Bishop Hill The IPCC versus Stevens
Mar 20, 2015 Climate: sensitivity I've updated Nic Lewis's graph of his new climate sensitivity estimates by adding the IPCC's likely range of 1.5°C–4.5°C as a grey box. Something of a contrast here I would say.
;)
The situation for TCR is only marginally better.
;)
Bishop Hill
In the comments at CA, Shub and Nic Lewis point to another important implication of the Stevens paper:
SHUB: Do low estimates for aerosol cooling imply the 1940-1978 drop in global temperatures were not due to coal plant emissions from post-war industrialization?
LEWIS: Yes, they strongly suggest that the main reason for global temperature going down rather than up from 1940 to the mid-1970s despite quite strong greenhouse gas forcing (+0.7 W/m2 for long-lived GHG, +0.85 W/m2 including ozone) lay elsewhere. Internal variability (here the AMO) seems the obvious cause. On Steven’s best estimates, aerosol forcing became a bit under -0.3 W/m2 more negative during this period. Sulphate emissions from coal plants etc. grew rapidly and reached their peak level in the mid/late 1970s.
Reader Comments (134)
And - you think you're a physiscist.
Here's Carl Sagan, discussing the emissive properties of Mercury (and likening many of them to those of the Moon) and the peculiarities of Mercury's orbit affecting local insolation:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ...150.1105M
Among the factors mentioned is that the specific heat of the regolith is strongly temperature dependent, the emissivity in the infrared does not match the bolometric albedo. In short, neither is well modelled by a black body approximation.
It is of course trivial to measure lunar heat input at a given location as ~1360W/m^2 (1-albedo)*cos(latitude)*sin(t), where t is scaled to be 0 at lunar dawn and π at lunar sunset (for a slight increase in sophistication, model the variation in solar energy flux through the year).
thinkingscientist,
What do you think I'm disagreeing with? Do you really think I'm suggesting that the emissivity of the surface is exactly 1? Do you really think I'm suggesting it doesn't depend on the orbit? Jeepers, I really must listen to my little inner voice that goes "don't bother, you'll end up wasting your time"!
ATTP says
You used a very specific figure for s-b bb temp for earth and then immediate implied gw =33 k. I asked what the hemisphere temp is if you average as t^4 using s-b. You have not answered. Its an easy calc in a spreadsheet. I was not talking about the moon, but about the earth.
Now you seem confused. Sorry, I thought you came here to lecture us on physics....
thinkingscientist,
No, I didn't.
Well, yes, I realise it's straightforward to do if I happen to have to a some kind of datafile will all the temperatures, but I don't. If it's so easy, why don't you do it and make the point you're trying to make. Maybe, also stop claiming that I'm the one assuming that everyone is ignorant and that I'm the one that is here to lecture, because it is very much not me who is doing so.
" thinkingscientist,
Look, I've rather lost interest. "
The different theories for the behaviour of our current ice age are really interesting especially as the last glaciation was so recent and the changes so drastic. I think things like the UK was attached to France basically at the start of historical times fascinating.
Oh God, all this
bolloxcasuistry and equivocation over fractions of degrees - for that is what it is - and a waste of breath.If one looks at a wider perspective, see the temperatures rise and decline so [relatively] quickly at the end and initiation of each glaciation period and lest we forget, the earth - we are in the midst of a small warming period: in the Pleistocene epoch.
See the writing on the wall.
Take a look at a graph, recording historical temperature data since the end of last ice age - one can view fluctuations and cooler and warmer periods - natural warming and cooling but we are guessing at why the temperatures fall off a cliff in a relatively short few years [5-10 maybe] - a massive change in world Ts and pushing the planet into a world ice age advance and we can be damn sure that, man made CO² - is bu88er all to do with it.
So, it matters not - man made CO² .................. so bloody what!
Oops, I see the link I posted above to the Stevens paper was too long for the page. Here it is again.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Stevens%20aerosol.pdf
The death toll has risen to 16, with fatalities being added to the tally as isolated small islands are reached in a delayed relief efforts.
Our reporter, Koroi Hawkins, says Mataso, north of Efate, was only reached eight days after the storm struck, with the relief team being told that an injured woman died of her injuries yesterday.
