A Christmas Gift From Dr. Bill Gray

ScreenHunter_804 Mar. 21 15.34

Dr Bill Gray from CSU is a good friend, the most widely recognized hurricane forecaster, and one of the most senior global warming skeptics. He recognized the problems of global warming theory decades earlier than most former true believers like myself.  In 1996, CSU’s Bill Gray correctly predicted weak cooling for the next 20-30 years.

ScreenHunter_801 Mar. 21 15.15

As a special Christmas gift, Dr. Gray has provided us an essay with of some the atmospheric knowledge he has accumulated over the past seven decades. Better than a university education, at a much lower cost! And it is OK to open this gift a day early.

——————————————————————————————————–

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –

CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming

by William M. Gray

Professor Emeritus

Colorado State University

(see project website for background on author – http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/)

December 23, 2014

Abstract

The massively funded international global warming movement has grossly exaggerated the threat from CO2 gas increases. This warming scare has been driven by a cabal of international politicians and environmentalist groups using erroneous climate model warming predictions to brainwash an uninformed global public. Their purpose was to scare the public into accepting global government and restrictions on their freedoms and lifestyles to prevent a made-up looming climate catastrophe. Truth of their CO2 warming assertions was of little importance. What mattered was the degree to which the public could be indoctrinated to believe the threat. The many large global warming projections have not and will not be realized in the coming years. The science behind these CO2 induced warming projections is very badly flawed and needs to be exposed to the public. We will see only negligible amounts of CO2 induced global warming in the coming decades. The future temperature changes which do occur will be natural and primarily a result of the changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation patterns of which ocean salinity variations is the primary driver. We can and should do nothing about natural climate change but adjust to it.

Economic progress dictates that the US and the world continue with and expands their use of fossil-fuels. Any significant shift to the much more costly wind and solar energy sources should not go forward. Such a shift would greatly lower the US and the world’s living standards and do nothing to benefit the globe’s climate. This global warming charade cannot long continue. Time and truth are on the side of the warming skeptics.

  1. Current Conditions

Increasing amounts of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the last 18 years have not caused any increase in mean global surface temperatures. Despite voluminous media and scientific claims to the contrary, the global temperature, global sea ice, severe weather, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, tornadoes, etc. are not showing any of the changes predicted by the warming alarmists and the many numerical modeling simulations on which most of these warming claims have been scientifically based. I am sure the coming years of observations will add more verification for the discrediting of this CO2 driven catastrophic warming hypothesis.

 

I strongly recommend the reader consult the internet blog Real Science by Steve Goddard for much more documentation on the ever increasing failure of the CO2 global warming projections. Goddard also gives numerous examples of how our and other government climate-weather agencies have been artificially reducing older surface temperature measurements so as to give the appearance of larger upward surface temperature trends than have really occurred. This apparent data tampering goes against all scientific methodology and needs to be exposed and corrected by an outside independent investigative group.

The general public, without the technical background to judge the scientific reliability of these many and continuous alarmist warming pronouncements have become brainwashed. An unhealthy alliance has developed between government and climate-weather scientists. The apparent broad level of scientific backing for the CO2 warming hypothesis has been obtained through massive governmental research grant awards to those scientists who were willing to support (or not criticize) such dubious politically driven global warming claims.

We all want to trust our government and believe that the media is giving us objective news. But with our government’s and the media’s continuous and alarmist statements on increasing CO2 ability to cause dangerous future global warming we all need to become skeptical. The public has been deceived by not being able to hear the other side of the global warming argument. The many scientific arguments against the human-induced global warming hypothesis have purposely not been covered by the media or discussed by our government. When such negative warming arguments do occasionally come up, they are harshly criticized by environmentalists, celebrities, and governmental officials who know next to nothing about how the global climate system functions. An open and honest scientific dialog on the global warming issue has yet to take place. The statement that the scientific argument for large CO2 induced global warming has already been settled is a total fabrication.

  1. Crux of the Flawed Science

(water-vapor feedback and surface evaporation cooling)

There are many flaws in the global climate models. But the largest flaw is a result of the climate model’s inability to realistically deal with the small horizontal scale (and model unresolvable) changes brought about by the globe’s thousands of individual deep cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud elements (Figure 1). An increase in the totality of these deep Cb convective units adds drying to the upper troposphere (Figure 2). This is in contrast to the assumptions implicit in the General Climate Model (GCM) simulations which increase upper tropospheric water-vapor as a result of enhanced rainfall and Cb convection associated with rising levels of CO2.

ScreenHunter_5524 Dec. 24 08.57

 

Figure 1. Illustration of how the large grids of the GCM models cannot resolve the individual convective cloud elements and all the local up-and-down vertical motion between the grid units. This sub-grid scale convection can result in enhanced IR loss to space and lesser amounts of warming than the coarser GCMs would allow for.

ScreenHunter_5525 Dec. 24 08.58

Figure 2. Idealized portrayal of global deep cumulus rain and cloud areas. The left diagram illustrates the upper-level sinking mass coming from the raining deep Cb cloud. This sinking acts to dry and warm the upper troposphere. The right diagram shows water-vapor and cloud particles being advected from the same high rain areas. Observations indicate that the sinking-drying in the upper troposphere is greater than the water-vapor and cloud water replacement by moist air outward advection and evaporation. Enhanced Cb convection leads to upper-level drying and extra IR loss to space.

