There must be some irony in holding a climate conference in Chicago, but I’m not sure what it is. Nevertheless, something close to eight hundred people have assembled at the Marriott on the Magnificent Mile to hear more than 70 scientists, economists and other experts opine on whether our globe is heating up. Naturally, since this is a skeptics’ event, most of them think not very much, as do the American people at this point.
Not surprisingly, however, the whole affair has been branded as corrupt by our colleagues at the Huffington Post who claimed the conference was bought and paid for by those nefarious fellows in the energy industry. (Wasn’t BP now supporting AGW? Oh, never mind.) The Heartland Institute, the conference organizers, emphatically deny this support. I leave it to you, dear reader, to decide the truth.
Unlike the HuffPo, I’m more interested in the science (not their long suit). And I have been getting an earful, spending most of my time in a conference room oddly name the “O’Hare” (it in no way resembles an airport), interviewing one scientist and expert after another for PJTV.
On the first day, two, especially, were notable — Lord Christopher Monckton and Richard Lindzen of MIT. I interviewed these gentlemen extensively practically back-to-back. Fortunately, neither of them knew my calculus grade in high school and I was able to slyly avoid being revealed as the scientific nincompoop that I am by sagely nodding my head at the appropriate moments. This was a good strategy because, I must say, I learned a lot.
I spoke first with Monckton who, I’m sure many readers know, has essentially become the verbal spokesman for the climate skeptic movement. Only allowed one witness to the Democrats’ four, ranking Republican Cong. Sensenbrenner chose Monckton, a British politician, not a scientist, to testify on the skeptics’ behalf before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
I asked Monckton why he thought he was chosen and he said it was because he was a politician and could withstand the hectoring from the majority members of the committee. Indeed I think he relished it. Outnumbered as he was, the Viscount evidently gave the Democrats a piece of his mind. I wish I had been there, because there is no question this man has an extraordinary command of the English language. For rhetoric alone, the Democrats should have been taking notes.
But that’s part of the point. This is no longer about science, if it ever was. Listening to Richard Lindzen lay out the whole history of “climate science” for me was fascinating, as he plotted the various motivations for the transition from the global cooling fears of the seventies (remember the Newsweek cover?) to the beginnings of the warming movement in the eighties.
Best bodyguards are Buddhist.
=================
Dear Dr. Bones,
As you will have seen, Freelord Kiddiemaster Pajama recommends one of his ideobuddies for “an extraordinary command of the English language [and f]or rhetoric.”
I have my doubts, but here, “I rehearse, you decry!”
*** SWIPE BEGINS ***
Warming at the very much reduced rate that measured (as opposed to merely modeled) results suggest would be 0.7-0.8 K (1.3-1.4 F°) at CO2 doubling. That would be harmless and beneficial — a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase yields of some staple crops by 40%.
Therefore, one need not anticipate any significant adverse impact from CO2-induced “global warming.” “Global warming” is a non-problem, and the correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
However, ad argumentum, let us assume that the IPCC is correct in finding that a warming of 3.26 ± 0.69 K (5.9 ± 1.2 F°: IPCC, 2007, ch.10, box 10.2) might occur at CO2 doubling. We generalize this central prediction, deriving a simple equation to tell us how much warming the IPCC would predict for any given change in CO2 concentration.
?TS ? (8.5 ± 1.8) ln(C/Co) F°
Thus, the change in surface temperature in Fahrenheit degrees, as predicted by the IPCC, would be 6.7 to 10.3 (with a central estimate of 8.5) times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. We check the equation by using it to work out the warming the IPCC would predict at CO2 doubling: 8.5 ln 2 ? 5.9 F°.
Using this equation, we can determine just how much “global warming” would be forestalled if the entire world were to shut down its economies and emit no carbon dioxide at all for an entire year. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 388 parts per million by volume. Our emissions of 30 bn tons of CO2 a year are causing this concentration to rise at 2 ppmv/year, and this ratio of 15 bn tons of emissions to each additional ppmv of CO2 concentration has remained constant for 30 years.
Then the “global warming” that we might forestall if we shut down the entire global carbon economy for a full year would be 8.5 ln[(388+2)/388] = 0.044 F°. At that rate, almost a quarter of a century of global zero-carbon activity would be needed in order to forestall just one Fahrenheit degree of “global warming.”
Two conclusions ineluctably follow. First, it would be orders of magnitude more cost-effective to adapt to any “global warming” that might occur than to try to prevent it from occurring by trying to tax or regulate emissions of carbon dioxide in any way.
Secondly, there is no hurry. Even after 23 years doing nothing to address the imagined problem, and even if the IPCC has not exaggerated CO2’s warming effect fourfold, the world will be just 1 F° warmer than it is today. If the IPCC has exaggerated fourfold, the world can do nothing for almost a century before global temperature rises by 1 F°.
There are many urgent priorities that need the attention of Congress, and it is not for me as an invited guest in your country to say what they are. Yet I can say this much: on any view, “global warming” is not one of them.
*** SWIPE ENDS ***
Can the Other Place have sunk so far as to allow our leadin’ yaleodramatist to consider that slice of bologna [1] a model for Yank Lit.?
I remain, sir, inelecutably and unforestallably yours for
Healthy and affordable days.
___
[1] Considered materially rather than formally, the neobaloney is tripe indeed: the IPCC supposes (sort of) that it can foretell climate. Freelord Kiddiemaster Monckton proposes to refute that claim by offerin’ a formula for predictin’ what the IPCC will predict. Q.E.D.
With a ‘ding’, / And a ‘dong’, / And a “Hey, dingaling!”
Sweet wingnuts love the spring.
If The IPCC alarmists computer models were accurate, the earth would have warmed up a lot more than it did in the last 100 years.
That alone is enough to disprove the notion that there is any danger from increasing CO2 concentrations.
With everything else held constant, the earth should have warmed up by about 0.8C from the CO2 increase seen to date.
The fact is that we’ve only warmed up about 0.6C. At least half of that warming is due to uncompensated UHI. Much of the remainint warming is caused by uncompensated micro-site contamination of the sensor network.
Then there’s an increase of about 0.2C from the sun getting stronger over the last 50 years.
Then there’s the decrease in clouds caused by the stronger sun’s stronger magenetic field.
Which leaves us with a warming of less than 0.1C over the last 100 years, when blind theory would predict 8 times that amount.
To get the really scary numbers that the warmists through about, they have to assume that the earth’s climate is dominated by strong feedbacks, which amplify the very small warmings caused by CO2 alone. The fact that we have seen much less warming thatn blind theory alone predicts demonstrates that the earth’s climate is dominated by strong negative feedbacks, not strong positive feedbacks.
Which all but proves that the IPCC’s worst case scenarios aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
You climate cowards will even drop to motivating with fear to a great good to justify this modern day witch burning of yours.
VOTERS have consensus and that consensus is what killed the beast of climate change.
If you still think that there is voter support for this CO2 media and political feeding frenzy from hell, YOU then are the new denier. On behalf of all evolving and descent and civilized human beings, we curse each and every single one you misguided Greenzis as history is doing now. Even the new generation of kids are laughing but hold on for a backlash for this Enviro WMD false war and needless panic. Your death threats for our kids will come back to roost.
How appropriate that Christopher Monckton should be regarded as the verbal spokesperson of ‘sceptics’ – he is about as reliable on the science of climate change as he is on his status as “a politician”: http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjQwMg
Love the way warmists refuse to deal with the science. Instead, when someone opposes them they go straight to the insults.
Of course they can’t deal with the science, because there never was a shred of science behind the warmists nonsense.
You got it! That’s why the whole issue of CAGW reminds me more of a political/religious debate—replete with the standard ad hominem attacks, emotional appeals, appeals to authority and logical fallacies—rather than a scientific discussion on the merits of the theory of CAGW.
You said it, Mark. Character attacks are such an obvious leftist tactic I wonder that they insist on using it. Perhaps it is the only arrow in their quiver. The facts seem to be cyanide to them.
There’s an old saying. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
They use insults because, on an intellectual level, it’s the only weapon they’ve got.
Roger writes,
You mean the guy who tried to calculate climate sensitivity from ‘cloud forcing’ over 19 years where he ignored the longwave component and all other forcings over the same period? (from 4:00 onward, and a funny refutation from 6:45)
No you’re not.
Of course the refutations were in turn refuted, but as you admit, you’re not interested in science.
Monckton the potty peer who makes stuff up, then makes stuff up about the stuff made up.
There’s nothing you guys won’t fall for.
Excellent article, Mr. Simon. I’m eager to watch the videos of your interviews.
Calculus did me in as well. Thank heavens for a great big curve….
At least Roger has the guts not to censor comments.
