology; and what a bunch of wowsers the Gais are; it's basically hairshirts all the way!

Remind me, csteele, when did you “engage me”?

I asked you a question, you could not answer it. Is the irrelevant nonsense you posted thereafter your asserted “engagement”? You did not even make it into the ring.

I will extract the relevant part of the post I directed to you on another OLO thread.

“the following statement is a scientific statement: "…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

Can you refute that science, csteele?”

Obviously, you cannot.

You now ask: “Is there a specific point you would like me to address?”.

You appear to have a difficulty with comprehension of plain English.

Herbert.

I agree that human disturbance of the earth’s surface and hydrology by way of clearing vegetation, changing transpiration rates, infiltration rates, runoff rates, reflectivity, fire regimes, farting cows, etc, etc, must surely have a great deal to do with any anthropogenically incurred climate change that might be happening.

<< The reason that I bang on about CO2 being such a minor problem is that it is vitally important that we begin to address these wider issues. Sustainability if you like >>

Excellent. You’ve made my day!! ( :>)

Ludwig, noone is disagreeing, least of all me, with the view that humans do impact on the environment.

Now, accepting that fact, the issue becomes a cost/benefit analysis; that is, does the particular action impact on nature in a way which overall is of benefit to humanity.

What the AGW discussion has changed is that criteria of benefit to humans; now the criteria is that ANYTHING which impacts on nature is wrong not because it may be of a detriment to humans but because of the simple fact that nature is compromised. Now we are seeing the right of nature to be left alone by humans regardless of whether the interference with nature is of benefit to humans. This is reflected in the bizarre demands for criminalisation of offences against nature; the so-called offence of ecocide.

Everything humans do impacts on nature; humans have removed themselves from the oppression of nature and built civilizations which allow many more humans to live a lifestyle which is free from the tyranny of nature.

So, when I read people like you go on about sustainability what I understand is that you want some sort of return to "natural" limitations put on the lifestyles of people.

Is that right, is that what you mean by sustainability; and if so what parts of the modern lifestyles enjoyed by people living in Australia do you want curtailed or removed?

Dear Poirot and 579,

The denialist movement has very deep similarities with the religious movement, especially with their refusal to engage the appropriate science.

My wife's side of the family are fundamentalist Christians, all good folk but mad as hatters on the issue of evolution. For more than three decades we have argued ourselves to a standstill on creationism, so much so that whenever we have another crack at it, as we still often do, it is done with smiles on our faces. In fact my father-in-law keeps my subscription to the Creation magazine up to date each year. You have to read it to believe it. Just like the denialist movement it is so full of incidental and junk science which is inflated to provide 'absolute proof' refuting evolution.

All the same wealth of characters appear here on OLO and it is a fun exercise pairing them up.

Leo Lane's equivalent would of course be Runner. Both fundamentalist to their core, utterly dismissing counter argument or science. Not prepared to concede an inch. Both pretty abysmal on the science but ballistic on the diatribes.

Cohenite I would be inclined to pair with the good old Boaz-David who use to haunt the halls of OLO. Fundamentalist deniers of evolution/AGW but at least prepared to engage in the debate to a degree. Still not real flash on the science but are prepared to try and bluff often with BS. A little reluctant to fly their true colours but will confirm their faith with a little prompting.

Curmudgeon I would tie in with Peter Selleck. Notably more knowledgeable and moderate, sometimes seen to get a little frustrated with the efforts of the more strident members of their flock. One would think these two would be the most open to changing their positions given rational and sound evidence but often they have invested so much of their professional integrity in their position they can be the less open to change than one might think.

The rest of us need to remember science and rational argument is not all that is at play here.

My dear Leo Lane.

You wrote;

““the following statement is a scientific statement: "…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.” Can you refute that science, csteele?” Obviously, you cannot.”

Really? Again?

Okay. But I'm not sure you won't just ignore it since this is what you did last time.

Hansen et al 1988.

I remember discussing the age of the earth with my Creationist father-in-law. Light travelling through space from distant galaxies he would counter with early creation time not being the same as ours, sedimentation rates were attributed to the Flood, carbon dating was deemed to be completely unreliable after 2,000 years. The problem was that none of these were tangible tactile things. Finally I thought I had him. I had been through some caves in WA where the guide had told us some impressive stalactites were over 60,000 years old. When I asked him how he knew he replied that there is a finite rate at which they grow, if the water rate is too slow they plug up and if it is too fast it erodes the structure instead of building it. From memory about a cubic foot equated to roughly a thousand years.

When presented with this he completely ignored it. Only years later did he suddenly spring on me a photograph of a 6” long stalactite forming underneath the War Memorial in Melbourne, slapping it down with some degree of triumph. However when we did the calculations its volume was consistent with the guide's figure. Haven't heard a peek since nor have I raised it. Funnily enough it did appear as an issue in the afore mentioned creationist magazine. I like to think a question from him might have prompted it but given his closed mind it probably is unlikely.

You are very much like him Mr Lane.

I had suspected that divine intervention was at play. Some of the denying aspects are glaringly obvious, other forces were involved. Not good for rational discussion

csteele, you are the most bloviating source of hot air I have come across. You are the perfect troll; you ignore the overwhelming refutations of the sparse science you do invoke, such as Hansen 1988, which I have shown is contradicted by Foster and Rahmstorf 2012, and repeat the message as though the message continues to be valid.

The comparison of sceptics like myself to the creationists or tobacco advocates or Nazis is just ad hom of a primitive, puerile but typical nature which defines the Gais.

To people like yourself, csteele, who pull the creationsist red herring, or should that be transitional fossil, I simply refer them to this, which I endorse:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/wackononsense.pdf

Simply put, Gais like yourself, do not have any science because AGW does not have any science; as President Klaus says:

“Discussing technicalities in more and more depth will not help us, because the supporters of the global warming doctrine are not interested in them. We are not dealing with people who are authentically interested in science, in objective truth, in
identifying the causes of incremental changes in temperature. For them, the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists. Data and theories, however sophisticated, will not change their views.”

Dear cohenite,

In my first post here I said of you the author “his egregious misrepresenting or ignoring of the facts”, words I had taken from your article where you had used them to describe Mr Flannery.

Then you hype the religion theme with things like “So, AGW alarmists do not argue from a real world perspective but a religious reality; that explains the implacable and steadfastly devoted clinging to the belief in AGW, and why there is this attempt to set up a cloister between the saved believers in AGW and the disbelieving heretics.”

But when I come right back at you with the same theme you get yourself all tizzy.

It seems you are more than happy dishing it out but when the same is directed at you you get sulky again. Sorry to say it is typical bullying behaviour.

I'm more than happy to keep the debate on reasonable terms but when you lot sabre rattle it is a lot of fun replying in kind.

As my kids would say; You need to suck it up princess!

Now to you dipping your toe back into the science of this debate after the debacle of your two Germans. You are certainly a sucker for punishment.

Who do you have for me now? Oh Foster and Rahmstorf who you say contradict and refute Hansen 1988. Good God man, have you even read the thing? I'm not sure you could find a more solid piece of validation for Hansen's 1988 work than their paper. Here is a hint my friend, don't take summaries of denialist web sites as you will always find yourself in the poo. I am more than happy to recommend their study to anyone looking for good science on the projections of Mr Hansen.

You really are a dope aren't you mate. In fact you are that bad I'm seriously thinking you may be working for the other side. Curmudgeon could well be getting suspicious of what seems more and more like well planned trolling. Sorry if I have blown your cover.

So, the author thinks I'm missing in action - oh such a 'pissant' is he.

Actually, some people have real jobs and real lives - unlike Cohenite/Anthony Cox and the Leo Lanes of the world.

How do we know? Just Google "Anthony Cox" (or cohenite) or "Leo Lane" + "climate change".

Incidentally, I think 3rd (and 4th) generation nuclear is the way to go. Does that make me a 'Green', or Gaian?
No, despite accusations to the contrary.

Interested? Check out this web site:

http://bravenewclimate.com/

The idiocy of the author's rants and ravings, whilst amusing ... are, let one say - boring.
Evidence? See comments from his fellow travelers.

At the end of the day, the author is what he accuses others ... a simple troll with nothing better to do than use OLO as a platform for his own 'cultist belief'.

Unsurprising? Absolutely.

Csteele persists with Hansen 1988, I presume he is referring to Hansen’s published testimony before the Senate committee; that infamous incident where Hansen turned up the heaters, closed the window and then intoned about rising temperatures. What a guy!

The 2 relevant Hansen papers are 1981:

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CHansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

And 1984:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html

In those papers Hansen gets a non-feedback climate sensitivity for 2XCO2 of 1.2-1.3C.

Foster and Rahmstorf [F&R] isolate a non-feedback climate sensitivity of between 1.4-1.8C.

This is, I suppose, why csteele argues that F&R ratify his mentor Hansen.

