Hilary

I find it mildly amusing that our resident zealot should have failed to notice that I was not addressing him. Yet his knee-jerk wall of pompous arrogance and insults (which some might call classic exercises in projection) - addressed directly to me - strongly suggests that he has very mistakenly concluded that I give even a tinker's dam(n) what his self-exalted opinion might be!

You cannot be serious. I'm going to have to call this what it is: a childish, embarrassing lie.

Go on, amaze us all - who were you addressing then?

You have run out of road.

I guess BBD assumes that every comment on this thread is addressed directly at him.

Would you believe that when I suggested as recently as a week ago that people might be getting fed up with his constant smearing, he demanded (in his familiar, abrupt style) "Examples or retraction."

Now that GW has provided him with copious examples of where he might have caused offence, he demands that GW should put the same effort into listing examples of where others might have offended him as if to justify his rudeness.

I think he would be surprised at how one-sided the invective often is, which is presumably why he has not put in the effort himself (or if he has, he has not reported the results).

Note that I am not suggesting the invective is totally one-sided, but most people on this BB do try to keep things civil.

Is this situation recoverable?
Probably, with willingness.

But is there willingness?

BBD

I have stated that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming is logarithmic, you have referred me to a post by Spencer Weart on realclimate and another by ??? at the blog entitled The Science of Doom ^.^.
Spencer Weart is a Physicist/Historian and I have no idea who wrote the posts on SOD.
However realclimate is the home of those scientists who created and defended "The Hockey Stick".

I have referenced my claim to statements in IPCC report AR4
I also can reference Richard Lindzen
Notable awards NCAR Outstanding Publication Award, Member of the NAS, AMS Meisinger Award, AMS Charney Award, AGU Macelwane Award, Leo Prize of the Wallin Foundation
and I can even reference good old Wikpedia who kindly repeat the formula given by the IPCC:

\Delta F = 5.35 \times \ln {C \over C_0}~\mathrm{W}~\mathrm{m}^{-2} \,

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[6] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

equation did not copy, it can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing.

Now you might say that my reference are not ones that you respect, I certainly have no respect for realclimate however if you remember what this thread is all about then you should accept that with arguments for and against, then it is not immoral to dispute that CO2 is currently warming the planet.

Nor did I evade your question. You appear to believe that the atmosphere is stratified according to the molecular weight of its constituent gasses. This is obviously not the case, but if it were, the CO2 content of the SBL would be high enough to be dangerous. As I suggested to you at the outset.

You are being needlessly abusive. This exchange is over.

At no point did I suggest the atmosphere is stratified, that was simply a bit of bluster on your part. I simply wondered about the comparitive concentrations of CO2 at different heights and their relative contributions to the RF hypothesis. "the CO2 content of the SBL would be high enough to be dangerous." What exactly is "high enough to be dangerous"? How dangerous and how does that compare to the concentrations at lower levels? If you wish to be rude and patronising to others of equal intelligence to yourself, you must expect to be treated in the same off hand manner. You already told us you ara not qualified in the subject you use to browbeat others in your ego massaging reference to being a 46 year old semi-retired person, who likes to be informed about the subject they are not qualified in. Quoting second hand 'expert' opinion, trawled from research paper abstracts, does not make anybody an authority on the subject, no matter how assertive they might wish to appear. Your blog hogging disruptive posts sometimes make me wonder if you might best be described as a troll.

RKS

At no point did I suggest the atmosphere is stratified, that was simply a bit of bluster on your part

What percentage of dense -heavy- atmospheric CO2 is concentrated in the "thin upper atmosphere"

Pants on fire.

Dung

I also can reference Richard Lindzen
Notable awards NCAR Outstanding Publication Award, Member of the NAS, AMS Meisinger Award, AMS Charney Award, AGU Macelwane Award, Leo Prize of the Wallin Foundation

Not a great one for reading the thread are you?

See Nov 10, 2011 at 11:21 AM, re-posted here for your convenience:

Philip

Lindzen's attempts to argue for a low climate sensitivity do not stand up to scrutiny. As you really should know. Run your eye over the abstracts of the following critiques of his 'infra-red iris' hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001).

Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2

Lin et al. (2002)

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Harrison (2002)

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(2002)083%3C0597%3ACODTEH%3E2.3.CO%3B2

Fu et al (2002)

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html

Critiques of Lindzen and Choi (2009):

Trenberth et al. (2010)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml

Lin et al. (2010)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226

Murphy et al. (2010)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml

Dessler (2010)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract

Critiques of Lindzen & Choi (2011):

Dessler (2011)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml

If you would just read the links I gave you, your persistent misunderstanding of the actual nature of logarithmic RF from CO2 would be resolved. You clearly haven't read either link, so this exchange is now over.

RKS

At no point did I suggest the atmosphere is stratified, that was simply a bit of bluster on your part

What percentage of dense -heavy- atmospheric CO2 is concentrated in the "thin upper atmosphere"

Pants on fire.
Nov 14, 2011 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Is that the best effort at a put down you can muster.

I enquired what percentage of denser CO2 was concentrated in the thin upper atmosphere.

To imply the CO2 presence was stratified I would have disputed that there was ANY CO2 in the upper atmosphere.

You misquote me in order to evade the question - what is the concentration and what, quantified, is the effect on RF?

I'm sorry to ask a question that requires a little thought on your own part, as opposed to ceaseless second hand 'expert' opinion, but I think your arguement needs some detailed scrutiny, as is the norm for any scientific hypothesis.

My profession reqires the use of physics among other diciplines, but I openly admit I am not qualfied as a climate scientist, and therefore refrain from pretending I know all about such a highly complex subject.

You, on the other hand, would have us believe you know so much about it that any opinion, other than your own, is worthy of abuse and ridicule.

So please stop squirming and answer the question without Zed like evasion and bluster.

What's the point of posting on a climate blog if you're not prepared to discuss the basic foundations of your arguement.

RKS

Leave off the personal attacks and admit that you either changed your tune or poorly expressed the original question and we might do better here.

As far as I know, the concentration of CO2 in the stratosphere is the same as it is in the troposphere (eg ~389 ppmv). Hence the term 'well-mixed'.

BBD

As far as I am concerned you really are unworthy of taking up the time of anyone on BH let alone that of my unworthy self.
Until your last post I followed every one of your links and read them, what a waste of time I will not read any more of your links.
You posted links to criticisms of Lindzen Doh! I realise that there are people on BOTH sides of the argument which is what I tried to get through to you.
I ask again, if there are highly qualified people on both sides of this argument do you not think that it is wrong to call one side immoral?

RKS

My profession reqires the use of physics among other diciplines, but I openly admit I am not qualfied as a climate scientist, and therefore refrain from pretending I know all about such a highly complex subject.

You, on the other hand, would have us believe you know so much about it that any opinion, other than your own, is worthy of abuse and ridicule.

This is the sort of thing I object to. Several of the arguments raised on this thread are mistaken and I have demonstrated so to a degree that would suffice in rational and honest debate. But here, the invective and denial and dishonesty drown out rational discourse.

I'm used to people behaving in a rational manner and accepting their errors. That's why I get annoyed when they start up with the evasions, distortions, personal attacks and stubborn repetition and never admit that they are wrong.

If you have read through this thread, you will see this happen over and over again. You can check the links and references I provide, and you can show me where I am mistaken. I asked Hilary (hro001) to do this and got spattered with bile. Is it any wonder that I am getting a bit fed up? How would you feel, I wonder? Especially given your hair-trigger temper in comments above.

And you have been astonishingly rude to me on almost no basis whatsoever upthread. Do you deny this?

Dung

Until your last post I followed every one of your links and read them, what a waste of time I will not read any more of your links.

That's the spirit. Don't read anything that contradicts your bias. Good luck.

Conversation over.