The model simulations have followed the unrealistic physical ideas emanating from the National Academy of Science (NAS), 1979 (or Charney Report). This report speculated that as the troposphere warms from CO2 increases that this warming would be accompanied (follow the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship between temperature and moisture) by a moisture increase such that the relative humidity (RH) of the air would remain near constant as the temperature increased. Implicit in this NAS assumption of CO2 induced warming was the necessity that this increase of moisture would add additional blockage of infrared (IR) radiation to space beyond what the CO2 gas did by itself. The net IR blockage to space from increasing CO2 was thus assumed to occur not only from the CO2 gas itself but also from the extra water-vapor gain needed to keep the RH near constant as the temperature rose. This additional water-vapor gain was shown by the models to have about twice as large an influence on reducing IR blockage to space as the CO2 increase by itself. Thus, any CO2 increase of one unit of IR blockage to space would simultaneously bring along with it an additional two units of water-vapor blockage of IR loss to space. This additional moisture related blockage of IR loss to space (associated with CO2 induced warming) has been designated as ‘positive water-vapor feedback’. All the CO2 climate models have strong amounts of positive water-favor feedback.

It is this large and direct tie of water-vapor increase with CO2 induced temperature rise which is the primary physical flaw in all of the GCM CO2 doubling model simulations. This is the reason why all the GCMs have so strongly over-predicted the amount of global warming which will occur with a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Observations show that the warming or cooling of the upper troposphere does not occur with RH remaining close to constant. Temperature and RH tend to change oppositely from each other and not in unison as the models assume. My project’s study of cumulus convection and tropical cyclone formation over many decades has taught me that the NAS 1979 (Charney) Report assessment that rising CO2 amounts will occur with water-vapor increase is not a realistic assessment of how these parameters change in the upper troposphere.

The GCM CO2 simulations are also constructed so as to have their moisture simulations arranged such that water-vapor changes occur uniformly at both upper and lower tropospheric levels. By contrast, the observations of moisture change at upper and lower tropospheric levels show them to be little related to each other (Figure 3).

ScreenHunter_5526 Dec. 24 08.59

Figure 3. Correlation of lower and upper troposphere moisture changes. The GCM models simultaneously simulate the same moisture changes at both the lower and upper tropospheric levels – high correlation. The observations however, show very little correlation between upper and lower tropospheric moisture changes.

Our observation analysis finds that increases in cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud intensity and frequency brings about a decrease in upper tropospheric water-vapor, not an upper tropospheric moistening as the model simulations show.

The deeper and/or the more intense Cb clouds become the higher is their rainfall efficiency. Cb clouds rain out most of their moisture as they overshoot from the top of their positive buoyancy layer near 300 mb (~ 10 km) and penetrate higher into the stabilizing upper troposphere where they became weaker and terminate their upward motion. The Cbs weakening upward vertical motion at these high levels leave little upper-level moisture as they die. Their updrafts deposit their saturated but miniscule moisture content air and liquid cirrus clouds high in the troposphere. These are the heights where the vertical gradients of saturation air is, percentage-wise, very large. Any subsidence of this cold upper-level saturated air parcels to lower and warmer levels causes an especially large reduction of the sinking air’s RH.

For instance, a saturated air parcel at 200 mb (12 km height) and a temperature of -53oC will contain little moisture even though it is saturated. If this parcel then sinks with no mixing to 300 mb (~10 km height) and takes on the temperature of the lower-level air it will have its RH reduced from 100 percent to only 12 percent (Figure 4). Such Cb induced upper-level air parcel subsidence to lower levels induces an upper-level drying and with it an increased infrared (IR) radiation loss to space. The contrast of these two processes is seen in Figure 5. The crucial flaw of the models is that they have not made a proper up-and-down mass balance of the upper-troposphere’s vertical motion that would have accounted for the high rainfall efficiency of the Cb air which penetrates above 300 mb and the very dry return flow subsidence.

ScreenHunter_5527 Dec. 24 09.00

Figure 4. Illustration of extreme upper troposphere vertical gradient of saturated air in the tropics. This table shows the amount of relative humidity (RH) decrease by saturated air sinking 100 mb between various pressure levels as it assumes the temperature of the lower-level air. The resulting lower-level humidity is given on the right. For instance, saturated air sinking from 200 mb to 300 mb without mixing and maintaining its moisture but taking on the temperature of the air at 300 mb would have a RH of only 14 percent (green bracket).

ScreenHunter_5528 Dec. 24 09.01

Figure 5. Two contrasting views of the effects of deep cumulus convection. The top diagram emphasizes the extra return flow mass subsidence drying associated with the deep convection. Extra IR energy flux is emitted to space. By contrast, the bottom diagram shows how the typical global climate models (GCMs) interpret the mass outflow from the deep cumulus as adding water-vapor to the upper troposphere and blocking more IR loss to space. The bottom diagram is not realistic as regards to the way Cb convection functions in the atmosphere.

Example. To balance the influence of a doubling of CO2 by radiation alone it would be required that the temperature of the globe be warmed by 1oC. The models then assume that this CO2 induced warming of 1oC will (following the Charney Report assumptions) cause a moisture increase that will further reduce IR loss to space, such that there will have to be an additional 2oC upper-level warming beyond the needed 1oC warming from the CO2 by itself. The combination of these two processes is assumed to bring about an upper-level 3oC global warming over the whole tropics (30oN-30oS). Of this 3oC warming 2oC would be designated as positive water-vapor feedback warming. Such an expected strong and positive temperature increase and positive water-vapor feedback of a doubling of CO2 is quite unrealistic.

Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space (Figure 6).

ScreenHunter_5529 Dec. 24 09.08

Figure 6. Changes in 300 mb temperature, specific humidity (q – gm/kg), and relative humidity (RH) by area between two reanalysis rainfall difference data sets for the tropics. Rain differences average 3.9 percent for the 10 highest minus 10 lowest monthly differences and 1.9 percent for the (95-04)-(84-94) data set differences. Negative values are in red. All 300 mb moisture parameters showed water-vapor and RH decreases with enhanced rainfall.

