The Sound Of Settled Science

Wow, that Tahoe City trash barrel with the new "ionic particulate separator", is the finest example of cutting edge technology I've ever seen.

I'm going to install one at home!

For years and years, Dr Tim Ball, Canadian, has been pointing out the fraud that is climate data polution. The 'Heat Island effect'. The media would not report on it though.

I wonder if Tim ever thought the "heat Island" would be "enhanced" by 'man-made' electrical devices like a light bulb !!?? Incadescent ones even !!

The guy that takes data at this station intended to install a cold led light .. eh?

Certainly! He is a carefully chosen *expert* climatologist with no Bart Simpson tendencies whatsoever. Al Gore quality, all the way.= TG

This is so much like econometrics, it is funny. When that branch o'study started to get off the ground, a wise man reminded its pioneers that the figures, which they were treating with such near-reverent exactitude, tended to come from night watchmen filling in their data forms in a tavern.

(This fellow was a Briton. I can't remember the exact quote; the above is the gist.)

@ron in kelowna:

And you wonder why the gummints want to ban those 'wicked' incadescent light bulbs? 'They're to blame for those mistakes! Evil bulbs!'

It is even more interesting than that. These are the "rural" locations that are supposed to be immune from Heat Island effects....so showing that the are contaminated by nearby heat sources is important.

Some recent studies have been trying to say that the "rural" sites are showing effects of warming as well.....

For such a life on earth threatening issue you think the money would be better spent on proper measuring systems and infrastructure rather than on more conferences, movies and establishing carbon markets.

Perhaps we are solving a non existent problem....perhaps...

Did anyone read comment 82?

"Now, I don’t see any trend there"

Look at the graph he posted that he sees no trend in..... LMAO!!

And his name is Willis so it has to earn a :
"Whatcha talkin about Willis!"

My favorite weather station of all time is the one they set up in Death Valley. In a side canyon. That faces the sun. With a salt pan in front of it.

Record temperatures anyone?

www.john-daly.com/stations/badwater.htm

And people wonder why I don't trust the "science".

This is really no surprise. The installations were probably emplaced by the lowest bidder, who had no further interests in the production or accuracy of the output after said contractor had been paid.

I am willing to bet a large sum of money that the people who are charged with the final interpretation of the data have never actually visited all, if any, of the sites from which the information flows.

One would hope that anomalous conditions would be recognized and corrected so that correlations were apples-to-apples and oranges-to-oranges. Nah... my bet is a serving of fruit salad.

In another food analogy, we are being served hamburger, told it is prime rib, and will be billed as if it is fillet mignon. At the same time the bill will reflect the fact that we are also being charged for the meals of all those at tables on the other side of the room.

But, it's a done deal and a settled science, so what the hell.

Phantom: It is good to doubt the science, but it is also good to check on things that you doubt. I read your link (the John Daly site) and thought he had a good point. If the station was moved to the location he suggested it may have contaminated the readings so I checked. In fact, from the latitudes and longitudes, the only weather station operating in Death Valley that is used in the GISS dataset (the one most commonly used for global warming) is the one at Furnace Creek (or more specifically Latitude 36.47 N longitude 116.9 W).

Can you not turst at least this part of it?

Regards,
John

more oopsie !!

"
Argentina Rations Gas to Companies, Chile Amid Cold (Update1)

By Bill Faries and Eliana Raszewski

May 29 (Bloomberg) -- Argentina rationed electricity to companies and severed natural gas supplies to Chile as a cold wave prompted record demand for electricity in South America's second-largest economy.

The temperature in many parts of Argentina fell below freezing yesterday, pushing electricity demand to a record 18,300 megawatts, according to the country's energy regulator. Argentina cut shipments of gas to Chile to meet the surge in demand, forcing their neighbor to rely on residual gas in the pipeline. "

"Can you not turst at least this part of it?"
Posted by: John Cross at May 30, 2007 12:45 PM

Therein lies the crux, does it not? Which part?

