sunshine, a distinct possibility is that warming while cloud cover decreases kills the idea of a negative cloud feedback, and is also consistent with the continents warming fastest (e.g. see BEST). As continents warm relative to the oceans they become less cloudy, which feeds back to droughts and heating. So becoming less cloudy is a consequence of warming, which in turn is a consequence of increasing CO2.

My opinion is that those who would propose that the logarithmic curve of CO2 in any way suggests no additional warming if pre-industrial levels simply don’t know very much about radiative transfer and how saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere actually works. I don’t blame them, as it is actually pretty complicated stuff, but I do blame them if they simply believe what is posted on a skeptical blog rather than do some deeper reading on the subject from a wide variety or sources. I would highly suggest that anyone serious about actually learning about the science behind AGW read “The Warming Papers” (available on Amazon) cover to cover. If you don’t have the time and money for that, but are serious about understanding the true science and physics behind CO2 and the saturation effect in the atmosphere, one of the very best postings on this can be found here:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/

The above post is just part 8 of an 8 part series about this, but really, anyone who is serious about this subject and who really wants to try to get a handle on the actual science behind what CO2 really does as it relates to radiative transfer in the atmosphere and doesn’t want to read The Warming Papers, ought to at least read the complete series from the above link starting at the very beginning here:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

Here’s the thing to keep in mind. We’ve only seen the transient climate response (TCR) to our current 392 ppm of CO2, and have not yet seen the equilibrium climate response (ECR) as it takes many decades to unfold…i.e. the cryosphere is responding to levels of CO2 we had met years ago, and will be responding many years from now to our current level, even if they somehow froze at 392 ppm) but we never will know what the ECR would be from 1990′s, 2002′s, or today’s level because the atmosphere continues to accumulate more and more greenhouse gases every year, far faster than the longer-term equilibrium response will take.

Here’s my current view on the issue of TCR/ECR and what final average global temperature increase of the lower troposphere we might end up with if we are so fortunate as to halt the rise in CO2 at 560 ppm.

The TCR for the lower troposphere might be as low as 1.5C per doubling of CO2 from per-industrial levels, but all that is fairly unimportant, as it is the ECR that really matters in the long term as it is what effects ecosystems, weather patterns, etc.. Where will the temperatures settle once the system has seen all negative and positive slower Earth System feedbacks play out? 3C as an ECR is a pretty reasonable estimate, given that numerous studies give a range for the TCR/ECR ratio from about 0.4 to 0.8. Also, paleoclimate data from the Pliocene and Miocene (the last time CO2 levels were this high or higher) indicate temperatures 3C or more higher. So both the climate models and the paleoclimate data would suggest that a 3C increase for a lower tropospheric ECR is a pretty reasonable, in the range estimate for an Earth that goes from 280 to 560 ppm of CO2. Of course, given the rapidity (from a geologic perspective) with which CO2 (and other GH gases) is increasing, it is entirely possible that various components of the slower earth-system response could lag others, meaning that, even halting the concentration of CO2 at 560 ppm could lead to an over-shoot situation whereby temperatures increase by 4.5C or even higher before settling back at the 3C higher level for the equilibrium response.

“I am absolutely dismayed. This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation, hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited.”

The same could said for most advertising.

But is it not public service to make general public aware of the possible extent of how crazy the CAGW people are?

The issue is simply most people don’t want to be taxed for billions or trillions of dollar, because CO2 may make the world a bit more warmer.
It might be interesting debate for nerds.
But people in general are only going to care if there something important regarding CO2 emissions.
Hence the people who want to increase taxes- for numerous reasons,
wish to say that driving your car, will end life on the planet.

