However, -30°C is much colder than the -18°C calculated* for an Earth with no atmosphere or oceans or greenhouse effect at all! Further, -30°C is much, much colder [i.e. 35°C colder] than the +5°C global mean temperature calculated using the IPCC formula** for CO2 forcing using a CO2 level of 39 ppm.
It is astonishing that the authors, who claim to be top experts on the physics of CO2 radiative transfer, did not realize that their computer model is outputting physically-impossible GIGO.
Perhaps this is not surprising, since the paper is co-authored by Andrew "control knob" Lacis, who claims CO2 contributes 20% (alone) to the greenhouse effect. That means CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels! [assuming a total 'greenhouse effect' of 33°C].
Also using the same flawed climate model, the authors simulated the effect of 79,360 ppm CO2, 256 times the 1950 value [~310 ppm in 1950, current ~400 ppm], which would only take 39,480 years to reach at the current rate of 2 ppm/year, assuming unlimited fossil fuels and no intervening ice age of course. Despite the ridiculous 79,360 ppm levels of CO2, the authors state, "No water vapor induced runaway greenhouse caused by increased CO2 was found for the range of CO2 examined."
 |
| The first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the alleged heating effect of CO2 to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. Source |
 |
| Logarithmically declining CO2 forcing effect is greatest at the lower concentrations. Source |
*note this simplistic calculation widely used in greenhouse effect calculations assumes a flat, stationary earth receiving 340 Wm-2 solar input instead of the physically realistic calculation using real-time differential thermal equations of a rotating Earth receiving 1362 Wm-2 solar input. Using the correct physical description of the solar-earth system results in an even greater disparity between the model output and the physics.
**5.35*ln(400/39) = 12.4 Wm-2 = IPCC alleged CO2 forcing at the top of the atmosphere from increasing CO2 levels from 39 ppm to 400 ppm
3C/3.7 Wm-2 * 12.4 Wm-2 = 10 C warming from increasing CO2 levels from 39 ppm to 400 ppm
Current global mean temperature is ~15C
15C-10C = +5C global mean surface temperature for an Earth with CO2 levels of ~39 ppm per the IPCC formula.
Fast Atmosphere–ocean Model Runs with Large Changes in CO2
Gary L. Russell, Andrew A. Lacis, David H. Rind, Christopher Colose, Roger F. Opstbaum
DOI: 10.1002/2013GL056755
Fast Atmosphere–ocean Model Runs with Large Changes in CO2
Gary L. Russell, Andrew A. Lacis, David H. Rind, Christopher Colose, Roger F. Opstbaum
DOI: 10.1002/2013GL056755
How does climate sensitivity vary with the magnitude of climate forcing? This question was investigated with the use of a modified coupled atmosphere–ocean model, whose stability was improved so that the model would accommodate large radiative forcings, yet be fast enough to reach rapid equilibrium. Experiments were performed in which atmospheric CO2 was multiplied by powers of two, from 1/64 to 256 times the 1950 value [of ~310 ppm]. From 8 to 32 times the 1950 CO2, climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 reaches 8 °C due to increases in water vapor absorption and cloud top height, and to reductions in low level cloud cover. As CO2 amount increases further, sensitivity drops as cloud cover and planetary albedo stabilize. No water vapor induced runaway greenhouse caused by increased CO2 was found for the range of CO2 examined. With CO2 at or below 1/8 of the 1950 value [~39 ppm], runaway sea ice does occur as the planet cascades to a snowball Earth climate with fully ice covered oceans and global mean surface temperatures near – 30 °C.
You didn't read our paper. The albedo in a Snowball is much higher than present-day, so temps can go go well below the modern effective temperature of 255 K. This is an elementary point.
ReplyDelete1. IPCC formula in the post: global mean temp for 39 ppm is 5C = no snowball
Delete2. From above: *note this simplistic calculation widely used in greenhouse effect calculations assumes a flat, stationary earth receiving 340 Wm-2 solar input instead of the physically realistic calculation using real-time differential thermal equations of a rotating spherical Earth receiving 1362 Wm-2 solar insolation. Using the correct physical description of the solar-earth system results in a much larger disparity between the model output and the physics.
