Climate Change Stupidity: The Earth Also Shines

Thanks for the kind words. I'm so glad you stopped by to contribute nothing at all...except more belittling, of course.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Nice of you to address the science, instead of just recycling paranoid conspiracy theories. It's no wonder the alarmists lose every real debate they are foolish enough to participate in, if you are at all typical.

Since you have (presumably) a background in science yourself, perhaps you could peruse the Big Bear Earthshine project papers and let us (and them) know where they are so wrong.

BTY, it isn't "Big Carbon" that will suffer when energy is rationed -- it's you (and me, but not Al Gore...). Why do you think that Enron spent more money lobbying for the Kyoto treaty than any other organization (including all the "Environmental" ones)? (Hint: It wasn't because they thought it would cut their profits.)

There is a difference between realism and alarmism, Les.

"The CO2 will not seriously affect populations of humans until there are serious droughts and planting failures and much starvation. This is in the pipeline. It is coming. You and I will not live long enough to see it in exponentiating form."

We have already seen the food shortages and artificially inflated prices...but not due to global warming. These things are a result of the very alarmism that is coming from the promoters of fear who reside within the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) movement. Their idiotic proposals for "solving" the problem, that has yet to be proven, has resulted in such utter nonsense as "biofuels" - which have not shown any real benefit over traditional fuel.

The starvation will come directly by the hands of the AGW advocates and their collaborators in government. These people don't give a damn about starving people, crop failures, or droughts. If they did, they would be working to fix the problem we now have and stop using manipulation and outright lies to advance an agenda that is meant to punish, not solve. Our problems are not "in the pipeline," they are here now.

We are watching the problems unfold before our eyes - the problems with the effects of alarmism, not the effects of global warming. All our records show that global warming has halted - something that defies the alleged "theory" of AGW advocates. Now we have real problems: energy prices are skyrocketing, food prices are skyrocketing, economies are struggling, etc. - but what do we do? We pass more legislation making it harder to fix these problems...all in the name of "saving the planet."

What good is saving the planet if humanity crumbles and there is nobody alive to use and enjoy it? Why must we destroy ourselves in order to save something that has no value without us?

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Les

Thanks for the info. I've actually designed and built a number of instruments that measure particles -- water droplets and ice crystals, mostly, in the 0.3 to 50 micron range (and some precipitation imagers for larger stuff). Most of what I've done was designed to go on the wings of aircraft -- one ice crystal imager (SPEC's CPI) has been used on NASA's U2 to look at what's in cirrus. (Taking a micron resolution image of an ice crystal with 200 m/s relative motion is a bit of a challenge!)

About realclimate.org, however: Gavin Schmidt (who seems to be the driving force behind it) is a mathematician and computer modeler. He seems to approach all data from the perspective that it CAN be made to fit in a model, if only you tweak the model's parameters enough. So, for him (and realclimate.org) everything that can and has been measured is simply more proof that he is right -- anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of all climate change -- that's what he programmed into his model and he's sticking with it. Schmidt's attitude would be a disaster for an engineer -- we can't deliver a non-working instrument with a hand-waving argument that it really works, if only you believe the theory.

Let me give you a couple of concrete examples:

The astronomers at Big Bear Solar Observatory have devised a neat way to measure the Earth's albedo (reflectivity) by looking at the relative intensity of "Earthshine" and Sunshine on the Moon (an idea first suggested by Isaac Newton). Nobody has shown (or suggested) that what they are doing is incorrect -- they really are measuring the Earth's average albedo. Here is a presentation given by Enric Palle of Big Bear in Boulder (at LASP) in 2006:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sdo/meetings/session_1_2_3/presentations/session3/3_06_Palle.pdf

The data shows that the effective climate forcing from albedo has swung nearly 10 watts/meter^2 over the last 20 years. (For comparison, the estimated forcing from CO2 over the last 100 years is 2.4 watts/meter^2). You might not like Publius' politics, but that doesn't make what Palle does "tripe". That is not a serious argument -- there is, to my knowledge, no serious argument that albedo change is not what Palle says it is. Interestingly enough, albedo change tracks recent temperature fairly well (if it didn't, then the Earth's climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than IPCC estimates).

So, what does realclimate and Gavin Schmidt say about this? You can search realclimate.org for references to "Big Bear" and see for yourself. Basically, Gavin's position is that if you assume enough adjustable parameters in your model (such as postulated feedbacks between CO2, temp and albedo) you can avoid having to change your original assumption -- that CO2 is the ultimate driver. Hence, no matter what the input data, Gavin always comes to the same conclusion. This is not a correct way to do science.

Example 2: Schmidt is emphatic that the lifetime (time to remove (1-1/e) of a gas) of CO2 in the atmosphere is at least 100s of years. His evidence for this is basically that if it were too short (10 years, say), then Humans would have to burn all known reserves of petroleum in order to have a small (and temporary) effect on the concentration. For anthropogenic CO2 to continue accumulating over the last few hundred years, it must have a very long lifetime.

The problem with this is that if you had asked 20 years ago what is the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere; the answer would have been "about 10 years". This was considered "settled science" due to numerous estimates, empirical measures, and even direct measurements (See, for example this plot of CO2 containing carbon-14 before and after the 1964 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/cent-vegr.gif )

What does Gavin say about this? Does he challenge these measurements? No, he simply ignores them, preferring to use the "lifetime" derived so as to support his theory and model, even though it is over an order of magnitude longer than any data supports. This is justified by hypothesizing that CO2 follows completely different laws than other biologically active gases, such as methane.

RealClimate nearly always takes the position that the models are right, so everything else must be explained in that light. It is a propaganda site for climate modelers, not a place to get good scientific arguments.

Bob,

Yes. Newton recognized the Moon's potential to measure light reflected from the Earth as a tool to determining Earth's albedo.

Many amateur astronomers and pros have been involved in this kind of approach for most of the latter half of the last century. The statistical approach the Big Bear group must use is fine, and possibly credible results will reinforce what has been determined more directly via weather and Clarke Orbit satellites. Or the CERES replacements like MODIS etc.