I have been in way too many arm-waving sessions with earth scientists of varied specialities and have always been intrigued with the number of different conclusions that were drawn from the same data set.

When your job was to sort the plums from the prunes before committing the dollars it became obvious that the first hurdles to overcome were personal bias and personal proclivities.

It always seemed to be true that it became more difficult [to identify the plums] in an inverse relationship to how much of the money to be committed was somebody elses.

So, what part should one trust? The obvious, the not so obvious, the simple or the complex?

Personally, based on 40 years of *fruit* sorting, I see a lot of arm-waving going on that would come to a sudden halt if the arm-wavers were committing, and spending, their own money.

John Cross - "Can you not turst (sic) at least this part of it?"

In general, no. The acquisition of a representative sample dataset from its parent population is itself a task of no small scientific complexity. Comparatively little attention has been given to this, in contrast to the “sexier science”. Speaking as an experimental physicist in complex systems, I give little credence to terrestrial temperature datasets because the data acquisition is not transparent. Kate has provided some very nice illustrations why we ought to withhold trust a priori.

Maybe Mr. Gore could have us build a huge fan and point it towards Agentina! Oh -- never mind...

Fred:

"cold wave prompted record demand for electricity in South America's second-largest economy."

Must be Al Gore's AGW scam, now that it is so cold.

Thank heaven the "Assault on Reason" can explain it all away, by internal contradiction!!

Bring back the Peronistas so we can all sing:

"Don't cry for me Argentina".

John Cross,

The thing of it is, that while the Furnace Creek station may be the one in the GISS data set, you can bet your bottom dollar that when the one in the valley/canyon sets a record, it is THAT one we will hear all about for two weeks afterward.

Yoop, Tenebris and Jim: My comment to the Phantom was in direct response to the problem that he seems to feel has taken place with the sites in Death Valley (i.e. they have abandoned the initial site and located it where there may be other outside factors). From what I have read, this aspect is not true. When I asked if he could now turst (thanks Tenebris for pointing out my typo) that part, it was in reference to the identified problem. I was not asking him to accept the GISS data set as a whole.

Having said that:

Yoop, relating as to what you can trust, all I can say is research. I arrived at my current position by researching all the traditional skeptical arguments (UHIs, satellite, volcanic CO2 emissions, natural CO2 emissions, iris effect, etc. etc.) and have not found any that can touch the basics of AGW.

Tenebris: that is why I like the satellite data sets. While they have their problems, they provide almost complete coverage and have long been accepted by both skeptics and proponents alike. The satellite data sets are now showing warming at or greater than the last based sets.

Jim: Could be, but at least we now know it will not contaminate the GISS dataset.

Regards,
John

"Jim: Could be, but at least we now know it will not contaminate the GISS dataset."
Posted by: John Cross at May 30, 2007 2:30 PM

John,

In my humble opinion, and with all due respect, I think you are missing the salient point. It does not matter if future data is contaminated or not. This has all moved way beyond science and is now in the realm of politics and money, supported by a MSM that has an agenda, politicians who have an agenda and a gullible public.

so far i have seen 0 data that will stand up to study re man induced global warming.

EVER NOTICE THAT ALL THOSE HOT TEMPETURES ARE TAKEN IN BIG CITIES WITH AL THAT CONCRETE AND GLASS THAT ABSORBE OR REFLECT THE HEAT

To call any of it science is a big leap in faith. The proxies are being put forward as if we had measured the temperature directly with high precision. The instrument data is junk, so contaminated and disjointed that if couldn't even serve as a basis for an undergrad paper without being laughed at.

People are re-writing history to suit their own purposes. Now we learn that Greenland may be a mistranslation, that it was never green. Thanks to RealClimate for that one. I suppose the Vikings never settled there either, better go clean up all that garbage they left behind on their canoe trip I guess.

Don't like the inconvenience of some part of the record? Just change it, nobody will complain and if they do, just call them denialists.

