Time To Put This Scam To Bed

The graph below shows the relationship between downwelling longwave radiation in the tropics (i.e. the greenhouse effect) and atmospheric CO2. I used RRTM_LW as the radiative transfer model, which is the model used by NCAR.


ScreenHunter_1727 Oct. 21 20.02

As you can see, CO2 is a very minor component of the greenhouse effect in the tropics, and almost all of its effect is in the first 20 PPM CO2. Once you get above 100 PPM CO2, adding more CO2 has almost no effect. Water vapor completely dominates, and other gases are almost irrelevant. An increase from 50 PPM to 1,000 PPM CO2 only increases downwelling longwave radiation by 1%.

The same model is used by the following organizations, and can be downloaded from this link : RRTM/RRTMG

RRTMG Global and Regional Model Applications

  • ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts), Reading, UK
      • Integrated Forecast System (IFS), ERA40 Reanalysis
        Began operational use of LW on 27 June 2000 (version prior to LW_v2.0),
        Began operational use of LW and SW with McICA on 5 June 2007,
        Upgrade to v4.84 in progress as of April 2010
  • MPI (Max Planck Institute), Hamburg, Germany
      • ECHAM5
        Began operational use of LW in 2002 (prior to LW_v2.0 from ECMWF),
        Upgrade to v4.84 in progress as of April 2010
  • NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction)
      • Global Forecast System (GFS)
        Began operational use of RRTMG_LW at 12Z on 28 August 2003,
        Began operational use of RRTMG_SW at 12Z on 27 July 2010
  • NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction)
      • Climate Forecast System (CFS)
        Began operational use of LW in 2004,
        Update to include SW and newer LW expected in September 2010
  • NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction)
      • Rapid Update Cycle Forecast Model (RUC)
        Began operational use of LW in November 2008 (prior to LW_v2.0)
  • NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
      • Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF-ARW)
        Released as LW and SW radiation option in WRF_v3.1 in April 2009
  • NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
      • Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5) and 
        Community Earth System Model (CESM1, formerly CCSM)
        CAM5 and CESM1 released with RRTMG/McICA (LW and SW) on 25 June 2010
  • NASA/GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center)
      • Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS-5) Data Assimilation System
        Implementation and testing of LW_v4.83 and SW_v3.8 began in 2009
  • LMD (Laboratory for Dynamical Meteorology), France
      • LMDZ climate model
        Began operational use of LW in 2008-09 (prior to LW_v2.0 from ECMWF).
  • CMA (China Meteorological Administration), China
      • Global/Regional Assimilation and Prediction System (GRAPES)
        Implementation and testing of LW_v4.71 and SW_v3.8 began in February 2009
  • Meteo-France (French National Meteorological Service), France
    • Meso-NH (Non-hydrostatic Meso-scale atmospheric model)
      Included LW as radiation option in 2009 (prior to LW_v2.0 from ECMWF).

RRTM/RRTMG Copyright and Disclaimer

Copyright © 2002-2010, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. (AER, Inc.). This software may be used, copied, or redistributed as long as it is not sold and this copyright notice is reproduced on each copy made. This model is provided as is without any express or implied warranties.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Time To Put This Scam To Bed

  1. suyts says:

    Steve, that’s great!!! Beautiful!!! Links to the data?

  2. @njsnowfan says:

    How many Manhattan’s is this. One day from Oct 20 to Oct 21 a huge area in the arctic froze over.
    Flash freeze.
    First pict is oct 20 second is oct 21

  3. I don’t care about the tropics. I want to know what the relative greenhouse effect of CO2 is at the south pole where there is no water vapor or ozone or methane, at 30,000 feet elevation, in the southern winter when the sun never rises. Stop cherry picking.

    • @njsnowfan says:

      Earth radiates heat in certain infrared spectrums that are allegedly trapped by CO2. However, CO2 is very poor at trapping heat.

      That’s why the Sahara Desert goes from over 120 degrees in the daytime to freezing at night. CO2 cannot trap heat even for a few hours, much less over the long periods of time necessary to make a global difference.

      Water vapor, however, is a very good heat sink. It constitutes 95% of the atmosphere’s heat-trapping capability. That’s why the Amazon only loses about five degrees overnight.

      When this current warming cycle started, about 18,000 years ago, it was due to increased solar energy warming oceans and vaporizing water that trapped atmospheric heat and releasing CO2 gas to feed the plant life.


      • DirkH says:

        @njsnowfan says:
        October 22, 2013 at 3:25 am
        “Earth radiates heat in certain infrared spectrums that are allegedly trapped by CO2. However, CO2 is very poor at trapping heat.

        That’s why the Sahara Desert goes from over 120 degrees in the daytime to freezing at night. CO2 cannot trap heat even for a few hours, much less over the long periods of time necessary to make a global difference.

        Water vapor, however, is a very good heat sink. It constitutes 95% of the atmosphere’s heat-trapping capability. That’s why the Amazon only loses about five degrees overnight. ”

        Sounds like BS. Water vapor is water in its gas phase, it does not trap heat, it absorbs and re emits LWIR photons according to its absorption spectrum and Kirchhoff’s Law. (just like CO2 molecules do)

        What does “trap heat” are cloud droplets (they also absorb LWIR photons to build up their charge separation, but let’s not talk about that here). A cloud droplet is a blackbody and re-emits the energy that it receives not on the original frequency but according to its blackbody spectrum (Wien’s displacement Law, Planck spectrum etc)

        • Not important. Water vapor slows heat loss, lack of vapor in the desert allows heat loss, period. But thanks for spinning.

