MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’


By: - Climate DepotJanuary 20, 2016 5:41 PM with 28 comments

NASA and NOAA today proclaimed that 2015 was the ‘hottest year’ on record. See: Warmist Joe Romm: ‘We Just Lived In The Hottest Year On Record’ & Claim: ‘With 2015, Earth Has Back-to-Back Hottest Years Ever Recorded’

Meanwhile, satellite data shows an 18 plus year standstill in global temperatures.

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on ground based temperature data.

“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend.  Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.

“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations.  Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.

“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.

Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.

“When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said in November 2015.

Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.  — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he added.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks ‘Hottest Year’ Claim: ‘Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing’ – “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

Climatologist Dr. John Christy said it best: “If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees? The government is not the final word on the truth.”

 

Update: Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast commented on media coveage of ‘warmest year’: 

Bast: “The “news’ story makes no mention of the Congressional investigation of NOAA underway, finding evidence that NOAA falsified its temperature data. No mention that the surface station data aren’t actually global and are known to  exaggerate warming trends. And are contradicted by the truly global satellite data, which are in turn validated by weather balloon data. Or that saying “reliable global record-keeping began in 1880” conveniently puts the beginning of the data series at the end of the Little Ice Age. Heartland’s James Taylor tried to inoculate the press from NOAA’s virus with a piece last week at Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/01/14/2015-was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/#2715e4857a0b2bb6e60b23c6

Related Links: 

Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

 

Analysis: NASA ‘has doubled global warming by altering data over past 15 years’ – ‘No Pause In NASA Climate Science Corruption’ – NASA ‘also ignores satellite data which shows that its temperature data is complete garbage, and that temperatures have not risen this century.’

James Hansen omits satellite data from 2015 temperature analysis

2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record

 

 


  • Carbonicus

    “But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.

    That’s the whole show. Simple as that. There’s no way something as accurate and with as good global coverage as satellites shows no statistically significant warming over a period when humans have burned about 30% of all fossil fuels since the dawn of civilization unless Lindzen’s words are true.

    Mother Nature was always going to destroy the null CAGW hypothesis. It’s just doing so sooner than I would have predicted.

    Copernicus and Galileo are laughing in their graves hysterically.

    • http://wermenh.com/index.html Ric Werme

      That’s a point I make to anyone who will listen!

      Then to people who say that 18 years isn’t long enough to demonstrate a trend, I point out that pretty soon we won’t be able to call the temperature rise in the 1980s and 1990s a trend either.

      • Pattijboard1


        2❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        4nmf…..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsGet/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

  • Will Haas

    There is reason to believe that the climate change we have been experiencing is very similar to what has been going on during the Holocene for the past 10,000 years. We are currently still warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period roughly 13 hundred years ago. Apparently it takes quite a bit of data adjustment to argue otherwise. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.

    This is all a matter of science

    • FreemenRtrue

      ed note:than in a couple places
      – good summation thanks

  • Clayton Smith

    I am involved in numerous local political issues as an activist. To stand up to the global warming assertions requires quite a bit of grit, as the wear and tear on my teeth can attest to. The grant money available to “study” the effects of climate change on this that and the other is amazing. Here, in the San Francisco Bay Area the focus of fear is on seal level rise, with claims that the San Francisco Bay will rise several feet during the coming century. However, the developers are keen to build as close to the Bay as possible and land values reflect that desire. Billions of dollars of high rise construction are slated for Treasure Island, an abandoned Navy base right in the middle of the Bay and entirely built on landfill. What do the insurers of this development know that the fear mongers don’t? After all, they are pledging their private capital to underwrite these very expensive projects. When I present this to the local city councils, I get the most dumbfounded looks. What we have is Science devolved into religion and gross grantsmanship. The warmists have the money at their backs. CO2 is presented as a poison. When I mention the use of CO2 in greenhouses, sans the wearing of hazmat suits, again I have to face down the silence. We are no longer talking about reasonable dialogue. It is ignorance, conformity, fear, greed and corruption, all rolled up into one. The history of mankind is littered with missed opportunities and the current waste in the study of earth sciences is one of them. But, I will keep at it. I really hate to see these liars and grant grifting dandies get away with it.