Here’s one of several censored by Charlie Martin on this thread…
The scientific case for AGW has collapsed, Lazar, so of course all you are left with is snark. The computer models upon which the entire case is based repeatedly fail to “predict” even what has already happened (“hide the decline,”) as they continually fail to coincide with what happens each year this sham goes on. The basic temp data are exaggerated, “tricked,” “lost” and made up whole. Even Hansen has to admit NASA’s temp stations are a risible shambles of scientific sloppiness, with measuring in front of heat exhausts and so on. No tropospheric warming. No oceanic warming. Thousands of measuring stations in cooler areas deleted with no adjustment to the “global average” calculations. Ancient temps estimated based on a single tree, selected for the purpose. Polar bear population quadruples since the 70s. Antarctic ice sheets greatly expand on a net basis. Ice cores show CO2 buildups in the past come after, not before warming periods. Any questioning or dissent from the made-up alarmist narrative suppressed, vilified, ridiculed and censored. IPCC claims based on unsubstantiated rumor, from Himalayan glaciers to rainforests. And on and on.
So, by all means, adopt a posture of condescension, which after all is the now the entire sum of what leftist elitism is about. And keep telling yourself it is the skeptics who are the superstitious cretins following an unsupportable faith-based narrative that is impervious to facts. And keep the snark. Snark uber alles.
“Snark uber alles” …. and its twin, A.D. Hominem.
Meant to add, excellent response Victor.
Back when the PDO was in it’s warm phase, the warmists were telling us that CO2 induced warming was so awsome that it completely swamped all other sources of warming, so any warming that could be measured must be caused by CO2.
Now that the PDO is in it’s cool phase and causing the earth to cool, we are told that despite what was claimed 20 years ago, the PDO is just climate, and the warming will resume with a vengance once the PDO switches back to it’s warm phase, when they can go back to blaming all warming on CO2.
Great point. I think the global scientific community should focus its efforts and resources in better understanding ENSO, the Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific decadal oscillations and the complex sun cycles that TRULY drive climate on this miraculous planet we call earth. Not to mention perturbations of the earth’s orbit around the sun, specifically Milankovitch Cycles. Dr. Richard Lindzen has suggested developing satellites—say three or four satellites that are launched to high-altitude geostationary orbits—that employ low-noise electronics and utilize microwaves for more accurate global measurements. THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC!!! The current collection of mechanical measurements for global temperatures is astonishingly primitive and error-prone—in my opinion of course!
But…where would be the opportunities for vast wealth, monstrous growth of government power and graft be in that? And how would it satisfy the religious yearnings of the ecofundamentalist New Calvinists?
Lazar: It’s funny how you mention the politician and then make a snarky comment about science.
You ignored Dr. Lindzen and his research. If there is minimal change in the radiation escaping from the globe now as there was 20 years ago (when CO2 PCT was significantly lower), then your whole theory is blown out of the water. You see, that is how science works. You come up with a theory and then find an experiment to prove your theory. If it can’t survive the scrutiny, then your theory is WRONG.
What is often forgotten in arguments about science is the scientific method, itself. Experiments can never prove an hypothesis, only disprove it. This is the fundement of the scientific method. Only after a long period of intensive and rigourous testing, repetition by independant groups and corroboration of observations using different technologies, can a hypothesis approach the status of Theory. AGW is clearly in no way close to a theoretical construct. There are just too many internal contradictions, far too few independant corroborations.
You really just can’t do much better than Richard Lindzen. Beyond his command of the facts, his well-earned esteem is refreshing (something like): I’m not a skeptic, I’m a denier! I share that point of view.
egoist, AGW might be true, there’s just no evidence for it. So I’m a skeptic, not a denier.
Roger writes,
Lindzen’s been flogging that horse for years, resurrecting it in a substantially different reincarnation every time critical flaws were pointed out. Meantime there’s a mountain of evidence against sensitivity being that low. He hasn’t done serious work for almost two decades, prefers doing the Heartland comedy circuit… this show was brought to you by Exxon Mobil. There are literally tens of thousands of papers published every year, why do you think this one is so much more important and reliable? Which ones have you read?
You say your calculus sucks, so does mine. That doesn’t stop me from understanding most of what is written in papers. You say you’re “more interested in science”, but then you spend time and money attending ‘skeptics’ political rallies and getting duped by clowns like Monckton instead of reading up on calculus, atmos phys and stats and research papers.
“assiduously insist is there”?!! Even Lindzen isn’t foolish enough to dispute the greenhouse effect.
You are a prime example of the confirmation bias that has plagued this science over the last 35 years. Let’s all pat each other on the back over our new discoveries that will save the planet. And let’s not talk about what those crazy deniers say.
It’s all BS. This is a purely a money and power play. With technology trending the way it is, we have more pressing issues in the short term, even if the globe does warm by a couple degrees in 2100.
Admitting your bad calculus makes you more suspect in my book. The grant process and the ego behind SC technology acquisition is the Scientists version of mine is bigger.
There are smart people at NASA etc, but it doesn’t mean they lack agendas.
Open and realistic assessments of strengths and weaknesses is anathema to ideologues.
More BS.I have no axe to grind. I personally know ‘scientists’ and have had professional relationships with same over the last 3 decades. But if you sincerely followed the history of this science from its inception
you would question the selective use of ‘evidence’; and the credentials of those making all the assertions, are just as sketchy as those that you lambaste.
The CEO of a former employer of mine would subscribe to ‘just in time’ problem resolution. If you can’t prioritize effectively given short and long term implications, and development cycles, the business will go down the tubes.
Politicians are making this a short term priority to serve their own ends, when it is really a long term issue, if an issue at all- and anyone honest about this would have serious doubts. If you honestly follow the money, you will be surprised at who pulls the strings.
So do I and millions of others. They even be scientists.
Your comment is, as ever… empty.
Even by your low standards, that is an extremely weak come back.
His comment was in regards to what makes science, science. Something that your side could stand to learn.
The July 2008 Brookehaven Labs study shows the greehouse effect to be limited and to trail off to insignificance after a total global warming effect of less than one degree, 40% of which the study says has already occurred. It is not an infinite effect. They liken it to painting a window black. Subsequent coats have no effect. You get what you’re going to get right away, and that’s it. The study also found no delay effect: you what all you will ever get right away or never. Yes, the greenhouse effect is real, but limited.
Also, no one has ever proved that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is much different than the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which you very well realize comprises 95% of “greehouse gases,” far overshadowing whatever small effect man-made CO2 ( a few hundred ppm) may have.
At around 50ppm, CO2 has already reached 50% of it’s ability to absorb IR radiation.
Each doubling produces half as much impact. CO2 is already about 90% tapped out.
And that’s in only band that doesn’t overlap something else.
Which is why your side refuses to release it’s data so that it can be independantly analyzed?
I love the way that alarmists actually believe that by standing up and screaming, you’re wrong, they have actually refuted anything.
Lindzen’s work has been challenged, sure, but all of the challenges have been met and answered.
The fact that you feel the need to claim that someone else’s work must be false because of an extremely tenous connection to a funding source that you don’t like is all the proof that any rational person would need to know that you have failed in your defense of your religion.
BTW, I like the way that you pretend that people getting millions of dollars from politicians is not worth mentioning, but getting a few hundred from a private company, that also funds your side, is enough to completely discredit.
“assiduously insist is there”?!! Even Lindzen isn’t foolish enough to dispute the greenhouse effect.
—
Do you ever bother to respond to what people actually wrote?
No one serious about the study of the earth’s atmosphere is going to deny the greenhouse effect of WATER VAPOR. Dr. Lindzen is more than aware of this well-known fact. Water vapor is some ten times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. What IS being disputed is the ridiculous notion that radiative CO2 forcing is responsible for the warming trend that has been occurring since the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age and it’s all mankind’s fault! NONSENSE! UTTER NONSENSE!
Lazar, you’re relying on climate models to predict trends way into the future. Current climate models cannot model water vapor and clouds, nor do the models do well with handling instantaneous forcings or long-term forcings. We won’t even get into modeling the solar cycles and oceanic oscillations. GIGO! (Garbage in, garbage out)
Just one question?
That huge volcano that is/has dumped more than
3^277,625,597,484,987 tonnes of Ash/Carbon/Ice Crystals into the stratosphere for the last two months-
will it cause an ice age,
or should we burn more oil fires in the Gulf to stay warm?
Freaking Global Warming Idiots should only be allowed to fly when the Volcanic Ash cloud is Brown.
Libtard: That doesn’t stop me from understanding most of what is written in papers
The papers that were revealed to be based on fraud? Climategate, the gift that keeps on giving. Its outs charlatans like Lazar to entertain us with their AGW propraganda.
Please Lazar, keep spamming the thread with your hatred. Your desperation is delicious!
No dear. I’m quite happy to watch you guys cite people like Monckton. And if the public swallow your delusions for a decade or two, we can wait for the temperature and costs to ratchet up. Your choice, your responsibility. That’s freedom init’?
Libtard: …for a decade or two, we can wait for the temperature and costs to ratchet up
Heh. You charlatans have been insisting we have to act NOW on your AGW sham. Now you say its okay to put emergency action off “for a decade or two”….
Fraud.
Nope, it is your reading comprehension that is “off”.
Wow, Lazar is good at spewing BS and releasing more CO2. If not already, he should be working for Al Gore and continue misleading people of the world.