There is no shortage of people have been brainwashed into thinking that being moderate is the ideal state of being. These people are providing evidence that they are stupid. No moderate position has ever been correct.
Halving the difference to between to two positions, will be wrong.
E.g. slavery vs freedom. One is right and one is wrong. Saying some people should free and some shouldn’t is wrong.
To say, this debate can’t resolved, and there more important issue that can and should be resolved is on the other hand perfectly logical.
But being in the middle and halving the difference is the stupidity of a moderate and plague of modern society.
Being a moderate to the like of Hansen and Al Gore, is paying a robber half the money he demands. Or being half as crazy.
New York city isn’t going be 10 feet under water. We not measurably closer to the Greenland melting as we were 1000 or 5000 years ago.
And if one wants to talk about Antarctic melting one even going deeper into fantasy land.
The theme of these beliefs is that humans of today are worse off than humans a century, or 10 centuries, or 1000 centuries in the past.
That technology is the cause of this worsening or the destruction of this world. This is the belief of the Unabomber. And is same belief of Osama Bin Laden. And many people are taught this religion.
This pseudo science of course appears scientific. But there no rational assessment that supports this conclusion.
It’s a myth. Like all myths one could say there some things “true” about it.
There is also another myth regarding an idea that humans are progressing, that humans are on a path of destiny or habit or tendency is towards ever increasing improvement- as if human were a machine that going in one direction.
An idiot moderate would split these two “ideas”. They are both wrong and halving the difference isn’t an improvement.

Thing about the progressive view which wrong is the idea, that progress accidentally happens. And that humans are improving- that the human soul or body is improving.
Humans are not starving as much, they living longer. Many diseases can be cured. But the animal which is human is not evolving.
The caveman wasn’t a better human than modern human nor is it worse. The cavemen wasn’t nicer, or kinder, nor more rude or meaner. Though obviously the culture as evolved- we have different rules, we do things things differently.
The culture is evolving [it's changing- rather than improving] and doing so at blinding speed, culture is dependent upon education. Not to be confused as same as public school education- there no blinding speed here.
I would say the modern America could not make document from scratch as good as the American Constitution. I think this is proven fact, considering American’s involvement in the construction of other countries constitutions.
Why this is the case is debatable- the circumstances and selection of who was involved. That were not appointed by a some general, a president or king. Etc.
My point isn’t we are worst off, now, but rather to indicate there has not being huge strides, in terms of “social awareness” or “cultural awareness”.
So we are not diving into darkness nor climbing rapidly towards the light
in terms of general culture or biologically. But science continues to make progress, and the technological advancement is remarkable over the centuries and recently. This is not the cause of all the problems, they making life better. And will continue to do so.
What has been a problem are ideological, particularly ideologies which are pseudo science- e.g, Marxism. something pretending to be science which is actually anti-science. Not democratic, truth established political bodies/authority, and lacking any means of correction or feedback- does theory match reality.

It isn’t warming. It isn’t warmer than the 1942/44 peak on land or in the oceans. UHI and the dying and lowering of the thermometers accounts for microscopic differences.

1) They are cooling

2) Mash it all up and hope you can con people.

3) It isn’t warming. Its cooler on land and in the oceans than the 44 peak.

4) UHI is huge.

5) Elevation of stations has dropped

Tony, I think you are in serious error in writing off the ocean data so clearly. Yes, it has been less robust than we’d like, and it’s a “travesty” we don’t have been data to deeper levels, but overall it is not nearly as bad as you paint it to be. We certainly know the trend, even if the specifics have uncertainty bands which we’d expect anyway. The oceans have been warming over the past 40+ years, steadily. This is not something any serious ocean-climate expert would refute.

Secondly, the energy gain in the oceans far outweighs anything the atmosphere even could store. The atmosphere has very low thermal inertia, is far more subject to short-term noise, and stores far less energy than the oceans. This complete fixation on the troposphere (by some) I find most interesting, as the physics behind increasing greenhouse gases simply say how much the energy imbalance the system will see with a certain increase in a specific greenhouse gas. it is the models (not the theory) that say where that energy will go. The models obviously (and admittedly, even by Trenberth) are wrong, and are wrong from the very start. But they can still be useful, just like a map is not the territory, but maps can still be useful.

The 30-year average is still going up with every “flat” year. I define that as climatic warming. It hasn’t stopped as you can clearly see if you use a 30-year running mean on any temperature series.