    • Michael Grant

      Well said, Clayton. You have courage, my friend.

      • Nicolemhathaway


        3❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        4emc…….
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsQuality/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦..

    • fedupMan

      Since Treasure Island entirely built on landfill would these tall high rise buildings survive an earthquake the size of the collapse of the Oakland road to the bridge. I mean if the huge buildings went down into the bay there would be a huge loss of life.

      • Clayton Smith

        All these very high structures are anchored into the bedrock, which can be over 100 feet beneath the mud. How the very highest will survive the swaying, like we had in 1989, will be interesting. Lots of glass on the street, I suppose. However, an 8.6 plus is another question.

        • fedupMan

          Forgive my ignorance but isn’t the bedrock the plate that actually moves. So 1 plate basically goes down and the other plate goes over the top of the one that goes down where they meet obviously. Do you happen to have a url or 2 for sites that explains TRUTHFULLY how that works. There are so many baloney sites out there I don’t know who to believe. Thanks

          • Clayton Smith

            What you say is true if you are on bedrock that is directly at the epicenter of the earthquake. If not, your major concern in the reclaimed marsh and mudflats of the Bay is liquefaction, which can be largely avoided by anchoring your foundation to the immediate bedrock. Tiburon is the safest place in the Bay Area to be in the event of an earthquake, due to it being almost solid granite underneath. Much depends on the point of dislocation. In the Bay Area, it is a very complex subject with many possibilities and outcomes.

  • dadamax

    Hmmm, which are more heavily adjusted, the ground based data or the satellites?

  • edmh

    According to Greenland and other Ice Core data our Holocene
    Interglacial is now in decline.

    When considering the
    scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made
    Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made
    Carbon Dioxide emissions, it is useful to look at climate change from a longer
    term, century by century and also from a millennial perspective.

    The current, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler
    of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000+ years. It’s congenial climate
    spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological
    advances of the last 100 years.

    But:

    • the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD encompassing the
    Medieval warm Period has been the coldest millennium of the Holocene
    interglacial.

    • each of the notable high points in the Holocene
    temperature record, (the early Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman –
    Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high
    point.

    • for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including
    its high point “Climate Optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average
    drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

    • but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at
    ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier
    rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.

    • the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old
    and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should
    be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

    • the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to
    the Modern high point has been falsely transmuted into being “the Great
    Man-made Global Warming Scare”.

    • eventually this late 20th century modern temperature blip
    will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of
    comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.

    The much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of
    +2°C would only bring Global temperatures close to the level of the very
    congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.

    Were possible to reach the “horrendous” level of +4°C
    postulated by Warmists, that extreme level of warming would still only bring
    temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum, a warm and
    abundant epoch, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta.

    Global warming protagonists should accept that our
    interglacial has been in long-term decline for the last 3000 years or so and
    that any action taken by man-kind will make no difference whatsoever. And it’s implausible that any action by
    Man-kind could reverse the inexorable in the short period of the coming
    century.

    Were the actions by Man-kind able to avert warming they
    would eventually reinforce the catastrophic cooling that is bound to return
    relatively soon.

    see

    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

  • Gregson14

    Planet Earth has spent as much as 25% of its 4.5 Billion year existence with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at levels of 4000 parts per million (ppm) or greater – an order of magnitude (10x) greater than current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere – and guess what?… the Planet survived just fine… all by itself!

    On an existential scale – Planet Earth is today experiencing near-historic low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (400 ppm). The argument can be made that there is a greater chance of Planet Earth becoming a frozen and lifeless planet (much like Mars); simply because we are closer to a CO2 deficiency on the planet than we are to an over-abundance of CO2 – a compound that is essential for the survival of all plant-life on Earth.