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/validation/Collins.01.report.pdf

An extraction from the above related to the indian ocean experiment:

"These calculations are consistent with in situ observations of the surface insolation over the central Indian Ocean and with satellite measurements of the reflected shortwave radiation. The calculations show that the surface insolation under clear skies is reduced by as much as 40 W/m2 over the Indian subcontinent by natural and anthropogenic aerosols. This reduction in insolation is accompanied by an increase in shortwave flux absorbed in the atmosphere by 25 W/m2. The inclusion of clouds in the calculations changes the direct effect by less than 2 W/m2 over the Indiansubcontinent, although the reduction is much larger over China."

From 2001.

Other related websites for the CERES runs are:

http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pod-guide/ncdc/docs/klm/html/c7/sec7-4.htm

7.4.5 In Orbit Calibration (Extraction) from NOAA as above. . . which may interest you.

"Once in orbit, the SBUV/2 responses are carefully monitored over time. Hilsenrath et al. (1995) have shown that measured albedo relative to the "day 1" albedo over time is a function of true change in Earth radiance, diffuser degradation, and interrange ratio (PMT gain). Since the primary measurements are ratios, changes in many of the components will cancel. The diffuser plate is used only for the solar irradiance measurements. Accurate characterization of its degradation is required to maintain calibration. This is accomplished by using an on-board Hg calibration lamp. The lamp is alternately viewed directly and indirectly by illuminating the diffuser. Diffuser degradation is monitored at six mercury lines spanning 185 to 405 nm.

The wavelengths associated with the grating positions have been observed to drift. Measurements of the calibration lamp at the six mercury lines, and continuous scans of the solar spectrum (via the diffuser) are used to estimate this drift. Absolute wavelength accuracy can be determined to about 0.02 nm.

The three gain ranges evolve differently over time, and must be periodically renormalize to each other. This is accomplished by using measurements for which two ranges are valid. The magnitude of the interrange ratios (gain range 2 versus gain range 3) for the SBUV/2 on NOAA-11 decreased by about 15% over its 5 years of operation."

(Modis is moderate resolution -- but a lot better than the earthshine reflected from the moon, IMHO)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2002/200207099816.html
July 9, 2002

"Measuring Earthshine: How New Terra Data are Improving Weather and Climate Forecast Models "

Image: NOAA. Composite of a 16-day period from 7-22 April 2002 Crystal Schaaf, Boston University

Please note that the ocean's albedo is not shown.

=================
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/

Now, WRT Big Bear? Big deal. We have much more effective, more accurate, and more reliable means of measuring albedo, and additional means of taking the direct measure of Solar Constant in space at the top of the atmosphere, or anywhere within the the Earth-Moon system, like a postcard from the Sun with the total watts/square meter and spectral characteristics included. We can also meansure insolation at the ocean or ground surface, anywhere, directly, and compare those observations with satellite values for the same quantities -- directly with calibrations -- to improve the confidence in the remotely sensed quantities.

Lets see. That visible light comes the 1 AU from the Sun, smashes into Earth, and is reflected back into space, where upon this earthshine light smashes into the Moon (albedo~7%) and depending on the phase of the moon has a certain brightness, indicative of the apparent brightness of the Earth -- and then is reflected back to the Earth -- where it is intercepted -- in a telescope and accumulated . . .

http://www.bbso.njit.edu/

.Earthshine and the Earth's Albedo
S.E. Koonin1, E. Kolbe2, and M.-C. Chu3

(1) W. K. Kellogg Radiation Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
(2) Department für Physik und Astronomie, Universität Basel, Switzerland
(3) Department of Physics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N. T., Hong Kong

"Abstract. We present simulations that explore the connection between earthshine and the earth's albedo. Fluctuations are found to be well-correlated with fluctuations in the global albedo for observations within 90° of the new moon. In addition, the average albedo is well-determined from the average terrestrial phase function derived from the earthshine observations. These results suggest that precise observations of the earthshine will usefully complement satellite-based studies of the earth's reflectivity. The calculated earthshine intensities are also compared with observations."

BOLD: mine

==============

I don't know if you subscribe to Science, but here is the satellite approach, and the overall albedo is ~0.29. . .and the disagreement with Earthshine is significant.

This set of satellite observations discounts the Earthshine results. There is significant discrepancy betwixt the CERES (satellite data) and the Earthshine data -- and they are opposite in value, so I hope you can see this comparison at "Sciencemag.org"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/825?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Earthshine+and+Earth%27s+Albedo&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

The following is extracted from the alternative measurements made by our NASA array of satellites and the stuff Pub references is in my opinion fine statistics but not reflective of the truth of the measurements made via an independent manner. The values should correspond or agree, and they do not. (But this is a typical denier tactic.)

I quote -- from the 6 May 2005 report in Science:

Changes in Earth's Albedo Measured by Satellite
Bruce A. Wielicki,1* Takmeng Wong,1 Norman Loeb,2 Patrick Minnis,1 Kory Priestley,1 Robert Kandel3

NASA global satellite data provide observations of Earth's albedo, i.e., the fraction of incident solar radiation that is reflected back to space. The satellite data show that the last four years are within natural variability and fail to confirm the 6% relative increase in albedo inferred from observations of earthshine from the moon. Longer global satellite records will be required to discern climate trends in Earth's albedo.

1 NASA Langley Research Center, 21 Langley Boulevard, Hampton, VA 23681, USA.
2 Department of Atmospheric Science, Hampton University, Hampton, VA, USA.
3 Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique du CNRS, Palaiseau, France.

"What is the effect of albedo change on climate? If the change is caused by changing land surface, aerosols, or snow and ice cover, then the earth should cool with increasing albedo and warm with decreasing albedo. This is because these changes in the Earth system have large effects on reflected solar radiation but much smaller effects on emitted thermal infrared cooling to space. If such changes had occurred at the magnitude of the earthshine data in (4), a global cooling twice the level of the ~0.25°C of the Pinatubo eruption would be expected, even over short time periods (3). Such a cooling has not been observed.