Matt- I 100% agree with you as to time of day metering. All of PG&E’s commercial customers are,or are soon to be, on this type of metering. Unfortunately, a few advocacy groups don’t like the concept (nor do they like smart meters- which is the enabling technology that allows this to happen) for the residential market. As you point out TOU metering gives you, the user of the energy, a signal that it really does costs more at certain times for your provider to provide you the energy at a given time of day. You might want to consider if you really need to use energy at that time of day as it is going to cost you more to do so. If you don’t know this fact (it costs more to get the power to you at a certain time) it’s kind of hard to put it into your personal decision making criteria.

As you are likely aware; in order for the utility scale PV developers (ex First Solar) to get the costs and benefits to work out to build the PV plants the CPUC and the service providers developed long term, must take, PPA contracts with TOD (Time of Delivery) factors that set the price PG&E would be paying ($/kwh) for the output (kwh) at certain times. In the summer at super peak times PG&E will be paying about $.24 for a kwh for the energy (generation) from the PV facilities (2009 contracts – the cpuc time of delivery (TOD) periods and factors are noted here- http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_RESOLUTION/111386.htm) ) for 20 to 25 years. If your interested the TOD factors for all three private (PG&E, SCE, and San Diego) utility service providers are noted in the resolution. The newer contracts have a lower start price as the costs of building the RE facilities have gone down (as has the price of Nat Gas).

As you know a lot of processes (transmission, distribution, billing, overhead for the legal and administrative staff, maint, etc) are in place to move the generation of the electrical power from point A to your house. I went through a bit of a PG&E bill shock back in 2005 so I have been keeping track of how they allocate costs (and what effects those costs) since then. I am a curious fellow so I came up with a thought experiment: If I a bought a Nissan Leaf and I wanted to charge it at home with power from say the new PV facility in Boulder City, NV (I drove by this facility last year which is why I am using it as an example, President Obama was there earlier this year) during the summer at Super Peak times what would PG&E need to charge me based on a few details about what it actually costs them to do their part of getting power from NV to me. I had some data on their cost allocations (see their web site) per delivered kwh so I put the info below into a spreadsheet.

PG&E % of bill
Billing Category per kwh
Generation 46
Distribution 35.1
Public Purpose 6.7
Transmission 4.71
EC tax 0.02
Energy cost recovery 1.88
DWR bond 2.82
ongoingctc 2.58
nuc decomm 0.16

PG&E’s avg rate to cover all their costs to deliver a kwh to the residential market is $.186 currently. Using the table above we can estimate what their generation costs (which includes all RE generation in their portfolio up till the time they calculated the data for the table) are before we add in the new PV facility= $.086 kwh. We also know the price they are going to pay for the power from the new PV facility in Boulder City (the PAA price at super times) is $.24 so we can calculate the cost to deliver a kwh to me to charge my potential Leaf as $.34 kwh.

The only problem I can think of with this thought experiment is that I am not taking into account some costs associated with the processes that PG&E or CASIO will have to put in place to ensure a reliable supply of electricity at all times on the grid. I don’t have any data on this factor- which I call energy storage/reliability. The folks down at SCE are at the forefront of working out how to quantify this new need in our accounting system (and in the physical world) for reliable eclectic service. The service providers were almost required to have a percent of their generating capacity mandated for energy storage (see AB2415). The CPUC recently said we aren’t ready to require anything specific and they aren’t sure the need for energy storage should be mandated.

You have lots of other good questions and comments. Unfortunately I am out of time for internet stuff- other then a quick post about what LADWP residential prices were last year and what they are expected to go up to now that they have to meet a mandate for RE. It is hard to believe that LADWP could/can deliver all the energy you want for $.072 kwh during the Oct to May months in the residential market. I can see why a business development associate of mine said that LADWP have a huge competitive advantage compared to the Bay Area when it comes down to utility costs.

Have a good rest of the weekend. I traveled down to SD about 4 times a year, for about 10 years, to work with a company in your neck of the woods. Great location by the way.

Speaking of trends, the trend for global temperature is 1.3 C/century. It will be interesting to see what the next 10-20 years reveals.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_ISH_PDAT_1973_thru_April_2012.png

Michael,

I assume you are a Warmist by your masterful use of language, and your blinding grasp of the logical thought process.

At least a head on a stick can never be accused of handwaving, as opposed to the average factless and clueless Warmist. I assess Ozzieostrich’s intellectual capacity to be at least equal to mine, and vastly greater than the average above-mentioned Warmist.