DURING a number of flights of commercial aircraft over the polar route from Frankfurt/Main to Tokyo via Copenhagen the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was continuously recorded using a non-dispersive infrared gas analyser. The flights took place between April 1967 and February 1968. The recorded concentration of CO2 from all flights shows a remarkable change when the aircraft enters and leaves the stratosphere. A quite sudden change of about 3–5 p.p.m. CO2 is usually observed at the transition from tropospheric into stratospheric air and vice versa. The striking difference between the CO2 content of the upper troposphere and the stratosphere was clear enough on the record for the crew of the aircraft to use our CO2 analyser as an indicator of the position of the aircraft relative to the tropopause. Fig. 1 shows the record obtained during the flight from Tokyo to Copenhagen on May 29–30, 1967, together with the position of the aircraft and the tropopause. Sections of the flight within the stratosphere are marked. They clearly show a drop of the CO2 content in the stratosphere. The sudden peak at 70° N 145° W during the flight through the stratosphere may be explained by influx of tropospheric air into the stratosphere. The relative accuracy of our measurements is about ±0.3 p.p.m. CO2, which gives confidence in the reality of the observed fluctuations. The accuracy of the absolute values of the CO2 concentration amounts to ±1.5 p.p.m. due to difficulty in calibrating the reference gases. The marked decrease of the CO2 concentration in the lower stratosphere compared with the upper troposphere suggests that, contrary to previous practice, it is wrong to assume a constant mixing-ratio of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. Exact knowledge of the CO2 concentration with altitude is needed for many calculations of the radiation budget of the atmosphere.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v221/n5185/abs/2211040a0.html

BBD

When confronted with an argument on this thread you produce links to scientists (or others) who disagree with that argument, there is not a problem with that.
However you imply that since there are people who disagree with an argument then it is wrong. By the same token then all the links you keep posting are wrong because there are people who dispute them.

RKS

Leave off the personal attacks and admit that you either changed your tune or poorly expressed the original question and we might do better here.

As far as I know, the concentration of CO2 in the stratosphere is the same as it is in the troposphere (eg ~389 ppmv). Hence the term 'well-mixed'.
Nov 14, 2011 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

At last, some numbers to work with.

So if we assume, for discussion purposes, that the concentration of CO2 remains at a constant 400 ish ppmv throughout the atmosphere from top to bottom, then as the atmospheric density is so much lower within the stratosphere. that the number of CO2 molecules dimishes accordingly.

As less CO2 must absorb less heat energy, and consequently contribute less to RF, how does this compare with the effects at lower levels?

As I asked, quite reasonably, on a previous post, what exactly is "high enough to be dangerous"? How dangerous and how does that compare to the concentrations at lower levels?

It's a genuine question that I, as a comparative layman in this subject, feel deserves a proper answer.

RKS

As less CO2 must absorb less heat energy, and consequently contribute less to RF, how does this compare with the effects at lower levels?

This is complex, and addressed in my response to Dung (and links therein) at Nov 13, 2011 at 6:57 PM.

If you follow the SOD link (TWO), you will also find a large resource of information about the evolution of the understanding of vertical radiative transfer in the atmosphere which might be very helpful in answering all your questions (eg quantification of RF at different altitudes).

The rest is a bit of a red herring. You clearly implied that you believed the density of CO2 would cause it to sink and stratify low in the troposphere which is obviously not the case. Since biogenic CO2 concentrations are much higher 0~1m from the ground, I was suggesting that eventually, concentrations would reach dangerous levels unless efficient mixing was taking place.

If you are new to all this, what are you doing on a sceptic blog? Surely you should be evaluating the mainstream science as-is? As you say you are not expert in the field, is there not a real danger that you will be misled?

matthu

You link to a rather elderly study (1969) but I have found another one (Aoki et al. 2003) that broadly corroborates it.

(4) Stratosperic CO2 over Japan showed a secular increase, with an average rate of 1.4 ppmv yr−1 for the period 1985–2000. The CO2 concentration in the mid-stratosphere was lower by about 4–8 ppmv than that of the upper troposphere, with an average of 5.9 ppmv.

What I cannot find anywhere is acknowledgement that a variation of ~6 ppmv CO2 between the upper troposphere and the mid-stratosphere is significant when it comes to calculating the RTEs. Nor can I find any suggestion that such a variation has any effect on the 'saturation' claims made by sceptics - which are addressed in detail in links above.