A second possibility would be a large decrease in global ocean heat storage. Observations of annual mean global ocean heat storage for 1992 through 2002 (7) show an 0.7 W m-2 increase in global ocean heat storage from 2000 to 2002. Sampling noise in the ocean heat flux is estimated at 0.4 W m-2 at 1{sigma} (7). To be directly comparable to global reflected solar flux changes, the ocean heat storage flux was scaled from the ocean-only area used by Willis et al. (7) to global surface area. If only albedo changes were occurring, the ocean heat storage data would require an 0.7 ± 0.8 W m-2 decrease in reflected flux from 2000 to 2002, with 95% confidence. This change is consistent with the CERES data but not with the earthshine results.

The above discussion, however, considers only the effect of albedo change. Cloud changes would affect both albedo and Earth's thermal infrared cooling to space. Could this be the cause of changes in albedo that are not affecting surface temperature or ocean heat storage? We examined the CERES global thermal infrared radiative fluxes and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) global derived cloud properties (CERES Edition 2 SSF data), but neither showed the large cloudiness changes that would be required to match an increased global albedo from 2000 to 2003 (4). The much smaller CERES flux and MODIS cloud changes are still within inter-annual variability, and a longer Terra data record is required to evaluate key issues like cloud feedback in the climate system." -- credit Science

==

I hope you realize the tripe I refer to is really the whole half deck approach, when a full deck is needed..

But here is the Science Report publication from 28 May 2004

"Reports
Changes in Earth's Reflectance over the Past Two Decades
E. Pallé,1* P. R. Goode,1,2 P. Montañés-Rodríguez,1 S. E. Koonin2

We correlate an overlapping period of earthshine measurements of Earth's reflectance (from 1999 through mid-2001) with satellite observations of global cloud properties to construct from the latter a proxy measure of Earth's global shortwave reflectance. This proxy shows a steady decrease in Earth's reflectance from 1984 to 2000, with a strong climatologically significant drop after 1995. From 2001 to 2003, only earthshine data are available, and they indicate a complete reversal of the decline. Understanding how the causes of these decadal changes are apportioned between natural variability, direct forcing, and feedbacks is fundamental to confidently assessing and predicting climate change."

You can read the whole report at science, or go to big bear site for the colorful almost legible version that Goode has posted there. . .

Thanks for your interest. And your effort to support Pubs "science"

But now, I got you pegged. You need a hobby don't you?

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/pub/journals/Wielicki.etal.Sci.05.pdf
==================

Also, I disagree completely with your "numb3rs" characterization of Gavin and realclimate.org.

Do you also think Hansen is modeling in error? Or Carl Johnson? You do the numbers.

http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html

Carl may be a bit off the wall , or is a bit off the wall, but in major sense generally correct. I have some calculations I am still checking that end up slower than Carl's doom time estimate, but the sign is there, and the direction is correct.

I have not researched the big bear phenomen at realclimate, but after seeing the difference in the satellite and earthshine values co-incidence departure Science -- I suggest there are few clouds fuzzing the space measurements the way they are fuzzing Big Bear, Palle et al.

Roy Spencer could make the data, which diverges -- agree...

If you read Roy Spencer formerly of NASA, and his testimony to Congress -- you can dabble in the political climate to find out which way they want the wind to blow - - and Roy would give them the direction they wanted if he could figure it out for them.

No, the Earthshine data is what it is. Did you read Gavin's blog on SST? probably missed that too?

How do you measure the sea surface temperature? and account for the cooling not seen in air or on land in the 40's?

You know, it is probably a change in "measurement" technique and a wholesale shift because of the measurement change. You know, you painted up new thermometers, they showed water freezing in the right place, but there was a different kind bucket of water dredged up and the measures, though consistent, show something that did not happen. I suspect eventually someone will reconcile the divergence twixt the BBSO and CERES "measurements." I prefer the strength and correlation of the several satellite instrument approaches. I do not accept the premise that significance can be obtained with the earthshine approach.

Imagine, with sufficient leverage, a flea's jump could oppose the earth's motion 'round the sun. But it would be remarkable leverage, maybe the flea could cause the earth to plunge into the sun, by leveraging out the momentum of the orbit.

Nah.

=======
From:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3a47083c00-a776-4f89-b9dd-a2cb00a5dcb1&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending
(Defense secretary Rumsfeld press conference, June 6, Back to disarmament documentation, June 2002, London, The Acronym Institute (available at www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0206/doc04.htm)). This means that uncertainty estimates need to be accompanied by an error model: a precise description of what uncertainties are being estimated.

Here's what Rumsfeld said:

Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. It sounds like a riddle. It isn't a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter."

========

It sounds like you have engineered and built some capable instruments! Enjoyed your text despite my disagreement with your overall stance and assessment of realclimate.

"The above discussion, however, considers only the effect of albedo change. Cloud changes would affect both albedo and Earth's thermal infrared cooling to space."

This is the general point that was discussed in the Eos article by Palle et al. You can have an increase in albedo but it won't necessarily affect temperatures by the same magnitude. Different clouds behave differently. Imagine the planet with no clouds whatsoever. If all other variables are constant, when we add high-level cloud cover there will be an increase in albedo but a net warming effect because of the properties of those clouds. If we take the same scenario and only add low-level clouds, there will be a net cooling effect.

If overall cloud cover increases, we will have an increase in albedo - but if higher-level clouds increase more than lower-level clouds, we will not have as much of a decrease in overall temperature. This will make it appear that albedo is not as relevant to temperature changes, but that case can only be made if one discounts the differences in high and low cloud cover. While albedo would increase and have a negative forcing on climate, some of that forcing will be offset by a net positive feedback from the higher-level clouds that are more abundant than the lower-level clouds.

The ISCCP data shows an overall increase in cloud cover over the last decade, although it is a somewhat small increase - still quite lower than total cloud cover in the previous decade. The references you cite don't seem to acknowledge the increase in clouds and the fact that the majority of the increase is with high-level clouds. Do they even acknowledge that higher-level clouds have a different effect on climate than lower-level clouds? This could be why the data they're analyzing doesn't add up.

But the cloud-albedo argument isn't even as important as these next quotes. This is where the real issue lies and this is the point of my series that I am writing:

"Longer global satellite records will be required to discern climate trends in Earth's albedo."

"...a longer Terra data record is required to evaluate key issues like cloud feedback in the climate system."

"Understanding how the causes of these decadal changes are apportioned between natural variability, direct forcing, and feedbacks is fundamental to confidently assessing and predicting climate change."