Real global warming to be expected. Without upper-troposphere water-vapor change and without enhanced surface evaporation cooling associated with extra rainfall, the pure radiation response to a doubling of CO2 would indicate we should expect about a 1.0oC global warming. But even with zero assumed water-vapor change this 1oC warming is two to three times larger than what will likely take place. This is because about 60 percent of the 3.7 Wm-2 IR blocking to space from a doubling of CO2 will be balanced by an enhancement of surface evaporation and an increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2½ percent. A zero water-vapor feedback will thus be expected to only bring about a 0.4oC global temperature rise from CO2 doubling.

We show that there is a very modest degree of negative water-vapor feedback of 0.1 to 0.2oC. With this occurring we should expect that the real amount of global warming that will occur from a doubling of CO2 would be only about 0.2-0.3oC or about 5-10 percent the amount projected by the many global models of 2-4oC. The AGW threat and especially the catastrophic AGW (or CAGW) threat cannot be a realistic assertion of how the planet’s climate system functions.

  1. Continue Economic Growth

If this evaluation is correct, then the people of the globe should not have to worry about rising levels of CO2 at this time. Enhanced fossil-fuel utilization and rising levels of economic gain should continue. The world needs to greatly reduce its concern for the trumped up CO2 global warming threat. We need to concentrate on the many more legitimate and serious world problems which are before us.

We should all be grateful for the tremendous advancements in living standards, health, and overall well-being which the utilization of fossil-fuel energy has made possible. Fossil-fuel energy has been one of humanity’s greatest blessings.

Higher levels of fossil-fuel usage will bring about yet greater economic and society benefits. Increased CO2 will also bring an enhancement of vegetation growth, a small global rainfall increase, and a very slight global temperature rise – all positive changes for humankind.

Many people who accept that humans are degrading the environment are confusing local environmental problems with CO2 induced global warming. The two are very different. We must all work to reduce or eliminate local pollution and health hazards but disregard the false harangues of saving the planet from the trumped-up imaginary CO2 induced warming.

The wisest course of action for our country and the world at this time should be to have the foresight and courage to ‘do nothing’ regarding the increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which are being emitted into the atmosphere. The coming generations will be in a better position to decide whether any human response to the rising levels of CO2 gases might be justified.

  1. Author’s Background

The author holds an MS (meteorology) and Ph.D. (geophysical sciences) from the University of Chicago. He has been a weather-climate forecaster, researcher, and university graduate school professor for 60 years. He has supervised 70 MS and Ph.D. students. He originated and has been involved with Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasting for the last 31 years.

Gray has never received any research funding from any fossil-fuel source. His position on the global warming issue has led in recent decades to loss of all federal research support he had previously received. His research on this topic continues only through his own funding. Gray and his Colorado State University research project colleagues have published many papers and issued many project reports over many years on cumulus convection and atmospheric moist processes. It is on this topic for which the climate models lack realism and the primary reason for their grossly unrealistic large warming projections. These papers and reports can be found at (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/).

Acknowledgement. The author is most grateful to Barry Schwartz and to Amie Hedstrom who has provided the data crunching support for this study and have offered much other auxiliary assistance.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

108 Responses to A Christmas Gift From Dr. Bill Gray

  1. scizzorbill says:

    Telling it like it is. However, the money and political power behind the fraud are committed to the AGW theme. As long as they can convince the sheeple, and continue enacting repressive ‘save the planet’ laws, the propaganda will continue.

  2. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for your blog and for speaking the truth forcibly.

    Society is now at a turning point, sixty-nine years (2014 – 1945 = 69 yrs) after Stalin convinced proud geophysicists they could save the world from nuclear annihilation by:

    1. Uniting Nations on 24 Oct 1945

    2. Hiding the energy that destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Steve, Please tell Dr Gray: Thanks and a Merry Christmas from all of us.

    There are very few true scientists. Dr Gray is one of them.

    1. Dr. Gray’s observations shoot down the water vapor multiplier that triples the effect of CO2.

    2. Dr. Happer’s observations that the ‘wing shape’ for CO2 is wrong and therefore the log curve is wrong meaning there is little or no more warming to be had from additional CO2.

    Between those two observation based the CAGW conjecture is dead. Too bad CAGW is a political zombie that keeps coming back to life.

    If skeptics do manage to win this fight. The reputation of science, the news media and the US government is going to take a well deserved major hit.

    Again, thank Dr Gray for providing us more ammunition for shooting this monster.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ARRRGGHhhhh …those two observation based FACTS….
      (I really wish I could edit.)

    • Gail, what’s a wing shape CO2?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. The primary bands are already saturated so this is the only place CO2 will have any effect. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. This means you take the exponential curve Steve showed a few weeks ago (CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Very Small) and squash it even flatter at 400 ppm and above. This means the CO2 sensitivity is much smaller than calculated by the IPCC.

        The line shapes used are Lorentzian line shape or a Voigt line shape. But according to Dr. Happer (Slide 22) “Neither the Lorentzian nor the Voigt line shapes are correct in the far wings!”

        This is based on observational evidence and the whole point of his lecture.