Can you?

If you are new to all this, what are you doing on a sceptic blog? Surely you should be evaluating the mainstream science as-is? As you say you are not expert in the field, is there not a real danger that you will be misled?
Nov 14, 2011 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

So if I took Hansen, Mann and Jones at face value I would not risk being misled?

There seems to be so much corruption in politicised mainstream science that I like to look to other sources to reach a balanced, more widely informed, opinion.

This being, as you say, a sceptic blog I can only assume you are being deliberately provocative by the number of your posts. and why you apparently get so upset by challenges from sceptics posting here is beyond comprehension.

You enter the lion's den, tweek it's tail and then play the down trodden victim when it bites you back.

I'll take a look at those sources you point to but a brief synopsis on your part, to show how you interpret the research, would have been welcome.

As I said, I think you are being deliberately provocative towards the sceptic majority on this blog, and Judith Curry's description of that sort of behaviour says all that's needed really.

five minute break for a 'pop quiz'

Q. Who can be attributed to the following modus operandi?

"....when they start up with the evasions, distortions, personal attacks and stubborn repetition and never admit that they are wrong."

BBD

Do you remember what this thread is about?

Anon

Q. Who can be attributed to the following modus operandi?

Sub-literate. Should be:

'Who can the following MO be ascribed to?'

And you are missing the point. The centennial rate of warming is increasing. There is no evidence for a low climate sensitivity. Sceptics are wrong to claim that 'saturation' will prevent further warming. CO2 is the major source of increased RF over the C20th and is emerging as the dominant forcing. There is no 'substantial body of scientists' claiming that 'serious cooling' is about to happen etc.

You are mostly in denial and appallingly ill-informed. You do mostly respond to substantive correction with evasions, distortions, personal attacks and stubborn repetition and you never admit that you are wrong.

And Zed was right. This does make you morally culpable.

Dung

Of course I do. I have actually bothered to read it. See final sentence above.

I do believe I know a psychiatrist who has a vacant padded cell.

Dung

Wow. Cogent riposte. Lots of deep thought there.

Good night.

BD

I am shocked! I do believe you are suggesting that my comment about a vacant padded cell was aimed at you? Nothing could be further than my thoughts. It was simply a throw away comment to all readers of this blog to inform them that if they DID know of someone who could benefit from the peace and quiet that a padded cell can offer, then maybe I could help them.

What I cannot find anywhere is acknowledgement that a variation of ~6 ppmv CO2 between the upper troposphere and the mid-stratosphere is significant

Well, I guess this is one area where there is probably lack of consensus. Because some scientists (and probably most notably, Freeman Dyson ) believe that cooling of the stratosphere is a more significant, and more readily measured, effect than warming of the surface of the earth. It is also an effect that we know much more about.

(Dyson also makes the point that it is easier amd more cost-effective to control CO2 through better land management than through curtailing combustion of oil and coal.)

Whether you adhere to this belief or not, I guess it becomes much more important to model the cooling of the stratosphere correctly, and hence necessary to understand more accurately the concentrations of CO2 up there, in order to be able to understand the significance of CO2.

The clip referenced above is about 4 mins.

Philip,
Thanks for the Zaliapin and Ghil paper. Their conclusion is in contrast to the Roe and Baker:

We show that the breadth of the distribution and, in particular, the probability of
large temperature increases are relatively insensitive to decreases in uncertainties associated with
the underlying climate processes.

Time for an 'evil thought': What if,.... what if the probability distribution function for the 'climate sensitivity metric' is rather an outcome of the analytic paradigm chosen to describe the climate system, than being an actual property of the system itself?

That is how I see it. Of course, the alarmists want to see it as: ' oh yeah, we can't rule out high sensitivity values'. Which immediately tells me that they are not interested in science at all.

Which is why the Gregory and Forster 2006 results and their fradulent misrepresentation by the IPCC seem so damning. In contrast to Roe and Baker's claim, their result actually contains a more constrained distribution, which the IPCC simply threw out.