Can't come up with proof of your arguement? Just slander the person on the other side, its ok, the science is in, we have a consensus and no honest person would disagree, therefore anyone who disagrees is dishonest. Thank you deSmogBlog and now RealClimate. Convenient world we live in.

If you go outside in May and its snowing, just take comfort in the "fact" that what you are seeing is not happening according to the models, and oh yes, we have a consensus that cold is not climate, only hot makes climate.

If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny. As it is, its just a big joke.

To me IPCC lost its total credibilty when they sold the MSM and the public on the junk science of Michael Manns now famous de-bunked Hockey Stick. Heck even the IPCC doesn't refer to it anymore.They have lost all crediblitiy in my eyes. Fool me once , shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me. I can't bring myself to trust anything the IPCC and its 2,500 hundred Social Scientist's publish.

The whole IPCC has to be re-vamped, sacked and replaced with true scientists that don't have a political agenda to promote their own fund raising propaganda.

jmorrison: OK, how about these two facts. They form the basis of AGW and very few of the skeptics even disagree on them.

1) CO2 absorbs infra red radiation

2) We are responsible for the increases we are seeing in CO2.

Regards,
JOhn

Let's back right off the negativity about the Lake Tahoe sensor. My son works there and has a job to be sure that light bulb is off -- DAMMMIT. Of course he is paid to make sure the bulb works and is necessary for the public well-being. So he has to turn it on for at least 1/2 hour a day and report to the authorities if it malfunctions, get a work order from the city planner, contact an electrician, review the electric codes, hire an outside consultant if there is any question with his thought patterns or assessment of the situation according to the city council, present his findings to the "Bored of Light and Power", mayor and the "Homeland Security" director of government installations / approvals / review and some other things he told me I can't remember. So, the bulb cost us $4,500.00 USD and lasts 120 hours or 10 years -- unless, of course, he forgets to turn it off and it burns out in 6 months -- like the last time it burned out. Have a nice day !

Hi John!

In a word, no. I can't turst the science because I don't trust the people doing it. Kate's picture is illustrative of the fundamentally sloppy way a lot of this data is collected. I mean, a light bulb? Come ON.

Then there's the Badwater station. The outfit that put that thing up has an agenda to push. They have -zero- interest in getting accurate, repeatable readings.

Universities are filled with guys like that. God knows I've butted heads with enough of them over the years. How many more Badwater stations are out there? I don't know, and that is the point. My personal admittedly jaundiced view is probably a bunch of 'em.

Badwater was installed by NASA. If NASA is bent, and they obviously are, is it any wonder the Bush administration threw out their results and refused to sign Kyoto? Don't think so. Even Clinton wouldn't sign it.

So call me paranoid if you want, but when there's billions of bucks worth of carbon trading snake oil on the line, and large science institutions like NASA have gone into the propaganda biz, I just think taking this whole global warming thing seriously is a bit much to ask.

Its just too easy to fudge the data John. Sorry dude.

John Cross wrote;
OK, how about these two facts. They form the basis of AGW and very few of the skeptics even disagree on them.

1) CO2 absorbs infra red radiation

2) We are responsible for the increases we are seeing in CO2.

Regards,
JOhn

Sceptics don't disagree because they agree. That is not what they disagree with.

What about these points John?

3) H2O is the major greenhouse gas contributing around 90% of global warming

4)CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and it is absorbing all the energy available.

5) CO2 competes with H2O for the greenhouse energy.

6) H2O absorbs energy across a much wider spectrum than Co2.

7) there is a lot more H2O in our atmosphere than CO2

What they disagree with is that AGM is causing global warming.

CO2 absorbs IR at very narrow frequencies, 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it.

I would agree, John, to the following:

1) CO2 absorbs some infra-red radiation, with diminishing first derivative effect as a function of concentration, according to the Beer-Lambert law.