But F&R have shown there has been no alteration in the rate of global warming. And up to date that rate of global warming has been much less than what AGW [and Hansen in 1988] predicted. The solution for AGW is to differentiate between transient climate sensitivity [tcr] and equilibrium climate sensitivity [teq]. The difference between these 2 concepts is described here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

The difference between tcr and teq is that tcr will occur in about 70 years and teq about 200 years; both tcr and teq are estimates of how long the heating from AGW takes to manifest in the global climate system. They are both a product of Trenberth’s missing heat, which is presumed to be in the ocean. BUT, if heat is not being stored in the ocean then that AGW rate will not rise in the future so both tcr and teq are contradicted.

Most of the recent studies are not showing any heat being stored in the oceans. Secondly, if the AGW temperature response is constant when CO2 is increasing, if AGW is real [ie something else is not causing the temperature increase] then feedbacks must working against the increased AGW effect in a negative fashion. So, this means that the negative feedbacks prevent any heat being produced so as to be capable of being stored in the ocean; which explains why heat is not being stored in the ocean.

F&R have proved there is no stored heat and whatever warming we have had has occurred. This is fundamentally different from Hansen.

Csteele is wrong.

@ Bonmot,

11 lines.

10 of which are personal attacks on other posters.

Only 1 of which (if we are generous) might be construed as a comment on AGW

Unsurprising? Absolutely!

Dear cohenite,

A welcome change in tone and I hope to respond in kind.

I'm a little pressed for time until this evening but I was indeed referring to Hansen's 1981 paper which for some reason I flagged erroneously as 1988 and as you say Foster and Rahmstorf did peg a higher climate sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 than Hansen.

I'm just a little confused to what you are arguing. If you don't believe in AGW nor it seems in the greenhouse effect then why are we splitting hairs on the very processes and studies that support them? Shouldn't you just be completely rejecting them outright or am I missing something?

Something has definitely improved there in the way you are responding, cohenite. Well…towards me at least, for which I thank you.

So I’ll retract my total dismissal of you as expressed on another thread recently and re-engage with you.

In your first post you put up this link:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

I agree that the computer models are only as good as the assumptions and data plugged into them, and that they are potentially way off the mark. But any flaws shown to exist in the models, or even a credible complete debunking of them, don’t prove that AGW is not real!

<< As for Flannery; he is hopeless… >>

Well, he has certainly gone downhill in my admiration of him, since the days of the Future Eaters. It would seem that his message is a little overdone and is certainly not a holistic outlook.

This really is a crying shame, because he has been one of the foremost commentators on sustainability.

I wish that the Climate Commission would morph into the Sustainability Commission. If it did, I would think that he would still be one of the best people in the country to lead it.

I’d like to think that his current diatribe is a result of restrictions placed upon him by his political masters, who know that he is inclined to be outspoken on a much broader front than just climate change. So if he was freed up, I think we’d all be a whole lot better off.

"If you don't believe in AGW nor it seems in the greenhouse effect then why are we splitting hairs on the very processes and studies that support them?"

CO2 is a heat trapping gas; it is constrained by Hotell's principle and Beer's law; at the current levels of CO2 concentration increases in CO2 have a logarithmic declining effect on temperature; this has been known for a long time; Schneider's 1971 paper describes the effect:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract

Grapahically the effect is thus:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

This can be confirmed by the use of the Modtran calculator:

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html

What this means is that the heating capacity of CO2 is effectively exhausted, with further increases having almost immeasurable influence.

To overcome this AGW theory relies on heat being stored in the ocean and being released in the future and positive feedback from, primarily water. Neither is happening; the heat is not being stored in the oceans and water feedback, through clouds is negative.

AGW is a failed theory but that doesn't mean that CO2 is not a 'warming' gas. That is not "splitting hairs".

"Neither is happening; the heat is not being stored in the oceans and water feedback, through clouds is negative."

Nope:

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2012/state-of-the-climate-2011-ocean-heat

Clouds reflect sunlight back out to space, and inhibit infrared radiation from escaping to space. Clouds can have a positive, or sometimes a slightly negative, feedback.

The slight negative feedback from clouds does not cancel out the overwhelming positive feedback from water vapour.

Ocean Heat Content [OHC] or the measurement of the change in heat stored in the ocean is controversial because in 2003 the ARGO flotation devices were introduced. ARGO was much more accurate then the hit and miss, literally a bucket over the side of a ship, system which prevailed before.

Since 2003 the OHC has been nearly flat, with an almost imperceptible rate of increase; the comparison between the rate of change post ARGO compared with the rate of change before ARGO is discussed here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/ocean-heat-content-adjustments-follow-up-and-more-missing-heat/

The difference ARGO made to the measurment of the OHC can be seen by this graph where the 'jump' in OHC at the point of the introduction of ARGO represents over 40% of the increase in OHC since 1955:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/loehle_ohc_fig1.png

So, what we have is an artifact of the change in measurment being responsible for over 40% of the increase in OHC and since the new, more accurate ARGO system came in, effectively NO increase in OHC.

Bonmot's other point is that water is a +ve feedback outweighing the "slight negative feedback" from clouds.

This is not right for 2 reasons; firstly clouds are an overwhelmingly -ve feedback:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017626.shtml

And many other papers also show this -ve feedback from clouds.

Secondly the amount of water in the atmosphere has been declining:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e7e7d179970c-pi

So, even if water vapor is a +ve feedback it has been decreasing.

Very similar to what we term 'Roy's Ravings', no wonder some amateurs are taken in by it.

Keep trying though, it gives us a laugh over a morning cuppa.

Dear cohenite,

With respect I did not ask you if you thought that CO2 is a warming gas rather whether you believed in the phenomena known as the 'green house effect'.

It may well be a given, and I'm not wanting to labour the point, but it is an important thing to get past if discussion on the other matters you have raised might ultimately bear fruit for either of us.

bonmot, you've got nothing; as usual; some scientist; I bet you're a bureaucrat.

csteele; define the 'Greenhouse' effect, including its climatic impact.

And unlike another here, I don't have ADHD either.

Dear cohenite,

I think we both know what the greenhouse effect is but okay.

The greenhouse effect is the mechanism that causes the difference between the Earth's effective radiating temperature of around -18C and the Earth's actual temperature of around 14C. That mechanism involves the radiating properties of gases and water vapour.

Do you agree that such a mechanism exists and has a role in warming our planet?

Cohenite, in your second post you condemn the precautionary principle, which I must say is really quite bizarre.

Then in a subsequent post, you indicate that you really don’t understand the concept of sustainability at all, which again I find quite bizarre.

You asked;

<< So, when I read people like you go on about sustainability what I understand is that you want some sort of return to "natural" limitations put on the lifestyles of people. Is that right, is that what you mean by sustainability; and if so what parts of the modern lifestyles enjoyed by people living in Australia do you want curtailed or removed? >>

I want there to be a balance between supply capability and demand, for energy and all of our vital resources. Not a continuously increasing demand, ie never, ending population growth, and not a do-nothing approach in the face of massive oil usage while the supply capability is set to struggle in the near future, at least at anything like current prices.

It’s not a matter of curtailing any aspect of our current lifestyle, although some improvements in efficiency and reductions in average per-capita use would be good, in ways that don’t reduce peoples’ quality of life.

How do you think our lifestyle in Australia might be affected if we just continue blithely on with business as usual?

Don’t you think that it would be a much better idea to plan for the future even if it costs us a bit now, rather than blunder forth into a major upheaval, which will cost us very dearly indeed?

Actually, I’m not surprised that AGW denialists have no real concept of sustainability. If they did, they wouldn’t be pushing so hard for business as usual and be denouncing any little cost that we might incur in order to be a bit more sustainable.

continued

So what do you say – do you agree with me and Herbert Stencil that we should be broadening our outlook and addressing the overall sustainability issue rather than getting bogged down on AGW, and that AGW is effectively irrelevant inasmuch as we’d be doing the same sort of things anyway if we properly addressed sustainability?

You go on at great length with attempts to poo-poo AGW. Who knows, you might be right. But really, it doesn’t matter, if you look at the bigger picture!!

Ludwig; I agree generally with you about population; population for its own sake seems ridiculous; but apart from some advocates of a “Big Australia”, the main advocates of population seem to be religions.

More generally you are talking about planned economies; they are hell on Earth IMO; compared with the free market capitalist democracies; with our type of society, the best IMO, it is not so much population but fashion and new products. Personally I detest the fashion and fads; I drive a 10 year old car and try to invest in productive enterprises.

But people like their trinkets and accoutrements; who is going to tell them otherwise; some fashion Nazi? Is that what you want to be? How else are you going to change lifestyle decisions by free citizens?

Csteele; assume you are right about the 33C global average temperature [GAT] above what the temperature would be without a gaseous atmosphere, some issues arise:

1 What are the relative contributions of the gases to that GAT of 33C? In this respect confine your response to H2O and CO2.

2 Will further increases in CO2 have the same relative contribution to increases above 33C as they have in establishing the 33C?

3 Does the atmospheric pressure contribute anything to the 33C; consider whether an identical atmosphere in mass but constituted of different gases would have the same GAT.

4 Does the GAT meaningfully represent the energy balance of the Earth? By that I mean does a rising GAT prove a positive balance with more energy being retained within the atmosphere and vice-versa?