The very papers that you cite are saying that we need more reliable data in order to understand our climate and make accurate predictions. On the other hand, you are saying that we know everything that we need to know and that our time is up. You condemn everyone who disagrees with your opinion and claim that your conclusions are the work of science. Yet you have repeatedly claimed that "science" is knowledge. If that's true, then these scientists that you have cited yourself do not seem to agree that you are either knowledgeable or scientific based on the data we currently have.

If more data is needed to understand our climate processes, then claiming to definitively know all there is to know is absurd. It's not possible to know it all if we don't have all the information. That's why I write what I write. I do this to try to make people understand that there is no "consensus" and that there cannot be a "consensus" that also claims to be scientific. Without knowing all the information and thoroughly analyzing it (by way of the scientific method), the two are incompatible.

So that brings us back to square one and I ask the same questions that I have asked before:

What is your motive, Les? Why don't you want to recover more data and analyze it accordingly? Why do you insist on trying to destroy the character of people who are actually performing the very process that you claim to have performed your entire life? Why have you forsaken science and reason? What are you getting out of all of this?

(And spare me the doom and gloom. I don't care to hear another tirade about the end of the world - I just want answers to those questions.)

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Pubby the comment was not to you, but thanks for showing you care.

Really, this is not about you.

I decided I would post a comment on your blog to your friend Bob Cormack whose fare I have seen elsewhere.

You seem to not get the issues I have posted. I included the words I included, because I am aware of the issues.

Posting such on your blog, which still is tripe, was a contribution to your posting -- just to help you get more controversial reads. You bit.

I think there will be a place for your social rehabilitation, or not. It doesn't really matter. At all.

What is your motive? Pubby?

As the Russian said,“People claim that there is not enough evidence to act. I say there is not enough time.”

So what is your motive to continue to post half-deck dis-information?

Geewhiz.

Thanks for your kind remarks,
warm regards.

good bye

Good job dodging the questions again, Less.

"I think there will be a place for your social rehabilitation, or not."

Am I somehow supposed to fear your utter stupidity? Your comments like this do nothing but confirm your complete lack of any rational thought. This may work on the same unintelligent people that buy into the hysteria nonsense, but unfortunately for you, I'm not one of those intellectually deprived rejects. Your inane comments like this - and the others where you speak of capital punishment for the "Earth destroyers" - are a great example of what people like you revert to when your arguments fall flat on their face. It's the same type of mentality employed by any totalitarian regime - if you don't agree with us, we will silence and destroy you.

"You seem to not get the issues I have posted. I included the words I included, because I am aware of the issues."

What are the issues, Less? Apparently they have nothing to do with science, as I have pointed out. Let me see if I have this right - you included the words that showed how your real scientists do not know everything we need to know because you wanted to prove that I'm not up on the issues? Oh, no...wait - it was to get me more "controversial reads" - whatever that means.

"What is your motive? Pubby?"

Well, Less, I have stated my motive many times over. My motive is to show the other side of the debate that your side refuses to acknowledge. But now I guess the reason your side won't acknowledge it is apparently due to the fact that we don't yet understand everything? Does that make sense to you? It probably does, considering what I've seen in your responses. If you read the first two articles in this series, you'll see exactly what my motives are. You may even be able to realize what your motives are. (I'll give you a hint: seeking knowledge about our climate processes is not one of your motives.)

The questions still stand, Less. Any time you feel like answering them, you are free to do so.

One last thing...The childish threats aren't getting you anywhere, so you may want to try real debating. You have failed to prove your other "theories," so it couldn't hurt to try.

Good luck.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Hi Les,

Lots of stuff -- no wonder you didn't reply right away! I can't respond to this much, so I will just excerpt:

*****************

"But now, I got you pegged. You need a hobby don't you?"

Ha! I need to spend more time doing what I'm paid for, and less time mucking about on Internet sites. (I'm sure my wife would agree -- this response, for example, is costing me about $250.)

"Also, I disagree completely with your "numb3rs" characterization of Gavin and realclimate.org."

I'm not sure what the "numb3rs" allusion means -- my wife and I are cultural hermits, mostly using the TV to watch comedies and mysteries from the 30's, 40's and 50's (--from the Video Station; a local store with an amazing collection). I do notice, however, that none of your response disproves (or even argues against) my characterization of Gavin Schmidt and RealClimate.org. I stand by my claim that they are mostly an advocacy site for modelers. I don't think that they have ever identified even a hypothetical real-world measurement that they can't twist into being "consistent" with their models.
Of course, according to the Popperian view of science, this means their models are worthless -- if anything that can happen is consistent with your model, this is equivalent to your model having no information content.

"Do you also think Hansen is modeling in error?"

I'm far from an expert on Jim Hansen, having read only one early paper by him (sorry, can't find the reference). In that paper, Hansen calculated the climate sensitivity to CO2 by using the temp and CO2 ice core records, assumed that the temperature change was caused by the change (for unknown reasons) in the CO2 concentration and used the changes to calculate the sensitivity. This is a circular argument and clearly a logical error -- I wasn't too impressed with Hansen's "reasoning" (or the quality of the review that let it go unchallenged). Whether he still maintains this I don't know.

Also, I find it rather peculiar that Hansen's group keeps issuing modifications ("corrections") of the Historical Climatology Network temperature data that changes temperature readings over a hundred years old. Even more peculiar is that these corrections always cause the positive temperature trend over the last century to increase. Also peculiar, is the fact that the total "corrections" to the historical data are almost the same as the total temperature increase over the last 100 years ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif ).
Lately, the NASA corrections have produced a noticeable divergence from other temperature series such as the satellite data and the UK's Hadley data. Since Hansen is the outlier here, I would have to judge it likely that, yes, he is in error.

"No, the Earthshine data is what it is. Did you read Gavin's blog on SST? Probably missed that too?"

I think that ClimateAudit has been talking about this for at least a year previous to Gavin's discovery of it. If you want a balanced view, you need to read both.

"How do you measure the sea surface temperature? and account for the cooling not seen in air or on land in the 40's?"