        • And water vapor does trap heat anyway. It’s called latent heat. When the vapor condenses it adds huge amount of actual heat. Droplets do the opposite when they evaporate. Big effect. Huge effect, actually.

        • Correct. And the latent heat of evaporation is released upon condensation aloft, which is promptly rejected to space by the water droplets by SB radiation. This effectively provides a shunt pathway for excess heat (from any source) to be carried past almost all of the atmosphere (and the GHE) via thermals for a more direct pathway to space. THIS is where the positive feedback can occur. If there is excess heat at the surface, thermals (convection) will form pathways to carry heat aloft, it condenses, expands, and the top layer radiates almost directly to space. Lower layers radiate less effectively and the difference creates circulation to transport the warmer droplets below to the top layer where they can radiate more effectively and dispose of the excess heat.

          Thermals create surface winds, which increases evaporation enormously, which causes rapid surface cooling. Clouds also lower surface SW by shading and create further instability. If this is not enough heat rejection, the clouds punch even higher, create more wind, rain, and so on in a +feedback way until the system does what all +feedback systems do, rapidly amplify until balance is achieved, or the system runs out of fuel. Any excess water vapor in the atmosphere is disposed of by condensation and radiative cooling aloft, so the canonical +feedback triggered by CO2 can’t really function as described. +feedback of storms immediately kills it.

          Consider that 1″ of rain per hour is 15,924 W/m^2 at the surface. And along comes CO2 with 4W/m^2 per doubling. Which is the runaway process? Look up cloud droplet sizes and do a few SB calculations and you’ll see that thunderstorm top area has to be about 500x the raining area at 1″ per hour, because that is the radiative capacity of the droplets on top compared to the power at the ground (the 16kW/m^2). The factor varies with rain intensity, altitude, etc. Even the ice crystals radiate very well, but at a lower temperature in strong storms (which explains the much larger thunderhead when storms go exponential and punch that high)

          I don’t see a contest here. The notion of H2O +feedback supporting warmth has never been observed because it doesn’t occur.

      • David A says:

        The factor of time in the daily cycle is curious indeed. It is possible that CO2 could simply change the time of when the minimum T is reached, moving it back several minutes, yet the energy in dry zones still escapes daily, whereas n humid areas WV dominates. (The additional energy of increased residence time of LWIR due to CO2 could simply be expended in time, and not T )

  4. Sunsettommy says:

    Here is a simple chart based on the Lindzen/ Choi 2009 sensitivity equation:


  5. Rosco says:

    Why would anyone believe radiation of 400 watts per square metre equivalent to about 289 K or about 16 C can possibly heat up a land surface which is almost always over 25 – 30 C in the tropics or ocean surfaces which are always similar temperatures in the tropics ??

    Radiation only heats things which are cooler than it – you can prove this for yourself by simple experiment.

    Take a thermometer and heat it to say 30 C with a heat lamp. Then heat it to 36 C with a second.

    Then turn both on and see how hot the thermometer gets.

    Climate science says it will be at least 478 w/sqm (30 C) + 517 w/sqm (36 C) = 995 W/sqm = 364 K or about 91C.

    Look at all those greenhouse effect models they love to quote – they claim 239.7 solar radiation plus 239.7 back radiation combine to 479.4 at about 303 K or 30 degrees C – that is bullshit and you can easily prove it yourself.

    I tried this on a day when the air temp was 18 C or 291 K – ~407 w/sqm.

    The final temperature was ~46 C or ~319 K – ~587 w/sqm.

    Add ’em up

    478 (30 C) – 407 (18 C) = ~71
    517 (36 C) – 407 (18 C) = ~110

    71 + 110 + 407 = 578 = 319 K or 46 degrees C.

    Try it yourself with any set of temperatures you like – it is real.

    Climate scientists do not know how to add radiation fluxes – their methods are wrong.

    I say so and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says so.

    Thermal effects of discrete radiation fluxes are only correct when the “net” fluxes are considered – adding gross fluxes is simply wrong.

    The only thing I measure is the temperature. I only calculate the radiation emitted at the corresponding temperatures and account for the extra radiation emitted.

    Conduction and convection are irrelevant because the temperature of the thermometer is what it is regardless of conduction or convection.

    If the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct this simple experiment absolutely disproves all climate science claims about the accumulative effects of discrete multiple radiation fluxes.

    Their maths is wrong – right algebraically but completely wrong thermodynamically !

  6. I don’t think the greenhouse effect requires that the 16 C atmosphere heats up the 30 C earth. All it has to do is slow the loss of heat from the 30 C earth. The glass roof of a greenhouse doesn’t heat the greenhouse by its own heat. The glass can be cold, it doesn’t matter.

  7. Justa Joe says:

    Avery Harden says:
    October 22, 2013 at 5:21 am
    Every other branch of science has feedback loops, why would climate science be the exception.
    EVERY branch of science has “feedback loops?”