5 Are there homeostatic processes whereby an increase in any of the gases is ‘compensated’ by a counterbalancing force such as is anticipated by the theory of Maximum Entropy production [MEP]?

Dear cohenite,

I understand you are passionate about this subject but perhaps in keeping with our new found civility the best way foward is to take it in turns asking and answering questions.

Having responded to your initial question it would be good to get mine out of the way before we proceed further.

On the matter of global warming 'do you agree that such a mechanism exists and has a role in warming our planet?'

Cheers.

<< Ludwig; I agree generally with you about population; population for its own sake seems ridiculous … >>

Excellent, cohenite.

<< …but apart from some advocates of a “Big Australia”, the main advocates of population seem to be religions. >>

The most powerful advocates are the big business lobby, which has enormous ability to influence government decisions, not least through the despicable antidemocratic donations (decision-buying) regime. And our government whether it be Lab or Lib is very happy to accommodate that enormous bias!

<< More generally you are talking about planned economies; they are hell on Earth IMO; compared with the free market capitalist democracies >>

It is not a matter of one or the other; it is a matter of finding the right balance between government regulation and market forces. Even the freeest market economies still have a certain level of government control.

<< How else are you going to change lifestyle decisions by free citizens? >>

Not by enforcement, but by education and incentivisation.

Ludwig,

I was watching a documentary recently and was taken aback by the control corporations have over agriculture in both the West and the third world.

A couple of points caught my eye:

- that 75 percent of the world's seed commerce is in the control of 5 companies - F1 hybrids introduced, meaning that people have to pay, pay and pay for things that have in the past been common property, shared and saved amongst the people.

- One fellow displayed a thirteen volume collection on botany, describing the apples, pears, etc that used to be cultivated in France and surrounds - 3,500 varieties. There are now only 5 varieties of apples officially sanctioned in France.

- One Doctor of Science revived a variety of potato that was all but lost - and he was "fined" because that potato was not on the official list.

Free market - it appears the only freedom is the freedom of the corporate world to control the market and usurp the common man's right to share and cultivate the myriad varieties that were hitherto available to everyone.

Very interesting Poirot.

<< Free market - it appears the only freedom is the freedom of the corporate world to control the market and usurp the common man's right… >>

Exactly. The freeer the market, that is: the less government control, the more unbalanced and unethical it will become, with the big, powerful and ruthless elements winning the day.

For all the problems we have with government, and one of them is the strong degree of facilitation of big business interests, it is still vastly better than no government or much weaker government regulation over the market.

And this extends into the fields of climate change, peak oil and overall sustainability.

I just totally disagree with those who desire to see government butt out and just leave it all to the whims of the market or economic forces.

Ludwig,

Yes, I agree that a "totally" free enterprise market with no government regulations is scary in the modern industrial world...yet it seems that governments and the corporate world have worked a ruse quite well taking autonomy in agriculture away from ordinary people, while at the same time making them pay for the privilege of obtaining the new "sanctioned" hybrid seeds.

That documentary is called "Think Global, Act Rural" - worth a look.

Ludwig and Poirot; good luck getting the balance right between big business and big government; one of the ironies of life is that a big ALP government has facilitated more erosion of transparency in the operation of big business than the Coalition; and transparency is the key along with meaningful imput by the individual into the operation of big business and government; that occurs through laws which give teeth and balance to small shareholder say in business decisions, and transparent, fair and representitive electoral processes.

csteele; you are being disingenuous; I have addressed the 33C Greenhouse caused GAT and proposed 5 [the list is not exhaustive] points which establish the relatively minor contribution of CO2 to causing that 33C and also show a declining influence of CO2 over further increases in GAT, and even the irrelevance of the GAT to describing the "Greenhouse" effect.

Yet all you can say is:

'do you agree that such a mechanism exists and has a role in warming our planet?'

I have answered that; but let me more succinct: yes, not much. Now address the issues I have raised beginning with number 1.

Dear cohenite,

I am a little lost. You assert that for a doubling of CO2 “Foster and Rahmstorf [F&R] isolate a non-feedback climate sensitivity of between 1.4-1.8C.”.

Then a couple of post later you say; “the heating capacity of CO2 is effectively exhausted, with further increases having almost immeasurable influence.”

When I pressed you on whether “you agree that such a mechanism exists and has a role in warming our planet?”

You responded with “assume you are right about the 33C global average temperature”. I certainly don't mind you giving an equivocal answer but that wasn't really an answer as such at all.

Where I see the state of play is that I agree with the accepted science on the Green House Effect and its temperature implications for our climate. You finally acknowledge the effect but say in the case of future CO2 increases they will be almost immeasurable.

So is the climate sensitivity of between 1.4-1.8C for a doubling of CO2 as described by Foster and Rahmstorf what you would describe as almost immeasurable?

What am I missing?

Csteel the thing that all the global warming effect of CO2 founders on is the fact that water vapor, & CO2 absorb the same spectrum of radiation.

Once you have 10% humidity, there is enough water vapor to absorb all the radiation in that spectrum.

You can quadruple the CO2, but it will have no effect on how much radiation is absorbed. Any that is absorbed by CO2 simply means it is not available to be absorbed by the water vapor, which would absorb it, if no CO2 was involved.

The above is the reason that none of the global warming crowd will ever engage sceptical scientists in debate, as there is no answer to this fact.

As Mr Abbott says, that's 'crap', Hasbeen.

csteele asks "what am I missing".

F&R find an unchanging climate sensitivity of between 1.4-1.8C for 2XCO2; CO2 has gone up from the base of 280ppm in 1890 to just under 395ppm:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

That's an increase of ~ 41%; according to the IPCC climate sensitivity is 3.2C for 2XCO2:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html

Temperature, GAT, during that period has gone up by 0.7C since 1890; according to the IPCC it should have gone up by 41% of 3.2C or ~ 1.31C.

Would you please explain the difference between what F&R found and what should have happened if the IPCC/AGW theory is correct?

bonmot; as usual, great contribution to the discussion.

Using your own asserted misconceptions and distorted science on an opinion site does not constitute a "discussion", Anthony.

Any serious dialogue I have attempted with you showing where and why you have got it wrong is met with ridicule and derision. I have seen you play with similar tactics on the other blog sites you frequent.

Somewhat amusing but nevertheless tedious because you (a part-time solicitor) want to show anyone who engages that you 'know' more about any of the climate sciences than any of the real climate scientists.

In fact, any "discussion" with a pretender like yourself on a public forum like this will not only confuse you, it will confuse the casual onlooker. This my precious petal might be the agenda of you or any merchants of doubt, however it is not mine.

Have games in your playground if you want Anthony, but having tantrums or displaying a bullying behaviour because someone doesn't want to play your game is immature and childish, IMHO.

bonmot the bureaucrat, the pretender, says:

"Using your own asserted misconceptions and distorted science on an opinion site does not constitute a "discussion", Anthony.'

In my last post I linked to NOAA and the IPCC; how is that my misconceived and "distorted science".

You're hopeless bonmot; even when I quote the top pro-AGW 'science' sources I'm still wrong.

And this:

"In fact, any "discussion" with a pretender like yourself on a public forum like this will not only confuse you, it will confuse the casual onlooker."

You arrogant twerp! Hey, any of you "casual onlookers" confused yet? I bet you are trying to marry bonmot's claims to be knowledgeable on the science with the drivel he actually writes!

Howdy, cohenite,

That's not very nice.

Me thinks you're right off beam on this one - and that bonmot is a scientist working at the coal face - and that he is often frustrated that a non-scientist like yourself has a penchant to graffiti threads with erroneous science.

But you get 10/10 for confidence.

@ Poirot & co,

<< bonmot is … working at the coal face >>

You mean like this?
http://tinyurl.com/99qt9k3

While he’d no doubt excel in shoveling the dirt,
the *rigour* required would be too much for him.

Care to show me where Bonny?

Poirot, what a good big sister you are to your scamp of a younger brother, bonny, who has such a big ego and thinks he is so much better than the rest of us.

Perhaps you can do his homework for him and explain what is wrong with my little example above about temperature and CO2 increases, all sourced, as I say, from bonmot's very own best science sources?

I'm sure you'll do that because you don't think you are better than the rest of us, do you?

Behold my mighty hoop!

if you do not jump through it, you will LOSE!

Why do you not jump through it, puny blogger?

Dear cohenite,

Could well be my fault in that I'm not communicating this properly.

You have said that Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981. You are obviously happy with their science or else you would not have posted it.

In the conclusion to their paper they wrote about finding the “true global warming signal” (which is what you have acknowledged and accepted) and that its “unabated increase is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate.”

This is why I remain confused.

Do you

a) accept their science and their conclusion therefore why do we have an issue?

b) accept their science but not their conclusion which is why I asked you the original question?
Quote
If you don't believe in AGW nor it seems in the greenhouse effect then why are we splitting hairs on the very processes and studies that support them? Shouldn't you just be completely rejecting them outright or am I missing something?
End Quote

or c) reject their science and their conclusion therefore why do you say it contradicts and refutes the IPCC and Hansen 1981?