(that's out of a population of 130,000)
- This so called "climate caused disaster" they spend years preparing for killed less than the Tunis terrorists !
From reading some of the ideas on this thread especially in relation to ice ages, I'm wondering if climate sensitivity should be associated with biological growth instead of pure radiative physics?
We've seen the "greening" of the planet as it's called over the space of a 20 years. What does this do to local humidity levels and temperatures? Dpes having more plants make your local environment warmer?
I'm wondering if during the start of an ice age, the shift in insolation causes the sub-tropical regions to grow less plants, resulting in dryer atmospheres (is that right?). There would still be residual Co2 in the atmosphere but it would be useless biologically - as in it wouldn't couple with the biocycle. The reduction in cycled water vapour and ground level humidity means less heat and dryer local environment. A question would then be does this drive weather patterns to eventually deposit snow then ice.
This process may happen in something like 50 years.
Anyway, just wild speculation. I'm interested because of the observed greening we see from satellites.
ATTP:
You don't seem to be following the argument at all. Earlier in this post you gave the s-b bb temp of the earth as being 255 k, and by implication ghe therefore = 33 k. But that calculation is obtained by dividing the solar output of 1360 by 4 and plugging it into a s-b calculation representing the earth as the area of a circle. As you agree, the s-b calc is a t^4 relation averaging the input and calculating the bb temp is not the same as integrating the s-b across the hemisphere.
You don't need datafiles of temp, you just calc the s-b temp using the equation you yourself quoted earlier, but calculated taking account of lat and long via cos rule. If you then average the t^4 temps you will find s-b would give an average temp over the surface of the hemisphere of 13.8 degC. (Even that is only an approx calc because its based on equal angle, not equal area).
The basis of using average insolation to compute bb temp = 255 k and therefore ghe is 33 k is a fallacy. There is no meaningful way to apply s-b in this way to the surface of a body like the earth, and especially one with an atmosphere. As several have pointed out in this thread, the s-b calculation for the moon does not agree with observations, and the moon has no atmosphere.
The point is that the naive assertion that s-b bb says earth temp should be 255 k and that because it isn't ergo the ghe is therefore 33 k is not physics, its bollocks.
Thinkingscientist:
Superb comment! However, I shall now have to think of ATTP as ATTB.thinkingscientist,
No, that isn't quite what I did. Let me explain again. As you say, the solar flux at the Earth is 1360 W/m^2. The cross sectional area of the Earth is pi R_E^2. The albedo of the Earth is about 0.3. Therefore the total amount of energy that the Earth absorbs from the Sun every second is
(1 - A) pi R_E^2 F = (1 - 0.3) pi R_E^2 1360 = 1.214 x 10^17 J/s
To be in energy equilibrium, the Earth needs to radiate the same amount of energy per second back into space. Given that the Earth is a sphere, one can write this as
4 pi R_E^2 sigma T_E^4 = 1.214 x 10^17 J/s
and solve for T_E, getting
T_E^4 = 1.214 x 10^17 J/s/(4 sigma pi R_E^2) = 4.19 x 10^9 \Rightarrow T_E = 255K
Therefore, if the Earth is absorbing 1.214 x 10^17 J/s from the Sun, it has to be emitting the same amount of energy per square per second (on average) as a blackbody with a temperature of 255K. This is purely energy balance.
So, if you're going to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I actually said, not with what you think I said.
Yes, it does agree with observations. I'll try to explain again. The 270K temperature of the Moon is again based on energy conservation. Given the amount of energy the Moon receives from the Sun, it needs to emit the same amount of energy per square metre per second (on average) as a blackbody with a temperature of 270K. And it does. If it didn't, it would not be in energy balance. However, given the strong temperature dependence of the BB function, this temperature will not be the same as the average of the temperature. If fact, given the huge swings in temperature on the Moon, it would be remarkable were the average of the temperature the same as the effective BB temperature.
I'm done here. At least try and apply your moniker and think about this a little. It's a bit ironic to accuse me of not understanding your point (which I do) when you clearly do not understand mine. Similarly, consider that you're essentially fighting strawmen. Noone has ever suggested that the average of the temperature on the Moon should be 270K. It has always been the effective blackbody temperature (i.e., the temperature of a BB emitting the same amount of energy per square metre per second as the Moon does on average).