  8. This (continuing) CO2 debate is incompetent, and vain (as I have continually pointed out, for 3 years now). The vertical temperature structure of the troposphere is well defined in the Standard Atmosphere, which my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison precisely confirmed as the stable equilibrium state of the atmosphere. That vertical temperature structure is basically due only to the mass of the atmosphere, and the hydrostatic condition of it, which requires the temperature to increase, along with the pressure, with depth in the atmosphere, according to the simple equation ΔT/Δh = – g/c, with T = temperature, h = the height above the surface, g = acceleration due to gravity, and c = the effective specific heat of the air. That, you will note, has nothing to do with the composition of the air except in the effective value of the specific heat, and the only practical variation in the specific heat is due to liquid and solid particles suspended in the air–primarily water drops, in clouds. The temperature lapse rate ΔT/Δh for dry air is about -10°C/km, whereas in the Standard Atmosphere, with water, it is found to be -6.5°C/km (so water–not water vapor–can be said to decrease the lapse rate by 1/3 from the “dry adiabatic” lapse rate–not “95% of the heat-trapping ability”, nor any part of a “greenhouse effect” increase in temperature with increasing “greenhouse gas”, because there is no such effect, period). Rosco, above, is right to point out that the 400 W/m^2 in “downwelling radiation” is really just an upward-looking temperature measurement of the atmosphere, about 16.8 °C. The vertical temperature structure is NOT caused by radiative transfer within the atmosphere; the presumed “downwelling” and “upwelling” radiation “measurements” are due to the vertical temperature structure, just the opposite cause-effect link as in the “consensus” view. The radiation transfer theory is worthless in climate science, and turns the actual physics upside down: The atmosphere is warmed, to the vertical temperature structure defined in the Standard Atmosphere, by direct absorption of incident solar radiation (in the infrared), NOT from the surface as the mass of scientists believes, naively and dogmatically. The proper Venus/Earth temperature comparison proves this–the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over the range of Earth tropospheric temperatures, is essentially a constant, and that constant, above and below the Venus cloud layer, is PRECISELY that expected from the different solar distances of the two planets ALONE–there is no room for an added “greenhouse effect”, nor any albedo (cloud) or surface effect. (Within the cloud layer, the Venus temperature is reduced by about 5K, or 5°C, due in my view to an increased specific heat within the cloud, with its suspended liquid particles.) The incompetent scientists promulgating the radiation transfer theory are responsible for introducing non-existent “positive feedbacks” into the discussions; it is frustrating and disgusting, to this physicist, that the seminal Le Chatelier’s Principle, behind so many fundamental formulae in classical physics, has been so universally forgotten, in the present era of degenerate, evidence-denying science: The Standard Atmosphere IS stable precisely BECAUSE it is a homeostatic system, i.e., having NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS against any forces that may arise to disturb the equilibrium state.

    • Avery Harden says:

      Just a layman here, but I am trying to get your main point. If I get in my car on a 90 degree day and it is 100 degrees in my car, that extra 10 degrees is not due to radiative effect off the surfaces of the interior of the car, but direct radiative effect from sunlight?

    • Avery Harden says:

      But it is not in equilibrium. Average temperature is up 7 tenths of a degree and co2 stock is up to 400ppm.

    • X says:

      I disagree with you Harry in the part that at molecular level, reflection may happen as direct scattering but also as a compound process of absorption plus re-emission. In the second case, the re-emission part is usually modeled as having no preferred direction, therefore it would in part correspond to backward radiation and “greenhouse” type effect. Of course, the important GHG in Earth’s atmosphere is H2O, and CO2 has probably near to zero effect now as as GHG.
      The same applies for the albedo phenomenon.
      The existence of a strong albedo forcing in Earth’s climate is undeniable, IMO.

      • Avery Harden says:

        For Mr. Huffman as well. Help me understand. You say there is no greenhouse effect. Then what about a car effect. Say it is 90 degrees outside, you get in your car and it is 100 degrees. Where is that extra 10 degrees coming from?

        • David A says:

          really??? You think a car, or a green house, warm the same way GHG theory postulates?

          BTW, only in the broadest sense is this true; GHG theoretically warms through increasing the residence time of LWIR, however it also decreases said residence time, sending high altitude energy to space, which if it conducted to a non GHG would remain in the atmosphere. Rates and speed of conduction vs radiation are tricky. Often one in absence, would be replaced by the other.

        • Avery Harden says:

          This has been a good discussion to help me think thru how I understand the subject the way it seems logical to me. It is only normal that we all may see things differently.
          I listened to a good discussion awhile ago where they had concluded this “fist fight” debate over global warming was becoming pointless. They used Nascar Nation as an example of where the discussion should be. Seems the Nascar community is big into renewable energy because many of their members are building contractors and they see lots of jobs installing the systems. Renewables can contribute to national security as we can import less energy. There are lots of reasons renewables are a good way to go whether the earth is warming or not. I think liberaterians are naturallly attracted to the idea of renewables simply for the autonomy of it. This is where the discussion should be.

        • gator69 says:

          What the hell is a “Liberatarian”?

          I am a Libertarian, and looked into ‘renewables’ years ago, discovering that they are not ready for the masses. If they were, they would need no subsidies. I built a very efficient home and use far less energy than the vast majority of leftists. I am an environmentalist who has worked since childhood to protect our environment, and helped to restore America’s first Scenic Riverway. I have put over eighty percent if my acreage into wildlife cover, reintroducing native plants. You can find over a half dozen different variety of bees alone, when the native flowers are in bloom.