In light of my obvious confusion perhaps replying with questions may be unhelpful.

csteele says:

"You have said that Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981. You are obviously happy with their science or else you would not have posted it."

Why would I be happy with F&R and not either of the other 2 parties to what is confusing you? That is my point; they all contradict each other, yet we are told the science is settled.

Other than being another part of the AGW jigsaw F&R do not contribute; their alleged contribution is to isolate a "true global warming signal", which I have not accepted; however this signal for AGW is treated by them as an independent variable; do you know what that means csteele? It means that global warming is correlated with global warming because an independent variable is determined by the experiment against which other variables are tested; in effect F&R have predicted the trend.

Look at the results of F&R's multiple regression for GISS [based on Table 1 of the F&R paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf :

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend [independent variable] + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

What they are saying is based on the above equation which is derived from their paper:

Trend (GISS) = 1.024 Trend(GISS) + “other factors”

therefore:

- 0.024 Trend(GISS) = “other factors”

This has the effect of burying the “other factors” as -0.024 * GISS, and simply fitting GISS to itself. The true AGW signal is what F&R have determined themselves.

{end part 1]

I'm comming to this late in the piece and am not going to read all the foregoing stuff. Let me make a plain point and see what you all have to say.
The curve for population growth is close to identical to the curve for increase in CO2. We know that correlation does not imply causation. It seems extremely unlikely that the increase in CO2 has caused the increase in human population. It is at least plausible, however, that the increase in human numbers has a causal connection with the increase in CO2 that so closely mirrors it. It is further a great coincidence, is it not, that both curves begin their great climb from the time of the industrial revolution and the increasing burning of fossil fuels. What are the chances that none of these things are related to one another and are just random coincidence?

Or maybe there is a third factor that has caused both: oil.

No, it is not that simple, but this factor has certainly facilitated both population growth and of course CO2 output.

Without it, world population would have arguably been a fair bit lower and CO2 production would presumably have been a whole lot lower.

Even with coal, gas, deforestation, farting cows and the rest, we would probably not be even talking about AGW if we hadn’t have had that black gold miracle energy source.

Dear cohenite,

Okay I think I'm starting to get it.

Because you feel 'Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981' you are making the case that they should all be tossed out.

If that is the case then might I politely advise that using the word refute could be deemed inappropriate here. Usually something is only refuted by something else if that something else has greater weight or proof. However in this case you see them all as equally bereft of scientific worth. Contradict is definitely the word for this occasion.

It is just from here Foster and Rahmstorf appear to have used real world data in validating a 30 year old paper that on the face of it did a rather good job of describing the physics of global warming, delivering projections that have been well supported by the very data Foster and Rahmstorf have worked with, and which still substantially holds up today.

I might have you wrong but it appears you want me to dismiss all this science and data because a study done this year doesn't quite match up with the projections of a paper done over 3 decades ago?

Can you see why this might be construed as a rather large ask?

Anyhow to get it straight, you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas therefore you believe in the science of global warming, it is just that climate scientists like Hansen are overestimating by a huge margin the warming effect and because of that exaggeration, plus the fact they can not seem to get their story straight, you feel they should all be given the flick..

Does this about sum it up?

Part 2. Csteele; you say:

“Because you feel 'Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981' you are making the case that they should all be tossed out.”

F&R not only contradict Hansen and the IPCC, they also contradict themselves: consider what statistician and blogger, Ferd Berple shows following on from and using the equation from my first post on F&R;

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

1) GISS = 1.024Trend + bx + c

(2) GISS = 1.0Trend + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(3) GISS = (GISS + d) + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(because y = mx + d, where m=slope=trend, d=y intercept)

(4) 0 = 0.024Trend + bx + e

(5) Trend = -(bx + e)/0.024

F&R have not solved for GISS. By including Trend(GISS) as an independent variable they have ELIMINATED GISS. What they have shown is that the Trend in GISS can be fully explained as a linear result of MEI, TSI, and AOD, without any reference to CO2.

In other words, F&R have proven that Climate Change is fully explained by the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), the Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD), and the Volcanic Aerosol Optical Depth data (AOD).

F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in recent climate change!

This is the sort of thing which laymen like myself have to deal with continually from the climate science 'experts'; I can do the math and most of the statistics; this is not rocket science; it is nonsense and it is the basis of all the policies which this witless government is introducing.

I also think it is fraudulent; and I wonder how you can defend it.

Dear cohenite,

Just a suggestion if I may, in order for myself and others to ascertain and properly reply to your arguments then a clear delineation of what you have pasted from other sources is always helpful. I find when including large sections from another the most appropriate way is to start with the word “Quote” and finish with “End quote”. That way there will be no confusion over what is the opinion of the other author and what is yours.

Also if you are going to add your own emphasis such as the word “ELIMINATED” then naturally the words 'emphasis added' would also be appropriate.

I have said before you are obviously passionate about this topic and often in the rush to post, these little things get overlooked.

Now that the minor housekeeping is out of the way I'm wondering if you are able to let me know if I have the following correct; “you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas therefore you believe in the science of global warming, it is just that climate scientists like Hansen are overestimating by a huge margin the warming effect and because of that exaggeration, plus the fact they can not seem to get their story straight, you feel they should all be given the flick.”

That way we will both have a firm idea of where the other is coming from.

Are you saying I can't do the regression on Table 1 from R&S csteele? Why don't you do one and show where the results I posted are wrong.

This is an attempt to verbal:

"you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas therefore you believe in the science of global warming,"

It can be broken down into:

1"you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas"

Yes, but Greenhouse is a BAD term.

2 "therefore you believe in the science of global warming,"

That doesn't follow at all.

Who is Ferd Berple?

Is he a peer reviewed statistician?

I googled and mostly came up with links to wattsupwiththat....

Poirot; he's a blogger, statistician and nice guy; I think it's amazing that I have put up stuff which I have either got from other people, checked myself and/or done my own research/calculations and all you are concerned with is the status of the people you are talking to.

This sums up the AGW scam entirely; it's about snobbery, class and distinction with no substance at all. I mean Ferd has shown that F&R have shot themselves in the foot and disproved AGW but that is ignored.

How banal is that?

cohenite,

I wuz only asking.

It not his status so much, as his expertise that is the question - although the two are definitely linked.

Also I'm a fan of unusual names, and Ferd Berple is rather stunning in a daggy kinda way.

Some vintage IPCC apparatchik nitpicking going on here:

1) “ Just a suggestion … when including large sections from another the most appropriate way is to start with the word 'Quote' and finish with 'End quote'…Also if you are going to add your own emphasis such as the word 'ELIMINATED' then naturally the words 'emphasis added' would also be appropriate.”
[Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 10:49:37 AM]

(when you can’t debunk the argument nitpick your way around it!)

2) “Who is Ferd Berple?
Is he a peer reviewed statistician? “
[Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 1:41:06 PM]

(If s/he does appear on the Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage and sundry AGW hangers-on then we don’t have to answer his arguments …he’s not been peer reviewed!!

S/B

If s/he does NOT appear on the Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage and sundry AGW hangers-on then we don’t have to answer his arguments …s/he’s not been peer reviewed!

csteele, with the patience of Job:

Cox/Cohenite makes the same mistake as Tisdale, even without the quotations.

Neither understand 'time series statistical analysis', a point Tisdale alluded to himself in his WUWT post.

Yes, simple 'trend analysis' isn't rocket science, but Tisdale (and Cohenite) don't apply the correct statistical tools.

To be sure, Anthony Cox need only contact Foster or Rahmstorf and put his 'argument' ... then put their response here.

He won't.

Why? (hint: it's got nothing to do with him being wrong)

Dear cohenite,

I'm not sure you can really sustain the claim that I was verbaling you when I expressly asked you whether I had 'the following correct'. It was up to you to either accept it as a true representation of your position or correct it.

You chose the latter by saying; “It can be broken down into: 1"you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas" Yes, but Greenhouse is a BAD term. 2 "therefore you believe in the science of global warming," That doesn't follow at all.”

Admittedly this has been a little tortuous but I feel we are getting to the nub of the matter.

It seems, setting aside problems you have with the term 'greenhouse' which I acknowledge doesn't adequately describe the effect, you were happy to answer 'yes' when I put to you the following definition and question.

“The greenhouse effect is the mechanism that causes the difference between the Earth's effective radiating temperature of around -18C and the Earth's actual temperature of around 14C. That mechanism involves the radiating properties of gases and water vapour.”

“Do you agree that such a mechanism exists and has a role in warming our planet?”

You went on to qualify it by saying the effect was “not much”.

I had taken this to mean as you accepted the science behind the green house effect and the radiative or warming properties of CO2 and water that ergo you accepted the science behind planetary warming, it was just the extent that was the issue.

I'm wondering if you can help me understand where my logic has fallen down as it seemed pretty clear to me.

Dear SPQR,

Thank you for your input.

I had written a good part of my reply responding to the following assertion “F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in recent climate change!” which I had assumed was cohenite's. It was only on looking up Mr Berple that I found that was not the case. The above post was my rewritten response. I defy you to read his post and say that assumption was unreasonable. I gave cohendite what I thought was a gentle reminder to be more careful in the future and you are getting into a high dudgeon over it.