        David Burton put up an audio, video and slides of Dr Happer’s presentation at this link

        SLIDES: link
        Slides 16, 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

        You can get useful background for the physics in these comments from WIKI .
        SUBJECTS:
        Mössbauer effect (recoil energy lost during absorption <===CRITICAL)

        The Pound–Rebka experiment (VERY IMPORTANT because gases are moving randomly and in random directions)

        …The test is based on the following principle: When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When an atom of the same species in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon’s frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift. As a result, the receiving atom cannot absorb it. But if the emitting atom moves with just the right speed relative to the receiving atom the resulting doppler shift cancels out the gravitational shift and the receiving atom can absorb the photon….

        Motional narrowing

        Voigt effect

        My husband, who is a Physicist, had me read up on those subject before we went to the lecture and they were very helpful.

        As I said the real world observational evidence of these two dedicated scientists completely shoots CAGW dead. Now all we have to do is get out Congress critters to listen to them before the USA is irreparably harmed.

        Dr William Gray is 85 and still working and trying to get the message out.
        Dr Happer is 75 and still working and still trying to get this message out.

        As I said these men are true scientists and have both been treated shabbily as a result.

    • philjourdan says:

      I second Gail’s comment.

  4. Richard M says:

    I have referenced Dr. Gray’s work many times. His papers have always made the most logical sense. This work provides the mechanism that supports Miskowski’s claims of a constant optical depth. Add in his views on how the MOC drives short term climate changes and we have a pretty good description of what has driven climate over the past century or two.

  5. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! A Christmas Gift From Dr.Gray: There Is No Need To Destroy The U.S. Economy To Save The World From Bogus Climate Change.

    • Can anyone show that CO2 can increase the lapse rate at all? There is no absorption of IR flux [b]with every location in the atmosphere at a temperature higher than that needed for radiative equilibrium.[/b]. This higher temperature via latent heat conversion means no actual altitude for exit flux. The flux outward to space continues to “accumulate” all the way to 220 km. Increasing atmospheric CO2 can have no effect on temperature at the surface or troposphere, and can only increase exit flux from the stratosphere, cooling it. It is the purpose of the atmosphere, not the surface, to regulate, via adjustable water vapor content, the temperatures,on or about this planet.
      Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! 🙂

  6. soulsurfer says:

    brilliant!!

    “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” –H.L. Mencken

    “Because we object to the prostitution of the scientific method by politics.” – President Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation.

  7. Latitude says:

    Thank you, great present!!

  8. Gail Combs says:

    One of the ‘defenses’ of the useful idiots is “But he is not a ♥ ‘CLIMATE SCIENTIST’ ♥

    Dr Gray is an excellent example of how that works. From WIKI

    Criticisms of Gray’s statements on global warming

    Peter Webster, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, has been part of the anonymous peer review on several of Gray’s National Science Foundation proposals. In every case he has turned down the global warming research component because he believed it was not up to standards, but recommended that Gray’s hurricane research be funded.

    Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees. “Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years,” says Webster. “All of a sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn’t agree with. And they’re getting a lot of press—more press than I like, actually. I like the ivory tower. But he’s become more and more radical.”[10]

    10 a b Prendergast, Alan (2006-06-29). “The Skeptic”. Denver Westwood News.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

    OUCH! So now we know how the propagandists make sure all the ♥ ‘CLIMATE SCIENTISTS’ ♥ are part of the team effort.

    Webster is interesting:

    Curriculum Vitae – Peter Webster’s Webpage
    Education:
    1972 Ph.D.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    1964 BSc: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

    Professional:
    2010- Professor, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
    2002-2010 Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
    2006- Chief Scientist, Climate Forecast Applications Network
    1992-2002: Director and Professor, Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

    1983-1992: Professor of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University
    1990-1991: Visiting Scientist, European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Visiting Professor, University of Reading
    1982-1983: G. J. Haltiner Chair Professor, Department of Meteorology, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, USA
    1977-1983 Principal Research Scientist, Division of Atmospheric Physics, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia
    1973-1977: Assistant Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
    1972-1973: Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Atmospheric Science, UCLA

    http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/pjwcv.doc

    Again we have the jumping back and forth between the UK, USA and Australia we have seen with others. Separate data bases my backside!

  9. ren says:

    Professor William M. Gray
    Of blessed memory Professor Jaworowski would be very happy with of your research.
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html#ABS

  10. Eric Barnes says:

    Thanks Dr. Gray and Tony.

  11. Rick K says:

    Thanks, Tony… and thank you so much Dr. Gray…
    Not only for your smarts and your service, but for your bravery in the face of unrelenting and unthinking opposition.

  12. gregole says:

    Dr Gray,

    Thanks for your words of truth. I particularly liked:

    We should all be grateful for the tremendous advancements in living standards, health, and overall well-being which the utilization of fossil-fuel energy has made possible. Fossil-fuel energy has been one of humanity’s greatest blessings.

    Higher levels of fossil-fuel usage will bring about yet greater economic and society benefits. Increased CO2 will also bring an enhancement of vegetation growth, a small global rainfall increase, and a very slight global temperature rise – all positive changes for humankind.

    Merry Christmas All!

  13. Chewer says:

    Dr, Gray’s assessment is excellent and also shows us why there haven’t been debates between the neurotic and the sensible!
    With sensible science beginning to be published, we should now be listening to the hypothesis concerning the conditions (oean-air circulation patterns/phasing, upper atmospheric chemical and electromagnetic states, and the stimuli needed to cause the planetary shifts from glacial to inter-glacial and back again…

  14. R2Dtoo says:

    I want Inhofe to call a panel with Gray and Happer to present, two gov scientist (Schmit and Trenberth?) to respond, and then debate. I can’t make this happen from Canada, but surely some of you folks can plant the seeds. We have one year (Paris) to win or slow this mess.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I was think about that just last night.

