A Scary Halloween for the Climate Denial Industry

The counter attackers in Canada were savage on this article:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=171914

TVMoB himself wrote back. He doesnt like being called a liar.

Take a look at this. Comments on the attacks on the journalist, et al?

No. It's just that you can't read.
Check what I said carefully and you will note that I said that "doubling of CO2 will cause ONE (1) degree of warming".

Join the Denier camp!

Dennis W. Rather than shoot the messenger, why not take the time to look at the science behind Lindzen and Choi's paper?
It is incontrovertable.
Why- because it uses real world data to prove, yes PROVE, that positive water-vapour feedback is nonsense.

According to the IPCC [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf] “Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies, and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change.“

However a 2004 NASA study using satellite humidity data found that “The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity” resulting in overestimation of temperature increase. [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html]

Roger Pielke also provides a brief summary of the issue [http://climatesci.org/2007/12/18/climate-metric-reality-check-3-evidence-for-a-lack-of-water-vapor-feedback-on-the-regional-scale/] as well as a link to a research paper that states: “atmospheric temperature and water vapor trends do not follow the conjecture of constant relative humidity”.

Finally in “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions”, by Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, 2007 - International Journal of Climatology. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions] compared the climate models to observations from satellites and balloons (1979-2004).The models exhibit the CO2 theory characteristic of most warming occurring in the troposphere. However, the satellite and balloon based observations show warming only at the surface of the earth. The report stated: “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. … On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.”

Now why not actually read this before engaging in the usual ad hom. attack?

Really? "I guess there is one thing I have learned from the deniers: I quoted you correctly, I just took it out of context."

OK, let's look at what we agree on
1) Increased CO2 WILL cause a linited amount of warming (doubling of CO2
= approx 1C)
2) The World has been warming since the end of the L.I.A- the coldest period of at least the last 1000 years (even Mann's Hockey Stick shows this!)

Now what we don't.
1) There is no evince that current warming is "unprecedented"
2) There is no direct evidence (and note correlation does not show cause and effect) that the temperature increase over the last 100 years is down to CO2. In fact Total Solar Radiation gives a better correlation.
3) All the scary +4C, +5C, +6C +7C temperature increases come out of GCMs that all include a positive water vapour feedback. This has been totally dicredited.
Thus the IPCC 2007 Report Chapter 9 – Understanding and Attributing Climate Change [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf] provides a climate model based simulation of the expected CO2 “spatial signature” of all forcings including anthropogenic CO2.
However, once again, a study of actual data from radiosonde data nothing of the sort. [http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf].

Once again, I urge you to look at the DATA, not the "X-Box Models"

Dennis, sorry to take so long to get back- busy week- teaching my students about the myths of "Climate Change"
And it is working. By simply asking them to produce presentations on such topics as "The Maldives are not drowning" they have gone out, read the literature and come back converts. To skepticism. Not one now believes that climate change is dangerous.

And now to your question about doubling CO2.
Doubling of CO2 is usually taken (See IPCC Reports)as an increase in atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels (280ppm) to 560ppm.
Again, according to the IPCC this will lead to about 1.6C increase in Global temperature. Not harmful and most likely beneficial.

It is the positive water vapour feedback, lovingly and fraudulently, programmed into GCMs that gives figures of up to 6C.

This feedback has now been comprehensively disproved by real-World data.
See my previous posts.

Now for 1 million ppm CO2. That is 100% CO2 and will be lethal, like any other gas ay 100%, including Oxygen.

Yes there is.
No it is not accelerating (if anything, slowing).
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/sea-level/sl_noib_global-www.png/image_view_fullscreen
(Data from Topex satellite)

Comes to about 32 cms(12")/100years. Which is roughly what it has been for the last 5000 years.