          I have spent a lifetime being a good steward to the gift of the natural world around me, and spent many years as a geology and later climatology student, writing a paper on ‘Desertification’. That was the scare du jour in between global cooling and global warming, it had no legs because it could not be taxed. Since graduating three decades ago, I have followed the ‘science’ of global warming very carefully, it is my primary focus, so I do not need a wet behind the ears know nothing trying to introduce me to their newly found hobby.

          God, it’s like having your first grader come home and explain how stupid you are, because you were not in class today! 😆

  9. omanuel says:


    1. Earth’s climate has falsified AGW models promoted by Al Gore and the United Nations and the countries they controlled,

    2. Government scientists are looking more foolish worldwide each day, but

    3. World leaders have not admitted that AGW was but one of many scams used to control the world, . . .

    Perhaps they did not originate and do not know how to get out of the trap.

    George Orwell started writing his futuristic novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four” in 1946, the same year the internal composition of the Sun magically changed from iron (Fe) to hydrogen (H).

    Therein lies the answer to the past and perhaps the key to the future.

  10. Phil Jones says:

    So why aren’t scientists yelling from the rooftops about this? If CO2 has no affect after 20ppm…. Certainly they must know…

    • omanuel says:

      Most scientists are afraid to confront the government agency that decides his/her next research grant.

      Scientists have egos and pride, just like the rest of us. Nobody is going to step forward and say,

      I promoted lies to get grants.

      We gave Nobel Prizes for junk science.

      But the track record is clear. Grants and Nobel Prizes have been given for junk science to deceive the public.

      • Avery Harden says:

        Reaction rate increases with concentration, as described by the rate law and explained by collision theory. As reactant concentration increases, the frequency of collision increases.

        • gator69 says:

          Wrong again Avery.

          “Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the carbon dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.”

          Click to access Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

        • Avery Harden says:

          Not sure I followed all that paper, but let me take a shot at a rebutal. He say infrared from the warmed earth radiates up and warms the water vapor and co2 is not involved in that warming.
          The theory, many say fact, of the greenhouse effect is that the long wave of the infrared wave hits the co2 molecule and ricochetes in all directions warming up the water vapor. Seems to be lots of studies around showing co2 has that effect. I guess it gets down to whose “science” one chooses to trust.

        • gator69 says:

          There is nothing like blind faith. Avery doesn’t understand, so he forms his own hypothesis to keep his world view intact, just like a creationist.

          Zealots are incapable of changing their minds.

        • X says:

          Thanks for the article Gator. The conclusion that
          “… by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes … the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decrease… “
          is self-evident.
          If you put “10 good emitters” inside of a “box” and compares the radiation with that of “8 good emitters + 2 bad ones” in the same “box”, you naturally end up with less radiation in the 2nd case.
          Not just by coincidence, I imagine, all previous interglacial periods ended when the CO2 levels were very high.

    • Avery Harden says:

      I guess because there are lots of scientist on the other side saying it does have an ever increasing effect. Seems our scientist have become like our politicians. We pick who best resonates to our ears. Time wll tell who’s right.

      • gator69 says:

        I pick the scientists who do not cheat, and the scientists who best describe the world around us. But then, I am not a leftist.

      • Avery Harden wrote:

        I guess because there are lots of scientist on the other side saying it does have an ever increasing effect.

        This is something of a strawman argument. Even our host here suggests that CO2 will have “an ever increasing effect.” This point is that this increase is not, by itself, particularly significant at the levels under consideration. The IPCC and all catastrophist predictions rely upon the effect of CO2 being amplified by other feedbacks so that a 1°C nominal increase from this CO2 in theory becomes 2° or 4° or 8° instead. A very good argument can be made that a 1°C nominal increase from CO2 would be, in reality, less than that because of the feedback effect of clouds. This is an area that is not well studied, nor is the IPCC highly confident of their understanding of it.

        Seems our scientist have become like our politicians.

        You and I can readily agree on this point.

        We pick who best resonates to our ears.

        This is inappropriate in the arena of science. Instead, look at the evidence, including evidence on the veracity (or lack thereof) of the underlying data. Our host, among many others but notable in sheer volume, presents this data, showing (as I have seen for many years in my own experience) massive and improper adjustments in the data.

        This presents something of a conundrum for modelers. If the data they have tuned their models to reproduce is of poor quality, the models will suddenly look rather worse different with better quality inputs. What this means is that the runs that are discarded because they did not produce sufficent rise will suddenly be shown to have been closer.

        This does not mean that those runs better match the underlying physics of the Earth biosystem. It is astoundingly complex, and the same models produce broad varieties of output runs with somewhat chaotic, random-seeming results. Here, your comment makes more sense: They pick the results they like.

        Time wll tell who’s right.

        Unfortunately, this truism is being undercut by endless rationalization of failures, including the newly-surfaced meme of “90% of the heat has gone into the ocean!” Do we have good records — or any records — of deep ocean heat content during the previous similar warm period in the 1930s? No, of course not. So, in the absense of data, we have very high levels of confidence instead, and a willingness to say anything so that the theory cannot appear to be falsified with time.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        • Avery Harden says:

          I don’t recall our host acknowledging any effect from CO2; where is the context of his “ever increasing effect”? Everyone seems to say we don’t know enough about clouds to know what their net effect is. Clouds do reflect sun back to space but they also catch infrared from the earth’s surface.