2) We are producing some atmospheric CO2 vapour that would not be produced if we were not here.

But if I translate that into first-order predicate calculus, allowing for universals and existentials, then there is no term in that argument for temperature. While I greatly appreciate the difficulty of summarizing one's perspective in succinct terms (at least, I find it difficult), your (1) and (2) are not an argument, they're a pair of antecedents for a missing syllogism.

Aye, there lies the rub.

Anyway, the thing is, it would at least appear to me, John, that you are convinced that if all the ducks line up against us then we will be in some sort of trouble, unless we don't do something about it now. That's fine. As I said before, I think it is a valid argument. Many of us are skeptical of the whole thing because of issues relating to the methods and morals of the proponents, and that's a valid argument too.

There is a way, though, in which this is not necessarily such a conflict. In particular, John, to the best of my recollection, in your discussions here you have not yet expounded upon what you think we should do, assuming your model of the situation is the correct one.

It may be that we actually agree on what to do, even if we don't agree on the details of the reasons for doing it. I, for example, don't think it's a good idea to waste hydrocarbon resources on heat supplies that could be better provided by nuclear facilities, considering that 40% of our hydrocarbon harvesting is already used for non-fuel feedstocks, and that demand is likely to increase unabated.

So I think that discussion would be, perhaps, interesting, but we won't know if you don't tell us. As Stephen Den Beste wrote: "Pious aphorisms and intensive introspection are not a plan". As engineers, if we can't decide exactly what's going to happen, then our job is to design a system that mitigates the risks even so. All the risks. Including cost.

PS: I'm with you on the top 50, John, drop me a line to the vitruvius2 account at gmail if you want to discuss the next 50, I've already got about 30 queued.

Can I ask a question? How can CO2 which I am told is less than .048% of Green house gases (Water vapour is greater than 90 %) be the culprit.

If you look at my previous analogy, if you turn the atmosphere into money say $100 and then turn that into pennies, you'll have 10,000 pennies (which is the Greenhouse gas total) 4 of the 10,000 will be CO2.... If you increase the CO2 to what the Susuki world says is catastrophic you'll now have 5 pennies out of 10,000. Pretty insignificant.

People let's use common sense instead of social science and politics.

Don't tell me that this is affecting Global climate. The miniscule impact of CO2 increase surely can't have a greater impact than the sun.

The Sun to me is why we have Climate change. Anyone who says the sun has no effect on climate is living in LaLa Land. To my knowledge the sun has not been given any significant credence in the super computer models which formulated Kyoto.

If you look at history The Climate has always changed and is continuing to change today. They used to grow grapes in England in the 1200's and 1300'S, haven't seen too many grapes grown in England since then. (must have been a lot of coal fired plants and suv's running around in King Aurthurs time)...So why did the climate change in days gone past. Duh.... possibly The Sun....

Since the global warming period in the 1200's and 1300's I didn't see any catastrophic scenarios proposed by the Kyoto crowd in fact that's a period when life prospered.

Because of warming, wildlife flourished, Agriculture improved providing food for the population, hunting was good, longer building seasons, less loss of life due to cold weather, in spite of the lack of the knowledge and technology we have now.

The world's great Churches, Palaces, and Castles which we admire today were built during a time of global warming. Humanity flourished during this time in spite of their technology depravaions and Global warming.

So if the globe is warming.. regardless of the cause, CO2, Sun, Farting, or whatever, why are people predicitng catastrophe... Which I will never accept.

In fact if the globe warms up a little I believe that humanity will be better off as we'll have more farmland, thus more food for a growing population, there will be more open water for Seals to breed and populate thus giving more food to the Polar bears etc.......

Let's get real and stop the Fear Mongering. Global warming will or will not happen regardless what we or our governments try to do. As inhabitants of earth we cannot control.

To mention a quote from a Crocodile Dundee movie,,It's like 2 fleas on the back of a dog arguing who owns the Dog.