Lazar relying on “science” so he said, but no science found to support the CAGW hypothesis. How many more decades and billions of dollars wasted before he acknowledges reality. How many more decades of keeping their head in the sand before the alarmists acknowledge CAGW had been falsified? It’s time Lazar and the rest of his alarmist buddies step out of their virtual world and look at real science using observed data.
Now this is funny. Lazar criticizing others for lack of reading comprehension.
But the temperatures are not ratcheting up. They have never even gone up at all in the troposphere or the oceans. The surface temp data banks are lost, corrupted and compromised. The computer models upon which your entire smug certainty is based cannot even explain the 1960′s, let alone today, when their predictions fail year after year to coincide with reality.
The enormous interests of money and political power bexploiting the AGW religion will put up a mighty fight for years to come. But fewer people are fooled by the fraudulent “science” every day.
AMEN, AMEN.
My calculus actually was good, and my chemistry and biology, too, for the 4 years it took to get my B.S. But the geology and earth sciences courses were the most useful here, and they started with some basic facts at the 101 level.
Water. It is the highest specific heat of any naturally-occuring compound. For you liberal politicos, that means it is the substance that requires the most amount of calories (added or subtracted to it) in order to raise or lower it’s temperature. If the Earth were really warming up, then the oceans (covering 70% of Earth to quite a depth) are where all that “greenhouse” energy would be getting stored, preceeded by very large changes in the atmospheric temps. It ain’t happening, and land surface temperature data appear to have been eaten by the dog or tortured until they confess.
As difficult as it may be to admit, the vast majority of the populace is largely ignorant of basic physics and earth science, which makes AGW a perfect hoax for statists to use for their enslavement.
The SST (sea surface temperature for Lazar’s benefit) have fallen dramatically over the last year.
Do you have a reference for that?
You are getting desperate, aren’t you.
Why do you keep pretending that the only person we cite is Monckton?
The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) thesis has been fatally holed by its own promoters. In the first place, the East Anglia CRU document release indicates how badly they must torture what data they have to get it to say what they want. In the second place, not one of the models on which CAGW depends has been successful even at backcasting historically documented temperature fluctuations.
Scientific knowledge is about the ability, within an adequately well specified context, to predict what effects will flow from a particular cause. The CAGW crowd has demonstrated no such ability; rather, they claim that any and every sort of temperature fluctuation is consistent with their theory. That renders it an article of faith: unfalsifiable, and therefore useless. But their power-lust will keep them going quite a while longer, doubt it not. There’s just too much money and power at stake.
I wholeheartedly agree. The Kyoto Accord was nothing more than the EU trying to gain competitive economic advantage over the U.S. and other emerging economies. Think I’m off the mark? Consider the recent disastrous Copenhagen Summit. The leaking of the “Danish Text” during the Summit confirmed my suspicions—and apparently the suspicions of the “emerging economies” at the Summit—that indeed the major players were trying to force third-world countries—and the U.S.—to spends trillions of dollars to combat “Climate Change.” How does it benefit mankind to spend trillions of dollars for the specious end of reducing the global average temperature by fractions of a degree over a period of a hundred years? It doesn’t! Such policies suppress the economies of emerging nations and stifle their growth.
Nope. This is a Bernie Madoff-style EU Ponzi Scheme implemented through the trading of carbon credits—see European Trading System (ETS) and the CCX—that will line the pockets of the EU and the likes of Algore et al. IT HAS TO BE STOPPED NOW!!!
“I believe in democracy. Democracy depends on the consent of an informed electorate. Right? Do you agree with that? If you want to deal with energy policy; and you’re going to argue it on the basis of global warming; is that helping an informed electorate judge your energy policy?”
—Dr. Richard Lindzen – Fermilab Lecture 2-10-10
—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMkyjyk-VEk&feature=related
Scientific Method
_________________
Observe
Question
Predict
Test predictions
Draw a conclusion
Pseudo Science
_________________
Lacks any ingredients of evidence
No test for wrongness
Roger, while you’re in Chicago you should run by the Chicago Carbon Exchange, you know the still ‘voluntary’ business owned by Democrat illuminaries such as Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Peter Knight and of course Goldman Sachs. They also own the European Carbon Exchange.
While the exchange for trading credits of six so called ‘greenhouse gases’ is still voluntary, the above owners are hopeful with the proper Cap and Trade legislation passed in Congress that it will become mandatory. Mandatory I tell you! So that they can blow up the next global bubble and make carbon the new currency, thereby making themselves rich and powerful beyond the dreams of ordinary mortals.
And don’t think ALL of them, especially Goldman Sachs, hasn’t lobbied extensively andgiven tons of money to Obama and Dem Congressional members for the past 5-10 years to make it happen.
I think you mean Chicago Climate Exchange….Google that one.
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
Lazar-a very extensive listing of all kinds of temperature vs. various factors over time. I assume you have a “reason” all these will be invalid as well. By the way, could you please educate me on why the earth began to warm while frozen and then why it froze when warm and then repeated this behavior several times? I await your reply.
Underneath those pretty graphs is the word “Milankovitch”. Google is your friend and your teacher, not me. But check your assumptions… what are the timescales over which various processes act, when do the time series end (year), scale of the x-axes, are the temperatures regional or local, and is CO2 claimed to be the only process acting to effect temperature…
So, the Milankovitch theory (nature)trumps CO2(man). Thanks for that, a drop of reality and honesty. Nature trumps man in climate, how refreshing.
That is a false dichotomy.
Alright, then when the axial shift happens the next time and the earth is due for a cooling (ice age) CO2 will prevail. CO2 (man) over ice age (nature). This dichotomy is correct, then?
Still wrong.
OK–I must be impaired–please explain it to this simple minded man. It is CO2, it isn’t CO2. Huh? Like Mark also asked below, what is your answer– plain English?
“…CO2 claimed to be the only process acting to effect temperature…”
C’mon, Lazar, if you can’t or won’t acknowledge the above statement as bs, you’re not being honest with yourself and the readers. If you aren’t laughing at your own above statement as I do now, you’re not reading/understanding the science behind the CAGW hypothesis.
Thanks for the laugh, and please stop living a virtual world and face reality.
Here’s more facts for you: the world is not flat, man did land on the moon — that’s reality.
Over the last 10,000 years, the earth has been substantially warmer than it is at present 5 times.
What caused those warmings and how do you know that it isn’t happening again?
I know I’m probably wasting my time here, but I’ll give Lazar a rest, and remind you that Milankovich cycles are the most likely major forcing event for the past temperature changes in the graph.
There isn’t any evidence that we are in one of those cycles at present, since they are predicated on changes in the movement of the Earth, and as far as I am aware, there haven’t been any such changes.
Milankovich cycles work on 100,000 year scales. The warmings that I mentioned are working on a 1000 year scale. So it’s Milankovich is not the answer. The answer is changes in the sun itself, as can be measured by cosmic radiation proxies going back 10′s of thousands of years.
There are global temperature reconstructions that go back ten thousand years? Surely you jest sir…
Judging from the flak he is getting, I estimate that Brenchley is directly over the target. Bombs away!
================
By the same illogic you would believe in every crank conspiracy theorist.
You clearly have no idea of what you speak.
Your comment is empty as ever.
As is yours
You expect something from nothing.
Lazar’s world ends, not wid da Bomb, with a whimper.
===============
Lazar, in your case I’ve learned to expect nothing from a nobody.
Why not, you do.
One other small but delicious tidbit on our chief carbon credit baiter:
Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Your pitiful squeaking almost makes me feel sorry for you, Lazar. . . . wait. . . no, it doesn’t. Did you take your nom de pleur from Bob Lazar, of Area 51 fame? If so, that would explain a lot. . . .
If Lazar is so strong on this, why not send The Algore up there to take the sceptics down. His counter rotating hurricanes and erasure of Cuba is the vermins handbook special.
Maurice Strong is on the Chicago climate exchange but he can’t push the science because he has too much sticky felony activity in the oil for food thingy.
Carbon credits sell for 10 cents tells us a lot. It is more economicat to fluush carbon down the toilet than move it to the trady schems.
There are errors all over this article. Roger, it’s the Magnificent Mile or Mag Mile, not the Miracle Mile and I’m pretty sure it’s O’Hare not Ohare. Other than that, it looks fine.
Bear writes;
In a thread where I talk about what those crazy deniers say. I have even spent some time reading dross published by Spencer, Christy, Douglass, McLean, Carter, Loehle and others. The only side not reading contradictory work are the denialists. How otherwise would they end up citing Monckton as authoritative? Why they’re getting trashed everywhere except these cloistered forums.
Re: Brenchley, nobody’s perfect. But note these points. Climate sensitivity figures derived from analysis of observations is showing a much lower sensitivity to CO2 than figures derived from global climate models. Copenhagen and subsequent discussions demonstrate that carbon demonization is a huge threat to the well being of the poor of this earth. Like it or not, Lazar, and I suspect you do, transnational language is clear in the treaty proposals.
==================
I am only interested in the Math and technology used to arrive at the conclusion that Man is mostly responsible for global warming. It doesn’t wash, and you can cite whatever sources (you’ve read) you want. There may be an anthropomorphic component, but looking at the extrapolations, I doubt it is all that large or cause for immediate concern. I don’t rule out the possibility that I’m wrong, but unlike with your ideology, I wait for more compelling evidence. There are bigger fish to fry, unless you have a hidden agenda.