Could it be that if this were another topic you would be giving a less than gentle nudge to have a poster follow simple posting etiquette?

Dear bonmot,

Thank you, but just as an aside the notion the Job was patient doesn't hold up with a reading of the book. I had a little fun dissecting it a few years back on OLO. Here is the link if you needed to fill in some time. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2912

As to Anthony we are certainly making progress in understanding the other's position, something that isn't always evident in the usual hurly burly of the debate.

Bonmot says:

"Neither understand 'time series statistical analysis', a point Tisdale alluded to himself in his WUWT post."

To quote csteele, now we are getting somewhere; bonmot, please explain the 'time series statistical analysis' which you say negates what Ferd did [and csteele, you will note I did acknowledge him; and I have checked him; have you?]; in particular can you explain the difference between a linear trend and a linear time trend and can you explain which F&R used to produce their result of a clear AGW signal?

I am genuinely interested in your response to this because this is the nub of csteele's infatuation with the Greenhouse effect and whether it has an infinite trend a la tipping point[s] or is a homeostatic process via MEP, or some other correcting mechanism.

Feel free to include Levitus's latest paper on Ocean Heat Content, which also raises this issue:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtm

Dear cohenite,

You really are an enigma aren't you.

It really is pretty straight forward.

You believe in the green house effect and you believe that CO2 is a warming gas, both of which are major planks of the global warming science, yet you reject that science.

More to the point if you don't believe in the science of global warming then why are you so intent on attempting to use many aspects of that same science to try and disprove people like Hansen and others? Surely these are tainted tools you are using. Shouldn't you just reject them outright and be done with it?

Its kind of like using illegal wire tapping to disprove a case of illegal wire tapping, ultimately quite circular.

Further you are in the habit as in your last post of asking people to use that 'tainted' science to make their case. But why should they bother if any case constructed using the tools you reject will be inadmissible in your eyes?

Perhaps just a short precise post by yourself on where exactly you stand would be a really positive thing to move forward with. That would neatly illustrate your grasp of the issue and put to bed the impression you only get others to engage in the technicalities so you can transpose discussions from other blogs to counter them.

As to Ferd (I'm assumimg its a pseudonym for Fred) I did not say you had failed to acknowledge him just that I, and I assume others, had a problem recognising where he ended and you resumed. No biggie.

“You believe in the green house effect and you believe that CO2 is a warming gas, both of which are major planks of the global warming science, yet you reject that science.”

An example of why my position is NOT contradictory or enigmatic:

CO2 is a warming gas and the Greenhouse effect, badly named, does exist but AGW science is flawed; AGW science says CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas [see Lacis et al] and is both responsible for most of the warming which has already happened and will happen; in respect of the first point this proves it wrong:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

In respect of the latter, this proves that wrong:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png

Simple as that.

Anyway, that’s enough; I’m getting no response to the ‘technical’ issues I keep raising, just the usual obfuscation and patronising and that’s boring.

Dear cohenite,

I am more than happy to get more technical with you since by doing so we may well ascertain whether your position is truly enigmatic or contradictory.

Plus I do welcome the unqualified nature of your assertion in your above post.

What you have given me is a prime example of exactly what I was talking about.

You use the science from Ramathan and Coakley 1978 to attempt to disprove something yet from the same paper we have this;

Quote;

Schneider [1975] concludes that the models of Manabe [1971], Ramanathan [1975a], and Schneider [1975], provide the most reliable estimates for (change in) Te, which estimate 1.9, 1.5 and 1.45K respectively, for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. All three models neglect the 10um and 7.6um bands of CO2 (see table 7). More recently Augustsson and Ramanathan [1977] adopted the radiative-convective model of Ramanathan [1976], reevaluated (change in) Te after including all of the CO2 bands listed in Table 7, and estimated (change in) Te = 1.98K.

End quote.

The science you have accepted in allowing you to make the claim this paper disproves something is in total agreement with the science of global warming that you reject.

Why shouldn't I take this as being contradictory?

That’s correct csteele; Ramanathan also notes that Schneider and the rest of the model results are based on fixed cloud altitudes and fixed relative humidity; neither are ‘real world’. The latest research on cloud impact on radiative balances is here:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/PAPERS/2011_Cloud_encyclopedia_submitted.pdf

This paper confirms the negative feedback from clouds because it establishes a strong correlation between total cloud cover and temperature with total cloud cover declining over the last 4 decades as the GAT has increased.

In respect of RH, AGW theory relies on it being constant [AR4, wg1, CHP3, p40]; it appears to be decreasing:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1

I am happy to discuss Ramanthan’s formative paper more if you care to comment first on my interpretation of his Table 6 and its comparison of the relative effects of H2O and CO2 on radiative trapping, to use Greenhouse terminology.

Your Job link csteele, it’s a treasure – thanks.

To extend “Ehyeh asher ehyeh” a little further. Anthony will be what Anthony will be; ergo a part-time solicitor pretending to be a part-time ‘climate scientist’.

It may not be “evident in the usual hurly burly of the debate” (at least for the casual onlooker) but many here have for a long time understood where Cox/Cohenite is coming from. In this respect I have to disagree with your statement “we are certainly making progress in understanding the other’s position”. Indeed, if it wasn’t for his blog or his allegiance/alliance with other so called “sceptics” like Jo Nova, Jenifer Marohassy, Anthony Watts, the ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton, etc, etc. then yes, your optimism could have been justified.

Nevertheless, I think your post (Tuesday, 28 August 2012 11:09:25 PM) sums Anthony/Cohenite up quite well. As to “getting technical” with Anthony, what’s the point (given this previous post of yours)? Indeed, as you have alluded, it becomes quite circular.

If Anthony/Cohenite really wants to “get technical”, he would take up the suggestion to contact Professor Stefan Rahmstorf directly. Then post back here. After all, Stefan is one author of the F&R paper Cox keeps banging on about.

.

Anthony Cox/Cohenite

>> please explain the 'time series statistical analysis' which you say negates what Ferd did ... in particular can you explain the difference between a linear trend and a linear time trend and can you explain which F&R used to produce their result of a clear AGW signal? I am genuinely interested in your response to this… (sic) <<

My response:

rahmstorf<at>pik-potsdam.de

Or if you’re more open minded (smiley), try going to Foster’s site and use Tisdale as the search term:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=tisdale

Look at 'Tisdale Fumbles, Pielke Cheers' for starters.

As to Levitus, I haven’t the time to do your homework (lunch break beckons).

ps: congrats on breaking 100 - too bad it's mostly off topic and mostly your posts :)

Another Greens shibboleth bites the dust.

Want unbiased assessments? Investors have no allegiance except to making money.

http://www.dailywealth.com/1918/Why-Everyone-Is-Wrong-About-the-American-Oil-Boom

In 2011, the U.S. consumed 22% of the global oil supply. So what goes on in the U.S. oil market will have a profound effect around the world. And as DailyWealth readers know, what's going on is an incredible boom in oil production.

Oil production is up 34% from its low in 2005. And it could more than triple over the next 10 years.

If the U.S. continues to produce more and more oil (which it will), we'll buy less oil from other regions, like Africa and the Middle East. This will pull down the global price of oil.

Also, realize that the U.S. economy, while not in a recession, is still sluggish. This "near recession" condition is showing up in muted demand for oil-derived fuels. Fuel production (diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel) consumes 79% of the oil we use in the U.S. Today, global fuel demand is down 13% from its peak in 2007. Demand for gasoline and jet fuel peaked in April 2007.

Dear cohenite,

Here is your problem. You can't keep putting up papers to disprove things then tell us how inadequate or inaccurate they are.

And why are you trying to disprove what you deem unprovable?

It must really be doing your head in, it is mine and I'm only trying to keep up.

The overwhelming impression I get is that you think the whole lot is a crock. That is fine but if so just say it.

The alternative is for you to present the papers that you fully endorse as solid science to make your point. If you have any of those I would be more than happy to indulge in a technical discussion of them.

Is the link you provided one of them?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/PAPERS/2011_Cloud_encyclopedia_submitted.pdf

Shall we try there?

Dear bonmot,

Thank you for the kind words about the Job thread.

About my discussion with Anthony, the post to which you refer was only arrived at from what went before.

Further as an article writer for OLO he deserves every chance to explain how he has arrived at the position he now finds himself. I think that is somewhat clearer now and will hopefully solidify further as we continue. This should allow myself and others to have a more nuanced perspective on future contributions from him.

Besides all that my knowledge has certainly gained from the discussion and I thank him for it.

Fair enough, I wish you both well.

csteele, I will shortly have an article published dealing with what I think are the major recent research papers which have contradicted the theory of AGW.

I will refer to that article here after it is published. I am currently dealing with another topic and will be busy with that for the next day but I will look in here and will respond to any observation or comment you care to make about the cloud paper or Ramanathan's paper or indeed any other aspect of AGW you care to raise.

Dear cohenite,

I would love to give my observations or comment on any paper you were able to give unequivocal support for. One that you agree with both the science and the conclusions.

You name it and I'm there!

Is the cloud paper one that enjoys your unabashed support?