    The unfortunate reality is that plant-life begins to shut-down (die) when CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere drop below 150ppm – whereas today’s commercial growing operations pump upwards of 1600ppm into their Greenhouses to facilitate optimum growing conditions. Take a walk in your favourite forest or woodland and you will at times be exposed to CO2 concentrations at levels close to 600ppm… but no worries!… you’ll be just fine. In fact, Princeton Phd Physicist, Freeman Dyson in an April 2015 interview with The Vancouver Sun explains that Planet Earth has greened-up by close to 20% in the last 70 years “… increasing our tillable land, increasing crop yields and feeding more people…” as a direct result of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the interview Dyson states emphatically that: “… in the aggregate, increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are a “net benefit” for our biosphere.”

    I find it comically ironic that an entire movement that calls itself “green” has positioned itself as the greatest demonizer of the very compound (CO2) that is responsible for “greening” our Planet in the last 3 generations.

    Carbon Dioxide also forms the very basis of the food chain in our Oceans!… CO2 is consumed by vast quantities of algae and plankton in our Oceans – these micro-organisms feed the small shrimp and krill that sustain the baitfish, who in turn are prey for the larger ocean predators. Without CO2, our Oceans would be lifeless – our Atmosphere would be toxic and the Planet would be dead!

    All life on Planet Earth originated in our Oceans – it is our Oceans that act as vast storage sinks for CO2; as they absorb CO2 during our prolonged Glacial Eras and release it back into the atmosphere following the centuries-long warming process of our interglacials.

    The UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has CO2’s relationship to climate exactly backwards!… CO2 does not cause warming… it follows warming!… It is a trailing indicator of “warming events” that occurred in the near past (600-1000 years past). The reason; is that our Oceans are so vast… they literally take centuries to warm-up and it is this warming process in our Oceans that releases and emits CO2 back into our atmosphere to complete the cycle during the warmer interglacial periods like our current Holocene Epoch – which reached it’s maximum warming 8,000 years ago of 2-3 degrees centigrade higher than today.

    Mankind with all of his Industry, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Transportation and Land-use needs is responsible for emitting approximately 38 giga-tons of CO2 into our atmosphere per year worldwide. Yes!… that is 30 billion tons… but it is a mere 5% of the 780 giga-ton footprint of CO2 that is emitted naturally into our atmosphere every year by our oceans, lakes, deltas, volcanoes, forest fires, dying vegetation, animals of all kinds and microbes with whom we share the planet.

    Why then is CO2 the source of such angst and hysteria from Academia, our bureaucracies and Progressives?… Answer: In today’s world of misinformation, CO2 has been tagged as the prime candidate onto which our Progressive elites can attach a brand new tax, to pay for the entitlements that 1st World Nations have promised to their constituencies. While at the same time, the UN’s IPCC has become a hypocritical advocate for limiting the growth potential of most 3rd World Nations who are desperate to utilize their own carbon-based energy sources in order to develop their new and emerging economies.

    I suppose under the auspices of the United Nations IPCC and alarmists everywhere, we can expect the hype and ramped-up rhetoric to increase during the COP-21 Climate Talks in Paris — soon to be augmented by the Progressive Carbon Tax, the Fresh Water Tax, the Sunshine Tax and last but not least, the Oxygen Tax!

    Just some of the “inconvenient truths” to buttress the above narrative!…

    • Brin Jenkins

      Agreed, CO2 is high in Sicily due to an always active Mnt Etna. The fertility of the Island is fabled.

      Brin

    • CTConservatives47

      Excellent analysis. I have always said that CO2 was selected as the climate villain because it can be used as an instrument of control.

      • Holofernes

        Protected Catholic perverts

  • Mervyn

    Has anyone considered the following?

    No mention of the greenhouse effect was made in a 1979 joint publication, by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, on behalf of the US government, titled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”.

    That was the best of the best scientists, given the task of reporting on atmospheric carbon dioxide, who never once mentioned “greenhouse effect”.

    The NAS study was commissioned by the US government to address the best science of the day, on the role of carbon dioxide in atmospheric physics. Irrespective of the contents of the report, it shows that as at July 1979, the concept of a greenhouse effect as a factor on Earth’s climate was clearly non-existent.

    It was Dr james Hansen’s erroneous testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the United States Senate on 23 June 1988 that gave life to the ‘greenhouse effect” when he said the following:

    “Mr Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to present the results of my research on the greenhouse effect, which has been carried out with my colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves.”