    • Chewer says:

      A petition is needed.
      Even though many of us write our congressional leaders, without a full-out assault on the asylum, the lunatics will continue to hold the fort!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Unless the petition is from the Left wingers they mean nothing.

        Of interest: When I showed up at Bob Etheridge’s(D) congressional office some years back. They wanted to know what ‘group I represented’ I told them the group I represented was the individual. The look on the guy’s face was priceless.

        • Chewer says:

          That is unfortunate, but true…
          It appears that the natural changes currently underway from the Inter-planetary magnetic field (quieting solar output) through the plasma regions above us, right down through the thermosphere, mesosphere, stratosphere and troposphere and the cyclical excursion within our planets core, will stifle the neurotic propaganda.
          Cyclical geo-physical phenomena are identifiable, but missing the opportunity to spend money on the science to study the causes is downright criminal.

  15. Eric Simpson says:

    So instead of 1° of warming becoming 3&deg+ degrees of warming through the positive feedback of water vapor, we get negative feedback from water vapor, and for an actual doubling of CO2 that 1° of warming becomes … 0.3°. Yeah, instead of an increased greenhouse blanket effect, we get the cooling effect of increased precipitation. The globe.. self corrects its climate. We could safely say that the effect of CO2 on climate temperature is not going to be able to be distinguished from noise. Indeed, that’s what the historical ice core records show also, that there is no evidence of CO2 affecting temperatures. None. See the 3 minute video that makes this graphically clear and calls out Al Gore for his willful lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

  16. wayne says:

    Now that it is…. Merry Christmas to all!

    • Can anyone show that atmospheric CO2 “can” increase the lapse rate at all? There is no absorption of IR flux <b.with every location in the atmosphere at a temperature higher than that needed for radiative equilibrium. This higher temperature via latent heat conversion means “no” actual altitude for exit flux. The flux outward to space continues to “accumulate” all the way to 220 km. Increasing atmospheric CO2 can have no effect on temperature at the surface or troposphere, and can only increase exit flux from the stratosphere, cooling it. It is the purpose of the atmosphere, not the surface, to regulate, via adjustable water vapor content, the temperatures, on or about this planet.
      Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! 🙂

  17. Richard111 says:

    And a merry Christmas to all and a big thank you to our host for posting this essay from Dr Gray.
    I have no science qualifications apart from some electronics and have to work hard to follow all climate discussions. My interest stems from the fact I am an old age pensioner on VERY limited income and I am being punished for a problem that does not exist.
    If I may comment on CO2 ‘wings’ mentioned above… this ‘line broadening’ is a laboratory observation and the explanation I read is that gas molecules have an ‘average’ speed at a given temperature. Some molecules are slower, some faster. If the molecule is moving directly towards or away from the radiation source it will emit or absorb either side of a specific IR LINE where the FRACTIONAL speed difference permits. Remember all photons move at light speed. There is going to have to be a pretty high molecular speed to allow this effect. I am feel confident that normal atmospheric temperatures would not drive any gas molecules much over say 1,000 metres per second. The total percentage of molecules from a quantity amounting to 0.04% of the atmosphere will VERY small.
    My next niggle is that any CO2 molecule will be at atmospheric temperature appropriate to its altitude. Kinetic collisions. Even up to the tropopause the air temperature is above -50C, the peak emission temperature of the 13 micron band for CO2. We know CO2 is very active over the 15 micron band which covers some 3,800 lines of IR over the 13 to 17 micron bands. Since each and every CO2 molecule is already radiating over that 13 to 17 micron band just how can it absorb any more energy over that band?

    • Each is also radiating to space the extra sensible heat gained from convection and conversion of latent heat from the now frozen H2O. Not only that but at the altitude of the tropopause the cross-sectional area of both CO2 and frozen H2O molecules are radiating flux in every band they can, not into PI steradians, but more like 5 steradians (most of the hemisphere).

  18. omanuel says:

    Steven,

    When you have a chance to do so, please ask Professor Bill Gray about the research work of Edward Anders in geophysical and/or geochemical sciences at the University of Chicago.

    About the time Dr. Bill Gray received his PhD in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago in 1964, a young young geochemist – Edward Anders aka Edwaurd Alperovitch -joined the UC faculty as a recent graduate of Columbia University.

    Anders became a very successful opponent of evidence first reported in 1972 [1] the Sun made “strange xenon” and the rest of our elements and birthed the solar system.

    The last issue of Science in December 1975 – thirty-nine years ago today – was devoted to Anders’ false claim in situ fission of superheavy elements instead made “strange xenon” in meteorites.

    Science published an open debate on the matter in January 1977 [2].

    1. “Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240, 99-101 (1972). http://www.omatumr.com/archive/XenonInCarbonaceousChondrites.pdf http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm

    2. “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195, 208-210 (1977). http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf

  19. ren says:

    “Riding the global cycles
    Diatoms fix as much carbon dioxide as all the rainforests of the world combined, and they may very well have been the main architects of our current, moderately cool climate situation. The rise of the diatoms began in a much warmer climate than ours, with no ice caps on the poles. The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was much higher than today. In the Cretaceous, around 100 million years ago, when diatoms began to become widespread and developed great diversity, the carbon dioxide level was fivefold higher than today, and oxygen was lower. Remarkably, diatoms managed to thrive and expand during a period of extreme climate change, and they also seem to have come through the mass extinction that saw off the dinosaurs without too many problems. The opening of the Drake Passage around 40 million years ago, which created the continent of Antarctica, was particularly beneficial for the diatoms because they began to proliferate dramatically in the cold turbulent waters of the Southern Ocean.