          I have read from our host many stories of the “improper adjustments” you speak of by certain scientist that support AGW, but when I read the full explanations for the “adjustments”, the reality seems much less nefarious. The undotted I s, uncrossed T s and split infinitives do not add up to bad science. Though I tend to think AGW is a legitimate concern, I recognize there are serious people that disagree. If climate science were just another branch of science, differences of opinion would be par for the course and the truth would percolate out of the middle ground somewhere over time. For example, the 1.8 million years old hominid skull in the news of late has engendered lots of competing theories, all worthy of consideration. No one is trying to impugn the character of another just because they don’t agree. Medical doctors can be the same way, all over the map in their diagnoses or course of treatments. We learn to take it all with a grain of salt.

          There is lots of criticism of models on this site. Instead of calling people dishonest for less than perfect modelling, I think what we see for the most part is evolving modeling. Evolving is good. Time and experience inform the modeler to make a better model next time. Some of the models I have seen criticized were actually in the projected range of the subject at hand. The model would say “if such and such conditions occur, then we can project such and such outcome. The model would have three ranges of conditions. Just because two ranges of conditions did not occur does not meant the model was faulty. One of the three ranges was correct. Still, just as computer software gets better and better, modelling get better and better. Why beat a twenty year old dead horse when new and better science is racing by.

          Regarding the ocean heat, what I have seen is detailed measurements of the amount of energy coming into the climate system from the sun and how much energy leaves the system. There is an imbalance. That energy must be somewhere. Water is an excellent heat sink and improving ways of analysing seem to say the heat is there. La Nina may have churned some of it down, the next El Nino may let it rise. We will better understand ocean heat/co2 over the next few years.

          I have almost gotten to the point of thinking that providing sources for this debate on this site is not useful. If people have a bias, myself included, then they don’t fully trust sources “from the other side”. I have read a lot of these sources given to me on this site and have learned a lot. My goal is to understand both sides of the discussion and be able to discuss it in a professional manner. I think we do better simply trying to understand each other in a common sense way and state the best way we can why we personally think a particular idea is true.

        • Picking one point in particular: The temperature adjustments.

          One can argue that the TOBS adjustment, based upon the time of day in which the original measurement was taken, is legitimate. What this would not do, however, is produce a fairly smooth curve of adjustments with an emphasis on cooling the 1930s/1940s, and then gradually tapering off.

          Moreover, all of the adjustments taken together for 1934 that should have an effect should have been resolved by ten years ago. But in the past ten years, the average temperature of the year 1934 in the US has been further cooled several times. The TOBS changes, the urban heat island (reverse!) fix, and the other adjustments have no basis for change within the past decade. And yet change they do, often multiple times per year, for the same date in history 80 years ago.

          It took six years of adjustments for 1934 to be cooled to the point where it was below 1998, making 1998 ultimately “the hottest year on record” — which no one knew at the time, of course. The adjustment process was well-documented by outside observers, who followed this cooking of books with a combination of amusement and unease.

          It just happens that every further adjustment made cools the warm past, and warms the present, just as it it were custom-tailored to support the idea that global warming is real and needs funding.

          And we have seen the same process just in recent adjustments to ice measures, modifying the balance of current to prior ice by about a sixth of a million squarer kilometers just in the most current changes. The effect is to inflate prior ice levels, and reduce current ones.

          Of course it made things look “worse than we expected.”

          The official explanation, about improving the masking of land areas, sounds plausible — but would not have fed in a little at a time over several years. And if it was tied to ice area, it would have shown a substantial change in direction for 2013. But no, of course, 2013 was “even worse than we expected.”

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        • Avery Harden says:

          You had me going. I actually thought you were game for a back and forth discussion. I see now you just want to hear yourself talk.
          The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.’s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth’s total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th).

        • @Avery Harden, who wrote:

          I don’t recall our host acknowledging any effect from CO2; where is the context of his “ever increasing effect”?

          You may not recall this, but it is recent — including this very post.

          The graph on this very page demonstrates CO2’s even increasing effect — and he put it up. He doesn’t think the increase in effect is a major issue — neither do I, from the evidence — but both of us acknowledge a non-zero increase. Other graphs he’s put up, some in the past few days, show the same effect.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        • X says:

          You believe what you want Avery, but the imbalance you talked about is just another factor against AGW because Earth is losing energy despite the increase in CO2,
          that is confirmed by the lowering of global temperatures in recent years,
          These are the facts.
          You said that the heat of the system has been taken down to the bottom of the oceans by the La Ninas, this would imply and increased trend of oscillation of La Ninas and El Ninos, which has *not* been observed as La Ninas have been predominant recently.
          Besides, the graphs of the above links show that the energy imbalance is negative and it has been taken to outer space.
          You can believe in models if you like, it’s your option, but the observed facts are telling something different.

        • Avery Harden says:

          With the vast storage of climate energy going into the ocean, maybe this report below sheds some light on how heat may flow in the deep ocean. At least the science is trying to get better.

          September 9, 2013
          Breaking deep-sea waves reveal mechanism for global ocean mixing
          Hannah Hickey

          Waves breaking over sandy beaches are captured in countless tourist photos. But enormous waves breaking deep in the ocean are seldom seen, although they play a crucial role in long-term climate cycles.

          A University of Washington study for the first time recorded such a wave breaking in a key bottleneck for circulation in the world’s largest ocean. The study was published online this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

          The deep ocean is thought of as dark, cold and still. While this is mostly true, huge waves form between layers of water of different density. These skyscraper-tall waves transport heat, energy, carbon and nutrients around the globe. Where and how they break is important for the planet’s climate.