= no snowball
3. So Chris, do you agree with Andy that CO2 alone accounts for 20% of the GHE?
i.e. CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels
I suggest you read our paper. This is all very basic stuff you can tease out of it....
DeleteHand-waving, why don't you answer the questions?
DeleteI'm sure your paper does not address the question above if you agree with Andy that CO2 alone accounts for 20% of the GHE
Does your paper cite the paper pointing out the huge differences in GHE of .2 bar CO2 of 3 models during snowball earth?
http://www.clim-past.net/7/17/2011/cp-7-17-2011.pdf
Does your paper cite the 2 papers below finding essentially no change in albedo due to sea ice changes offset by clouds/evaporation or consider that in your analysis?
Chris won't answer even the 3 simple yes/no questions and here are the probable reasons why:
Delete1. Chris does agree with Andy Lacis & Gavin Schmidt that CO2 alone accounts for 20% of the alleged 33C greenhouse effect.
He says so here:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/adding-up-the-greenhouse-effect-attributing-the-contributions/
Therefore, CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C after all feedbacks despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels. Therefore, climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.33C = ln(2)*[.16/ln(1.4)], almost 10 times less than claimed by the IPCC.
2. His paper doesn't cite the paper above showing huge differences in GHE of .2 bar CO2 of 3 models during snowball earth. While Chris hand-waves and says "this is all very basic stuff" the fact is the snowball earth remains a highly controversial and unresolved subject, with CO2 levels too low to be realistic to either get into a snowball or too high to be realistic to get out of a snowball. See also http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/faint-young-sun-paradox-resolved-by.html
3. Chris claims albedo significantly increases due to sea ice expansion, however, two papers find essentially no change in albedo since sea ice limits evaporation and cloud formation. Thus, his model makes unjustified assumptions.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-paper-says-total-loss-of-arctic-sea.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-paper-finds-decreased-arctic-sea.html
4. As noted above:
IPCC formula in the post: global mean temp for 39 ppm is 5C = no snowball
*note this simplistic calculation widely used in greenhouse effect calculations assumes a flat, stationary earth receiving 340 Wm-2 solar input instead of the physically realistic calculation using real-time differential thermal equations of a rotating spherical Earth receiving 1362 Wm-2 solar insolation. Using the correct physical description of the solar-earth system results in a much larger disparity between the model output and the physics.
= no snowball
5. His model makes incorrect assumptions about water vapor feedback, which is negative rather than positive
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=water+vapor+feedback+negative
Chris, while you're at it, explain why 3 climate models differ by up to 18.3°C in explaining the greenhouse effect of 0.2 bar CO2 during the "snowball Earth"
ReplyDeleteDifferences between 3 models with 0.2 bar CO2 during "snowball Earth":
1. Hu et al finds 268K = -5.15C
2. Pierrehumbert et al finds 255K = -18.15C
3. Le Hir et al finds (for 50% less CO2 or 0.1 bar) 270K+3K (temp increase claimed for doubled CO2 per IPCC) = 273K = -.15C
http://www.clim-past.net/7/17/2011/cp-7-17-2011.pdf
Chris, recent paper points out that models don't properly account for decrease in clouds/evaporation due to ice cover over oceans i.e. little to no change in albedo due to sea ice changes. Did you consider that in your paper?
ReplyDeletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-paper-says-total-loss-of-arctic-sea.html
see also
Deletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-paper-finds-decreased-arctic-sea.html
Related: Faint Young Sun paradox resolved by assuming CO2 was not the global temperature 'control knob'
ReplyDeletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/faint-young-sun-paradox-resolved-by.html
Will somebody please explain to me how an atmosphere which removes thermal energy from the surface of the planet increases the temperature of the surface in so doing?