    As diatoms evolved thicker and denser cell walls and spread across the oceans, it became more likely that dead diatoms might sink to the ocean floor and thus sequester their carbon.”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212008664

  20. ren says:

    “Shells – Carbon Transport Down to the Deep
    Shell-building organisms such as coral, oysters, lobsters, pteropods, sea urchins, and some species of phytoplankton use calcium carbonate ions to build their shells, plates and inner skeletons. The carbon that is incorporated into the shells of these organisms can end up in deep ocean sediments as these organisms die and sink. Although some of the shells dissolve before reaching the seafloor sediments, shells slowly build up on the sea floor storing the carbon for millions of years.
    Coccolithophores
    Coccolithophores[reuse info] Phytoplankton bloom Key of Biscaye france
    [reuse info] Coccolithophores perhaps have had the biggest impact on the carbon cycle over time. These microscopic phytoplankton remove carbonate ions and calcium ions from seawater to build their calcium carbonate (CaCO3) plates – called coccoliths. When there is plenty of sunlight and nutrients, these tiny phytoplankton will explosively reproduce, producing a “bloom” of trillions of coccolithophores floating in the surface of the ocean. Satellites can see these blooms from space, such as the very large bloom above that appeared off the coast of Norway in the Barents Sea. In just a few days, coccolithophores gobble up the available nutrients and start to die. The trillions of coccolith plates slowly sink down to the bottom of the ocean taking the calcium carbonate in their plates with them.
    The calcium carbonate in these sediments are actually chalk – the same type of chalk used to write on blackboards. Sometimes slow tectonic movements will force these chalky sediments above sea level. The White Cliffs of Dover are in England are perhaps the best known example of this. To find out more, read about Coccolithophores and White Cliffs of Dover and then play the video “Chalk Dust.”
    http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/6a.html

  21. ren says:

    “The ratio between the concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicate in particular areas of the ocean dictates competitive dominance within phytoplankton communities. Each ratio essentially tips the odds in favor of either diatoms or more other groups of phytoplankton, such as coccolithophores. A low silicate to nitrogen and phosphorus ratio allows coccolithophores to outcompete other phytoplankton species; however, when silicate to phosphorus to nitrogen ratios are high coccolithophores are outcompeted by diatoms. The increase in agricultural processes lead to eutrophication of waters and thus, coccolithophore blooms in these high nitrogen and phosphorus, low silicate environments.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccolithophore

  22. Dave says:

    Excellent writeup from Dr. Gray. Another wildcard is solar behavior. If you add in potential climate changes due to weak solar magnetic fields, there probably won’t be any global warming for decades. But the alarmists will spin whatever happens their way.

  23. ntesdorf says:

    Thanks Steve, for bringing us this unexpected and amazingly informative Christmas Gift From Dr. Bill Gray! Happy Christmas, Steve. and a Good New Year!

  24. Richard M says:

    After thinking about this for while I understand how this might work in the Tropics, but what about the rest of the world? For example, Antarctica has no big cumulus clouds that I am aware of. Would that mean the effect would have to be pro-rated over different climate zones?

    Speaking of Antarctica, It is one of the drier regions on Earth. Shouldn’t the greenhouse effect be stronger there? CO2 should be a higher percentage of the base greenhouse effect. If anything, Antarctica has been cooling over the past 50 years. I thought about the ozone hole, but it hasn’t changed in the last 25 years.

    • “Speaking of Antarctica, It is one of the drier regions on Earth. Shouldn’t the greenhouse effect be stronger there? CO2 should be a higher percentage of the base greenhouse effect. If anything, Antarctica has been cooling over the past 50 years. I thought about the ozone hole, but it hasn’t changed in the last 25 years.”

      You seem to “believe” in some greenhouse effect. None can be observed, detected, or measured. This is the the scam, and if for profit, the FRAUD!

      • Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

        Considering it is the Holidays, Will, your questions may take a while garnering people with time to answer. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  25. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    A must read…thank you Dr Gray!

  26. Thanks Bill for confirming what I have always believed – that the global warming/climate change propaganda was solely politically based care of the liberal machine, to increase their control over the people of the world. Merry Christmas!

  27. The negative feedback described by Dr Gray results from processes in cumulonimbus clouds that operate as tall chimneys that channel the heat into the stratosphere.

    In addition to cloud effects that work through convection, there are cumulostratus clouds that act as gigantic white sheets that reflect sunlight back into space.

    Cosmo-climatology links these lower cloud strata to celestial effects both solar and galactic.

    1. NASA reported discoveries concerning “…a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system,” explains lead author Merav Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. “This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23dec_voyager/

    2. Local Interstellar Cloud and Galactic Superwave effects on the Earth
    http://starburstfound.org/superwaveblog/?p=207

    3. The cosmoclimatology scientists and their work is described here.
    http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/The_Chilling_Stars.html

  28. Mervyn says:

    Climate fear mongering is down-right immoral, deceitful and unforgivable, especially when sanctioned by governments who even refuse to accept the present unexplained reality of no global warming despite record rises in CO2 emissions.

    Even if we cannot readily find the cause for the “pause” – as it is sometimes called – we can be absolutely sure that it was not predicted by any of the dozens of the UN-IPCC’s General Circulation Models (GCMs). Therefore, logically, such non-validated GCMs cannot, and should not, be used to predict the future climate — or as a basis for policy decisions.

    In short, it’s time for governments to stop all this dangerous man-made global warming alarmist bullshit!

    • icarus62 says:

      GCMs predict forced trends, not stochastic short term variability. They have proven to be accurate in predicting large scale, long term climate changes.

      • rah says:

        icarus62 says: They have proven to be accurate in predicting large scale, long term climate changes.