    And when the UN’s IPCC was set up in late 1988, it took up the “greenhouse effect” as its ‘poster science’ and ran with it as a means of achieving an international agreement to control fossil fuel energy use, which finally happened in Paris a few weeks ago. Mind boggling!!!!!!!!

    • Mike435

      “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” certainly does discuss the greenhouse effect. The term they for it is “direct radiative effects”. See section 3.1.1. http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

      • Brin Jenkins

        Can you explain the mechanism in detail please?

        • Bart_R

          He just did.

          It’s in the link.

          READ HARDER.

  • russnelson

    FYI, NOAA says that data from one temperature monitoring site, even one very close by, cannot be compared to other sites. Yet the site at the Cornell Cooperative Extension Farm in Canton, NY, was moved 1.6km some time in the last two decades. There is *nothing* in the data that acknowledges this change.

    An honest researcher would split the data into two sites, with different names and different histories, one of which starts when the other one ends. What kind of researchers are these?

    If they’re careless with one site, how many others have had equally careless consideration? We’re expected to spend billions, probably trillions of dollars on this. IT’S IMPORTANT TO GET IT RIGHT. And yet … you have crap like this. Pisses me right off.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/…/stations/GHCND:USW00014743/detail shows its current location. If you ask for older data when it was at the old site, …. you get the new location. It used to be here: 44.5643, -75.1014 which you can see is substantially different in character, 17 meters different in elevation, and 1.6km apart.

  • steve mcdonald

    To suffocate the military in idealogical green tape is treason.
    The psychopaths who tunnel vision the total destruction of democracy and the west have just been given a nuclear opportunity to achieve their dream.
    No scientific evidence as a motive.
    Just a multi-trillion dollar gravy train.

  • bob ashworth

    Global Warming is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

    All you need to say about global warming is that it is impossible. 2nd Law of
    Thermodynamics states heat transfer is always from a warmer body to a cooler
    body – never vice versa.

    A cooler atmosphere cannot
    heat a warmer earth.

    • cunudiun

      Did you get all dressed up to say that Bob?

      Sometimes even a cooler blanket is warmer than none at all.

  • Bart_R

    Political appointee John Christy of UAH says what?

    And why is Lindzen still using RSS 3.3, so long after it was replaced by RSS 4.0?

  • Arationofreason

    I hope to recruit a critical mass of high profile experts to submit a joint paper to change the narrative and settle once and for all the question of AGW magnitude.

    Rather than endless quarreling about the amount of warming to be expected by doubling CO2, I propose an energy approach to understanding the physics of earth’s response:
    Critical comments are welcome and encouraged.
    A proposed approach to physics:

    Exploring
    the IPCC AR-5 CO2 Greenhouse (Yes Virginia, there may be
    a greenhouse effect)

    Introduction

    Theme:

    Doubling
    CO2 which may have an IR blanketing effect on the upper atmosphere
    adds no energy to the earth system and therefore will cause
    essentially no change in the shape and function of the natural random
    chaotic atmosphere in balancing a constant solar energy input with
    the IR radiation output to space.

    Assuming
    the latest ‘greenhouse’ conjecture put forth by the IPCC
    specifically; that the increase altitude at which the CO2 portion of
    the IR spectrum is colder than before the CO2 doubling is valid:

    An
    AGW thought experiment is proposed to investigate the climate effect
    of doubling atmospheric CO2 in a century:

    It
    must be a thought experiment which isolates the change in CO2 and
    holds all energy inputs constant since we cannot control for all of
    the unknown variables which confound our attempts at verification
    measurements and attributing measured temperature changes such as:

    “The
    problem with AGW is that climate models have to deal with many
    more variables than weather models. They have to model all of the
    variables that weather models should contain including for instance
    Solar activity including cosmic ray cloud effects and minor
    changes in radiation intensity, plus: (for instance)

    • Land
    biology

    • Sea
    biology

    • Ocean
    currents

    • Ground
    freezing and thawing

    • Changes
    in sea ice extent and area

    • Aerosol
    changes

    • Changes
    in solar intensity

    • Average
    volcanic effects

    • Snow
    accumulation, area, melt, and sublimation

    • Effect
    of melt water pooling on ice

    • Freezing
    and thawing of lakes

    • Changes
    in oceanic salinity

    • Changes
    in ice cap and glacier thickness and extent

    • Changes
    in atmospheric trace gases

    • Variations
    in soil moisture

    • Alterations
    in land use/land cover

    • Interactions
    between all of the above

    • Mechanisms
    which tend to maximise
    the sum of work and entropy according to the Constructal
    Law.”