...and Then There's Everything Else.
==========================
So...Have we decided who owns the dog?
ATTP:
So why do you assert that by calculating Earth's implied black body temperature, subtracting this from the average measured temperature we therefore conclude that difference of 33 k is the ghe? You already agree that in this context the bb temp is not real, its just an equivalent apparent temp, but then go on merrily to compare to an observed t average (which is NOT even based on t^4 averaging) and, as if by magic, state the fallacy that the difference of 33 k is the ghe.
Thinkingscientist,
Again, that isn't actually what I did. The average outgoing surface radiative flux is around 398W/m^2. The emissivity of the surface is close to 1. Therefore the effective blackbody temperature of the surface is
sigma T_s^4 = 398 \Rightarrow T_s = (398/sigma)^0.25 = 289K.
Hence the surface has an effective BB temperature about 33K higher (I don't know why I got 289 instead of 288 above, but that's not really the point) than the effective BB temperature of the planet. Hence the surface is radiating more, and is hence warmer, than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect.
Now, though, I really am done.
Mar 21, 2015 at 11:48 AM | ...and Then There's Physics
Can't you see where thinkingscientist shows you where you are wrong here?? The 33K thing is basically wrong at a school physics level. Why would you have an 'average' temp when poles and equator are so different. Just ditch your paleo argument and you your other arguments. Paleo evidence contradicts CO2 global warming theory very directly.
Micky,
Indeed the concept that water vapour lives at some fixed value and rapidly converges on that fixed value is one of the most ridiculous ideas in climate science. According to climate science, water vapour is not a "forcing" but a "feedback", i.e. it is *only* responsive to temperature, and otherwise unchanging.
In practice, all manner of things impact water vapour concentrations. Biology is one of them, which operates at all scales, from decadal out to millions of years. Evapotranspiration of plants is a very important part of the hydrological cycle; remember that tens of millions of years ago there were little to no grasses (grass is a relatively "modern" evolution), and the impact just of grasses on earths albedo and humidity is enormous.
Of course, this is not a one-way street. Water vapour affects biology, and biology affects water vapour, in complex non-linear ways, sensitive to initial conditions at all time scales. Which is why, of course, water vapour can indeed act as a "forcing" at long time scales, and why the forcing/feedback concept as maintained by mainstream climate scientists is a false dichotomy.
A good clean fight, with limited holding and relatively few low blows. Maybe at the end of round 8, we can review the scoring, as the crowd has seen it..
ATTP said
Glacial periods. Round lost. Fairly clear that nobody understands how or why these come and go.
Greenhouse effect. - challenger behind on points. Not established that it 'is 33K'?
Feedbacks - crowd has missed some of the exchanges - but on the whole feels the challenger must do more.
But the final remark loses the fight. Suppose we rephrase it slightly:
.
Well, I'm not sure quite what to make about ATTP's response. I didn't think I wrote anything particularly complicated. *shrugs*
I understand that people get to choose what they spend their time looking into. I've seen climate activists demand Richard Betts should be doing such-and-such and climate sceptics demanding Steve McIntyre look into their own favourite topic. I am firmly of the opinion that individuals should be free to look into what they are interested in, and of course the same applies to ATTP. If he isn't interested in studying and understanding fractal dynamics, that's his choice.
That said, subsequently declaring a high ECS as the only way to explain glaciations is then an argument from ignorance. Fine.
The 33K is even more problematic. ThinkingScientist has correctly pointed out that in a world which is not at one single temperature, the number "33K" may not be terribly meaningful. However, even if you accept 33K and the problematic concept of water vapour feedback it is not clear to me why this is proof of a high ECS. My comment on the logarithmic nature of GHG forcing is about this. I'll try to be less "complicated".
We can back out the ECS of CO2 by halving the concentration. Consider an ECS of 2K/doubling. At 280ppm, we set our reference (0). Then at 140ppm, we have -2K. At 70ppm, we have -4K. At 35ppm, we have -6K. Now the problem with this approach is that at some point, this relationship must breakd down - otherwise, as we approach 0 CO2, we reach minus infinity K, clearly not possible. And clearly homoeopathic quantities of CO2 - going from a quarter of a molecule in the entire atmosphere, to an eighth of a molecule, are not going to have an effect.