We, people are the Fleas who are arguing on who owns the earth..... Sadly in spite of what Susuki says.....THE SUN DOES.....

Is it possible that some of these sites are purposely implemented or changed in a fashion to get some higher temperatures? There is certainly enough money potentially available to corrupt plenty of people. What the environmental movement seems to be promoting is a tax on the very air we breathe. We all exhale CO2. How long before we're paying a personal CO2 tax?

speaking of left wing money redistribution schemes, does anyone know the percentage of liberal MPs that have a relative in the advertising or media business? But also to stay on topic, there are three other man made (or increased) gases that act as a greenhouse gas...methane, CFCs, and nitrous oxide. These three gases combined provide more total ghg insulation than CO2 provides. A Nitrous Oxide molecule is 300x more effective than a CO2 molecule. Methane is 30x more effective. Fluorinated compounds are several thousand times more effective. Why are we targeting CO2?

What? HUMANS make CO2 WHEN THEY BREATHE? AND THEY WANT TO TAX IT???

Yoop: perhaps you are correct that it has moved beyond the science. However the science is what I find interesting so I will continue to look at it.

Phantom: I wasn’t hoping that I could change your mind on it all, but bit by bit. You must admit that Daly’s argument is now wrong.

Truthsayer
3) H2O is the major greenhouse gas contributing around 90% of global warming I could quibble about the %’age, but lets say between 80 & 90 depending on how you define things.
4)CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and it is absorbing all the energy available.
Depends on what you mean by minor and in regards to the absorbing, that thought is right in line with what they suspected about 100 years ago 9i.e. 1905). It is not true as I have explained on this site before.
5) CO2 competes with H2O for the greenhouse energy. Agreed.
6) H2O absorbs energy across a much wider spectrum than Co2. I would prefer a more quantitative word than “much”.
7) there is a lot more H2O in our atmosphere than CO2. Depends on how you define lots. Do you have a reference? Water is quite scarce at the poles and above 5 km.

RL: Do you have a reference for your 0.048% number? I would disagree with it based on your water number.

I previously posted a link to the Grape Grower’s Association of the UK. They are producing some prize winning wines.

In regards to the sun, no one claims it is not the largest driver of climate. The problem is that we can now measure its output quite accurately and there is not enough change to cause the current rise in temperature.

Pete: I don’t think you have to worry about a “breath” tax. The air we breath is from “recycled carbon” from the ecosystem. Fossil fuels are different because they are introducing CO2 that has been sequestered for many millions of years.

Regards,
John

Vitruvius: excellent post. I like posts that make me think.

First. I agree with your 1) but would argue that in fact we are responsible for all the current increase (but no all the atmospheric CO2).

You are correct. The missing syllogism is that “this will lead to rising temperatures”. I am afraid that after this my answers may be some what of a cop out. I don’t know how much (best guess from what I have read is 3 C by 2100) and I don’t know what the effects will be (I suspect that Canada will make out better than most other countries).

I have not said what I think we should do since I do not consider an opinion on this a defensible position. At this point we are getting into the politics and for me it is no longer fun (over the course of a day I deal with a large number of people and must play politics much more than I like). For me the science is the fun part.

However reasonable posts deserve reasonable answers. So in regards to what I think we should do:

1) get the science right. I believe that we making reasonable progress but there are certain “myths” that keep popping up (e.g. urban heat island, volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, the CO2 IR band is saturated so there will be no warming) that should be slayed so we can actually look at arguments that matter.

2) Move off fossil fuels as an energy source. They are more valuable as chemical feed-stock than fuel.

I hate to say it on here, but conservation should become more important (having said that I think that the CF plan is not well thought out).

3) Start adding a mix of energy sources to the pot. This means more nuclear (I have no objection to it) as well as ethanol (done right), solar, etc.

4) Full price costing for fossil fuels. In my opinion we are not paying the full price of using fossil suels since there are environmental costs related (this gets back to point 1).