          “Climate models are really sensitive not only to how much turbulence there is in the deep ocean, but to where it is,” said lead author Matthew Alford, an oceanographer in the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. He led the expedition to the Samoan Passage, a narrow channel in the South Pacific Ocean that funnels water flowing from Antarctica.

          “The primary importance of understanding deep-ocean turbulence is to get the climate models right on long timescales,” Alford said.

          Dense water in Antarctica sinks to the deep Pacific, where it eventually surges through a 25-mile gap in the submarine landscape northeast of Samoa.

          “Basically the entire South Pacific flow is blocked by this huge submarine ridge,” Alford said. “The amount of water that’s trying to get northward through this gap is just tremendous – 6 million cubic meters of water per second, or about 35 Amazon Rivers.”

          In the 1990s, a major expedition measured these currents through the Samoan Passage. The scientists inferred that a lot of mixing must also happen there, but couldn’t measure it.

          The deep-sea waves are 800 feet tall, as high as a skyscraper.

          In the summer of 2012 the UW team embarked on a seven-week cruise to track the 800-foot-high waves that form atop the flow, 3 miles below the ocean’s surface. Their measurements show these giant waves do break, producing mixing 1,000 to 10,000 times that of the surrounding slow-moving water.

          “Oceanographers used to talk about the so-called ‘dark mixing’ problem, where they knew that there should be a certain amount of turbulence in the deep ocean, and yet every time they made a measurement they observed a tenth of that,” Alford said. “We found there’s loads and loads of turbulence in the Samoan Passage, and detailed measurements show it’s due to breaking waves.”

          It turns out layers of water flowing over two consecutive ridges form a lee wave, like those in air that passes over mountains. These waves become unstable and turbulent, and break. Thus the deepest water, the densest in the world, mixes with upper layers and disappears.

          This mixing helps explain why dense, cold water doesn’t permanently pool at the bottom of the ocean and instead rises as part of a global conveyor-belt circulation pattern.

          The Samoan Passage is important because it mixes so much water, but similar processes happen in other places, Alford said. Better knowledge of deep-ocean mixing could help simulate global currents and place instruments to track any changes.

          In fact, even making the measurements was painstaking work. Instruments took 1.5 hours to lower to the seafloor, and the ship traveled at only a half knot, slower than a person walking, during the 30-hour casts. New technology let the scientists measure turbulence directly and make measurements from instruments lowered more than 3 miles off the side of the ship.

          The researchers left instruments recording long-term measurements. The team will do another 40-day cruise in January to collect those instruments and map currents flowing through various gaps in the intricate channel.

          Co-authors of the paper are James Girton, Gunnar Voet and John Mickett at the UW Applied Physics Lab; Glenn Carter at the University of Hawaii; and Jody Klymak at the University of Victoria. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

        • Avery, you really have no idea what this discussion is about, do you?

        • Avery Harden says:

          I think I do now. I see now where Mr. DeHavelle has his own professional website with the hyperpartisian slant. I have yet to see someone with such politics that didn’t reject AGW. He had me going there for awhile with his unemotional science. That is the first time I have seen unemotional science on your site. I am trying to get an insight in to your science but it keeps circling back to politics. You don’t get that and in your santimony could care less.

        • I apologize for cluttering up the comments.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • David A says:

        What do you mean by increasing effect? The effect decreases exponentially, even if one accepts the direct effects, sans feedback.

        • Well, I’ve explicitly used the expression “ever increasing effect,” meaning that 400ppm of CO2 has a larger effect than 399ppm — and 1001ppm would have a larger effect than 1000ppm. This is contra statements occasionally made that increases in CO2 stop having an effect at some point.

          But I should clarify, as the wording could be misunderstood: The effect of the actual increment itself is reduced. The total is larger, and the effect is larger, but this effect grows by a smaller amount due to spectrum-shadowing, the partial saturation discussed here and elsewhere.

          Even the IPCC does not think their putative amplification — the positive feedback — goes on forever; at some point, their models evidently employ a bit of the negative feedback that the Earth does in real life to keep us in a fairly narrow band for billions of years. The negative feedback in the climatists’ models, however, only comes into play after they’ve been funded for a few more decades.

          Perhaps this is a coincidence.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        • David A says:

          Yes, and in a few decades the science will change to a new “necessities.”

      • @Avery Harden, who wrote:

        The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998.

        This is, indeed, the point. The order of that ranking depends on multiple adjustments, which kept going until it was in this sequence. As of the 2006 year, 1998 was still cooler than 1934. By 2012, the continued series of adjustments allowed the triumphant claim “1998 was the hottest year of the 20th century in the contiguous US!” And by then, 2006 had been elevated, and 2012 had these adjustments built in. Some of that history is was captured here:

        That site “shows their work”: All of the science done there makes available the exact code and data used, and the site’s many statisticians and climate experts point out any discrepancies found. There aren’t many; McIntyre is good. But you can prove it to yourself without having to rely upon anyone’s word; this is a noted distinction from most climate science.

        Note that one of the fiercest critics of “deniers,” a fellow who goes by the moniker “BigCityLib” in the link above, admitted in his own caustic post that ClimateAudit was correct and had found an “error” in the data processing. (A link to his post is in the above link’s comments.) But rather than being an error that was corrected, the adjustments continued, getting worse (i.e., telling a “better” story), and they now produce the temperature charts that you make your judgments upon today. Steve Goddard here documents these continuing adjustments, as I mentioned.