This is part of the previous question, I think. Anyway, rather sharp cooling was seen on land and sea in the 40's. I refer you to Hansen's own data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

As an engineer, I am strongly biased toward measurements over models. Given that the Argo float data has shown no ocean warming for the last 5 years, everybody's temperature data (including Hansen's) has shown no significant warming over the last 10 years, and Solar physicists are beginning to talk about a new Wolf (or even Maunder) minimum in Solar activity, I think the time is ripe to simply wait for the data to speak. Certainly, we shouldn't implement extremely expensive "solutions" for a potentially nonexistent problem.

The ice core data seems to indicate that we are overdue for another large ice age, and Hansen's argument that we have prevented that by CO2 emissions rests on his circular reasoning about climate sensitivity (discussed above).

I think Rumsfeld would agree (to wait and see: although it's getting rather late at night to try parsing any of his more convoluted statements!)

Bob

Bob,
First. Thanks for the $250 comment, and thank your wife for allowing your financially uncompensated diversions.

I will compose another xombyte -- rather than keep cluttering these comments on Pub's posting here, which means, I will post something more detailed as I get time to do so, because I must finish the other things I have to do seasonally.

I will also return to what I think is your "strawman modeling assertions" wrt realclimate's Schmidt -- but if you feel that all the main contributors (listed here: Caspar Ammann, David Archer, Eric Steig, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Ray Pierrehumbert, Stefan Rahmstorf, Thibault de Garidel and William Connolley) do is try to force data into particularly directed models -- why not post directly to Gavin? et al. that you think the models go nowhere because they are pre-directed self-serving and self-fulfilling -- along with their being stuffed with (altered, tainted, spruced-up or modified to fit) incorrect data?

I'm sure many responses would be directed your way specifically, but why not point out their lackings [errors] to them?

It is a "moderated forum," but I think they would love to hear your take -- from you.

Numb3rs or what ever it is, I do not have time for either. [But I really am a fan of Showtime's "Dexter," that is, I watched it several years ago missing a lot of episodes which when I finally caught it on CBS I enjoyed again recently.

But numb3rs was a slant at the data. The numbers are characterizations of what a BAU world gives as it destroys much life on the Earth. When the plants go -- we go.

I think I saw a part of numb3rs a year or 2 ago.
ignore it.]
=========

James Hansen you imply to be an outlier?

And then the upper of these two graphs to show corrections to the historical data...from NOAA, not NASA. ( But it is true that the US Government contains both NASA and NOAA. And, so yes, Hansen does work for the US Government. . .)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

The data you reference in the graph you cite displayed below caries this:

A quality control procedure is performed that uses trimmed means and standard deviations in comparison with surrounding stations to identify suspects (> 3.5 standard deviations away from the mean) and outliers (> 5.0 standard deviations). Until recently these suspects and outliers were hand-verified with the original records. However, with the development at the NCDC of more sophisticated QC procedures this has been found to be unnecessary.

[Outliers "here" in the temp data are greater than 5 standard deviations from norm. Like my friend Alex scored +5.4 SD above norm on the English placement test at CU, Like IQ of over 180. And he was not required to take Freshman English -- the very first one not to have to take Freshman English at CU many years back. So technically, 5 SD for an outlier is out there.. . .I do not think the results show for Hansen's work when measured would make him an outlier in a temperature or climate measurement context.]

Image: NOAA (Caption: The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century.) I do not see Hansen's involvement, do you?

Images: NOAA

It is much easier to evaluate the effects of each adjustment by plotting stepwise differences between USHCN time series. The effect of each successive adjustment is clearly evident in the adjacent plot that shows the differences in the above time series.

=============
NOAA's site says: [and you need to see the graphics above]

The data package contains the following four versions of the data set.

1. Raw: the data in this version have been through all quality control but have no data adjustments.

2. TOB: these data have also been subjected to the time-of-observation bias adjustment.

3. Adjusted: these data have been adjusted for the time-of-observation bias, MMTS bias, and station moves, etc. (Maximum/Minimum Temperature System)

4. Urban: these data have all adjustments including the urban heat adjustments.

The graph, by NOAA, not NASA reflects the bias removed by about 1/2 a degree.
============

As far as I can tell these are normal corrections to the historical data sets, It is an effort to get the data "normalized" -- the same techniques used for validating the data to improve its overall usefulness. You implicated Hansen in this but I do not know where Hansen comes into the normalization or validation of the data. The temperatures are largely like me calling on you to get me the "average Boulder Temperature for yesterday" and you would have to figure the average of high and low.

(Last night I had a frost, and overnight still water had a skim of ice on it. Todays average would reflect that frost -- but would not expressly state it froze water. The frost was not thick enough to ski!)

A Brief Comparison of the USHCN and the U.S. Climate Division Dataset

Our Recommendations: We recommend using USHCN whenever possible for long-term climate analyses. The careful selection of each station and the series of adjustments applied to the data make the USHCN database the best long-term monthly temperature and precipitation data set available for the contiguous United States. It provides an accurate, serially complete, modern historical climate record that is suitable for detecting and monitoring long-term climatic changes. Other data sets, such as the Climate Division Dataset, may produce misleading trends due to artificial station changes. When performing analyses on scales smaller than regional, we recommend a review of the metadata in order to identify the stations most suitable for specific research needs.

References

Easterling, D.R., and T.C. Peterson, 1995: A new method of detecting undocumented discontinuities in climatological time series, Int. J. of Climatol., 15, 369-377.

Karl, T.R., C.N. Williams, Jr., P.J. Young, and W.M. Wendland, 1986: A model to estimate the time of observation bias associated with monthly mean maximum, minimum, and mean temperature for the United States, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 25, 145-160.

Karl, T.R., and C.W. Williams, Jr., 1987: An approach to adjusting climatological time series for discontinuous inhomogeneities, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 26, 1744-1763.

Karl, T.R., H.F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, 1988: Urbanization: its detection and effect in the United States climate record, J. Climate, 1, 1099-1123.

Karl, T.R., C.N. Williams, Jr., F.T. Quinlan, and T.A. Boden, 1990: United States Historical Climatology Network (HCN) Serial Temperature and Precipitation Data, Environmental Science Division, Publication No. 3404, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 389 pp.

Peterson, T.C., and D.R. Easterling, 1994: Creation of homogeneous composite climatological reference series, Int. J. Climatol., 14, 671-680.