Morning csteele,

Had dinner with a colleague last night and we were discussing ocean heat content.

He flicked this link to my email this morning:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

Anthony raised Levitus the other day, he'll probably do it again in his next "published article".

Hope it helps.

SS's take on Levitus should be read in conjunction with David Stockwell's appraisal here:

http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/

As for clouds and negative feedback; the Warren and Eastman paper I linked to verifies what Ramanathan has found in other papers:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/243/4887/57.abstract

And what is believed to have been the case in the past:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5873/195.abstract

Dear cohenite,

I wrote; "I would love to give my observations or comment on any paper you were able to give unequivocal support for. One that you agree with both the science and the conclusions."

Do any of the three links you provided in your post above fill that criteria? I'm keen to get started.

csteele, you say:

"I would love to give my observations or comment on any paper you were able to give unequivocal support for. One that you agree with both the science and the conclusions."

I do have a number of papers which I think conclusively debunk part or the whole of AGW; rather than give you one paper I will give a number which have looked at an essential part of AGW, the tropical hot spot, {THS]. These papers are analysed here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

Do you think the papers make a good case for concluding that the AGW prediction of a THS has been refuted?

Dear cohenite,

Great. Thanks for that. I had never heard of the Tropical Hotspot before nor that is was a core assumption of global warming science. But hey, always up for extra knowledge.

Just to confirm before we get started, the three substantive papers that are quoted in your link are Douglass et al (2007), McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman (2010) and Christie et al [2010]. Are you giving unequivocal support for all three papers cited including your acceptance of both the science and the conclusions contained within?

Douglass et al (2007), as described, had faults which is why the later papers are so important because they rectify Douglass's problems and address the critique of Douglass by Santer et al 2008.

McKitrick et al 2010 and 2011, Christy 2010 and Fu et al 2011 are the key papers.

McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011) and Miskolczi 2010 are fun but tough.

Recent statement summary from the American Meteorological Society:

Quote: It provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future.

It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature. End quote.

The full statement can be found here:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

This is also worth following (despite a glitch in the server)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/

The great scientist, bonmot, has linked to NOAA climate data; NOAA is a joke, continually adjusting its temperature indices upwards:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/july-was-also-the-329th-consecutive-month-of-positive-upwards-adjustment-to-the-u-s-temperature-record-by-noaancdc/

GISS is worse:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6440/Is-It-Really-The-Warmest-Ever

These organisations, the driving 'evidentiary' force behind AGW, simply adjust data to fit the ideology.

It is a disgrace, it is a public scandal, but it seems to to be working, having sucked in the intelligentsia and other policy drivers for whatever reasons, all to the disadvantage of the ordinary citizens and humanity as a whole.

You must be very proud bonmot, looking down at the rest of us from your moral vantage point; idiot.

Seems the author is also blinded by the latest statement from the American Meteorological Society statement:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

An OLO author calling a commenter an idiot is an example of cyber-bullying, reflecting more about the author.

Good stuff, Anthony.

Yes, cohenite,

Excellent stuff... a fine commentary from the self-styled spokesman for "ordinary citizens and humanity as a whole."

But I'm awaiting csteele's return to the thread...shouldn't be too long now.

Aw diddums, did I hurt your feelings; don't worry I can see big sister, Poirot, will look after you.

Still waiting for ONE comment from you, in your own words, about anything to do with the science, instead of this unrelenting linking and cutting and pasting to sources of rubbish, which I show to be rubbish.

cohenite,

I'm not defending bonmot - he doesn't need it.

I'm here to expose your baloney for what it is.

And that includes your cosy tactic of "speaking for the common man."...which would be more use to them if you were actually a scientist:-

....which you're not.

Aw precious petal, I see I have hurt your feelings.

You relentlessly link to Anthony Watt’s and Jo Nova’s sources of rubbish, and make up your own brand of ‘science’.

Rather than stoop to your level of gutter drivel, I link to the recognised and established scientific research and organisational institutions doing real science, all of which employ real sceptics – not the ‘fakes’ like yourself.

Here is a list of the institutions you designate ‘rubbish’:

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

And you call me an idiot? The only ‘idiot’ here is ‘Lord’ Monckton's Aussie-lackie.

Where's the science? You're now resorting to Wiki?!

I can see I'm not going to get any sense out of you 2; the fact is the official [sic] measurements of climate are problematic, the evidence is plain, yet, here we have 2 intelligent people naively and gullibly accepting the authority of these tainted sources.

Very sad.

Dear cohenite,

A big weekend spent slaying a few more brain cells has kept me from replying to your earlier post. This is the first chance I have to get into the papers you have cited as deserving of your fulsome and unqualified support.

Happy to take them one at a time.

McKitrick et al 2010

My problem is I'm having a real issue trying to find a copy of the paper that is not behind a pay wall. Even going to his own site brings no joy. Could you please furnish a link so I might have a chance to examine a non-abridged version?

Thanking you in advance.

I have washed around the AGW debate for a while and hadn't heard of McKitrick et al 2010 though I can see why he might be big in some circles. I must say though that in searching for the paper I did find some pertinent facts.

After the Germans I had been hoping for someone at least well versed in the physics of climate change and global atmospherics so I was a little disappointed to find McKitrick is yet another economist.

You need to understand cohenite that for a layman like my self, who through a degree of personal research has by now formulated a particular view on the topic, it is a really big ask that an economist is going to carry much weight.

However there is something to be said for some dry, dispassionate number crunching, even from an economist so I thought it would still be worth a look.

However I was particularly dismayed to find he is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's 'An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming'
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

cont...

cont...

“We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”

“We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”

“We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.”

He also co-wrote an Interfaith Stewardship Council letter in 2006 including the line: "The role of the IPCC in climate studies is similar to that of the Jesus Seminar in New Testament scholarship in the 1990s and Darwinism for the past century."

Well that just chucked 'dispassionate' out the window.

Now normally I would have given him the flick by now but in keeping with our more civil discourse I felt it was important we should attempt to carry on regardless and see where that leads though I must ask cohenite if you are a practising Christian?

Anyway looking forward to casting an eye over the full paper.

Cohenite,

We might as well accept it, CSteele knows too much for us.

When he says:
<< I have washed around the AGW debate for a while >>

This is what he means:

<< Quite a few years ago I too had been wavering on the issue, especially given the hype from both sides. I forced myself to sit through over 20 one hour long MIT lectures plus other readings to get a better handle on the mechanics. >>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5123#138827

So there you go: << over 20 one hour long MIT lectures>>

How can we possibly match that ;-]

And as for the Bonmot/ Poirot sideshow

Why-oh-why am I always reminded of this cartoon when I hear the two of them together?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuWZdzNzji0&feature=relate

SPQR; I must say I am non-plussed by csteele's concentration on McKitrick's Christian background, which I did not know anything about, just as I did not know about Christy's or Spencer's religious beliefs until they were raised by alarmists as though that meant the science these people produced was tainted.

I mean it would be like me saying that Flannery is a gaia worshipper and pagan. I read and listen to what Flannery has to say and I make my mind up that he is a ratbag on the strength of that not his religious beliefs, or lack of them.

Personally, I'm not religious, don't smoke, rarely drink, but I do exercise religiously; what has that got to do with anything? Likewise, on the blogs I read what people say and then make my mind up on that basis; I don't care if they have 2 heads or not.

Anyway, anyone who knows anything knows that the best statisticians are in econometrics, where the money used to be; now they are coming to AGW because idiot governments are throwing tax-payers' money into AGW research. McKitrick is a smart person, smarter than most of the innumerate, pretentious clowns pretending to be climate scientists.

I don't expect much but here is his 2010 paper:

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

Dear cohenite,

Thank you.

I had gone to his site and ended up trying the link presented but all to no avail;

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/model-testing.html

Your claim for this paper is that it is one “of a number of papers which I think conclusively debunk part or the whole of AGW”.

What are you seeing in this paper that I'm not?

The paper seems to be offering an opinion on the most appropriate method for trend analysis for climate data. This is one of the few areas I concede that an economist might contribute to climate science. “for the purpose of multivariate trend comparisons in climatology, we particularly recommend that the VF05 method enter the empirical toolkit.”

I'm fine with that.

The paper is appropriately cautious about the robustness of the real world data “Possible reasons for RSS/UAH differences include treatment of inter-satellite calibration, orbital decay and other processing issues”, again all good.

Note the paper doesn't question that warming is continuing; “In this case the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process.”

My main issue is with the statement; “comparing models to observations in the tropical troposphere is an important aspect of testing explanations of the origins of surface warming.”

No way gentlemen. You can't concede an upward warming trend on the surface then then say the lack of a definitive signature of that surface warming, i.e. a tropical hotspot, invalidates the science saying why the surface warmed in the first place. From my reading the Tropical hotspot (TH) effect is almost entirely one of the physics of a warmer surface and far less concerned about the Green House effect or CO2 concentrations.

The best we can say of this paper is that it questions the anticipated impact of greater surface temperatures on the troposphere. To claim it “conclusively debunk(s) part or the whole of AGW' is really gilding the lily.