5) Related to the above. By paying the full cost of fossil fuels we are able to let the market innovate by providing an appropriate incentive. I am a big believer in allowing markets to innovate, but a stimulus must exist. Right now it does not since CO2 can be thrown away for nothing.

Anyway, that is off the top of my head (and plenty of rope to hang me there). Again, my main interest (in fact passion) lies in 1) and if we get that right, then we are closer to the rest.

Regards,
John

John Cross said: "there are certain “myths” that keep popping up (e.g. urban heat island, volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, the CO2 IR band is saturated so there will be no warming)"

There's only one myth in there John. Volcanoes do not produce anywhere near what we do so that would be the myth.

The urban heat island is evident to anyone who has a thermometer. Just take the temperature at several different locations as you drive away from an urban centre. Just because Michael Mann says its not a problem doesn't mean that it isn't. I've measured it.

The CO2 IR absoption band is very narrow, 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This has two effects, first, any IR at any other frequency will pass right on by, second, CO2 absorption extinguishes very quickly, it saturates and won't absorb more.

Pete: For more info on how temperature measurements are "corrected" you could go to Climate Audit http://www.climateaudit.org they are currently discussing these issues.

jnicklin: Ok, lets look at them. First, the UHI. No one has said that UHI does not exist. The question is does it cause the surface trend to rise. The best answer is that it does by an insignificant amount. The best study of this that I have read is

Of course this is backed up by observational evidence. The satellite record has been used for over 20 years to monitor temperature. It is showing warming along with surface records. So if you wish to debate it, you need to not only assert that the UHI affects the temperature but that the satellite records are also wrong and it is a coincidence that they are showing similar warming.

In regards to CO2. Again, no one is claiming that the CO2 band is not saturated. That was never the issue. What is the issue that saturation will stop the warming. Of course it doesn't. As I said, this opinion is what was the scientific opinion about 100 years ago: More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(8) After these conclusions were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been enthusiastic about Arrhenius's work, like Chamberlin, now considered it plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(9) from this excellent reference.

The mechanism for warming is quite complex but I can offer a simple description as follows:

Lets say that the earth’s atmosphere is separated into layers based on their CO2 content (i.e. so much CO2 per layer). As we go up through the layers we eventually reach a point where the radiation from CO2 can escape into space. Now, if we look at what is happening in the layers below we can see that the bottom one is warming the earth a fair bit. However the next layer also provides energy to warm the earth (albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). The same for the third and so on.

Now, we need to look at properties of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not uniform and will be warmer at the bottom with temperature decreasing as we go up. Thus layer 2 is cooler than the bottom layer and so on. This means that the downward radiation from layer 2 is being emitted by a layer that is cooler than the bottom layer. The same for layer 3 which will be cooler than 2 - and its turtles all the way up.

Now, for simplicity sake, lets say that the layers act like blackbodies (they don’t but the effect is close enough for this simple look). Thus they radiate in proportion to their temperature.

To this system we add more CO2. What this will do in effect is to add more CO2 to the layers which will now take up less vertical space (i.e. less space to get the same amount of CO2 – remember our layers are based on CO2, not elevation). In effect this moves all the layers lower. Lower layers will radiate at higher temperatures. Higher temperatures mean more IR radiation. This in turn means more IR striking the earth’s surface.

The effect is small (relative to non saturated effects) which is why a doubling of CO2 will result in only between a 1 and 2 C rise.

I am interested in seeing your refutation.

Regards,
John

Humm, my hml tag for the UHI reference went missing and took some text down with it!!

Anyway, here it is. Urban Heat Island Assessment: Metadata Are Important

In their conclusion they say However, analysis of time series of the full U.S. HCN dataset and a more rural subset that excludes these high population stations indicates that UHI contamination from these high population stations can explain very little of the recent warming (only 0.048°C century1).

John Cross said "Lower layers will radiate at higher temperatures. Higher temperatures mean more IR radiation. This in turn means more IR striking the earth’s surface."