ReplyDeleteI really, really do not understand this. I always thought that as heat content of an object increased that its temperature went up but both warmists and sceptics seem to believe that as heat content goes down temperature goes up.
Please help me somebody.
You are correct about the inherent inconsistencies of the so-called GHE.
DeleteJoe Postma has an excellent series of posts on this - have you seen those?
Greenhouse gasses absorb the radiation emitted by the earth, before it can escape to space. It acts as sort of a blanket.
DeleteThe blanket analogy has been debunked time and time again. Blankets act primarily by limiting convection.
DeleteSo if I have my house at 70 F and I throw a bunch of blankets on the floor, will the back-radiation from the blankets heat my home above 70 F ?
Yes, if the floor produces the heat and the blankets (black ones) radiate it back.
DeleteTry it.
Place a small heater pointed up in a well insulated room, and stick a thermometer on a stand say five feet above and to the side.
Next put a black blanket over the thermometer stand, and cover the room.
Now watch the thermometer rise.
Elementary
No, but less heat will escape, so you'll need less energy to keep your house at 70F.
DeleteThink of putting insulation in your house. You'll need less energy to heat it because it traps more energy. If you keep putting the same amount of energy into your house as before, your house will be warmer than before.
Ok you Anons are really getting comical at this point, confusing constraint of convection with radiative transfer. Pick up an elementary school science book to learn the difference between convection and radiation, then read the comment by Ron C I posted above, then read all of the links I posted 10/30/13 at 5:54 PM, and if you STILL don't get it, ask your questions on those respective threads. Until you have done all of those things, don't waste anymore of my time here.
DeleteIf you have a furnace that is putting out a certain amount of heat each hour, and you add insulation to your ceiling (same as the blanket analogy) then yes, the temperature in your house will rise. You will have slowed the emission of heat from the house to the outside.
ReplyDeleteYOUR analogy is a non-sensical straw man that would equate to asking if adding CO2 to the atmosphere would heat up space outside our atmosphere.
You just don't get it - blankets act primarily by limiting convection.
DeleteLikewise, glass panes in a greenhouse increase the temperature in a greenhouse by limiting CONVECTION, not by acting as a radiation valve. What happens when you open the glass panes on the roof of a greenhouse? The temperature is exactly the same as outside because CONVECTION is no longer constrained.
Here's several posts demonstrating why the blanket analogy is absolutely false and the atmosphere is not analogous to a greenhouse.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/10/astrophysicist-explains-why.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/physicist-cooling-effect-of-co2-is-100x.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/shattering-greenhouse-effect.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/fallacy-of-greenhouse-effect.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/professor-inadvertently-explains-why.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-heat-doesnt-flow-from-cold-to-hot.html
After you have read & understand all of those posts, I'll entertain your nonsensical straw man "blanket" or "greenhouse" or "glass pane" arguments on those respective threads.
Okay. I'll read your posts as soon as you read Russell et al.
DeleteGood comment from Ron C. at Postma's site 10/30/13:
ReplyDeleteThe fallacies of global warming by atmospheric CO2
I find there are 3 fallacies promoted by various warmists:
Some claim that back-radiation from CO2 warms the earth’s surface;
Others claim that by absorbing IR from the surface, CO2 “traps heat”, thereby warming the air;
Others claim that more CO2 in the air raises the effective radiating level at the top of the atmosphere, thereby reducing the cooling effect and resulting in warming.
1) On the first point, there is downwelling IR (DWIR) from the atmosphere incident upon the surface, most of it from water vapor. In circumstances when surface objects are cooler than the nearby air, that radiation can warm those objects, although most of the warming is due to conduction. This effect is further reduced by subsurface retained heat that rises to keep surface objects warm during nightime.
The actual earth surface is not a black or gray body as assumed by energy budgets, but in fact absorbs and emits selectively. CO2 radiation is mostly 15 microns, at the weak end of the IR range. It turns out that most materials found on the earth’s surface can not absorb IR over 12 microns, and thus CO2 back radiation is reflected, and no surface warming occurs from it.