    However
    we can devise a simple thought experiment which holds all other
    ill-defined as well as unknown energy modulation variables
    constant to evaluate the effect of the CO2 input variable on an
    otherwise constant earth energy climate model.

    CO2
    Greenhouse:

    In
    this reference the IPCC Figure SPM5.1 as well as others published by
    the IPCC AR-5 WG-1 attributes a reduction of~1.85 watts/m2 IR
    radiation to space due to a doubling of the CO2 blanket thickness at
    the top of the troposphere. Although there may be reasonable
    arguments about where exactly in altitude and temperature lapse rate
    curve some or all of the CO2 spectrum is effectively radiating,
    assume for purposes of this discussion that 100% of this
    conjecture is true . It therefore represents the maximum CO2
    “greenhouse” quoted from the latest effect calculated
    by NASA .

    A
    Constant input Power Model:

    How
    does the climate respond to the conjecture of this blanket effect of
    CO2 doubling at the top of the troposphere where it will radiate 1.85
    watts/m2 less IR to space from the edges of the 15 u band?
    Obviously the earth must heat up to provide a temperature increase in
    the water vapor to increase its radiation by this amount to drive the
    earth energy toward a steady state average balance. While the driving
    force is the increase in CO2 of 1%/year, the earth will always
    respond to catch up with a required atmospheric temperature increase,
    otherwise the earth’s mass temperature would continue to rise
    without any compensating energy balance in radiation to space.
    A warming scenario based on the steady state solution is described
    here.

    Paradigm
    shift: To isolate the CO2 GH effect from all other variables,
    remembering the Law of Conservation of Energy, in this scenario
    nature has no additional (or reduced) energy to work with and thus
    will continue with the hydrologic solution which has evolved over the
    millennia to balance the constant solar power by shifting the
    missing CO2 GH radiation over to a compensating increase in water
    vapor radiation.

    Model
    approach:

    Since
    CO2 increase adds no additional energy to the system:

    Our
    challenge is to understand how the climate will adjust to the
    absolute energy balance requirement. Calculating changes the
    spatial and temporal changes in conduction, convection and radiation
    in the random chaotic atmosphere have proven to be more challenging
    than we can ever hope to address with our limited computing power not
    to mention limited understanding of the detailed spatial and temporal
    physics of cloud formation in the hydrologic cycle. Perhaps the
    correct approach is to let the natural system recalculate and re
    balance as it has done for millennia and observe the result.

    As
    the CO2 accumulates blocking the calculated reduction in IR
    spectrum by an increment of ~20 milliwatts/m2 each year over the
    coming century, the earth will accumulate this energy raising its
    surface temperature and the surface strata atmosphere
    temperature by dT/year . Thus the atmospheric water vapor will
    increase its radiation an average 20 milliwatts/m2 each year to the
    some 235 watts/m2 which it is already radiating to space.

    Since
    in this experiment the solar input to the earth including cloud
    effects, volcano and all other energy inputs (some of which are
    listed in the introduction) to the earth are held constant to allow
    us to concentrate on the effect of CO2 ‘forcing’ alone,
    the energy flux into the earth and from the surface to the atmosphere
    is thus constant. This requires that the average surface/atmosphere
    temperature gradient is constant and unchanged as required by a
    constant energy flux albeit at an increasing temperature of both
    surface and atmosphere of dT/year. Most of this energy transfer
    remains the constant evaporation rate of water containing its latent
    heat of vaporization. The surface radiation which remains
    constant through the constant surface/atmospheric strata temperature
    gradient continues to be captured at the same constant rate and
    is immediately thermalized by the GH gasses. The
    atmosphere temperature lapse rate curve moves ‘to the right ‘ by dT
    each year along with the surface temperature increase so that by the
    end of the century it will be displaced by 100dT higher temperature
    causing the constant water vapor pressure will radiate an additional
    ~1.85 watts/m2 to space.