Not entirely sure what you mean by lower layers will radiate at higher temperatures. CO2 absorbs IR at 15 micrometres, it can't radiate IR at anyhing but a lower frequency (cooler) since some energy must be lost in the process.

Other than that, I agree with your description of the layering effect. Doubling CO2 will only result in a small increase in temp as you stated. So why are we getting our collective nickers in a knot over every CO2 molecule?

As for the UHI, if a station has been in place in an urban setting for a long time, then the effect would be minimal. If on the other hand, a rural station is surrounded by urbanization, then over a period of years that station will show higher readings, possibly upwards of 10 degrees. How can that not have an effect? The proxy guys are saying that they can compensate for these effects by correcting the numbers, sort of de-urbanizing the stations. Maybe they can, maybe they can't.

I've just spent some time looking at picturs of weather stations (Stevenson Screens) around the US, and they are not exactly what I would call pristine. Maybe the urban heat island effect is outweighed by the trash burners and light bulbs and car exhaust.

jnicklin: Yes, I agree that the effect will be small - essentially between 1 and 2 degrees. However the rise in temperature will cause more water vapour into the atmosphere which as you pointed out earlier was a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 and thus you can add another couple of degrees and lo and behold we are at the IPCC's estimate (about 3 C).

Now compare this to the statement that adding more CO2 will not have any effect since the band is saturated.

In regards to UHI's, read the paper I linked to. They are very specific about what is urban and what is rural (which is why they run different metadata). Of course you still have to explain the satellites as well.

Regards,
John

John, The effect of H2O vapour in the atmosphere is something that I have not yet had the opportunity to delve into. It does compound and confuse the issue, but I'm not as up on that as I'd like to be.

As for the satellites, I looked at Christie's charts and, yes, there is an increase in temp in the last decade (or longer) but the overall trend since 1998 seems to be stable, no further increase that is within the error margins of measurement. This would seem to match the surface trends as well. That said, the theory of GW says that the troposphere shoud warm faster and more than the surface, all other things remaining equal.

Over to you.

PS. Thanks for the resoned debate, its better than the hysterics I've seen at other sites.

John,

As for water vapour, it makes up about 20,000 ppm in the atmosphere and is about 30 to 40 times more potent as a heat absorber. Adding CO2 to this equation has been likened to a fart in a hurricane by Dr. Martin Hertzberg.

Here are my comments on your plan, John, which I appreciate were off the cuff, as are mine. I agree with (1) Get the science right. I figure in two or three decades we'll be in a much better position thereto, and there's no need to rush, your model only predicts one degree over that time.

On the matter of myths, we have to address all myths, such as absurd claims about how bad a three degree rise would be. There is no way that would cause the extinction of half the planet's species. There are credible arguments that net net our species might be better off there. (Not that you've claimed otherwise, John.)

I agree on (2) and (3), but it's going to take time. Even if we committed flat out to, say nuclear + wind + solar based electric transportation and heat pumps, it would take a decade or two to get fully spooled up. And there are some applications where, due to the high energy capacity of the carbon bond, explosive fuels will remain valuable no matter what. More importantly perhaps, over the next two or three decades I think those changes are going to happen anyway, the writing is on the wall.

As to (4) and (5), while I certainly do not think any fuels should be subsidized, I don't know how your "full costing" proposal would work. If it's a matter of the state determining some magic number by some political process, then colour me skeptical. On the other hand, if there was a proper economic model of waste costs, I'm certain willing to pay my fair share. I remain to be convinced that such a model exists.

Earlier today I stumbled upon an essay at Arts & Letters daily that you may find interesting, "Measuring the political temperature", by Josie Appleton: www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3406/

Sorry, only time for a quick post before I am off to the wilds of Canada (i.e. Ottawa, do they even have internet access there?).

jnicklin: Re: satellite. I feel a little about S&C the same way that some feel about Mann. They have corrected their dataset 4 times and every time it has shown more warming. I think that a better set would be the M&W. Of course ever the S&C set shows more warming than the surface if you take the Fu correction into account (the fact that the stratosphere is cooling contaminates the warming signal).

