PS

The reason why I'm confident that kerplunk doesn't understand the detail of my response to desaturation is that it allows for the effect to be real whereas k implies otherwise.

Just as my response to near-ground non-saturation allows for that to be real. So it's independent of any discussion over the magnitude of the effect.

Any available increase in absorption, to a new higher level, in any of the carbon dioxide wavebands causes the same absorption as happened before to occur over a shorter distance. A shorter distance is not equivalent to an automatic, permanent bulk temperature increase in the troposphere. For starters the units of measurement are different then it gets more complicated.

For anybody wanting a reminder of some of the detail: in the thinner atmosphere of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, the shoulders on the carbon dioxide absorption peaks no longer overlap with the peaks for water vapour, so more radiation can be absorbed from more carbon dioxide. However the shoulders on the peaks are a very small element of the absorptions, representing about 5% of the absorptions, though this is often exaggerated to 10% which we can run with for the sake of argument. In addition, 15 to 16 kilometers up the atmosphere's density is roughly one tenth compared to near-ground (sea) level. The peak wavelengths absorb completely at ground level in about 10 meters of air, so up there the radiation will absorb completetly in about 100 meters. A difference in path length isn't a rise in temperature. 'Shoulders' at 5% would absorb completely in 20 times the distance which is 2 kilometers. Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means they would do the same in 1 kilometer. The shorter distances are not equivalent to automatic bulk increases in temperature.

Note that if the 'completely absorb' is disputed, why is desaturation needed if saturation doesn't exist?

Of course.























Not.

I'm confident turbobloke is a serial misrepresenter which is another reason why I don't trust him on the science.

Oi! - stop bring all of this 'science' stuff into a 'politics' thread.

There's already a thread for that sort of argument.

And it's already been discussed there ad-nauseam.

Libdems Obfuscate and Delay Prevention of a Waste of Taxes

Ministers have delayed plans to axe Government subsidies for wind farms after another disagreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The Government was poised to announce a 25 per cent cut in wind farm subsidies today after warnings from George Osborne that the taxpayer support was too generous. Sources claim that Ed Davey, the Climate Change Secretary, agreed in principle with the cuts — far greater than the 10 per cent reduction initially proposed by a Government review. An announcement was due to be made today but Nick Clegg is thought to have removed Liberal Democrat support for the scheme yesterday. Another compromise deal is being negotiated, which will be announced in the autumn, along with a new gas strategy to replace some wind generation.
Robert Winnett and James Kirkup, The Daily Telegraph, 17 July 2012

Policy Wonks Plotting in Private is Pointless

Capitol Hill's most powerful Republicans say advocates who have been discussing a carbon tax behind closed doors are wasting their breath. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), speaking through aides, have stated their opposition to the concept in recent days. While their positions are no surprise, the categorical opposition underscores the hurdles facing an ad hoc, left-right coalition of activists and policy wonks who have held a series of meetings in private to discuss the idea.
Ben Geman, The Hill, 16 July 2012

Possibly so, I was seduced by the wonks.

This one has more to come but good enough for now.

IPCC Political Advocacy Exposed by the Data Yet Again

The theory of global warming claims that a trivial warming from CO2 levels will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere and an alleged 'runaway greenhouse effect'. However, satellite observations published in a new paper show that global water vapor has instead declined over the past 12 years despite steadily rising concentrations of CO2. These observations provide further support that the positive water vapor feedback in IPCC models is overstated and therefore claims of future warming greatly exaggerated.
The Hockey Schtick, 16 July 2012

When further analysis has taken place and when at such time this finding is confirmed, it'll be interesting to see how the modellers fiddlefactor in reduced water vapour - a self-mullering wipeout! Costly political bunk built on junk and expensive gigo.

Carbon prices tumble to record low

Prices for UN-backed carbon credits sank to a record low in morning trading on Wednesday after doubts emerged about European Commission plans to prop up the bloc’s ailing emissions trading market.

Benchmark prices for certified emission reduction credits fell as much as 12.9 per cent from the previous day to a record low of €2.86 in early trading – a decline of 31 per cent from the start of July.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22951a04-d0f8-11e1-8957-...

Energy Realism Returning To Europe? EU Energy Chief Warms To Offshore Oil And Shale Gas

Europe is at a competitive disadvantage because of a reluctance to take risks on offshore oil drilling and tar sands, and a failure to fully explore its shale gas options, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger says. “In the US there’s a process to re-industrialise the country first by oil. Whoever rules in Washington, one gallon can’t be more than $4,” he said. “They accept some risks with offshore drilling for ‘own sources’ in the Gulf of Mexico and they accept [tar] sand oils and others,” the commissioner said. By contrast, “we import oil and have high taxation.” The result is that Europe’s transport and industrial sectors are disadvantaged, Oettinger said. He argues that since the US used shale to reduce its dependence on cheap imports from Qatar and Nigeria, North Americans now pay roughly 30% of the European gas price.
EurActiv, 18 July 2012

Shale gas is about to return to the French government's agenda as ministers gets ready for an environmental conference next month - which is expected to start with a clean slate. It is estimated that there are up to 5 trillion cubic metres of natural gas locked in the shale deposits deep underground below France.
The Connexion, 19 July 2012

I have another Guest Post at Watts Up With That..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-di...