Finally criticising my point about religiosity impacting research with the accusation that money is the driver for those working in the climate field is strange.

csteele

Despite the author's difficulty in understanding the difference between climate modeling and economic modeling, the following article/post and subsequent exchange (of more temperate minds) should explain where the OLO 'wannabe' is coming from:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2012/01/01/21-temperature-trends-msu-vs-an-atmospheric-model/

You will note that Qiang Fu and John Christy (2 of the pretender's poster boys) engage in respectful dialogue with Isaac Held, an eminent scientist from, wait for it ... NOAA no less.

Does Isaac Held (the author) call the commenter/s idiots? Nope.

Btw, this is the same NOAA that the 'wannabe' vehemently rubbishes (along with the many other research institutions and organisations that our pretender doesn't even want to acknowledge) ... unlike the real scientists he wants to emulate.

Pigs lined up on the tarmac and ready for take-off :)

Anyway, keep trying. I admire your tenacity and find the ideologue's adherence to his beliefs quite fascinating, albeit warped.

Here is a link to the "key" Fu et al paper our OLO 'wannabe' says refutes (wholly/in part) AGW.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf

Um, er, nah ... it doesn't.

csteele says:

“No way gentlemen. You can't concede an upward warming trend on the surface then then say the lack of a definitive signature of that surface warming, i.e. a tropical hotspot, invalidates the science saying why the surface warmed in the first place. From my reading the Tropical hotspot (TH) effect is almost entirely one of the physics of a warmer surface and far less concerned about the Green House effect or CO2 concentrations.”

Parallel universe time; the issue is not the warming surface and the THS is NOT a signature of a warming surface but an evaporating one as expressed in the moist lapse rate [you may care to indicate that you understand that point csteele]; in any event the warming surface is less than predicted, and the issue is the fact the tropical troposphere is NOT warming faster than the slower than predicted warming surface, as predicted by AGW; a double failure as it were; see Figure 9.1 from AR4:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html

Global warming theory says the THS should happen because more water will have been evaporated to this part of the atmosphere and would have caused warming at a much more rapid rate than the surface; McKitrick and the other papers, including Fu et al, show this has not happened; this should be plain to even someone of bonmot’s vast intelligence which leads me to suspect his usual snide disavowal of this fact is disingenuous.

I will concede something; at last bonmot has produced a link which is worth reading with some of the main players, Fu, Christie and Thorne, but not McKitrick or Santer commenting at his link.

But bonmot confirms he has no clue with this link; why? Because the discussion confirms my point that the AGW prediction of a greater rate of warming in the troposphere compared with the surface, the THS, is NOT happening. And Fu DOES confirm this.

Dear cohenite,

Quick reply.

“the issue is not the warming surface and the THS is NOT a signature of a warming surface but an evaporating one as expressed in the moist lapse rate”

Really?

Higher surface temps, leading to increased evaporation, leading to more latent energy in the form of water vapour being transported into the troposphere, leading to increasing temperatures in that part of the atmosphere especially in those latitudes.

Different language same thing.

I know I neither have the tools, nor the training, nor the experience to properly dissect the nitty gritty of most of these papers.

Neither do you.

The best I can hope for is to be able to determine if the claims being made for a particular paper have substance. Often this is pretty self evident as it was here but sometimes not.

Which brings us to your three. To some the idea that man could have a global impact on a world designed by god for the express use of us humans is just unfathomable. The notion that we should temper our use of the abundancy of energy sources he has provided is an anathema.

Take Roy Spencer who you mentioned earlier. He says “as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years”..."I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Are you really asking me to ignore the fact that after 'intense' study of the issue for two years this PhD scientist ended up concluding creationism “had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution"? That would not be rational.

Of course it informs our perception of him being able to deliver impartial science, doesn't it yours?

Csteele says:

“the issue is not the warming surface and the THS is NOT a signature of a warming surface but an evaporating one as expressed in the moist lapse rate”

Really?

Higher surface temps, leading to increased evaporation, leading to more latent energy in the form of water vapour being transported into the troposphere, leading to increasing temperatures in that part of the atmosphere especially in those latitudes.

Different language same thing.”

AND IT ISN’T HAPPENING; in any language: the moist lapse rate is NOT decreasing; according to AGW it should be and there should be a THS; there isn’t; seriously, are you unable to understand that basic flaw in AGW theory?

I can’t say it any better than I said before; your preoccupation with the religiosity of these scientists is not germane.

Dear cohenite,

I'm a little lost to know to best explain this to you.

You really need to understand and accept that the so called tropical hotspot is almost purely the result of the physics of a warming surface. A cooling stratosphere may well be a signature of the green house effect but the hotspot is largely independent of that. Leaving out the stratospheric cooling, the atmospheric fingerprints of either a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiation are very similar because they are both involved in surface warming.

The only way you can sustain an anti-AGW case here is to say because you believe the data doesn't show a tropical hotspot then it shows that the global temperature is not increasing. Yet this paper which you so fulsomely supported states, I repeat;

“In this case the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process.”

You either have to disown the paper or disown the physics. What is it to be?

You said;

“the religiosity of these scientists is not germane”

How on earth do you sustain that argument? We are talking about a scientist who intensely applied, for two long years, all his training in the application of the scientific method to the question of evolution and came up with Creationism.

You have only three options open to you. You can either believe as he does in Creationism, or question his scientific training, or finally you question his ability to keep his belief system from impacting on his science.

I do not think it is a coincidence that strong US style Christian belief features so disproportionately in those who are vigorous and vociferous opponents to the science or the dangers of AGW.

I understand that you personally have a lot invested in this so ignoring such an obvious fact is perhaps understandable but you really should not be expecting others on this side to do the same.

Shall we move to the next paper?

Dear bonmot,

Thank you.

I'll reply to csteele in 2 parts:

csteele says:

"You really need to understand and accept that the so called tropical hotspot is almost purely the result of the physics of a warming surface. A cooling stratosphere may well be a signature of the green house effect but the hotspot is largely independent of that. Leaving out the stratospheric cooling, the atmospheric fingerprints of either a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiation are very similar because they are both involved in surface warming."

You may well leave the Stratosphere out of it since I have not raised it.

You continue to, willingly or otherwise, confuse a rate of warming on the surface and in the immediate atmosphere, the Troposphere, with a THS.

A THS is a rate of warming in the Troposphere which is greater than the rate of the surface warming. Is this happening: yes or no, csteele; no more obfuscation and 1/2 baked attempts to explain the physical processes; is a THS occuring?

This is parroted nonsense:

"the atmospheric fingerprints of either a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiation are very similar because they are both involved in surface warming."

They are not equivalent. Increases in CO2 have any forcing effect constrained by Beers Law which produces a logarithmic decline so that there are diminishing returns in respect of extra heating for all additional CO2; solar forcing has not such decline!

The comparison becomes even more stupid when we look at solar main sequence increases in output; the sun over history increases its average energy output 4% every BILLION years; so what the comparison is suggesting is that 2XCO2 is equal to 500 million years of solar main sequence evolution!

Part 2:

A further way of describing how absurd your comparison between 2XCO2 and a 2% in solar radiation is can be done with power conversions: 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun heats the surface to 287K (384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power) for a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1C, while the IPCC, and by proxy you, claim that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from 2XCO2 absorption causes a 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287C and convert to power, the Earth’s surface emits 401.1 W/m^2, which is an increase of 16.4 W/m^2. This means that the IPCC claim of gain, relative to power from 2XCO2 forcing, is 16.4/3.7 = 4.43, which is about 4x higher than solar forcing.

By this reckoning 2XCO2 = an 8% increase in solar energy. Ridiculous. You obviously have no idea, which is fine but do you have to so patronising about it?

Dear cohenite,

Good lord mate what an extraordinary reply.

I mean what on earth is 'solar main sequence evolution'?

Perhaps dialling it back just a fraction might be assist us all.

What the fellows over at Real Climate did was run the model for a doubling of CO2 and again for a 2% increase in solar irradiation and found similar results confirming the position that much of the resultant projected hotspot is dependent on surface temperature not specifically the CO2 increase. Nothing more or less. Quite simple really.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

Why you felt the need to bang on with all the rest is puzzling to say the least. It was also diversionary so let's get back to tin tacks.

The signature effect from the CO2 alone was a cooling of the stratosphere, something that is real and observed. I can see why you didn't want to address it.

You wrote;

“A THS is a rate of warming in the Troposphere which is greater than the rate of the surface warming. Is this happening: yes or no?”

Yes it is. Is it definitive? Not yet. Are small errors in the adjusting of data to handle externals going to have a large impact over decades? Of course! Is more work being done to bring us closer to getting a robust result. Yes.

However there is a way forward for us here. You mentioned Santer earlier. In his 2005 paper was the following; “Both model and satellite data indicate that variability in TS is amplified in the tropical troposphere (Fig. 1, B and C). Amplification of surface warming is a direct result of moist thermodynamic processes”.

He was talking about an observed effect of El Nino occurrences. Are you at least prepared to acknowledge the described hotspot effect even if it were only over the duration of the El Nino? Or do we add Santer to your mound of rejected papers? I'm having difficulty in keeping up with who is still in favour.

csteele, I think you are taking the piss. Some points:

"I mean what on earth is 'solar main sequence evolution'?" Google it.