So I am assuming that at some point, CO2 forcing must transition from logarithmic, to linear. And I'll assume the last linear step to zero is equivalent to a doubling.
So lets consider the consequence of a low and high ECS on the 33K number as a thought experiment (bearing in mind the multitude of problems this number has), trying to stick to the mainstream view. Schmidt et al argues that CO2 is something like 25% of the total GHG effect at 1980 levels, so around 8K. Now the extent to which water vapour is a feedback is disputed (as above), so lets consider a range - that removing CO2 would result in between 4K and 16K of further change. This puts us in the bracket of 12K to 24K to explain.
In 1980, CO2 concs were around 340ppm (to nearest 10ppm). At an ECS of 4K per doubling or halving, this would be between 3 and 6 doublings (depending on strength of WV feedback). Accounting for the one linear step, this means the log-to-linear transition must occur at around 2^-2 to 2^-5 of the 340ppm, or at 35ppm, or 4ppm respectively.
An ECS of 2K per doubling sees 2^-5 to 2^-11, or a log to linear transition between 4ppm and 166ppb. An ECS of 1K per doubling would see the log to linear transition at between 166ppb and 41ppb. None of these are anywhere near homoeopathic quantities, so I don't see it easy to rule any of these out.
This is all further complicated by the fact that GHG overlap in their spectra, which muddies the water. But to a first order approximation, your view on what is too large a temperature delta simply boils down to where you think CO2 transition from being a log to linear GHG. I honestly have no idea what the "right" figure is, but I assume ATTP must have a view, since he has declared a low ECS as incompatible with this 33K figure he uses.
Incidentally, if you point out that ECS is not a constant and is not really known at other concentrations and GHG mixes, that actually *weakens* the claim that 33K is incompatible with low ECS.
Is anyone else amused and bemused by how often ATTP declares that commenting at this site is unworthy of such a superior person as he believes himself to be, and how often he says that he is really done with commenting here, and even that no "serious" person could possibly engage here.... yet here he is, over and over again.
There must be a diagnosis for this kind of pathology.
It is ok with me, though, for I think that his presence does bring out some good exchanges for "serious" people. It's just that I find his self-conception and declarations of contempt to be both hilarious and tedious.
I am bemused but not amused at how often ATTP comments at this site that he so obviously despises- 30 comments at least on this post alone.
What is the point?
Messenger and Skiphil, probably because this is an incomparably better site than his own mudpuddle.
Yes, Skiphill, for someone who appears to slightly resent having to comment here he certainly makes a commendable effort. Perhaps he doesn't like the moderation policy at his own blog.
Still, every bridge needs a troll and Entropic man is taking a breather.
Plastic and Plasticity
My background is surveying and engineering. The word plastic, today, is used to describe a material, whereas it's original meaning, was to describe a material, such as clay, that was malleable, and could be moulded to fit a purpose.
I would therefore suggest a new term, "Plastic Physics."
Perhaps he doesn't like the moderation policy at his own blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brought a smile to my dial, Michael.
Not much chance of that over at his place.
I have not encountered a series of posts by ATTP before but I am reminded of a hard-bitten alarmist I encounter on another list. When presented with a series of hard facts and incontrovertible argument, he replies, "Well, I just don't believe it."
Paraphrasing, ATTP said early on that "the low value cannot be right because it is less than 1.5 and with a GHG effect of 33 degrees, that is just not likely so I mustn't believe it."
When challenged over the 33 degrees, he posted that he didn't say it was fixed. But his argument relies on it being fixed so as to support the contention that he 'must not believe it'.
Strange. Incontrovertible evidence must not be believed because of an admittedly unfixed number of 33 degrees of warming from a theoretical calculation he admits might be flawed.
The rest of ATTP's argumentation suffers similarly. It boils down to 'but if this were to be seen from that angle such-and-such might be this much different..." Weird. Why put so much effort into debunking pretty solid stuff with flowery and obfuscation and flexible objections? There is only one possible conclusion and it includes the word 'smokescreen'.