Quayle, R.G., D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, and P.Y. Hughes, 1991: Effects of recent thermometer changes in the cooperative station network, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 72, 1718-1724.
(above references from NOAA site where the graphs originate>

===========================
Hansen works at NASA not NOAA. (Yes, I know it is confusing from having been a Fed. . .)

Hansen an Outlier?

Well, fine. He is not reticent, and he has both stature and credibility in the scientific community because of solid work.

I cite here 2 papers published in Science with Hansen,et al. as author.

Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
James Hansen, Larissa Nazarenko, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Josh Willis, Anthony Del Genio, Dorothy Koch, Andrew Lacis, Ken Lo, Surabi Menon, Tica Novakov, Judith Perlwitz, Gary Russell, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Nicholas Tausnev
Science 3 June 2005 308: 1431-1435; published online 28 April 2005 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1110252] (in Research Articles)

=========

Climate Effects of Black Carbon Aerosols in China and India
Surabi Menon, James Hansen, Larissa Nazarenko, and Yunfeng Luo
Science 27 September 2002 297: 2250-2253 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1075159] (in Reports)

......and India Surabi Menon James Hansen Larissa Nazarenko Yunfeng...China and India Surabi Menon, James Hansen, Larissa Nazarenko, and Yunfeng...China and India Surabi Menon,12* James Hansen,1 Larissa Nazarenko,12 Yunfeng......

============

James Hansen has been mentioned and cited extensively.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html

See the following links at the NASA site above for Hansen's federal

Go to: Submitted, In Press, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966.

Since Hansen is with NASA, he gets paid to study things that are nationally important; (You mention NASA used one of your devices) and calibration and accuracy of information produced and acquired by NASA is world class -- despite the short comings of the political leadership.

Surely you love bureaucracies. Science agencies were designed to provide solid stuff, not political excreta and are different from university or academic instruments. You should recognize that in boulder and the Denver area, where some good hard federally funded science is accomplished. They have changed names so many times you may have heard of NIST, SERI (Now National Renewable Energy Laboratory) between old Golden and Lakewood -- where getting specific good information from the physical world is often a difficult full time job.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~jhansen/keeling/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf

This old talk by Hansen ought to stir up the deniers.

==================

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

from site above:

"Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade."

Images NASA

You mention an "Outlier!" Realize, in my book, the denialists are the real outliers, and dangerous enough to the species and the ecology of the planet to be summarily examined to see what is wrong with their minds, or how something in their makeup influenced them to deny both their eyes and their external instruments. Why don't you look at Carl Johnson's site?

http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html

http://mb-soft.com/public3/globalza.html

Johnson is kind of closed-minded, like a denialist, but in the opposite direction because of the results of his computations. He is more into practical engineering and has made sufficient money to indulge himself -- 'vettes and all, personal lifestyle, religious and all that. Take his numbers apart, you know, something very simply-modeled. For the 140 year slide, see his outlier site.

Imagine if Carl Johnson is correct? Take his numbers apart and prove his entire contention ain't so. That should be easy for denialists and alarmists alike. Of course, it takes longer than 140 years to melt Antarctica, but Greenland?

Thanks again -- I will post a detailed blog that will be read by only a few, and I will address the assertions you've made.

At the moment, I have a half square mile and surface water I must apply to it. Imagine a garden, but bigger, and with fewer invasives, as a ratio.

Catch, later.

Les said:
“Is Bob Cormack a Denier of the climate danger we are in?”

Congratulations on a concise combination of two fallacies: Ad Hominem, and Begging the Question in a 12-word sentence!

More Les:
“Realize, in my book, the denialists are the real outliers, and dangerous enough to the species and the ecology of the planet to be summarily examined to see what is wrong with their minds, or how something in their makeup influenced them to deny both their eyes and their external instruments.”

Stalinist-like threats now! “…dangerous to the species…”! “…summarily examined”! (Hangin’ would be too good for ‘em!) You can really have a “consensus” if you make it illegal to object. What a great idea! Why hasn’t someone tried this before? (Oh, wait…, wasn’t it called Lysenkoism? How did that turn out?).

Nobody could disagree with you unless there was something wrong with their brain? I suggest a reality check.

*****************************
Well, Les; you have stepped outside the bounds of polite discourse, so let me be blunt:

I assumed I was dealing with an emotional adult. Maybe I’m wrong, so I’d better explain a few things to you (most people know this already, and it may explain why the AGW doomers are having such a hard time selling their snake oil):

1) When name-calling begins, most people understand this as an admission that the name-calling individual has run out of arguments and has lost. It never advances your cause.

2) The idea of maintaining a “consensus” by coercion, then using that “consensus” to claim you are right is such a logical absurdity that it boggles the mind that it must be explained to people with advanced degrees. People who haven’t graduated from High School have no trouble understanding this. (What did Orwell say? “Some things are so stupid that only an academic can believe them.”) This behavior simply convinces most folks that they are being conned.

3) Quoting the (cherry-picked) peer-reviewed literature doesn’t mean you’re right – it only means that some people agree with you. Ignoring the other side of the debate (as if it didn’t exist) is another clear warning sign of a con.

The debate is actually going on in the peer-reviewed journals (despite the spurious claims of consensus): For every basic tenent of Inhanced Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW) supported in the literature, there are peer-reviewed papers contesting those tenets. For example:

a. While there are numerious papers on models that predict a long (100s of years) atmospheric lifetime for CO2 (necessary to allow Human-produced CO2 to build up), there are also many papers on experimental data and measurements that show a 10 year atmospheric lifetime for CO2.

b. In order for the models to produce alarming outputs, they need a high climate sensitivity to forcing inputs, the climate system to be dominated by positive feedbacks, and the climate response time to be very long. These claims are repeated in many papers based on modeling. Actual observation of the climate system (e.g., the response to the 1998 El Nino and other transient events) shows that the climate system responds just like it had low sensitivity, a short response time, and is dominated by negative feedback. These facts are pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature, and are obvious to any control systems engineer.

Notice a trend here? Models show a problem, measurements do not. The real issue here is the accuracy and predictive skill of the models – which you simply want to assume. It won’t fly.