Bear,
Don’t wait for the evidence to come to you. There is plenty out there. If you are spending significant time here, then you are languishing in an echo chamber. That’s your choice, but don’t make it sound like you have considered everything and are taking some kind of principled opposition from a scientific basis.
Well, Lazar, maybe you are reading contrary data, but you are clearly ignoring it. The warming stopped 215 years ago, something neither your models nor your theory predict or explain. If man-made CO2 is the major factor in climate, then why did the warming stop? Other factors. that means other factors can be just as important in the wqarming that did occur.
But, wait, how much warming did occur” we don’t really know, because the four sets of data upon which the entire case rests are in fact only two sets, one of which is “lost,” and the other of which is “tricked,” gamed and “adjusted” to fit the warmists’ fraudulent claims.
This is the third globale warming scare in a century. In between there were two global cooling scares. You are behind the curve, Lazar, because the next global cooling scare is overdue.
Sorry, of course I meant 15 years ago. And that observed warming itself is based on data collection methods that are now revealed to be at least inconsistent and sloppy. But even by those standards, there has been no warming for 15 years, something not reconcilable with greenhouse gas theory without admitting that other factors may override the effects of manmade CO2, which means they may also be far more of a cause of any warming itself than CO2. And, of course, the computer models predicted more warming over the last 15 years, and the entire set of AGW predictions are based on those computer models. But it is the skeptics who are ignoring the data.
I love the way the alarmists declare that everything they don’t want to believe is dross.
It beats actually replying to the real science. Which he can’t do.
Our society has reached a point where scientific truth has no validity to the public. We have EPA science, EXXON science, Heartland science, and UN science. Each professes to know the truth about the climate one hundred years from now. Each profits daily from their position. Logic dictates that one, or all, must be wrong.
I note three recent events which were totally off the world’s environmental radar screens, but which have shaken our societies to the core. In the COP15 conference, the debate instantly morphed into haggling about the wealth redistribution of the entire globe. The gathering of 45,000 attendees consumed the entire inventory of executive jets, limos and prostitutes in all of central Europe. But by all accounts, little was accomplished. A small volcano in Iceland shut down air travel throughout Europe, due to fears that of grit load in jet engines. A 460 ton Blow Out valve, with multiple independent means of closing, failed in the Gulf of Mexico and oil is devastating the southern US marine based economy.
I wish some of the climate money had been spent, years ago, on grit effects on engine performance and better valve design, fabrication, and operation. I have no confidence that the history of environmental priorities, five years from now, will be as we now comprehend it.
BobB, thanks for the correction. Working a bit fast at midnight after a day of interviewing.
Anonymous Lazar, I see now why Charles Martin may have banned you. It seems you have a tad of logorrhea and little to do today. But play on. Don’t let me interrupt you. I’m sure many people convinced by your postings.
I dunno Roger, was it the comment calling climate scientists “paid prostitutes”? Or the comment “We don’t need no stinking science to erect our world wide CRIME INC scam, selling invisible air”? Or was it “I’m looking forward to seeing Lisa Jackson and her minions spending the rest of their political lives under subpoena.” Or even better “Actually they will spend it in prison.”?
My comments seem a tad tame in comparison.
But credit to you, you have guts not to censor.
Some will, the lurkers mainly not the respondents. If I can leave markers for the inexperienced to find their way out of this nonsense then I’m happy.
Still think Monckton is an expert?
I dare you, Lazar, or anyone of your choice, to debate Brenchley about climate. It seems he has few takers.
==============
Lazar, your time is past. We no longer believe you or your like. Bluster, bluff, and bullying in the climate game is a failed gambit. Actual observational science is showing a low sensitivity of climate to CO2 and the temperature record, such as it is, tends to show that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is small.
So give it up; there’s a brave new world of climate for you to explore, and may Judy Curry lead you to the truth. Our present knowledge of climate doesn’t allow us much approximation of the truth. Advocates like you, Lazar, are counterproductive to the search.
=================
What markers are you referring to?
Maybe you should suggest a crash course in data acquisition techniques and statistics? (conforming with the precautionary principle of course)
When did you change your moniker BTW?
Very well written intro;
Kachigan, S. K. (1986), Statistical Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Univariate & Multivariate Methods, Radius Press.
Followed by theory;
Hogg, R. V., A. Craig, and J. W. McKean (2004), Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, 6th ed., Prentice Hall.
And time series analysis;
Shumway, R. H., and D. S. Stoffer (2006), Time Series Analysis and Its Applications: With R Examples, 2nd ed., Springer.
Never.
Do any of those books cover “tricking” the data to show what actually did not happen? Do they show how to increase reliability of temperature data by eliminating 60% of the temp collection stations since 1990, leaving stations heavily weighted in inherently warmer environments and then not adjusting “average global temperatures” to allow for that change? Perhaps they tell us how really smart, high-integrity scientists take data from a single temperature station for the entire Canadian Arctic and then “extrapolate” its data for the entire immense region? Do they tell us what to do when an entire set of temp data for many decades, upon which are based cataclysmic claims demanding world government, the elimination of democracy (many “scientists” have publicly advocated this) is “lost?” by one of the those impeccably trained, really, really smart, beyond reasoned questioning scientists?
Nice try, Roger (as opposed to the completely non-anonymous BobB), but having received comments such as “Hey if this is all because you are HIV positive, sorry” and “I think you’re a POS” and seen talk of “green Nazis” and global communist takeover no way am I going to hand over my identity to nut cases. You guys are partly responsible for fostering the anger and paranoia of the moonbat ‘right’ through consistently unbalanced reporting and allegations of universal malfeasance, as much as the KosKidz are responsible for theirs. None of this of course has anything to do with the reliability of Monckton’s claims.
Hi Roger,
You just wasted a second that you’ll never get back on replying to a character like Lazar.
Please use your precious time to write more compelling articles based on your observable data/truth in science.
Thanks Roger for everything you do to protecting tax payers like myself from a non-problem such as CAGW.
Tim@10,
AGW might be true. Well, it’s possible only if you discount all the volcanic eruptions, forest fires and draughts and the other natural disasters that pollute the atmosphere. Sometimes for decades and centuries. And of course, it requires the Earth to be non-resilient. Besides, warming will be good for all living things.
Ancient aliens too?
All one must do is look at the data the AGW crowd uses to see the holes. All one must do is look at their computer models to see the holes.
Lots of holes and not much left. I might be more ready to believe that it is all just mass hysteria however they all seem to be paid to find AGW and would be out of jobs without it.
Oops, my mistake, it is mass hysteria.
How can we look at their data? They won’t show it to us.
Their conclusions however they do show us, and they are indeed full of holes.
The software from the East Anglia expose clearly modified the data, rather than using the data for computation. That nullifies all their ‘conclusions’.
The argument that Monckton is no scientist therefore he is unqualified is irrelevant. Mr. Gore is no scientist either. So should we disqualify him as well? The point is the presentation of the data from the scientists who do know. This, I think, is why Gore will not debate Monckton. A presentation is only as good as the data behind it (or the lack of). Monckton knows he is no scientist (he has stated as such), but that is why his information relies on those who are. I have seen many presentations in my life (I spent 8 years helping people with their presentations) and half the time the presentations are setup by one person then presented by someone else. Monckton may not be a scientist, but he’s very good at gathering the information and presenting it. He would not have been an advisor in Thatchers government if that had not been the case.
This is not the argument being made. Next.
Sorry. I wasn’t speaking specifically about the article subject, I was referring to your comments on #6 and the comments of those whose links you specify.
That’s true. The argument that is being made is that the scientific case for AGW was never made, and what little there ever was has now collapsed.
The claim there is a scientific “consensus” really means there is a consensus among scientists who declare there is a consensus. And many of those “scientist” whom Lazar and other love to cite in attempting to silence all questions are legions of “scientists who know little or nothing about climate. I don’t really care what my podiatrist thinks about my liver cancer, even if he is a doctor. I don’t really care what ant biologists or quantum physicists think about climate. And to the extent they are among the “scientists” trotted out by Believers or signing IPCC reports, we may safely disregard their putative expertise on climate change.
I do believe there is a solid (at least public) consensus among scientists who receive their funding, tenure, fame and speaking fees from the AGW industrial complex.
Lazar @ 5.:
Roger writes,
On the first day, two, especially, were notable — Lord Christopher Monckton
You mean the guy who tried to calculate climate sensitivity from ‘cloud forcing’ over 19 years where he ignored the longwave component and all other forcings over the same period? (from 4:00 onward, and a funny refutation from 6:45)
Lazar @ reply to 28. Dave in Utah:
The argument that Monckton is no scientist therefore he is unqualified is irrelevant.
This is not the argument being made. Next.
———————————
So what IS the argument being made?
Hard to tell. The more Lazar is pushed, the more rapidly it changes.
Well, Mark, I hope I’m not the only one trying to make sense of a direct contradiction.