I don’t think this has been done before, everyone has just quoted the Doran EoS paper.
I have looked at the original source of the Doran ‘97% of scientists say’ survey, which is actually a 150 page students MSc thesis – entitled ‘The Consensus on the Consensus’ - M Zimmerman

Their was a lot of feedback and write in responses to questions in the survey, from the scientists that ACTUALLY took PART in the survey, which make very interesting reading (much of it very sceptical) some quotes below from scientists that took part in ‘Doran’

“This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire." ('Doran Survey' participant)

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..” (Doran Zimmerman feedback)

"..I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I'm sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

"I feel that the research is skewed. The research is funded almost exclusively to 'find evidence for' and 'causes of' global warming." (zimmerman feedback)

"The techniques for determining a global 'average' temperature are open to question. Consequently, the actual amount of change is difficult to determine. This has to be considered in regard to: Since we are coming out of the 'little ice age' (I will note that Mann's 'hockey stick curve' has been demonstrated to be incorrect)it is difficult to know exactly what factors are driving the slow rise in temperature." (zimmerman feedback)

"I fail to see how such a survey could possibly improve our knowledge. Last time I checked science worked on facts/data, not opinions. However, global warming seems to be an exception." (zimmermann feedback)

"I do not trust consensus views and bandwagons as they are frequently wrong. It is irresponsible for a scientist to make a judgment without personally conducting a critical analysis of the data and the arguments." (zimmermann feedback)

"I'm afraid that your very first question was already ill-posed since it left open what pre 1800's means. After all, most of the preceding 4.5 billion years of earth history was warmer than the present." (zimmerman feedback)

"I am sorry, but I cannot answer some (most actually) of your questions with a simple "Yes" or "No"answer. The area is not clearly black-and-white, I am afraid that it is more complicated than that….I have nothing against the survey, but oversimplified answers can result in distorted outcome…." (zimmerman feedback)

"I appologize, but as an objective scientist I do not communicate "opinions" or "attitudes". These donot belong on the scientific adjenda and certainly not in the classroom. Thus I decline to contribute to your survey." (zimmerman feedback)

"Personally, I think we are returning to something akin to the Little Optimum (climate regime of
circa 950-1350)" (zimmermann feedback)

"I'm afraid I have to bail out of your survey. I find the issue too complex for multiple choice
answers. As an example, Question 1 (comparing current global temps to "pre-1800" levels) is openended – and my answer would differ depending on the beginning as well as the ending point of the time frame. Are we talking about only the 18th century (which, of course, included the Little Ice Age)? The 14th through the 18th? Pre-1800 through the beginning of the Wisconsin Glaciation? Or since Pre-Cambrian time? On the average, current global temperatures are definitely cooler than the average over the entire lifespan of the earth." (zimmermann feedback)

"Was this designed to be ambiguous with respect to time? What do you mean
"pre-1800s?" You mean compared to all Earth history prior to industrialization? If you are asking
geoscientists then you really need to be more specific. Obviously global Earth temperatures are
colder now than much of Earth history, but warmer compared to Little Ice Age temperatures.
Surveys with imprecise questions have meaningless results." (zimmermann feedback)

"Your first question is a poor one.
Temperatures have had an overall positive trend since the Little Ice Age of 350 years ago. There
have been shorter cycles (approximately 32 years) of warming and cooling superimposed on that
trend. Temperatures now are cooler than 800 years ago and cooler than 5000 years ago. So
temperature trends largely depend on the starting and ending points." (zimmermann feedback)

"In my opinion humans can influence climate change but is it the dominant effect, absolutely not. The geologic time scale shows periods of cooling and heating with out the impact of humans being present." (zimmerman feedback)

"Other factors are obviously at play. I have no doubt that humans are influencing global temperatures, but whether we are a 'major' contributor is little more than guesswork." (zimmerman feedback)

"I find it interesting that geoscientists tend to be influenced by their career position. My friens in academia are almost all convinced of the anthropogenic influence, my friends in the energy and minerals sectors seem to think it is natural" (Zimmerman feedback)

"Climate proxies from the even more distant past indicate that global climate is
comparatively cool now, and that many factors besides greenhouse gases contribute to global climate change. When I hear ridiculous suggestions that we build satellites to block out solar radiation or pump CO2 into deep ocean sediments to try to combat anthropogenic global warming I am filled with irritation and trepidation at man's audacity – to assume we can fix a problem that might not exist, within a system we have only just begun to study. As a scientist I
neither 'believe' nor 'disbelieve' in anthropogenic global warming – I am waiting for solid evidence. Mea" (zimmerman feedback)

"This is a nonsense question because it isn't black and white. Human activity affecting climate is a hypothesis in need oftesting, and what we think is somewhat irrelevant" (zimmerman feedback)

"the increase in temperature does not correlate with the increase in CO2. It appears more tied to some kind of natural cycle." (zimmermann feedback)

"Based on 32 years of geologic experience, I am quite certain that the impact of any anthropogenic increase in Co2 is very minor when compared to geologic and astronomic causes." (zimmerman feedback)

—————————–

Remeber ALL the above comments (and many many more) are from scientists that ACTUALLY took part in the survey, and are quoted from the ACTUAL paper that the Doran 97% of scientists' phrase/conclusion is cited from.

I haven't even quoted much from appendix F or Appendix D (where scientist give reason why they did not answer yes – Or queried q1 and q2) very very sceptical voices (hundreds of comments)

But dont take my word for it !! ;-) – download it yourself (cost £1.25)

---

I would really recommend taking a look for yourselves – (<$2) I have just scraped the surface of methodology. http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-conse...


PLease remember my criticism is those that overstate the 97% in the media, the politicians, environmentalist, etc. who use it as a soundbite to make other claims and to shut sceptics up These are the people we should be criticising. NOT Doran, Zimmerman, Anderegg, etc (please leave them alone)

The above quotes are NOT all in the WUWT article.