Aside on peer-review:
If you have participated in the peer-review process, you must have learnt that it doesn’t guarantee correctness. At its best, peer review catches simple errors (like not adequately referencing previous work, or incomplete analyses); at its worst, peer review is an Old Boy Network that enforces conformity and invites corruption. This is easier to see in a different context: Say a company wants a permit for an open-pit mine – let’s let other mine owners make the decision. After all, who knows more about it than them? Doesn’t sound like such a great idea when there is a lot at stake.

Academic Science has gotten by using peer review for a couple of centuries because, mostly, it just didn’t matter what was published or not. It was a low-stakes game that had only a marginal effect on the rest of society. High-stakes science was usually kept as trade secrets – the patent system was designed to coax that information back into the public domain.

But now, academic scientists are asking (demanding!) that society spend trillions of dollars taking great risks with the economy and the lives of millions in the Third World while severely restricting freedoms (in tune with your rant above) – all based on their computer models. Suddenly, this is a very high stakes game and the ground rules are different.

How can you show if the models have any predictive skill? Society already has a method of dealing with this – an independent audit. When Boeing wants to introduce a new airliner, or Pfizer a new drug, we don’t just take their word for it. An independent agency performs tests on the airliner or drug to see if it works as designed and is safe. Shouldn’t we do at least as much before committing to one of the most extensive overhauls of industrial society ever envisioned?

So let the modelers make some sharp, clear predictions and let the models stand or fall on the outcome. (Also, the models have to be transparent – other people have to be able to run them and get the same results. Anyone who won’t release their data and code should be eliminated from consideration. Let them publish all they want, but serious policy decisions can’t be made on back-room secret data and algorithms.

The kind of behavior that RealClimate folks engage in is exactly wrong. If your model fails to predict a 10 (or 20, or 30…) year cooling and you try to fix things by claiming that this is “consistent” with the model, all you are really doing is proving that your model has no predictive skill or information content, and hence shouldn’t be considered in policy decisions.

So, how about it Les? Man up, quit calling names, make some clear (falsifiable) predictions, and stand or fall with the results. Show us you know enough to be taken seriously (as well as knowing how to advance a serious argument). So far, you aren’t doing too well.

Oh, and let's not try the "You have to prove I'm wrong" trick -- AGW'ers are the ones asking for major changes in society, the burden of proof is on them (and you).

Bob, thank you very, very, much for your response!

It characterizes you so well!

Calling you what you are changes nothing.

You admitting your CO2 denialism changes nothing.

But even your tacit admission will not save you, or your legacy.

I do not know if the Xomba record will survive you, but with a simple read what you are becomes clear. Your approach; your BAU approach to a serious problem assigns you your role.

Every attempt you have made to exemplify the denialist position, couching it in references to nonsense "science" or circular logic clarifies the facts of the CO2 crisis and reinforces and amplifies your role in exacerbating the problem. And Bob, welcome to your role. You and Pubby have much to talk about -- but the facts of the real world situation defy your denials.

Even in the above denialist tirade, you cite the wrong things. Karl Popper truisms, the logical juxtapositions or congruences of Science have no proper role in the grasp of the CO2 climate problem. A "peek" is worth two or three finesses. (do you play bridge?) It is sometimes difficult to get a peek at the truth, but here, all that is required is a look at the facts and the physics or chemistry, beyond philosophical Popperist truisms. Does the Earth orbit the Sun? Do man-made satellites orbit the Earth. Did Man in the guise of astronauts set foot on the Moon? Have you seen the retro-reflections of laser ranging of the Moon? Or would you care to deny any of these or wish to pretense and pretend a scientific debate concerning them?

I will soon be done with you and your "he has a good argument." Because it is a waste of my time. Here is an example -- of a merit less argument:

Quoting you:

"3) Quoting the (cherry-picked) peer-reviewed literature doesn’t mean you’re right – it only means that some people agree with you. Ignoring the other side of the debate (as if it didn’t exist) is another clear warning sign of a con.

[What a raft! This is not a "debate." CO2 rises, and we have more than ten years of solid observations.]

The debate is actually going on in the peer-reviewed journals (despite the spurious claims of consensus): For every basic tenent [you mean tenet, as below]of Inhanced [you mean enhanced?]Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW) supported in the literature, there are peer-reviewed papers contesting those tenets. For example:

[citations needed, or at least some URL's; bring them up so all can read them.]

a. While there are numerious [you mean numerous, no points deducted] papers on models that predict a long (100s of years) atmospheric lifetime for CO2 (necessary to allow Human-produced CO2 to build up), there are also many papers on experimental data and measurements that show a 10 year atmospheric lifetime for CO2.
--------------------------------------

You are kidding, right?

What has this to do with climate and anthropogenic CO2 increases?!, which are now, via Keeling, et al., measured globally as rising? That denial earns you the title, easily.

It is like your post to impugn Hansen by mis-stating and conveniently "misunderstanding" the fact that Hansen has nothing to do with the adjustments to correct the observational biases of NOAA's historical temperature record.

Your CO2 strawman of 10 years:

CO2 lasts 10 years? Sure it does! (An individual molecule might get recycled in 10 to 12 years, or more. But the "accumulation" is the problem.) You write: models that predict a long (100s of years) atmospheric lifetime for CO2 (necessary to allow Human-produced CO2 to build up) there are also many papers on experimental data and measurements that show a 10 year atmospheric lifetime for CO2.,

Are you suggesting the thousands of years lifetime is the result of a modeler's and observer's conspiracy? Maybe you can tell us what you really meant? The initial CO2 is of geological extent and lifetime. Carbon based life can only modulate a portion of it and has over say 500 million years with oxygen.

It is thought living biomass above and below the Earth's surface is equivalent. Much of the bio-activity takes place without CO2 in deep terranes removed from surface sunlight energies, but are still carbon centered life processes. some of these processes produce methane, which does have a role when it rises to the air and makes CO2 and water.

Credit: Wikipedia

http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/co2panel/HighCO2results/presentations/archer.pdf

This (above) may be tough to understand, but most of the graphics are self-explanatory. Lifetimes are glossed but very long. Clathrates are a source for Big Carbon, who is trying to manipulate the US Congress to help make a national claim and exploit. (Bad idea, and ecologically dangerous.)