To quote C.S. Lewis in “The Chronicles of Narnia”:
Just what DO they teach them in schools nowadays?
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun’s output cause the observed changes in the
Earth’s temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun’s output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun’s output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth’s
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/44/692/Astonishing_Science:_Sun_May_Cause_Global_Warming.html
So the story is there is global warming, but it isn’t our fault and there is nothing we can do about it. My question is will the heat kill off large numbers of endangered species and will sea levels rise enough to flood parts of Florida, Bangladesh and other low-lying areas? Also will the frozen methane under the worlds oceans melt and possibly cause another “Great Dying” known as the Permian Extinction? The good news is land creatures survived better than sea creatures, so enjoy that seafood while you can.
The answer to that is unequivacably no.
The earth was warmer during the mideval warm period, and none of those bad things happened.
The earth was warmer still during the roman warm period, and none of those bad things happened.
The earth was more than 2C warmer than today 5000 years ago, and none of those bad things happened.
During the Holocene climate optimum the earth was some 5 to 10C warmer than today, and none of those bad things happened.
Beyond that, the current warm snap appears to be over. At least for the next 30 to 50 years.
There’s more than one type of solar output.
Classicly, people focused on the energy being released in the visible and near visible spectrun.
The output that Svensmark has been looking at is the sun’s magnetic field. Which is stronger at the peak of a solar cycle, and weaker at a minima. The sun’s magnetic field blocks cosmic rays, and cosmic rays have been shown to play a role in cloud formation. And clouds, by reflecting the sun’s light, cools the earth.
During the latter half of the 20th century, the cosmic ray flux was the weakest ever measured. (Measurements only go back about 100 years) With the end of SC 23 (about 3 years ago), the sun’s magnetic field has since dropped to the lowest levels ever measured. There is very strong geological evidence that the earth’s temperature is strongly influenced by the cosmic ray flux. High flux occurs at times of cold, and low flux occurs at times of warmth.
Lazar: Okay so what’s the endgame if CAGW is real? Simple as that. If you are correct and the world is heating up, what do you want the U.S. to do that will:1) not create more of a fiscal burden on taxpayers; 2) not destroy our economy with such things as CCX and even more burdensome EPA regulations and the further constraining of our energy producers; 3) not increase our energy costs; 4) show that this is not a wealth redistributionist wet dream; and 5) that even China, India and all nations will also do.
All you Deniers! Next thing you’ll want everyone to believe the temperature cools after the sun goes down!
http://nymex.greenfutures.com/contact-us/index.html-is one exchange to trade carbon.
For one second let’s pretend global warming does in fact exist and it’s manmade. What is the best way to combat it? It’s not through govt. regulation, or via an exchange. It’s via a straight tax on carbon. That is the only incentive that will cause companies to pollute less.
Now, back to reality. There is no man made global warming. The statistics and the science are worth about as much as ice cubes in the Arctic.
The thinking people of the world owe many of our esteemed scientists a huge thank you. The debt is so large that I can’t see how it can be repaid.
These scientists are people who place integrity and honesty above all, even at great personal risk to their careers and public standing. They have stood up to the looneys and promoted their own principles. It is a pity that many in the world cannot follow their examples because their examples are those that should be followed. We have to stand and applaud them for they have stood for principles when the going was hardest!
There are many on the list, but I will name a few: Steve McIntyre; Richard Lindzen; Ross McKitrick; Lord Moncton; Anthony Watts; Bob Carter; Roy Spencer, and Marc Morano.
These are our leaders of today, not the tawdry, consensus seekers who are are rotten and corrupt, and trying to curry favour, in order to receive some advantage.
Whoooo, more censorship at PJM. By Art Horn on this thread.
Some comments which were allowed;
And my innocuous little comment which got censored?
Long live the ‘open media’!
What pitiful whining you piker, Lazar. Wanna hear my list of alarmist places I’ve been banned? Why even Steve McIntyre snips my best stuff.
=======================
Silly. It is useful information to know what is being censored by whom. A rough guide to the reliability of the medium. Consider it a public service.
Well, I’m here to tell you, sonnyboy, that it is alarmist sites that have done the bulk of the censoring of skeptical comments, the selective editing of replies, and the suppression of any dissent. Skeptical sites may be hard on the alarmists, but the point of view is allowed and heard. The reverse is simply not so.
=================
We have only your word that something has been censored at all.
And to date, your word is worthless.
Lazar, are you claiming the exposed, and even admitted” attempt to hide the decline of temperatures in the 1960s, when the proxy data from the tree ring studies in Siberia showed it should have been warming…what? Did not occur? Sorry, but that is now public knowledge.
Are you denying what we have all read with our own eyes, namely that Mann, Jones and others mounted a campaign to keep skeptics from publishing their work, or discredit the journals who did publish their work? No one is even questioning the veracity of those emails. Except maybe you, in which case who is the “denier?”
Even Phil Jones admitted there has been no statistically significant global warming in 15 years. So how is that “wrong?” Hmm?
The data DO show a slight cooling since 2001. It’s not a significant amount. But it isn’t warming. Which fits neither AGW theory nor the infamous computer models upon which the entire AGW case rests. How do you justify saying “wrong?” This stuff is out in the open now. Whom do you hope to fool with your unsubstantiated “wrong, wrong wrong?” You sound like Dana Carvey’s sendup of the McLoughlin Report. Jack Germond! WROOONG!
My suspicion is that the stuff Lazar claims was censored, was in fact never posted.
If it had been censored, then why would his post referencing the censored data be allowed through?
Like all alarmists, he knows he can’t argue the facts, as you can see above, he doesn’t even try. So he has to try and discredit those who disagree with him. Witness his attacks on Lord Monckton.
Also, he actually believes that just declaring things to be wrong, constitutes a refutation. No wonder he believes Christy and the others have been refuted.
Gloriana you’re dim. The comments were submitted to different threads, moderated by different PJM authors.
So it isn’t a PJM at all that’s been censoring you. It’s the various authors.
Nice to have you admit to your previous lies.
We still have nothing more than your word that you were ever censored, and it wasn’t just an issue of the posts taking awhile to show up. Or that you ever censored at all.
As I pointed out before, given all the lies and intellectual faux pas you’ve been committing, you have no credibility whatsoever.
You mean the various authors who constitute PJM? You should do stand-up. Seriously.
Even if the distinction were logically true the claim would be false because…
Perhaps you’ll now claim it wasn’t “at PJM” but “on a comment thread”. Go on, I double dare you.
It is you who has ‘lied’.
Did you take classes in ducking and weaving in college?
It’s quite obvious you took none in science or logic.
Lazar—As (mostly) a lurker I appreciate your courage to bring out the decades of study by dedicated scientists to this issue. We must all be a bit cautious about big issues like this, of course, but I would trust the overwhelming data by the science community than the opinions of Roger Simon.
Thank you.
You mean the overwhelming data that have been lost? Or the overwhelming data that have been tricked? The overwhelming data that have been collected by heat ducts, in urban heat islands, or otherwise so sloppily that even James Hansen had to admit they were compromised? Maybe you mean the overwhelming data originally claimed to have been collected independly but now revealed to have been “shared” and/or “extrapolated?” Or perhaps you are referring to the overwhelming data that the chief alarmist “scientists” never let anyone else look at? Or the overwhelming tree ring data that turned out to be from a single cherry-picked tree? Surely you don’t mean the overwhelming data that show no warming in the oceans or the troposphere?
What overwhelming data?
What consensus?
Neither has ever existed.
Dear skeptics -
Instead wasting your electrons responding to Lazar, I recommend reading A.W. Montford’s, The Hockey Stick Illusion. It describes in detail just how fraudulent the warmists have been. Also consult Anthony Watts and Joseph D’Aleo’s paper (whose title I’ve misplaced) about the inaccuracy of US (and global) temperatures. When Lazar and others hide behind the “science” of climatology and how it has been accepted by so many scientists, so it can’t be wrong, remember a few things. There is no science of climatology at this juncture, it is a Potemkin village, as are the “many” scientists who agree with it. Michael Mann and the Hadley CRU have captured the peer-review process and if you don’t agree with them, you don’t get published. Michael Mann is to science as Vito Corleone was to olive oil.
Also, remember such accepted sciences at the Ptolemaic notion of the earth being the center of the universe, phlogiston and the ether in which light traveled, all turned out to be non-science. So, telling me that many have accepted the theory simply doesn’t impress me, and should not impress any of the skeptics.
Finally, remember Viscount Lord Monckton’s important statement: temperature varies with the logarithm of PPM of CO2. So, if a certain amount of warming occurs at 100 PPM of CO2 due to the CO2, it would take 10 times as much CO2 (1000 PPM) to achieve a doubling of that warming effect, all other things equal. By the same token, reducing the effect by half would require a reduction of CO2 to 10 PPM. Insofar as the increase in PPM of CO2 has been rather moderate, I think the Lazar’s of the world are blowing this totally out of proportion. Also, by neglecting the logarithmic effect, they are neglecting the cost of reducing CO2. Imagine, if we had to reduce current CO2 from about 350 PPM to 175 PPM? I frankly don’t think it is doable except if we ended all life on this planet.