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.ca/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html
In a parcel of air, each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, 99% of them N2 and O2 which are radiatively inactive. The temperature of the air parcel is set by conduction, convection, and latent heat transfers from water. The lapse rate measures the fact that the air cools and thins with altitude. When a CO2 molecule succeeds to emit a photon, it loses energy, which is immediately replaced by collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. The heat transfer in the troposphere is mostly from N2 and O2 to CO2, and not the other way around.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
Satellite measurements of Earth emission data show that the IR photons absorbed by CO2 molecules are not re-emitted before the energy gained is redistributed by collisions with other non-greenhouse gas molecules. We know this because the re-emission of radiation does not occur at a black body temperature of 288K and instead occurs at a black body temperature of about 210 to 220K characteristic of general air temperatures at altitudes from 10.5 km to 22 km.
This part of the atmosphere is called the tropopause, where the temperature does not vary much from an average of 217K. Any change in the effective radiating level in the tropopause will not lower the temperature, and not cause warming.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/RoyGreenhouse/Gravity%20Rules%20the%20Greenhouse%20EffectV2_R.%20Clark_9.27.10.pdf
MS:
ReplyDelete1) You state above that:
"Chris, recent paper points out that models don't properly account for decrease in clouds/evaporation due to ice cover over oceans i.e. little to no change in albedo due to sea ice changes. Did you consider that in your paper?
The paper in question actually indicates the total loss of Arctic sea ice would change the TOA energy imbalance ("forcing") by 0.7 W/m^2 globally average, or by more than 10 W/m^2 regionally. The low global "forcing" is simply a function of the small percentage of total global area found at the pole. The uncertainty of the study is sufficiently large as to not exclude no "forcing", but that also means it is sufficiently large not to exclude double the "forcing" and assuming the effect to by no greater than the lower uncertainty bound is statistical rubbish.
This "forcing" from loss of sea ice only applies at high latitudes where the sun is low in the sky, and hence solar energy received per square meter of surfaces parallel to the surface is low (and conversely the solar energy received per square meter of surfaces perpendicular to the surface, such as the flanks of clouds is high). At lower latitudes the "forcing" would be much stronger. Indeed, as the albedo of the Earth's oceans (including clouds) is much less than that of sea ice, it is indeed "very basic" that a snowball earth would increase the Earth's albedo.
2) The IPCC's simple formula is for the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, which is defined as the climate sensitivity including rapid, but not slow feedbacks. The relevant climate sensitivity for the study you are criticizing is the Earth System Climate Sensitivity, which includes all slow feedbacks, and which is typically double the ECS, and larger with lower temperatures because of the ice albedo effect.
1. The 2 papers I cited on albedo changes do state that this is "very uncertain" with respect to the Arctic, and could even result in a decrease in albedo from sea ice expansion. A snowball earth has to start at the poles and alleged "tipping points" to progress further, hence Colose's model is making unjustified assumptions.
Delete2. As noted above model assumptions of a flat, stationary earth receiving 340 Wm-2 solar input instead of the physically realistic calculation using real-time differential thermal equations of a rotating spherical Earth receiving 1362 Wm-2 solar insolation. Using the correct physical description of the solar-earth system results in a huge disparity between the model output and the physics.
= no snowball
3. The net feedbacks are negative, all models falsely assume positive. Lindzen & Choi 2009 & 2010 ERBE observations.
4. In addition, you haven't addressed several other points I've already made above including the assumption that CO2 comprises 20% of the GHE, which indicates climate sensitivity is only about 0.33C, the huge disparity between published modelling results for snowball Earth, negative water vapor feedback, net negative cloud feedback, etc. etc. which proves that your claim that "this is all basic stuff" is ridiculous.