    Climate
    physics:

    Since
    the lapse rate is constant, the cloud behavior/conformation, water
    content, vertical temperature profile, energy release ed not change
    and indeed will have no additional energy(water vapor) input to do
    so. Since its condensation level is a function of temperature,
    clouds will start at an average altitude increasing by dz=dT/6.5C/km
    each year so that by the end of the century the clouds need not
    change in form, size. extent, temperature or temperature gradient but
    be 100dz=100dT/6.5C/km higher occupying exactly the same temperature
    gradient as before the 100 dT shift in atmospheric temperature
    started. Since the clouds have no change in energy or in
    temperature gradient they will radiate IR in exactly the same fashion
    but into an atmosphere which has a reduced water vapor
    pressure(increased altitude) and so radiate upward more efficiently.
    The clear atmosphere water vapor will have exactly the same water
    vapor pressure gradient as before but each year will radiate at a
    temperature dT higher throughout all altitudes. In other words
    nothing need be changed except the altitude of the clouds which have
    exactly the same temperature profile and conformation as before
    except at an increased altitude dz. We see that the natural
    atmosphere solution (that we have described as random chaotic) which
    nature has developed over the millennial to maintain energy balance
    will require no change except that cloud height will rise by dz
    each year to maintain their vertical temperature profile and that
    clear air fixed water vapor pressure gradient will be radiating at an
    increased temperature, dT each year.

    For
    illustration; some calculation of the average energy flow and
    temperature changes of a one dimensional average temperature and
    radiation model is shown.

    A
    very minor energy balance adjustment;

    Since
    the surface temperature will increase by 100dT by the end of the
    century, the radiation through the IR window will increase thus
    requiring slightly less (~10%) water vapor energy radiation reducing
    the overall atmospheric temperature increase requirement to slightly
    less than that described below.

    Temperature
    increase;

    Raising
    a 255K black body atmospherewhich seems to be favored by NASA) by
    100dT= .5K will increase the radiation to space calculated from the
    Stephen-Boltzmann radiation equation by 1.886 watt/m2 which will
    suffice to balance the loss due to the CO2 blanket at the end of the
    century .

    Thus
    the 20 milliwatts/m2 yearly increase in water vapor radiation will
    require an increase of dT=5 millideg C/year * for a century to
    balance the CO2 blanket accumulation over the century. (* Yes, we
    know that dT is a 4th root function of power but at these small
    incremental of the base temperature of 255K it is within ~5% of
    linear and matters little in understanding the big picture)

    Change
    in nominal cloud base (and top) altitude is; dz=.005/6.5 = .77 m/year
    or 100dz= 77 m/century.

    To
    state the obvious, the earth need not employ any new different
    or complex physics (indeed there is no increase or change in energy
    flux (vaporization rate) to power any change). The earth and
    atmosphere temperature will increase by the required 0.5K over the
    century to shift the required 1.85 watts/m2 missing from the CO2
    blanket to the water vapor radiation budget.

    Stating
    the law of conservation of energy in this context:

    Again
    stating the obvious; (although the back radiation/positive water
    vapor feedback is disproven physics) for those who choose to
    retain this paradigm in their thinking, there is no additional
    energy flow (constant gradient) therefore no additional water
    vaporization and thus whatever the present day situation re.
    water vaporization/radiation is, there can be no change,
    whatever one might believe re. water vapor/radiation feedback there
    is no additional power to drive an increase in such a ‘loop’.

    As
    always, any tendency to raise the surface strata temperature
    above(below) normal would reduce (increase) the temperature gradient
    thus limit any change in energy flow(most importantly WV).
    With a constant energy flow available this is a self-limiting and
    unchanged constant average surface strata gradient at the new nominal
    steady state average earth surface and atmospheric temperature
    of 288 +.5 K. (15.5C) and average atmospheric radiation temperature
    of 255+.5K.