I have been analysing the irreducibly simple model of the climate and trying to bring up the issue of whether or not the emitting 'surface' is the Earth, or the effective emitting later in the atmosphere. Thanks to Mikey above for the following line:
“Nicol argues that if you look at relaxation rates alone, adding more Co2 won’t affect this initial absorbtion . It will only effect the secondary bulk emission of IR radiation from the Co2 column to space”
As the albedo of the atmosphere at the effective emitting altitude is altered by the addition of CO2, the irreducibly simple model must use the albedo at height, not the surface which requires a slight change to the formula.
This impacts the claimed and acclaimed "33 degrees of heating". It isn't 33 and it wasn't and ATTP's objections to a realistic and properly calculated ECS appear baseless.
The alarming projections of errant models are not helping anyone and they should be deleted if they cannot match observations. Un-fund bad science. The ECS is less than 1.5.
Curious thing: I tend to read and participate in a few other blogs. Having seen how 'technical' ATTP can get in his multiple posts here I figured that he will surely want to post comments on CA where this self-same paper is being discussed - at a very technical level as well. I mean, he'd fit in so well there, debating with Nic Lewis et al....
NOPE!
Frit?
Crispin introduces an interesting reminder about the role of albedo:
ATTP is claiming the measurement of emitted radiation at surface in his calc, but what he is really showing is the well known 1360 w/m^2 from the sun, correcting (by averaging) onto a hemisphere and assuming albedo of 0.3, resulting in the well known s-b of 255 k. Note however that albedo is the average and is largely affected by the measure of average cloud cover.
However, consider an exposed surface at the equator at midday with the sun directly overhead and with no cloud, so we assume the albedo is close to 0.
That square metre of the earth receives the full power of the sun at 1360 w/m^2. Using s-b we get (1360/sigma)^0.25 = 394 k, or 120 degC! Even with the average albedo of 0.3 we still get a possible temperature max of around 87 degC. Where does all that energy go? Reverse GHE?
The actual temperature at the equator rarely exceeds 30 - 36 degC. And as anyone knows who has lived there, equatorial temperatures rise during the day but rapidly peak, followed frequently by huge thunderstorms. We know why they don't reach 120 degC of course, due to convection and water vapour/evaporation. The point is that these heat transfer processes move HUGE amounts of energy daily, and way more than the averages apparently calculated from s-b. And CO2 is supposed to control the temperature of the earth, at a mere few watts per metre^2?
Convection, water vapour and the very special properties of water control the climate, not CO2. As I said before, CO2 is a bit player and its time in the limelight in that walk-on part is nearly over. The divergence of models from observations is now so severe, and calculations like those reported at the start of this post show how completely out of touch the climate modellers are with reality, that it is just a matter of time before the whole CAGW edifice collapses. There is only so long you can keep claiming catastrophic change while temperatures remain stubbornly flat before even the most ordinary lay person notices that the CliSci lot are talking bollocks.
Thinkingscientist - absolutely, the climate community have had to torture logic and reason to demote water vapour to a secondary role after carbon dioxide.
However, ATTP really showed his dishonest colours on twitter with the following tweets:
https://twitter.com/theresphysics/status/579237222018367488
Followed closely by:
https://twitter.com/theresphysics/status/579258241428930561
You know, it's funny, but I thought the discussion here was not about whether the greenhouse effect exists or not but ATTP's pathetically weak evidence about why ECS must be high - a position not even the IPCC would agree with. Yet in ATTPs deluded mind this debate was whether the greenhouse effect exists or not.
Now most people (even within the climate debate) probably won't read this thread, but to have taken part and then seen those tweets is just astonishing.
" The actual temperature at the equator rarely exceeds 30 - 36 degC. And as
anyone knows who has lived there, equatorial temperatures rise during the
day but rapidly peak, followed frequently by huge thunderstorms."
Exactly, just been through Singapore, very near equator and surrounded by shallow warm seas. It is basically 32C every day. When it does push up to 34-35C then you just know that some major storm is on the way. Another interesting thing in the tropics is that it is easy to be cruising at 35000 feet in steady cloud, that doesn't tend to happen in the mid latitudes, then when you pop out you can see some other clouds towering above you.