Santer's THS paper is dealt with here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/#comments

Santer found a THS by NOT using all the data; why would he NOT use all the data if all the data shows NO THS?

Stratosphere cooling is ONE of the predicted effects of AGW; do you know why csteele; consider 'characteristic emission layer' in your research.

In any event Stratosphere cooling is NOT happening; bonmot's thoughtful link to the discussion on the THS shows that:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/files/2012/01/T4.png

Even though the trend lines are down from 1979 [when the satellites came on line] this is due to overcompensation after the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions which initially spike temperatures upwards in the Stratosphere but after the volcanic aerosols fall back to Earth they take agglomerated natural aerosols with them leaving a cooler Stratosphere; but this is only temporary. Natural aerosol production reoccurs; the graph shows a flat Stratosphere temperature since the recovery from Pinatubo in about 1995 reflecting that.

If AGW theory were correct the Stratosphere would have kept cooling after Pinatubo; it hasn't; so thanks for bringing up the Stratosphere csteele; it is another bit of evidence DISPROVING AGW!

Dear cohenite,

Okay so Santer is out.

I get why now. To sustain the argument that the absence of a definitive Tropical Hotspot tied to CO2 increases disproves AGW you certainly can't concede accelerated Tropospheric warming occurs via any other means such as an El Nino event. That was why you went to such lengths to try and discredit the modelling on a 2% solar irradiation increase.

Aren't we getting rather circular again. The El Nino research that showed increases in surface warming induced certain changes in the Troposphere temperatures which in turns informs the IPCC projections about the likely consequences of a warmer surface through CO2 increases. You are now dismissing the El Nino research in order to discredit the GW science? Whew. Tangled webs indeed.

So just to make this crystal clear, you totally reject the rather basic physics that shows under earth's atmospheric conditions a warming of the surface will result in an accelerated warming of the troposphere?

As to your interpretation of the posted graph http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/files/2012/01/T4.png , that the Stratosphere isn't cooling you have got to be joking. It is big and grey and has a trunk, and while I concede both have a tail it is actually an elephant and not a tiger. Forgive me but you must have a pretty ingrained ability to declare white as black if you want us to take from the graph that it is 'evidence DISPROVING AGW'.

Are you sure you don't want to move on to the next paper as this is getting a little surreal.

There has been NO Stratosphere cooling since 1995:

http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf

I don't deny the logic of a warming, evaporative increasing surface being the mechanism for a THS; what I am showing you is incontrovertible evidence that a THS is not happening! So, either the explanation is deficient or missing crucial factors; do you have a better explanation?

The El Nino, or ENSO, of course affects temperature but it is NATURAL! Or are you saying ENSO has changed due to AGW?

Dear cohenite,

You wrote;

“I don't deny the logic of a warming, evaporative increasing surface being the mechanism for a THS; what I am showing you is incontrovertible evidence that a THS is not happening! So, either the explanation is deficient or missing crucial factors; do you have a better explanation?”

Wow! Okay. That's certainly progress.

I take it then that you are prepared to allow the IPCC use of that same logic when they have projected a THS from a warming surface. All very straight forward.

You say; “what I am showing you is incontrovertible evidence that a THS is not happening!”. Yet from the one of the 'key' papers you have given your fulsome support for comes this;

“While satellite MSU/AMSU observations generally support GCM results with tropical deep layer tropospheric warming faster than surface, it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades.”
Fu et al 2012

Is Fu now to be told FU and consigned to the growing mound of rejected papers?

I think the best you can hope for from the papers you have given me is that I recognise the modelling has overestimated the THS effect and I will be happy to do so given the evidence thus far.

To claim it has pulled the foundations out from the whole AGW case is hardly supported and should be withdrawn.

As to an explanation a central theme in all the papers you have supplied has been the difficulty of collating, assessing the robustness of, and evaluating the data. If, as everyone seems to agree, the physics is sound, and the surface temperature is indeed increasing again as all agree, then there may well be an unrecognised confounding factor impacting on real world observations. To be thinking metaphysically is to slide into Creationist territory.

Good csteele, you are reading the literature; now, next step is to understand it; and not selectively quote; very naughty..

Fu and Manabe 2011 is indeed an important paper; and like you, many pro-AGW readers have seen it as a confirmation of the THS, which, I repeat, is a faster warming rate in the Troposphere than the surface.

Fu and Manabe 2011 say this:

"The trends of T24-T2LT from both observations and models are all positive (Figure 2, below), indicating that the tropical upper&#8208;middle troposphere is warming faster than lower middle troposphere [Fu and Johanson, 2005]. But the positive trends are only about 0.014 ± 0.017 K/decade from RSS and 0.005 ± 0.016 K/decade from UAH, which are not significantly different from zero. In contrast, the T24-T2LT trend from multi-model ensemble mean is 0.051 ± 0.007 K/decade, which is significantly larger than zero. The trends from observations and multi-model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals…"

The lower middle troposphere includes the surface; so, as you claim, there it is, proof from Fu and Manabe that there is a THS; yippee.

Read further csteele, what you didn’t include in your quote, the fine print which makes Fu and Manabe standouts in the AGW science circus; the trend difference is “not significantly different from zero”; and the coup de grace; The trends from observations and multi&#8208;model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals.

The difference between the observations [and Fu and Manabe used satellites] and the models is so great their trends are not even within their standard confidence levels!

Now, as bonmot’s links shows, since Fu and Manabe’s study, with more satellite data available, the trend in the Troposphere is now below the surface trend:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/files/2011/12/T2LT.png

The models have greatly exaggerated the rate of trend which a THS would have; Fu finds the barest suggestion of a greater trend but that trend reverses when more, up to date data is added.

ERGO, the prediction of a THS has failed.

Dear cohenite,

I'm trying to reconcile this;

“AND IT ISN’T HAPPENING; in any language: the moist lapse rate is NOT decreasing; according to AGW it should be and there should be a THS; there isn’t; seriously, are you unable to understand that basic flaw in AGW theory?”

and this; “what I am showing you is incontrovertible evidence that a THS is not happening!”

and this; “The THS is ESSENTIAL for AGW, yet it has been disproved; where does that leave AGW?”

and this; “the THS, is NOT happening. And Fu DOES confirm this.”

with this;

“The lower middle troposphere includes the surface; so, as you claim, there it is, proof from Fu and Manabe that there is a THS; yippee.”

Well I suppose it is progress.

I'm afraid,

“It is shown that T24 & T2LT trends from both RSS and UAH
are significantly smaller than those from AR4 GCMs. This
indicates possible common errors among GCMs although
we cannot exclude the possibility that the discrepancy
between models and observations is partly caused by biases
in satellite data.”

and

“While strong observational evidence
indicates that tropical deep layer troposphere warms
faster than surface, this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs
may exaggerate the increase in static stability between
tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three
decades.”

hardly leaves you with a coup de anything.

I repeat:

"But the positive trends are only about 0.014 ± 0.017 K/decade from RSS and 0.005 ± 0.016 K/decade from UAH, which are not significantly different from zero. In contrast, the T24-T2LT trend from multi-model ensemble mean is 0.051 ± 0.007 K/decade, which is significantly larger than zero. The trends from observations and multi-model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals…"

"which are not significantly different from zero."

"not significantly different"

"from zero"

Don't try to argue like a lawyer to a lawyer csteele!

The only paper, outside the Santer paper, which has been shown to be flawed, which 'shows' a THS, Fu and Manabe, finds a THS which has a rate of warming with no, that is zero, statistical difference in rate from the surface.

That aside, I'm sure you'll agree, at the very least, Fu finds the models have grossly exaggerated the rate of warming in the THS

Dear cohenite,

You write;

“That aside, I'm sure you'll agree, at the very least, Fu finds the models have grossly exaggerated the rate of warming in the THS”

I think I have already acknowledged a version of that when I said;

“I think the best you can hope for from the papers you have given me is that I recognise the modelling has overestimated the THS effect and I will be happy to do so given the evidence thus far.”

I should actually clarify by saying 'an aggregate of the models have overestimated the THS effect'.

I note that our own CSIRO's MK 3.0 model was pretty well an exact fit to the real world RSS data. It would be interesting to know what changes were made in the MK 3.5 that produced the shift in projections.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf (fig 2)

I also note that those models which allowed for volcanic activity on top of stratospheric ozone depletion seemed to end up with trends above those just sticking with the latter.

Be that as it may to call Fu et al a definitive refuting of 'the climate models' remains totally unsupported.

But I now want to offer my congratulations, You've committed to a paper, been appraised of a conflict with your position and have gone with the science, something I was admittedly unsure you were capable of. That puts you ahead of the Leo Lane's of this world.

Adopting the tactic of attempting to 'blind with science' is neither instructive nor constructive when debating here on OLO. It is an especially fraught tool anywhere without at least a science PhD to back it up.

Clearly stated positions and rationale can be of great service to advancing the debate and we should all be making every attempt should be made to deliver them.