1) MS, you are claiming that the two papers rebut Lacis et al (2013). However, mere possibility does not a rebutal make. So, granted that it is possible (based on the two papers you cite) increasing or decreasing sea ice above a latitude of 60 degrees north does not change the net TOA energy imbalance, it is also possible, and in fact more probable, that it does change the net TOA energy imbalance, and changes it such that increasing sea ice increases outgoing radiation. That is a simple logical point that should not have required elaboration.
DeleteFurther, you are over interpreting the second paper, that says "that a 1% decrease in sea ice concentration leads to a 0.36–0.47% increase in cloud cover". Allowing the upper limit, that means a 1% decrease in sea ice concentration is only compensated by approximately half that coverage in increased cloud cover. Assuming the albedo of both to be the same (a reasonable approximation), that means that decreasing sea ice decreases albedo, contrary to your claim. The logic of that claim is a straight forward as 1 > 0.47; whereas your claim that the paper shows net change in TOA energy imbalance to be near zero implies that 1 is approximately equal to 0.47.
I do not know which model is used in Lacis et al (2013), but here is a description of the GISS model IE so that you can verify my claim:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
What is worse, in the second paper the authors explicitly discuss the impact on TOA energy imbalance, saying that:
"The negative feedback coefficient suggests a positive feedback between sea ice and cloud cover ... the increased cloud cover, in turn, tends to trap (emit) more longwave radiation and thus warm the surface ..."
And further on, "The updated feedback coefficients at the 90% and higher are still negative"
So you are directly contradicting the claims in the paper based on the dubious and unsupported supposition that a 0.47% increase in cloud cover has the same albedo impact as a 1% loss in sea ice cover.
2) No, the model does not. In fact, no GCM does, or ever has done. The simple approximation that you refer to has only ever been used in back of the envelope calculations and in (so-called) one dimensional models. What is more, nobody with the least familiarity with GCMs would make this mistake.
If you do not correct admit your error on this point, I will not further converse with you as you will have shown definitively that evidence does not guide your opinions.
3) Linzden and Choi were wrong. However, there is no point discussing that with you if you are unable to admit the egregious errors you made in points (1) and (2). Nor am I interested in pursuing your gish gallop of points in (4) until you demonstrate that evidence is allowed to influence your opinion by acknowledging those errors.
Tom,
DeleteNo need to get testy, you are over-interpreting what I said with your own assumptions...let's review your so-called "egregious errors":
1. I simply said "Colose's model is making unjustified assumptions." Colose's model assumes sea ice expansion at the poles causes an increase in albedo, which has to start first and proceed beyond alleged "tipping points" to cause a snowball. First paper says that may not be true and could be the reverse. Therefore, "Colose's model is making unjustified assumptions" is correct.
2. "Assuming the albedo of both to be the same (a reasonable approximation), that means that decreasing sea ice decreases albedo, contrary to your claim. The logic of that claim is a straight forward as 1 > 0.47"
Sure, 1 > .47, but 1 >>> 0, which is essentially what the 2nd paper implies is a problem with climate models. Therefore, "Colose's model is making unjustified assumptions" is correct.
3. "the increased cloud cover, in turn, tends to trap (emit) more longwave radiation and thus warm the surface"
Oh please, the net feedback from clouds is negative
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=net+negative+feedback+clouds
4. Looked at the GISS paper and in fact it does show that the model does not assume the Earth rotates. It also appears to only use solar forcing "anomalies" from a solar constant. While it does calculate solar zenith/insolation values, it does not use real-time differential thermal equations of the effect of solar insolation on a rotating spherical Earth. It appears to only use annualized values instead. This makes a HUGE difference and essentially explains away all of the alleged GHE, as has been demonstrated by Joe Postma and others time and again. Also explains another reason why CO2 cannot cause a snowball.