My background is in computer science and I’m an amateur astronomer. I’ve been researching the issue of CAGW for about the past year. Let’s stick to the science here. And if you intend to answer this post with appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks–as I’m well acquainted–have at it. Such tactics only convince me that you’ve lost the merits of your argument.
Firstly, the claim by the proponents of CAGW is radiative CO2 forcing is responsible for the current warming in the earth’s atmosphere via a greenhouse/glasshouse effect–analogous to a blanket covering the earth. CAGW proponents claim this CO2 forcing is caused by mankind and will be catastrophic if the trend continues.
Hmm. Where is this blanket layer? Is it located about half-way up in the troposphere? Is it located up near the tropopause? If the blanket theory is correct, why are tropospheric temperatures lower than surface temperatures? I’ve seen no data to suggest that tropospheric temperatures have exceeded surface temperatures.
Secondly, what is the estimated weight by volume of mankind’s CO2 emissions over the past two hundred years? Are there ANY accurate estimates? CO2 is a variable gas and never will have a stable concentration in the atmosphere, either from place to place, or time of year, or even time of day in any particular area.
My early textbooks said that there was 0.03% CO2 by volume in the atmosphere. Today you hear claims of between 0.036-0.038% as though this is something to be feared. Using a figure of 0.036% CO2 the weight of atmospheric CO2 is 3,118.5 billion Gigatons, and if the worst case scenario records of current annual CO2 emissions of 26.4 Gigatons are anywhere near correct, that leaves mankind’s paltry contribution to well under 1% of a greenhouse gas which has less than 1% effectiveness as a necessary gas in the first place, which is only in concentrations of a maximum of 0.038%!!!!!
The problem I have with the current science regarding CAGW is how accurate global measurements are collected. The current mechanical measurements are archaic at best–if not ancient. Most measurement stations are concentrated in the U.S, and a fair number in Europe. There are large swaths of the earth that are not measured at all. What type of statistical correction is used to compensate for so much missing data? What about corrections for the heat island effect? Statistical bias-corrections tend to trend upward. There’s a number of other contributing factors that could lead to misleading temperature readings.
Lastly, has anyone refuted Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper entitled “The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics?” The paper points out that it’s impossible to obtain an accurate surface temperature measurement for any planetary body. I believe Planck Blackbody functions are used in climate models to estimate the surface temps? Current climate models seem to suggest that the atmosphere is a positive feedback system, which I have serious doubts. Gerlich and Tscheuschner also claim that current climate models break the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That’s a big problem if true! NO???
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
http://tinyurl.com/cz8gkg
If you’re researching a field of science, the best place to start is a textbook, not a political forum. There are many good textbooks which will answer many of your questions, here’s one;
Andrews, D. G. (2010), An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press.
(I have the 1st edition, you may wish to wait for the 2nd ed to be released)
You may also want to look into a primer on climate change.
One more link.
Yes.
Halpern, J. B., C. M. Colose, C. Ho-Stuart, J. D. Shore, A. P. Smith, and J. Zimmermann (2010), Comment On “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24(10), 1309, doi:10.1142/S021797921005555X.
If the greenhouse gas effect didn’t exist, you’d be dead. G&T is the equivalent of ‘the moon landings are fake’.
Lazar, I was awaiting your response, since you seem to think of yourself as the foremost authority on the subject within this forum. You’ve made some assumptions about my background–as if to say I know nothing on the subject matter–and that I haven’t researched the subject matter at all. The other condescending assumption you make is that I don’t understand that the strong greenhouse gas known as WATER VAPOR is the primary cause for the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. I CERTAINLY DO UNDERSTAND THAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I also understand that many other factors effect earth’s climate, like the axial tilt of the earth and its precessional cycle, thermohaline circulation, salinity of the oceans, solar cycles, ENSO, AO, AMO, PDO, La Niña, magnetic field fluctuations and so much more!
Did you NOT read my post? I started researching the policy and science of CAGW about a year ago. I’ve read a lot more than just “primers” on the subject. I started with MY TEXTBOOKS! You didn’t address ANY of the science-related questions in my post. I find your response to be typical: try and diminish the person’s background and then engage in the tiresome “appeal to authority” arguments that I see used constantly by the proponents of CAGW. Dr. Richard Lindzen has recognized that many strict adherents of CAGW are engaging in the “Prosecutor’s Fallacy.” I AGREE! Let’s try this again, shall we?
If radiative CO2 forcing is responsible for warming in the atmosphere then why are tropospheric temperatures lower than surface temperatures? I’ve never received a suitable explanation to this question. Some of the long-wave radiation being reflected back into the atmosphere should be absorbed by the “blanket” layer of CO2 and then would re-radiate LWR back to the earth’s surface, thereby increasing the tropospheric temperatures to a point that they would exceed the surface temperatures. Can you provide any contrary data to suggest that tropospheric temperatures exceed surface temperatures at present? IT’S A SIMPLE QUESTION. I’m going to watch to see if you dodge this question yet again.
Thanks for the link, though. Providing actual scientific rebuttals to scientific papers is much more acceptable to me than the near “religious devotion” that I’ve experienced with so many votaries of CAGW who claim that any dissension on the matter is tantamount to sacrilege. Science depends on rigorous peer review. No one should be demonized or attacked simply because they may have a different theory on a scientific problem. Quite the contrary, it should be welcomed! Good science stands on its own and can withstand withering peer review. Agreed?
The reason I’m so “passionate” on the subject matter is that it appears that policy now drives science and not the other way around. This is unacceptable. What a terrible precedent. Science by consensus is hardly science. Science by consensus is nothing more than a popularity contest. Ninety five percent of all scientists believed in eugenics at the beginning of the twentieth century. Alfred Wegener developed the theory of plate tectonics back in 1912 and it was decades before Wegener’s theory was widely accepted by the scientific community. Do you believe in plate tectonics?
There have been five inter-glacial periods over the past half billion years. The warming periods 3,000 years ago were significantly higher than today and yet life still flourished. CO2 levels have also been hundreds of times higher than they are now in the past history of earth. Once again, life still managed to flourish. In my opinion–and I am entitled to one–this is nothing more than a natural warming trend which started at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
BTW, let me know when the atmospheric CO2 levels reach 0.039%
Calm down. If I blew a fuse at every slight real or perceived…
Which atmospheric physics textbook did not tell you that CO2 is a well-mixed gas?
Pressure decreases with altitude. As parcels of air rise they cool adiabatically. Lookup ‘adiabatic lapse rate’.
The greenhouse effect is absorption and emission. This occurs within the atmosphere. Reflection of LWR is by clouds and aerosol particles.
See above.
Yes.
No. The earth’s surface heats the atmosphere (about 85% of the heating) by greenhouse absorption of LWR (about 80%) and latent heat (20%). The earth’s surface cannot heat the atmosphere to a higher temperature than it (the surface) is at. Of the LWR emitted from the surface, about 10% escapes directly to space. Thus the surface will heat the atmosphere above to a lower temperature. A layer of gas emits LWR in the upward and downward directions. The earth’s surface also absorbs the radition emitted downwards (‘back radiation’). Studying this diagram may help, as may reading this. Seriously, get Andrews book or something similar.
Yes, but you need to distinguish between “withering peer review” and the ramblings of cranks.
Calm down. If I blew a fuse at every slight real or perceived…
I’m always calm and I’ll sleep just fine tonight, but I do find your replies lean toward condescension at times. So let’s just dispense with that and get to the science.
Which atmospheric physics textbook did not tell you that CO2 is a well-mixed gas?
You might want to look at the findings from the AIRS Instrument.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
Significant Findings from AIRS Data
‘Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed.’
CO2 is a variable gas and never will have a stable concentration in the atmosphere, either from place to place, or time of year, or even time of day in any particular area. There is significant regional and hemispheric variance in CO2 distribution across the globe. AIRS instrument data seems to confirm that CO2 is inhomogeneous in the mid-troposphere.
Pressure decreases with altitude. As parcels of air rise they cool adiabatically. Lookup ‘adiabatic lapse rate’.
I’m familiar with the meaning of adiabatic lapse rate and it makes perfect sense. Temperature decreases with altitude as does pressure. That’s 101. What I want to know is where does this “CO2 blanket” come into the equation? Consider this quote from NASA JPL, “…despite the high degree of mixing that occurs with carbon dioxide, the regional patterns of atmospheric sources and sinks are still apparent in mid-troposphere carbon dioxide concentrations.” That particlular quote was from 2008. Now we have the AIRS instrument data. Just thought I’d include the quote for historical purposes.
Source: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/data-holdings/by-data-product/data_products.shtml
It all seems to boil down to climate sensitivity and whether or not the atmosphere is a positive or negative feedback system. Climate models that are championed by folks like yourself imply a positive feedback. I’m of the opinion that a positive feedback system would make earth’s atmosphere highly unstable. But evidence seems to suggest that the earth’s climate has self-regulating mechanisms, which suggests a negative feedback.