        I watched this process as it unfolded back then. Similar adjustments — largely accomplished by dropping many thousands of thermometer readings but with lots of data tweaks as well — take place elsewhere around the world, with most of the “global warming” being concentrated in Siberia.

        It is true that the contiguous — the new word is “conterminous” — United States accounts for a very small percentage of total land area of the planet. But it is the area where the records are (1) most well known, (2) have the best historical documentation, and (3) go back in time in substantial quantity and quality the furthest. The audit trail is most visible here. There are longer records, notably the CET in England, but the US has an abundant record to examine for curiosities. And those, too, are abundant.

        But I wrote about 1934 and 1998 in the US, and you chastised me, saying that 1998 was hotter than 1934 and quoted the “2%” business, as if you had to go find rebuttal points somewhere rather than consider the evidence (which that rebuttal ignores).

        That is a pity. But it is rather suggestive.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • squid2112 says:

      CO2 has no “warming” affect after 1ppm .. period

  11. I am curious, Mr Avery, about what you are implying about my “professional” website. I am using WordPress, which is free, and I’m paying about $100 per year for hosting. This is less than $10 per month, and includes my email and a couple of other sites. My science and political writing goes back decades; it is a hobby of mine. Do you mean to suggest that I am receiving some sort of compensation for this? I don’t.

    As to “hyperpartisan”: Two points. First, I have been following science for decades longer than I have been following politics. My views on global warming — it was global cooling at the time — are based on evidence I had examined to that point and continue to examine. I actually read the reports, and in some cases I have run the math; I have hundreds of spreadsheets on my system in my GW folders. Just to demonstrate my early thoughts on this, here is a link to a post of mine about global warming from more than a decade ago. Back then, you’ll find science writing but nothing political. My friends considered me liberal because of my pursuit of science and my non-theism, an assumption based upon their own biases perhaps. I will quote the post here (as two links in the same comment will prevent it from appearing), but you can find the original in the link below’s archives on 1/25/2003, in a post called “Global Warming Again”:

    Several things are clear from my years of reading on this topic:

    — Global warming has been going on for some hundreds of years.

    — Man has some effect on this, but is not completely responsible for it. The best guesses (from the IPCC) seem to be broadly between about 15% and about 60% of the effect. The rest is what the Earth/Sun system would have done anyway.

    — The Kyoto Treaty would not, even if perfectly implemented, have much effect on this. For example, the worst-case scenarios predict a rise in temperature of about 2 degrees over the next hundred years. The K-treaty, in the best-case scenario, would reduce this by 0.17 of a degree.

    — The Kyoto Treaty gives a “pass” to China and various other nations to use high-pollution technologies. For example, China’s huge amount of coal burning, which is rather primitively done, is excused because they are a “developing” country. The ones downwind from them are not happy about this.

    — The cost of implementation of the Kyoto Treaty is higher than any study has predicted the damage to be. In even a perfect world.

    — Technology continues to advance; we will move beyond the fossil fuel stage before the end of this century. I’m in favor of solar power satellites, myself; 100% pollution free. But the Greenpeacers are scared to death of microwaves, so it will never happen while they remain influential.

    — Predictions of “global disaster” are demonstrably highly exaggerated. In fact, there is gathering evidence that the frequency of severity of extreme weather such as hurricanes will continue to diminish.

    — We have the technology to reduce the CO2 concentrations now, and disturb none of the countries’ infrastructures. Many do not like this, as it would prevent the industrial nations from suffering as they should do to build character. (I have actually seen this argument advanced.)

    — Almost everything you’ve read about global warming was written by folks with agendas; read the actual report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rather than the political summaries of it to get a better sense of the state of the situation. Or the senate testimony from IPCC scientists, objecting to these politically-motivated summaries of their work.

    I hope this helps give a bit of perspective.

    (It is worth noting that my confidence in the IPCC’s science practices has declined in the intervening decade. So have their practices. But the science write-ups are still better than the soi disant“Summary for Policymakers” which I already recognized as odious back then. It’s interesting that my prediction for hurricanes has held up well in the intervening decade.)

    One more point on your “hyperpartisan” assertion: I have given monetary and other support to local Democrats, and I have written in praise of Barack Obama, and am pleased to do so when he does something of good policy. It isn’t often. Here’s an example on Obama:
    I have written critically of various Republicans from Bush to McCain, when their policies warrant it.

    If you wish, click on “Archives” and seek out the January 25, 2003 entry, and look at the posts back then. Not political, and lots of science topics with philosophy thrown in. On LJ, my audience was relatively young; keep that in mind. I was endeavoring to teach as well as entertain. In recent years, the posts on DeHavelle — “Level Head” is an anagram as well as a description bestowed upon me decades ago — are mirrored on my LJ site. But I have readers that have followed my writings for more than a decade; I will not abandon them, and several have become in-person friends. My writings there are, as I said, a hobby.

    My professional writings this week — I write up scientific research grants to be reviewed by specialists — has an entirely different feel. The current work involves human neurology at the micron level and the research promises a breakthrough that is massive in its implications. I can take no credit for it other than documenting the work.