In regards to the 20,000 - that sounds like a number from Hertzberg. If so do you have a reference for it. I have been trying to track down his calculations so I can see where he differes from my references. I will note that the 20,000 number is for humid tropical air and is not representative of either the surface or vertical column.

Vitruvius: I will try to drop you an e-mail when things become less frantic. However very quickly:

1) I do not think we should wait. To me it seems settled (just a personal perspective but in my opinion the last significant argument was the cooling of the troposphere which is not showing warming).

2 & 3) Agreed. Fossil fuels will always have a place in technology, but I think that most of our current use is a waste.

4 & 5) I know I am just repeating, but I think that change will only come when there are real external pressures. It is similar to a tragedy of the commons argument.

Re myths. Absolutely. That is why I try to stick to the peer - reviewed literature instead of the media. I think the media does a very poor job at reporting on global warming. They go from reporting on hysteria to some false attempt at giving the skeptical point of view scientific creditability.

Anyway, that is it, I have a flight to catch (no, I did not buy any carbon offsets, but I did plant a tree in my fromnt yard). No time to review for spelling or grammar.

Talk to you in about 2 weeks unless I can find an internet access in Ottawa ;-)

John

John,

The number is indeed from Hertzberg, but I do not have his original paper, only a refernce to his number. I agree that it is likely to be tropical, but without any refernce to his calculations, it would be difficult to tell.

On the other topic, I doubt that you will find an internet connection in Ottawa, there is no intelligent life there. Maybe if you move out to the suburbs you might find pockets of intelligence scattered around and someone may have an internet link.

"That is why I try to stick to the peer - reviewed literature instead of the media"

John, the peer review process is a joke, it used to mean something, but now its just silly. First, I write a paper, then I submit it to a journal. The editors can toss it if they don't like it or disagree with some aspect of it. If they do accept it, they usually find 3 or 4 peers who hold the same views as me to review my paper, that's if they liked the paper. They can just as easily find 3 or 4 peers who totally disagree and my paper is rejected. It has become political. They never say who the reviewers are, stating the need for anonimity to maintain objectivity. So, it is likely that much of the peer reviewed literature is no more valid than the unreviewed.

Then there's the unspoken rule that to be publishable, a paper has to have some claptrap conceding anthropogenic global warming or the editors won't touch it.

Better to choose references from credible sources I think. By credible source I mean any journal that has its reputation on the line by publishing bad science. Peer review allows Nature and Science to publish some pretty sketchy stuff, but they can always blame the reviewers.

........to some false attempt at giving the skeptical point of view scientific creditability.

Good to see that you have such an open mind on the subject!

Pd: you just have to realise that by definition, skeptics can't have any credibility. There is no science on their side. The only true science is on the side of the alarmists and we can't have all this noise confusing people.

The only people that can be believed are Al Gore, David Suzuki, Jim Hansen, Michael Mann and Rajendra K. Pachauri, the high priests of Global Warming.

Plain to see that JC is blatantly trying to use the 'dazzle-with-footwork' and 'confuse-with-bafflegarb' method :)

But, it is better than the 'First of all, stop listening to the god-damn Economists" type of blather. (And by default, I suspose, listen to the so-called Zoologists) :)

The Earth has warmed recently ? Yes, It is always warming and cooling. Warming is better for Canada. It will cool again, though.

Let the 'hot' countries be first with sacrifices.

Kyoto was by and large based on Mann's/IPCC hockey stick graph ? Yes. The graph is a fraud. So is Kyoto.

Even the head of NASA now doubts that the hysteria over so-called AGW is justified.

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.""

Sure James Hansen would be stunned. He sees his career and credibility going down the drain. Happens whenever one puts all the eggs in a scam-basket.