As far as your last reponse is concerned, it seems to be a cursory explanation of the earths radiation budget. That really doesn’t answer the “blanket” question. This also gets to my point in previous posts about the collection of thousands of single data points on the earth, filtering out the “noise”, correcting for bias, or what is perceived as bias, and assuming that the results accurately reflect conditions across the entire globe. I prefer the satellite data for obvious reasons. This has always been my MAJOR contention with the science behind CAGW–ACCURATE measurements and the primitive means that have been used in their collection. I’M STILL A “DENIER.”
Yes, but you need to distinguish between “withering peer review” and the ramblings of cranks.
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!! You’re not a “crank” are ya? LOL!
If I thought you were an idiot, I’d have never responded in depth to your technical questions or comments (see my non-responsiveness to Victor Erimita). My first impression was that your pride demands empirical truth. That is why I responded. Many, many (most) I have met simply don’t care whether what they are claiming is true or bx, and have no interest in learning.
I often find someone in these threads who can teach me something interesting and new (see my interactions with Konyok on this thread). You’ve taught me that CO2 concentrations vary horizontally by about 8ppmv or 2% in the mid-troposphere. That is interesting. And I’m genuinely grateful.
Ok, I’ll make another stab.
The blanket analogy, as far as I have seen it means that, like a blanket, CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere causing the temperature to rise. It does not mean that CO2 exists in a ‘CO2 layer’ above the atmosphere heating the air below. It is an analogy, given to aid public comprehension, not how the greenhouse gas effect actually works and is described scientifically.
CO2 exists in approximately the same relative concentration throughout the atmosphere. The GHG effect applies everywhere, subject to density. Some of the heat leaving the earth’s surface is absorbed by the atmosphere which must cause an increase in the temperature (relative). This process cannot of itself heat the atmosphere to a temperature higher than the surface, by the 1st law. It cannot of itself heat a smaller portion of the atmosphere to a temperature higher than the surface, by the 2nd law. How that heat is distributed throughout the atmosphere depends on the number density of radiatively active particles like CO2, and on adiabatic cooling. Given what we know; a) relatively little solar shortwave is absorbed by the atmosphere, b) density decreases with height (GHG absorption in Watts per square meter is strongest nearest the surface), and c) pressure decreases with height, so air cools adiabatically with increasing height, we can make an educated guess that the atmospheric temperature is highest nearest the surface and decreases with height. Until the stratosphere, where ozone absorption of solar shortwave takes over
If that response is not satisfactory, iterate.
Cranky, maybe.
Lazar:
If I thought you were an idiot, I’d have never responded in depth to your technical questions or comments.
I appreciate that. I’ve found your responses to have educational merit. Still don’t agree with your conclusions.
I often find someone in these threads who can teach me something interesting and new (see my interactions with Konyok on this thread). You’ve taught me that CO2 concentrations vary horizontally by about 8ppmv or 2% in the mid-troposphere. That is interesting. And I’m genuinely grateful.
As we say in software world: hope it helps!
I’ve learned a great deal as well by just reading the comments on this thread. That’s the beauty of true peer-review. BTW, It should be interesting, too, to get the other two layers of forthcoming data on tropospheric C02 variance in the atmosphere from the AIRS instrument!
CO2 exists in approximately the same relative concentration throughout the atmosphere.
See above. I like to consider gravity here as well. CO2 is just an O2 molecule with a Carbon atom attached, which would make it’s mass greater than O2 or N2. I would think that CO2 would tend to collect at the earth’s surface—which would make sense for plant life to thrive—and that CO2 distribution vertically throughout the troposphere is governed by thermodynamic forces, like convection and conduction. This may explain the variability of CO2′s distribution throughout the troposphere. Water vapor is the primary GHG and its transport of heat via the water cycle, considering the earth is 70% ocean. I believe the water provides the primary self-regulating mechanism for the earth—providing a “built-in” global negative feedback—of course, I will defer to the learned atmospheric scientists on these matters.
In some ways you almost refute your own belief by focusing on the adiabatic lapse rate—which I have no issue with—and then claiming that—yes—there is “back-radiation” occurring in the troposphere—analogous to a “blanket” layer of CO2 FORCING the “back-radiation.” This is where I still agree with G&T’s paper that we’re violating the 2nd Law. Hot air always moves towards cold air, it’s the one type of energy transfer that requires NO mechanical work. It’s inhibition of the LWR emitting back to space by the atmosphere that “traps” the heat, but the term “traps” is misleading in this context.
For example, consider the “blanket” a coat instead. I’m wearing a coat on a somewhat cold day. The “dead air” layer that is provided by the fibers of insulation in my coat only help to inhibit the loss of heat that is being “pulled” out of my body by the cold air outside. If we keep reducing the temperature my coat will not be able to stop the loss of heat from my body and I will freeze to death. That’s the 2nd Law. At some point, I would need a space suit that could mechanically FORCE hot air into the suit to overcome the effects of the 2nd Law. The climate models currently in question assert that the CO2 greenhouse/glasshouse effect “back-radiates” (IPCC term) and will lead to a run-away greenhouse effect if CO2 levels continue to rise, and it’s all mankind’s fault! With all due respect—and in the spirit of Dr. Richard Lindzen—I find that peculiar!
BTW, I didn’t feel like paying $25.00 to read the comments arguing against G&T’s paper! LOL!
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html
“Approximately”. 8ppmv or 2% may marginally effect the results of radiative transfer calculations, but it does not materially effect the discussion of principles here.
Shake together two non-soluble liquids of different densities. Atmospheric circulation. No time to settle.
Nope. Consider a hypothetical atmosphere where the dominant heating is by absorption of shortwave solar radiation which inreases with altitude. The atmosphere will be stably stratified due to gravity. See the stratosphere.
If you mean mechanical work done on a parcel of warmer air, then, as far as the earth’s atmosphere is concerned, yes. Of course the convective process requires input of energy (heating of the air).
That’s a good analogy of the greenhouse effect.
I think you’re confused over the meaning of forcing. A radiatively active gas will absorb radiation. It will heat up. It will radiate in all directions. If there were no radiative absorption in the atmosphere, all heat radiated from the surface would escape directly to space. The presence of radiatively active gases absorbs some of that radiation, which reduces the rate of heat loss. The earth-atmosphere system must (first law) heat up until the rate of heat loss again equals the energy absorbed from the sun. Now as to the details within the earth-atmosphere system… without radiative gases, say the rate of heat loss to space is 300 Wm^-2. Say you add radiative gases, then at equilibrium the rate of heat loss is again 300 Wm^-2. But of the energy (say 400) radiated from the surface, some (say 150) is absorbed by the cooler atmosphere to maintain its equilibrium temperature. At which temperature the atmosphere radiates 100 Wm^-2 in all directions. Half will be back down toward the warmer surface, half into space. Because the surface is approximately a black body, it will absorb all the “back radiation” (50). Taking energy flow in the upward direction as +ve, then the net radiative balance from the surface to the atmosphere is +400-50 = +350. The net flow of energy is still from warmer to cooler, this is where the 2nd law comes in. If the net flow of energy were from cooler to warmer, then there would be a violation of the 2nd law! (warmer objects do absorb heat energy from cooler objects — this is why the rate of heat loss (a net value) depends on the temperature of the surroundings). All in all, this is why your “inhibit the loss of heat” analogy is a good one.
“Back radiation” follows from basic application of radiative and thermo principles. Climate models are not necessary. It’s the same assumptions and equations used in everything from the design of industrial furnaces to the functioning of guided missiles, satellites, and infrared mass spectrometers.
There’s draft version here which I’ve been told is practically identical.
In addition, mixing occurs due to random collisions between molecules, Brownian motion, the internal kinetic energy of molecules, which depends on the average time between collisons (pressure and temperature) see the “homosphere” and “Graham’s Law of diffusion”.
Aoki, S., T. Nakazawa, T. Machida, S. Sugawara, S. Morimoto, G. Hashida, T. Yamanouchi, K. Kawamura, and H. Honda (2003), Carbon dioxide variations in the stratosphere over Japan, Scandinavia and Antarctica, Tellus B, 55(2), 178-186, doi:10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.00059.x.
… atmospheric CO2 concentrations varying by at most 8 ppmv or 2% from the upper troposphere to the middle stratosphere. Again, interesting, but not germane to a discussion of basic principles of how the greenhouse effect works. CO2 exists in sufficient concentrations that the GHG effect applies everywhere. There are variations, but no ‘CO2 layer’.
I also think you need to sort out this apparent inconsistency…
Simultaneously believing that the GHG effect violates the 2nd law;
and that water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas;
Lazar,
I do find this exchange educational! We’re using analogy to describe the “greenhouse effect.” We refer to gasses such as water vapor, CO2, methane and CFCs as GHGs. I’m trying to avoid contradiction, but I may be guilty of some.
So let’s bring the discussion back to the alleged culprit: CO2. The primary GHG (there I go again) is water vapor, which comprises about 90-95% of the GHGs in the atmosphere. Lindzen points out that even with a doubling of CO2 it would only result in about a 1° C rise in temperature. Increase in the levels of CO2 do not necessarily correlate with increases in temperature. Most of the data I’ve seen suggests otherwise: CO2 levels increase FOLLOWING peaks in warming. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas in concentrations of less than 1/4 of 1%. What I’m failing to understand is how CO2 can lead to a “runaway greenhouse effect?” Not only that, it’s all mankind’s fault–supposedly!!! The water vapor-driven positive feedback of the IPCC models suggests a linear or exponential relationship with CO2. From the evidence I’ve seen the relationship of water vapor with CO2 is logarithmic.
