A Century of River Discharge Rates in Finland (1 Mar 2011)
They fail to substantiate what climate alarmists predict about the effects of planetary warming on floods and droughts ... Read More
Surface Air Temperatures Over the Arctic Ocean (1 Mar 2011)
State-of-the-art climate models have a long way to go before they can adequately simulate even the past climate of the Arctic Ocean (much less predict its future), for in the words of the six scientists who evaluated them in this study, their creators have made “no obvious improvement” in the models’ simulation ability since the time of the Third Assessment Report several years earlier ... Read More
Eating Healthy in a CO2-Enriched World (1 Mar 2011)
The “yield and pharmaceutical quality of Malaysian young ginger varieties can be enhanced by controlled environment production and CO2 enrichment” ... Read More
Climate Change and Australian Bushfire Property Losses (1 Mar 2011)
Data from Australia provide a stunning repudiation of Al Gore’s Inconvenient-Truth claim of there having been a “steady increase in major wildfires” on every continent over the last half of the 20th century ... Read More
Mid-Holocene Coral Mortality in the South China Sea (1 Mar 2011)
Results from a new paper suggest that many recent episodes of coral bleaching may have been caused by something other than unduly high SSTs, or that many of the cases of coral bleaching experienced over the past few decades that do indeed appear to have been precipitated by unseasonably high SSTs may have been “aided and abetted” by other more localized anthropogenic-induced factors that could have weakened the corals and made them more susceptible to heat-induced bleaching ... Read More
Aerosol Properties of the Global Atmosphere As Input Data to Climate Models (1 Mar 2011)
Current assessments of greenhouse-gas forcing of climate made by the very best models in use today are “unsatisfactory” in their treatment of the global distribution of aerosol optical thickness and, especially, aerosol microphysical characteristics ... Read More
The Role of Seagrasses in Earth’s Carbon Cycle (1 Mar 2011)
What is it? ... and how is it impacted by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations? ... Read More
Simulating Arctic Cloud Cover and Sea Ice (2 Mar 2011)
The thinning of Arctic sea ice over the past half-century “can be explained by minuscule changes of the radiative forcing that cannot be detected by current observing systems and require only exceedingly small adjustments of the model-generated radiation fields,” and, therefore, “the results of current GCMs cannot be relied upon at face value for credible predictions of future Arctic sea ice” ... Read More
The Effect of Elevated Ozone on Methane Emissions from Peatlands (2 Mar 2011)
Only the fourth study to address the complex subject may be revealing what the future may hold for the CH4 contained in the world’s peatlands ... Read More
The Fire History of California’s Lake Tahoe Basin (2 Mar 2011)
It suggests that the region’s current mean annual temperature is nowhere near as high as it was during the Medieval Warm Period ... Read More
Vector-Borne Diseases of the Very Recent Past in Central Europe (2 Mar 2011)
The two authors of this paper conclude that “it is due to continuing globalization rather than to climate change” ... Read More
Three Decades of Modeling Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (2 Mar 2011)
How much progress has been made? ... and how much remains to be made? ... Read More
The Global Spread of Dengue Fever (2 Mar 2011)
“There is no good evidence to suggest that the current geographic expansion of the dengue virus and its vectors has been or will be due to global warming” ... Read More
The quantitative climate sensitivity to increases in atmospheric CO2 is the subject of continuing fervent debate, which I consider to be incompetent, because there is definitive data that should have settled the question almost 20 years ago, if the climate scientists promulgating the greenhouse effect had properly confronted and accepted it then. What is this data?
ReplyDeleteVenus: No Greenhouse Effect
Comparison of the temperatures of the Venus and Earth atmospheres, at equal pressure levels in the two atmospheres, over the whole range of pressures in the Earth troposphere, definitively shows that the difference in the two (Venus's atmospheric temperature at a given pressure is 17% higher than the Earth's at the same pressure) is due solely to the planets' relative distances from the Sun. There is no need to consider albedo (either from the surface or the cloud tops) or the (tremendous) difference in CO2 concentrations. This planet-sized experiment is overwhelming proof that there is no greenhouse effect as promulgated by James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth et al. and the IPCC. But it shows more, a basic correction to current scientific assumption about atmospheric warming, that only I have seen in the data (so far as I have yet seen), to wit: The atmosphere (of both Venus and Earth) is warmed by direct absorption of the same (infrared) portion of the incident solar radiation, NOT by first warming of the planetary surface. I have submitted this analysis, which should be widely and publically aired, to "Physics Today", but have gotten no response, nor feedback from even greenhouse skeptics, and I fear the incompetence is so deeply entrenched that no one can believe there is simple evidence definitively invalidating the "200 year old physics" of the greenhouse effect. I know I cannot expect gratitude from all those who would be deeply ashamed to admit they missed it, but it is clearly true, and will have to be properly confronted by science, and finally accepted as decisive.
Harry Dale Huffman,
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, it has been a very steep uphill battle confronting the GHE adherents who have staked their professional reputation and worldview on the GH theory. I chip away as a purist like yourself, but also as a pragmatist showing that even if there is said effect, it is inconsequential (e.g. the topics in this post).
I recently saw a comment on Judith Curry's blog that there is also no GHE on Mars and that the surface temperature is slightly less than blackbody calculations. Can you confirm this?