Here’s a challenge for you. Compose a joke involving the definition of gross ignorance. Hint – the number 144 is a measurement called a “gross.” including the word “Warmist” in the answer should generate a laugh, when combined with a number.

Notwithstanding your underwhelming attempt at an “ad hom”, I assume that you are another Warmist unable to provide any facts in relation to a definition of the Earth’s surface. I would be most grateful if you could prove that you are not an empty vessel by answering my polite question.

I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but my father taught me it was bad form to fight an unarmed opponent.

Live well and prosper.

Mike Flynn

Tony @7/5 4.12am:
re ‘I said it first.’
Since you are now likely to go into the climate record books or Guinness Book of Records Tony, perhaps you should contribute tomorrow’s Thought for today.’ )

I trained as a process metallurgist and developed the subject of non contact pyrometry, including making two colour devices. The experimental fact is that for a flat plate, emissivity ~0.9, with natural convection, the radiative flux of the coupled heat transfer system exceeds natural convection only when temperature exceeds ~100 °C. For aluminium it’s ~300 °C. Check it out in McAdams the engineers heat transfer bible..

So, the apparent assumption that the radiative flux from the Earth’s surface is the S-B level for a black body in a vacuum is ludicrous. It doesn’t happen because the same activated states that can emit IR also couple with adsorbed gas molecules so the system is very sensitive to lateral air velocity, the main cause of the UHI [experiment with a wind break on the beach].

New physics is being developed by Claes Johnson and others. If the Trenberth energy budget does represent mainstream climate science, its physics is so far from reality as to be useless.

It’s not entirely clear what data you are referring to here.

I don’t think that you can, with any assurance, ‘splice’ Argo data onto earlier bucket-and-intake data from a much smaller ocean area. If that is what you are pointing to then I would say it would be an intellectually wrong methodology with meaningless outcome. Indeed it would be somewhat reminiscent of what has come to be called ‘hiding the decline’.

If you are saying that what you have in Argo is sufficient, then I would be most confident of the data since 2003. There have been, as you will be aware a lot of debates about the earlier Argo data.

ozzie,

Robert offered you the simplified, but correct, version of the basic physics.

So far your response has been bile and invective.

You seem to reject any notion of the effect of GHGs? Have I got this right. Is this simply a lack of understanding, or do you hold some ideological position that is mutually exclusive of science?

I’m sure someone here would be happy to explain the basic science in more detail if it’s simply a matter of not understanding the mechanism of the ‘GHE’.

The approach of taxing the use of natural resources is indeed a Georgist one. He formulated it thinking mainly of land, but its use for use of the atmosphere – as with a Carbon tax (Australia, British Columbia … ) – is in exactly the same category. With Land as with Carbon, the state could do anything at all with the proceeds. George recommended social programs.

We have many decades of satellite data and the surface instrumental record is good going back way further.

How much data do you think is needed?

Georgist Land/Carbon taxes. Actually, looking over the earlier posts, I think I can see the half-a-point Bart R is grasping for.

IF land/carbon use is taxed, and the proceeds equally distributed amongst everyone, the effect is SIMILAR to what would happen if air was privatized.

The (huge) problem, as he half admits, is price levels. There is no way at all of mimicking proper supply and demand, and what will happen in practice is the level will simply reflect how much government wants to impose its energy-generation views onto its subjects.

And I do wonder how long the British Columbia politicians will resist the temptation to make the carbon tax revenue-positive ?

Rather difficult to “define what has been warming” since they simply refuse to release the ARGO and satellite data from 1600 on. Using reconstructions can certainly tell us how much ECR there should be remaining from the forcings that caused the warming from 1600 to 1950. It is a simple and logical question that I have yet to see anyone attempt to answer. How much of the most recent warming is TCR and how much is ECR?

Beth
Glad to oblige, but be warned, I have hundreds of climate related quotes;

‘Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.
Richard P. Feynman’

tonyb

Beth I wish I could claim omnipotence, but the fact that we don’t know nearly as much as we think we do should be obvious to all, and those things we think we do know are open to serious question-ocean temperatures,
land temperatures, sea levels etc.
tonyb