“The logarithmic formula guarantees that even though we will probably produce substantially (twice or thrice) more CO2 in the 21st century than we did in the 20th century, it will contribute – via the greenhouse effect – roughly the same amount to the warming.”
– Luboš Motl Pilsen
Back to the troposphere as a “greenhouse” analogy. The troposphere does not modulate convection like a REAL greenhouse; the troposphere modulates radiation. You mentioned thermal equilibrium. The increase of more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect. Maybe we should just dispense with this whole “blanket” analogy altogether. I think it leads to a lot of confusion regarding the complex nature of energy transfers, and the actual thermodynamic processes that govern their behaviors.
I’m with Dr. Lindzen on this one. I find this argument to be “peculiar” at best, and “diabolical” at worst.
SIDENOTE: You mentioned that the stratification of the atmospheric layers (troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, etc) is a result of gravity. Are the atmospheric layers in thermal equilibrium as well? This is not a trick question. I don’t know, so I’m curious. I’d like to thank you for a civil debate on this issue. I find it “rare” these days.
Sources:
Dr. Richard Lindzen, “The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming” lecture at Fermilab, February 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMkyjyk-VEk&feature=related
Luboš Motl Pilsen, “Why is the greenhouse effect logarithmic?” posted at “the reference frame” blog, January 2008
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html
S.H. Lam, Logarithmic Response and Climate Sensitivity of Atmospheric CO2, September 2007
http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf
Anthony Watts, The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide, March 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Whoops… sorry, forgot to hit “reply”. See the new comment thread #48.
Even by your low standards, that last response was pathetic.
CORRECTION: Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
http://tinyurl.com/cz8gkg
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
arXiv:0707.1161v4
p.s. Be prepared for non-linear partial differential equations! Explaining radiative effects is a bitch ain’t[sic] it?
Want to know Climactic HISTORY then dont talk to a Meteorologist who cant even tell you with any certainty if it will rain tomorrow or not. You need to talk to GEOLOGISTS who take ICE CORE samples and can tell you that OVER the MILLENIA Global Warming (or Climate Change as the Green NAZI AGW moonbats like to call it now that any current Global WARMING is non existent and has not been seen for 15 YEARS ) always PRECEDES rises in atmospheric CO2 levels (due to the release of CO2 from the WARMER Oceans) and NEVER EVER post dates it.
There is only two kinds of liberals. Power seekers, who sell their country down the river for short term gains of power, and Dupes, who despite all evidence to the contrary, think that liberal policies help people and save the planet. I don’t sense any power seekers on this thread. Why waste your time arguing with the Dupes?
-
This reminds me of the ozone layer arguements with as much science for and against by well meaning scientists,with well meaning predictions which just didn’t panned out as expected. Interesting stuff but all in the nature of supposition not science. We can suppose near anything by a few facts but it could still be wrong. I’m not a denier but I’d be naive not to be a skeptic, I suppose.
There’s another parallel between the Ozone scare and the current scam.
Eco-warriers tend to assume that the planet is static, and if anything changes it must be because of man.
The world’s getting warmer, it must be man’s fault, and if we don’t stop, Gaia is going to punish us.
Back in the 70′s scientists started making accurate measurements of the amount of UV light reaching the ground. They discovered that this amount was increasing. So they started looking around to see what man was doing that was causing this change. Someone came up with a theory that Freon was doing it. Someone else came up with a carefully tuned model that showed the indeed, it was Freon. Panic was generated, bills were passed, fortunes were made, and the world moved on.
Then a satellite was launched to study the sun. That satellite discovered that over the course of a solar cycle, the sun’s output of UV changed by over 10%.
Ooops, it wasn’t man after all. It was just the normal solar cycle at work.
The alarmists tell us that increasing the CO2 concentrations from 270ppm to around 540ppm will cause catastrophic changes to the atmosphere. One wag even went so far as to claim that Antarctica will be the only habitable continent left.
Well, some 60 million years ago, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was over 2000ppm, and not only did life not end, it was a time of unprecedented growth for both plants and animals.
The evidence is in. The computer models were wrong. CO2 is a minor factor in climate regulation.
A couple of days my 8 year old step grandson told me that he was afraid Mount Everest would turn into a big pile of sand because of global warming. Now, I wonder where an 8 year old would get something like that? Why, school of course. Propaganda. Imagine how surprised he will be when he hits middle age and that mountain is still covered with snow.
At least you took calculus.
Another day, another comment censored by another PJM author. S. T. Karnick on this thread allowed;
But censored;
Maintain the ideological purity, comrades. I mean conservatives.
How much longer is Lazar going to keep pushing this myth that he’s being censored.
He seems to have strange preference for myth over reality.
Karnick is letting through pointless, contentless, off-topic jibes against me…
And censoring my replies…
What a coward.
The science aside, I pity any U.S. Senator or Rep who wants to go head-to-head verbally with a British pol in a U.S. hearing.
If you ever watch a real-time video of the British House of Commons, each politician (including the Prime Minister!) who wants to make a point has to step up to the podium at a moment’s notice and provide an extemporaneous response to someone who had just earlier severely and irreverently criticised his/her position. It’s an awesome display of verbal jiu-jitsu that the English have mastered from centuries of their unique home-grown political system and, well, their apparent agility with the English language (who wudda thunk it?).
So when Galloway (who I despise) came in front of a Congressional hearing, the shnook cleaned the clock of the American politicians who tried to ask ponderous questions that would have intimidated an American but which a Brit would be able to verbally dance around and skewer without breaking a sweat. Which Galloway did. Likewise, Monkton had no problem with doing the same thing at his hearing and is a remarkable spokesperson for the anti-AGW position.
Thank God, there will always be an England!
Good. Learning about anything requires building a coherent understanding of what it is being studied. This is especially true of science, where usually there are multiple lines of evidence, and it’s not a case of asking is this theory true or false, but of all available theories, which one is best supported by all of the evidence. This is why very rarely does a single paper, in isolation, knock down a theory.
… that is what he claims.
This is to be expected as CO2 is not the only climate forcing.
Sometimes. On timescales of hundreds or thousands of years, CO2 can act as a feedback. Initial warming (e.g. from orbital forcing) changes the natural carbon cycle which results in more atmospheric CO2, and from more CO2 more warming.
As long as the feedback factor is less than 1, it won’t. I’m not aware of any climate scientist predicting a “runaway greenhouse effect”. For discussion, see here and, now the idiots aren’t looking, also here. Quotes from RealClimate; “Runaway greenhouse warming can occur for really extreme conditions (Venus at present, Earth in maybe 5 billion years time when the sun becomes a red giant), but is not a possibility for the next hundred years.” — Gavin Schmidt, “This is one of the few perils I think we can rule out with essentially 100% confidence.” — Ray Pierrehumbert.
The change in forcing, and therefore the expected change in temperature (regardless of whether feedbacks are included), is roughly proportional to the logarithm of the ratio of new and old CO2 concentrations. This is not an exact model, just a mathematical first approxmation as to how the system works. The logarithmic nature of the response results from radiative transfer. So a doubling of CO2 concentrations is expected to produce roughly ‘the same’ increase in temperature going from 200 to 400 ppmv as it is from 20,000 to 40,000 ppmv. One spanner in the works of this simple representation is that feedbacks are undoubtedly nonlinear with temperature (e.g. once all the ice has melted, there is no ice-albedo feedback to consider). Climate models include that logarithmic response implicitly as they calculate radiative transfer. But CO2 concentrations are increasing roughly exponentially with time, so the time evolution of temperature is expected to be rougly linear (logarithm of an exponential).
Actually, it does.
Although a ‘band’ may be considered saturated for an optical path that travels from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, one can always subdivide the atmosphere into layers that are thin enough not to be saturated in that ‘band’.
The effective radiating level is the average height from which IR photons are emitted to space. Since it is this emission that determines the LW component of the earth’s energy balance, the temperature of this level is critical. As concentrations of GHG’s increase, the height increases to some point higher up in the troposphere, and colder. Then to maintain (or re-establish) radiative equilibrium, the temperature at this higher point must increase, and by radiative transfer and convection, the adiabatic lapse rate, also the layers beneath.
It has the effect that it has, as a result of radiative transfer calculations, approx 3.7 W m^-2 for every doubling.
I think the term is dynamic thermal equilibrium, if you mean are the temperatures remaining approx. constant, in which case, roughly yes, except for changes induced by changes in GHG’s, solar insolation, albedo etc.
Regards.
As your comments are mainly directed toward radiative transfer, two books I’d recommend…
Liou, K. N. (2002), An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Volume 84, Second Edition, 2nd ed., Academic Press.
Thomas, G. E., and K. Stamnes (2002), Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean, Cambridge University Press.