        Really? Please show us the information/data that claim is based on.

        • icarus62 says:

          This may help:

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gavin Schmidt is a proven liar why ever would anyone but a Global warming religious fanatic bother to waste time listening to him?

          What do I mean the is a proven liar? That is what Steven Goddard has spent a lot of time proving.

          Here is just one piece of proof.
          US Temperatures (raw data) Show No Correlation With CO2

          US Temperatures ADJUSTMENTS Show Perfect Correlation With CO2

      • Gail Combs says:

        The IPCC says:

        …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

        IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

        Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the unelected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

        Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

  29. icarus62 says:

    The problem is that we’ve already wiped out 8,000 years of natural global cooling in just a century and we’re well on the way to a warmer planet than humans have ever experienced since we first evolved. This is likely to cause some disruption…

    • Gail Combs says:

      OH, Bull Patties. The data does not support you.

      SEA LEVEL FALL

      Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

      ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

      Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today.

      Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

      Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.

      Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica

      A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ∼7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ∼9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….

      The above is a RELATIVE sealevel curve. The area is not tectonically stable because the area has isostatic uplift in response to deglaciation from the Wisconsin Ice Age. The isostatic uplift plus sea level highstand gave a maximum ∼9 meters above present sea-level 6200 yr ago.

      A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

      The curve shows a mid-Holocene RSL highstand on Fildes Peninsula at 15.5 m above mean sea level between 8000 and 7000 cal a BP. Subsequently RSL gradually fell as a consequence of isostatic uplift in response to regional deglaciation….

      This study shows the highstand 15.5 meters above present when you include uplift.

      Verification by another method
      Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

      For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.

      There are also studies showing the temperatures were higher and the glaciers smaller verifying the above data

      A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
      Kristian Vasskoga Øyvind Paaschec, Atle Nesjea, John F. Boyled, H.J.B. Birks

      …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

      Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
      Miller et al
      Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al

      …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded…

      Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue

      Abstract
      Extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coasts show that these areas once saw seasonally open water. In addition to beach ridges, large amounts of striated boulders in and on the marine sediments from the same period also indicate that the ocean was open enough for ice bergs to drift along the shore and drop their loads. Presently the North Greenland coastline is permanently beleaguered by pack ice, and ice bergs are very rare and locked up in the sea ice. Predictions of the rapidly decreasing sea ice in the Arctic Ocean generally point to this area as the last to become ice free in summer. We therefore suggest that the occurrence of wave generated shores and abundant ice berg dropped boulders indicate that the Arctic Ocean was nearly free of sea ice in the summer at the time when they were formed. The beach ridges occur as isostatically raised “staircases”, and C14-dated curves for relative sea level change show that they were formed in the Early Holocene. A large set of samples of molluscs from beach ridges and marine sediments were collected in the summer of 2007, and are presently being dated to give a precise dating of the ice free interval. Preliminary results indicate that it fell within the interval from c. 8.5 to c. 6 ka – being progressively shorter from south to north. We therefore conclude that for a priod in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer….

      What is mind boggling is the Climastrologists with degrees in Geology, Hydrology and Earth Science completely ignore the fact that the Modern Warm Period is colder than other periods during the Holocene, that glaciers are growing and the sea level is dropping. Instead they cherry pick a short term change in the weather and call it ‘ClIMATE’!

    • Dan Coggin says:

      Oh, so what you are saying is, “I really don’t have any data to back up my claim.” Really, the warmists typically retreat from discussing “long term trends” because that opens the door to discuss long term cyclical behavior, which seriously weakens their argument that man is “causing” the current “trend.” Come on, you can’t have it both ways!

    • Gail Combs says:

      The above was the geological data :

      Then there is the physics:
      Paraphrasing Dr. Brown.
      What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon?
      That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

      When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.

      In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

      Dr Happer in his lecture agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

      The take away from his UNC lecture (9/2014) was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. This means you take the exponential curve Steve showed a few weeks ago (CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Very Small) and squash it even flatter at 400 ppm and above. This means the CO2 sensitivity is much smaller than calculated by the IPCC. Actually the entire debate should have ended with “CO2 is logarithmic”. (stevengoddard(DOT)wordpress.com/2014/11/13/co2-greenhouse-effect-is-very-small/ )

      Dr Happer’s information is illustrated by this image the Warmists use to say ozone is a greenhouse gas. The Figure is from Uherek, 2006. They even say it “show how carbon dioxide is cooling the stratosphere.” The black dotted line is the tropopause and you can see water is dumping energy just under the tropopause (the pink splotches surrounded by dark blue) while CO2 is dumping energy from just above the tropopause and up (the big yellow streak on the left) just as Dr. Happer, Dr Brown and the Camel stated. Ozone is the smaller yellow streak on the right.

      The legend with the illustration:

      Figure 2.15: Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, carbon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colors from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. (ibid)

      What is NOT mentions is that is where CO2 is active and NOT in the troposphere at least not below 11 KM where it barely starts radiating.

      • Fred Gunter says:

        Sounds like a lot of mubo jumbo not supported by 95% of climate scientists.

      • icarus62 says:

        Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have measurably enhanced the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Downward longwave radiation has increased by about 3.5 W/m² since pre-industrial times –

        ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

        This is the primary cause of the modern global warming trend.

      • Gail Combs says:

        rah, icarus is using politician massaged IPCC data.

        The scientists involved with the IPCC were not happy with the changes. 46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

        Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

        Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

        Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
        (Note 46 is twice the number of “a few dozen.”)
        ….

        Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

        Well there goes icarus scare mongering about sea level rise.
        …..

        Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

        • icarus62 says:

          According to several studies, the rate of sea level rise from 1901 to 2010 is 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr. The rate from 1993 to 2010 is 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr, so there has been statistically significant acceleration since the end of the 19th Century (the rate of rise has more than doubled).

          As AR5 says:

          “There is high confidence that this change is real and not an artefact of the different sampling or change in instrumentation, as the trends estimated over the same period from tide gauges and altimetry are consistent.”

        • philjourdan says:

          Really? what studies? And what measurements? MM is a very exacting measurement, so please show us the data. So far all you have shown is that there is a trend, but no acceleration.

          So you understand the difference?

        • Gail Combs says:

          SO? I can find studies that say the Sea level DROP is 1.4 meters at a tectonically stable beach. And my studies deal with CLIMATE not weather.

          Again from a scientist who was part of the IPCC

          Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

        • gator69 says:

          Assumption-led investigations

          “A lot of current ghost research is ‘assumption-led’. In other words, investigators start with certain assumptions, like ‘ghosts are spirits’, and then seek evidence to confirm that assumption. This is circular logic and not the way science works. In science, you start by collecting evidence in a neutral way, ensuring it is accurate, and then using it to form theories that explain the evidence. These theories are then tested to see if they are correct.”

          http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Scientific%20ghost%20research.html

          99.9% of ghost hunters believe ghosts are real, and they employ parallel methodology of the IPCC.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, not only Assumption led but Politics led.

          Assumption led is bad enough. Politics led means there is a hidden agenda and the agenda is hidden because it is not in the best interest of the ordinary people. CAGW has shown it is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and if thousands die? Well who cares certainly not people like icarus.

          Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

          Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

          Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

          Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

          Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Gail! I am well aware of what informed and honest scientists think of the IPCC…

          “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

          “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

          “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,”Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

          “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

          “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

          “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

          [Of the IPCC panel] “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton

          Former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate EPW committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

          ““The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,…We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.” Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

          “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher

          “The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe.” UK Botanist and ex-BBC broadcaster Dr. David Bellamy (who used to believe in man-made climate fears.)

          As a boy I had friends who built models of the Wolfman, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. They looked scary and lifelike, but never once did I consider them proof that monsters exist.

  30. Gail Combs says:

    icarus62 says:
    “Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have measurably enhanced the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Downward longwave radiation has increased by about 3.5 W/m² since pre-industrial times”
    ……

    Now isn’t that the prettiest example of lying by misdirection you have ever seen?

    Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases = CO2 emitted by human activity.

    Anthropogenic CO2 contributions are 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, when the Global Warming Potential is used to quantify the effects of different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.

    So even if you agree with the second half of the statement, the Anthropogenic contribution is:
    3.5 W/m² X 2.33% = 0.081 W/m²

    Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

    Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”

  31. gator69 says:

    icarus62 says:

    All surface/lower troposphere metrics show warming of between 0.15 and 0.2C per decade –

    It does when you cherry pick start dates and use adjusted data.

    All people between the ages of 13 and 19 are teenagers.

    • Chewster says:

      Some cats don’t understand that the lower troposphere is recovering from the 1982-83 super El-Nino and the 1997-98 Super-Spectacular El-Nino.
      The first three channels TLT-TMT) show the unmistakable recovery and the last eight channels show the trend:
      http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

      • gator69 says:

        Funny, I was explaining this to my mother just a few hours ago, it all started with what I have read about SC25 predictions. My dad was fascinated by the 82-83 El Nino, and the effects it had on our weather.

        • Chewster says:

          The idea (“Working Hypothesis”) that with a point of warming due to C02 causes 2 more points of warming due to cloud feedback/manifestation is a sad joke.
          Unfortunately what should be a great laugh, has turned into the massive waste of taxpayer coerced dollars…

        • Chewster says:

          Indeed, all aspects of geo-physical science show their cyclical nature and we’re seeing OLR in full-fledged mode right now, with the temperature at -12 and -30 within the next four hours…
          http://209.161.165.147:8000

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, Do not forget E.M. Smith’s comment

          https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/iccc-day-two/
          …..We then got a bonus of a video clip that I think was presented by Gary Sharp. It showed the heat / cold cycling of water in the pacific over decades as El Niño comes and goes. How to put a movie into words? Not well… But you see the warm and cold moving and swirling and you start to see patterns, one is that it drifts north over time.

          The Punch Lines being that that heat reaches the Arctic going past Alaska about 18 years after generation in the Pacific. So the warming in 2008 melting ice comes from a 1990 hot Pacific. None of the models allow for that time lag and “If you don’t have that in your model, your model is broken”. (as a pretty good paraphrase).

  32. Gail Combs says:

    icarus62 says: “The point is that the empirical observations agree with the models.”
    ……
    No the empirical observations DO NOT!

    I just went to a lecture for physics grad students detailing where the models when wrong based on satellite observations.

    The take away from the lecture was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate Modelers missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. This means you take the exponential curve and squash it even flatter at 400 ppm and above. This means the CO2 sensitivity is much smaller than calculated by the IPCC.

    #1. The effective surface area intercepted by each CO2 molecule is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO2 molecule.

    #2. When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

    Do not forget that warm air rises so these excited (warmed) molecules head up.

    #3. Experimental data shows barely any radiation from CO2 at 11 KM and that the CO2 radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface. At that point the CO2 is acting as a coolant radiating IR to space.

  33. site says:

    It means that you get total discounts at the time of subscription. The web
    design on a web hosting providers website is a quick and easy indication of the
    quality of the provider. The laws have been changing and many portals that offer
    services are finding it harder and harder to get their word out
    there.

  34. fritz says:

    Don’t you think Icarus62 is a robot ?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s