    But none of this matters to the issue under discussion; I am either correct or not, and you can check this. In fact, your own assertions (e.g., that Steve Goddard had not expressed any position about CO2’s increasing effect) was trivially shown to be wrong, though you were careful to phrase this as “I don’t recall…”). I try to be careful as well I have literally read thousands of peer-revewed studies in this area, and my memory is not perfect. One offshoot of this is a great sadness — I really like science, and to have my nose rubbed in such bad behavior is far beyond disappointing.

    But speaking of bad behavior: To discard my arguments because you don’t happen to like my “professional” website is peculiar indeed. And to actively seek out something about me that you could decide not to like, rather than considering the evidence, is intellectually lazy, and in my opinion is not the proper way to approach a scientific issue at all.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • Avery Harden says:

      Thanks Keith, that gives me a whole different perspective. Your writing is exactly what I think I have been looking for here on Steve’s site. I look forward to reading more of your science writing from your website. It is surprising to see you subscribing to such shrill politics. It hurts your credibility as a scientific writer. Just as there are serious conservative political writers I try to follow, I knew there must be serious climate scientist view out there somewhere whose contrarian view would help inform my own search for answers.

      • Steve Goddard’s approach is caustic. But I do not use personal styles as a barometer of the veracity of data; I check the data. In many cases here, I am already familiar with the material, but our host performs an excellent service by tracking down a tremendous number of details that I have not seen.

        Occasionally he gets it wrong, and I have pointed out mistakes to him. The same sort of thing happens to me, but with Steve’s tremendous volume of posted information, his track record is quite good. Yes, our styles are not at all the same, but that’s fine.

        I do not “subscribe” to this site’s “politics” per se, but (minus his acidic expression of it) my own understanding of the world of US politics is not far removed from his. But that was true long before I encountered this website. He sees blatantly bad behavior, and is very blunt about calling it out.

        Perhaps you have noticed that he is also very harsh on Republicans when they behave badly — look for “Boner” in subject lines; there are many referring to the current Speaker of the House. Here, again, he and I are in agreement.

        It may be that my verbose, calmer approach does not give the perpetrators what they deserve. But my style is my own. I’m satisfied with my writings from a decade or two decades ago, and hope to be able to look back on 2013 from the future and not cringe. I see far worse language and styles elsewhere, and I do cringe when someone nominally on the side of supporting and restoring our constitutional republic gets the facts wrong, especially when he or she is vulgar and arrogant about it.

        But the wrong part bothers me more than the style. More than anything else, I am keenly interested in the data: As Robert Heinlein said, “What are the facts? And to how many decimal points?” Steve Goddard supplies lots of facts, and I find that very useful. I have only been here a short while; my files contain only 10,035 of Steve Goddard’s posts as of this writing (which include some comments as well, but those amount to probably 1% or so).

        And there are interesting people here with their own offerings; I have benefited from them as well. I expect that you would, too.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  12. David A says:

    Avery, as you can tell it is perfectly possible to have a very rational discussion with Keith (Level Head) However it does take two people.

    • David A says:

      …even though he ignores my comments on his blog…. http://level-head.livejournal.com/615757.html?thread=8280909#t8280909

      • Oh, come now, Mr. A. You left the comment anonymously; I did not know until this moment that it was you. And I considered responding (with “thank you” at minimum!), but knew that the writer would never be notified of the response. Since I got the notification late (I was tied up in a project), I expected the writer would never see it.

        I have enjoyed interacting with you, at length, including here, where we covered global warming and other religious topics: ];-)

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        • David A says:

          Thank you Sir, and yes, the dig was just a tease. Yes, the ID discussion is one I enjoy and have made some good headway into. It is also an area you and I have had our differences, discussed politely.

          (Mr. Avery please note that the linked conversation had NONE, as in zero of the condescension you repeatedly make on this blog, while complaining bitterly when your own sarcasm is reflected back to you)

  13. gator69 says:

    Avery thinks first observations are first events. 😆

    “Avery Harden says:
    October 24, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    With the vast storage of climate energy going into the ocean, maybe this report below sheds some light on how heat may flow in the deep ocean. At least the science is trying to get better.

    September 9, 2013
    Breaking deep-sea waves…

    A University of Washington study for the first time recorded such a wave breaking in a key bottleneck for circulation in the world’s largest ocean.”

    Obviously Avery suffers from the effects of possibly the worst form of child abuse, teaching children what to think rather than how. Please send money, trying to teach logic to Avery is a waste of time.

    • X says:

      He doesn’t seem to be looking for the truth but for a “nice conversation” about climate and he always bring the hypotheses/models of AGW as established truths, with a little possible detail that needs some adjustment.
      We have plenty of proof in this site and others that it’s not like that.
      There is A LOT of political manipulation behind the AGW model and procedures.
      It reminds me of the theory of epicycles to explain the movement of planets. It’ll never explain all movements and never be as reliable for predictions as the heliocentric theory is.
      I believe that in terms of scientific truth we *must* choose the heliocentric model as the correct one and reject the theory of epicycles, but for personal option or amusement people may choose whatever they want.

  14. @SteveGoddard:

    I don’t maintain such a list. I have made occasional comments, including here:

    Al Qaida did not exist in 1989. Nor did we ever send weaponry directly to Usama bin Ladin, who wouldn’t have used it had he known it was from us.

    I amplified on this a bit in my own blog, linking back to you. There is considerable discussion of Carter’s and Reagan’s respective roles, and Charlie Wilson’s War. You may find the comments interesting:

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  15. As an aside, you may find this item worthy of a post:

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s