Let's also look at how the GISS model dismisses the role of the Sun in climate change, another huge fail for climate models:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-climate-models-dismiss-role-of-sun.html
5. "Linzden and Choi were wrong." Uh no, all of the models disagreed with observations, therefore the models were wrong. See Feynman et al, and the scientific method. Their 2010 paper addressed all criticisms of the 2009 paper and has not been refuted since. Besides, there's plenty of other observational evidence that the net feedbacks are negative, that water vapor and cloud feedback is net negative, etc.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=water+vapor+feedback+negative
6. From above:
In addition, you haven't addressed several other points I've already made above including the assumption that CO2 comprises 20% of the GHE, which indicates climate sensitivity is only about 0.33C, the huge disparity between published modelling results for snowball Earth, negative water vapor feedback, net negative cloud feedback, etc. etc. which proves that your claim that "this is all basic stuff" is ridiculous.
My apologies, I misplaced a paragraph in edit, which may cause confusion. The reference to the GISS model IE relates to the discussion of point (2) rather than of point (1) where it is placed.
ReplyDeleteNote to Tom: If you want to have a civil discussion here, you will have to remove the hostile, abusive, ad hom elements in your comments in accordance with the comment policy, otherwise your comments will not be published.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sending a portion of the GISS model code and I withdraw the statements about the models assume a flat, non-rotating Earth. However, the basis of calculations of the alleged 33K "GHE" and climate sensitivity is the flat, nonrotating Earth I referred to above. The reasons why this is incorrect are explained by Joe Postma here and many other posts. These incorrect assumptions are incorporated into the programming of the model greenhouse effect/sensitivity, and are a fundamental reason why all 73+ IPCC climate models have exaggerated warming.
http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/08/28/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-16-further-summary/
And the over-sensitivity to GHGs is why the models have been falsified at the >98% confidence level over the past 15 years [von Storch et al] and 90% confidence over the past 20 years [Fyfe et al]
The sensitivity to GHGs in the models results from incorrect forcing [and feedback] assumptions inherent to the programming of the models.
I see you have wisely avoided addressing several other points I've already made above including the assumption that CO2 comprises 20% of the GHE, which indicates climate sensitivity is only about 0.33C, the huge disparity between published modelling results for snowball Earth, negative water vapor feedback, net negative cloud feedback, etc. etc.
In addition, the first paper I cited above regarding the offsetting effect of clouds vs. sea ice cover on albedo points out how climate models may be led astray by incorrect assumptions regarding albedo [which is only one of hundreds of false programming assumptions as demonstrated by the peer-reviewed literature]. You argue in essence that this paper presents no problem re the modelling results since the mean value is above zero, even though you admit the uncertainty extends to less than zero. If you want to believe that this paper and scores of others do not find major faults with the programming assumptions inherent in models, that's fine, but clearly they do.
Here's how the GISS model performed in retrospect:
ReplyDeletehttp://i54.tinypic.com/28ix0yc.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/5dscxg.png
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/christy-observations-vs-hansen-1988-models1.bmp
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/hansen-shock-news-six-degrees-warming-by-2010/
The claim that the GISS model makes the proper programming assumptions is ludicrous.
The claim that climate models in general have the correct programming assumptions is ludicrous
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-628x353.jpg
GISS model in 2000 said there should have been ~0.4C warming from 2000-2013. Actual trend is negative:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
GISS model predictions made in 2003 by Hansen projected ~0.4C warming from 2000-2013
Deletehttp://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/sun_01/fig4.gif
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/sun_01/
Post today shows climate model projections falsified at 90-95% confidence levels over past 35 years
ReplyDeletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/observations-now-inconsistent-with.html
More on GISS model and the failed AGW theory
ReplyDeletehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/nasa-demonstrates-unequivocally-that-global-warming-theory-has-failed/
The lapse rate feedback allegedly reduces climate response by 20%
ReplyDelete"the lapse rate feedback reduces it by about 20%"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3819.1
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/425/2013/esd-4-425-2013.html
ReplyDeleteHow Tom Curtis and his ilk at SS lie and propagandize in support of their AGW religion:
ReplyDeletehttp://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/tom-curtis-an-open-letter/