As thinkingscientist says this is what powers the weather, moving this energy up and towards the poles. It is very different to what we see in the UK, which is dominated by the jet stream and baroclinic instability generating depressions and the associated fronts rolling in off the Atlantic.
Also Singapore has a fantastic climate and I guess the average temp there is 28/29C, so that is way over 10 degrees of warming that would be beneficial then ;-)
does anyone know what the land/cloud albedos might have been in the last glaciation? or is it a bit of a guess?
Greenhouse effect and sensitivity are the twin climate control knobs for us to understand. If we use scientific reasoning we can unravel their mysteries.
Let's start with sensitivity. As I have been pointing out for some time, the existence of the hiatus guarantees that sensitivity cannot be any more than zero. And you don't have to calculate the role of pollution or aerosols or any other irrelevancy to understand that. First, let us assume that no one here denies that for 18 years (or 15 if you insist) there has been no warming while atmospheric carbon dioxide just keeps increasing. Next, it is highly probable that no one here has heard that the eighties and the nineties were another 18 year hiatus period that lasted from 1979 to 1997. Exactly the same thing happened then. I proved the existence of this older hiatus when I was writing my book“What Warming?” in 2009. It came out in 2010. I even showed in the book that its existence had been hidden by fake warming in official temperature curves. By 2010 I also knew about the involvement of HadCRUT3 in this cover-up and even put a warming about it into the preface of my book. But nothing happened. Since then I have determined that this cover-up involves not just one but three global temperature sources. They are HadCRUT, GISS, and NCDC. They collaborated by having their data aligned by computer processing but unbeknownst to them the computer left traces of its operation in all three publicly available temperature curves. The fake warming they created is known as the “late twentieth century warming.” It distorts the appearance of the global temperature curve to show a steady warming where a horizontal temperature step of 18 years should be inserted.
According to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory of 1896, still in use by the IPCC, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the air by its greenhouse effect. Despite this theoretical prediction, there has been no warming for 18 years. Adding the length of the previous hiatus to this tells us that there has been no warming during 80 percent of the time that IPCC has even existed. The Arrhenius theory has demonstrably made false predictions about climate, is invalid as a scientific theory, and belongs in the waste basket of history. The correct greenhouse theory to use is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It came out in 2007 but was immediately blacklisted because of its predictions. MGT tells it like it is: addition of carbon dioxide to air does not warm the air. Even if you double the amount of carbon dioxide you will not get any warming. Since doubling defines sensitivity it is clear that warming sensitivity is zero, period. And greenhouse warming simply does not exist. Looking for fractional percentage change is a waste of time because any fraction of zero is still zero.
Since thanks to suppression of MGT by the global warming movement hardly anyone knows how it works I will now outline its basics. Unlike the Arrhenius theory, MGT can handle more than one GH gas at the same time. Arrhenius can handle only one, carbon dioxide. The additional claim from IPCC that water vapor in the atmosphere will triple the Arrhenius greenhouse effect has to be introduced separately. It has no scientific value. Not so with Miskolczi. According to MGT, carbon dioxide and water vapor form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared. Its optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. However, just as soon as it starts, water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor will keep the total absorption constant and no warming is possible. This has consequences. First, it stops the greenhouse warming in its tracks and makes AGW impossible.The true nature of AGW now stands exposed as a pseudo-scientific fantasy, invented to make the IPCC possible. That was back in 1988 when Hansen had just told the Senate that he had observed the greenhouse effect himself. His proof was a hundred years long warming he said had only one percent probability of happening by chance alone. When I inspected his graph I found that more than half of those 100 years were non-greenhouse warming or actual cooling. But nobody had checked it then. As a result, his word on greenhouse warming was accepted at face value and IPCC was officially established.
To summarize: sensitivity is zero and no amount of emissions reduction can possibly change global temperature. Greenhouse effect does not exist and this has far-reaching consequences. Without it AGW is impossible. But IPCC was created to study AGW. Since AGW does not exist there is now no reason for IPCC to exist either. Furthermore, the absence of greenhouse effect means that the runaway warming of Hansen also does not exist. It was just another false argument he dreamed up to advance his global warming propaganda.
'And then there's physics' would be handed his @$$ at Climate Audit.
Even more so than he was here.