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/keeling_curve_lessons.html

or the full record:

I could care less about the assertion (strawman, but way unrelated) that 10 years is all the CO2 lasts. Not the "hundreds of years" that the rest of us say. What a raft. I suppose you didn't post the references because they point out the problem in the strawman, again. Statistics can deal with the individual and the whole, but the whole is the problem of accumulation.

Statistically a molecule released in the air could be withdrawn in 10 or as I say 12 years. How? if you look at the curve, you see that it rises higher each year and the sawtooth height is about the same each year. Why does the graph ascend through time -- yes. CO2 from people. I wonder where this graph is going to show the amount removed that humans have placed there? So that in 100 years of the "carbon cycle" we can get back to where we were in 1957-1958? You know, 50 years ago? See, if the stuff only last 10 years and this graph records 50 years, that is 5 times as long as the CO2 lasts, isn't it, and all those that were entered into the air in 1968 were gone by 1978? That doesn't seem quite right, does it?

On the sawtooth, the "down" part of the curve. This is where nature is pulling all it can of the CO2 in the air out of the air -- a range yearly of from roughly 6 to 9 ppm CO2 out of the air in 1 year, depending on a lot of factors--which include man's land use, weather, deforestation, climate change, ocean health, etc., etc.

And then the plants, mostly, die. When they die and when the animals that use plants die, all of that CO2 they used in their life processes is returned to the atmosphere. It was once in a "rough balance."

That "Balance" has now been upset by BAU continued dumping of fossil carbon produced CO2 annually into the air, and the obvious accumulation has occurred even though more than ten years has repeatedly passed.

Yes Bob. There is a conspiracy. You are part of it. Deny it all you want, let the record you have written stand. Let those who read what you have written, have posted, assess and judge it. Let them compare it to what they see or read or hear about BAU, and about the future you are promoting -- except you will be long gone as will I when the legacy levies its cost on them.

What goes around comes around, is said -- or you get as much good luck as bad. I think you may have had good "luck."

-----------
If your picture is you, did you summit Everest, and what was your vertical limit, and how much fossil carbon did the activity cost? If it is not that event or an allusion to it, still a nice picture. Too bad Xomba can't do a better job with user/contributors posting their graphics at a larger scale.

As I said, I will deal with the issues you raise elsewhere. I also pointed out I was applying water to the earth for the growth of plants.

-----------
To give you an idea of fresh water ...

At roughly 10 cubic feet/second (74.8 gallons/second) the total application was about 158.677685950 acre feet of water, over the roughly 8 days running.

I did not get everything watered. God and God's gravity take care of the low places. The topography determine what areas are impossible to "run" water to cover. No, I do not have a sprinkler, though that would change things immensely. I am retired, but it does not feel like it.

The water I applied, if used to fill a cube, would fill a cube ~190.5 feet on a side and contain ~51,701,760 gallons, or rough 3.7 gallons per square foot if spread over the entire 1/2 square mile -- which for some part soaks into the soil. Winds have been significant, and much evaporation with wind transport has occurred. Needless to say, I was not able to "water" he entire parcel I was trying to water. If I could have spread it evenly over the acreage it would have amounted to nearly 1 year's average precipitation. But in this case it is less than six inches, or 14.93 cm. The topography forces some acreage to parch and others to soak up more than a foot of water. The water is not "free."

You should get used to being called a denialist, and also get used to the idea of facing the potential consequences of your denialist position. This is nothing to do with "scientific skepticism" this is simply and baldly denial of facts that you are reluctant to face.

Good luck with your chosen advocacy, and I do anticipate there will be consequences. Boulder could have some wind power if it did some engineering -- as well as some solar.

I will briefly address your manipulations elsewhere, and address any of your other comments on a separate posting -- as time allows.

Right now I want to see what problems the news reports for the returning shuttle...

Another brilliant response to the posed questions...and more tap-dancing around the subjects which you refuse to acknowledge, Less. I'll be back to respond in full to your nonsense. Yes, I understand that your comments were a reply to Bob. However, this is still my article and since you continue to speak my "name," I will respond accordingly.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I keep trying to form a "thank you" for your comments on my Modern Islamic Science posting. And put it there. I almost got one posted last night then erased it -- trying to be sensitive. You and I see pretty much the same thing on that issue, but I see danger in the meme, worry about it triggering the billions of deaths such a destructive denialist stance the fundamentalists have could promote.

A new prophet within Islam may be the only way the schism between sense and nonsense denialism in the faith of Islam can ever be repaired. For several hundred million, it may be an epiphany that will not happen.

I am actually sorry that I set Bob Cormack off, but I stand by my statements. There has been a lot of wasted "effort" by those former scientists, at the behest of Big C and it has delayed the needed tech responses and confused or fooled the public -- but I do not expect that the people, all 6.7 billion, will be fooled or confused for long despite efforts to deny what is obvious. The use of the fossil carbon with out accepting the responsibility for the damage done to the planet bothers me the most. I'm old enough to remember all of the machinations Tobacco went through and the ongoing effort it continues to use to suck new American addicts into their web for profits at the expense of society and others. There was solid evidence and statistical evidence denied repeatedly -- just like we see now by the same mentality in Big Carbon.

I recall the emergence in science of plate tectonics over the fixed position "wear-mountains-down-in-place-with-weather" stick-in-the-muddists, as well as the almost zero understanding of how new mountains are built without volcanic eruptive initiation. (You know, Block Faulting)

I further recall when Fred Hoyle made history by giving up the Steady State Theory to the words he coined for the opposition, "The Big Bang"-ers when finally it was shown clearly as the last nail, that quasars were essentially all in an earlier epoch of the Universe. To survive, the Steady State had to contain Quasars nearby. There weren't any nearby.

Our Milky Way Galaxy may have been an AGN-type Galaxy in the past, but unlikely like the quasars we see far away (long ago), and I am thankful life had a chance because our home Galaxy was a quieter place for development of the kinds of life that leads to our current world. In an energy violent place -- life may have started only to be wiped out by the energy fluctuations of a quasar, or strong AGN-type galaxy.

BAU is something the species can't afford, nor can life on the planet. The 143-year-time it takes to reach thermal equilibrium as calculated by Carl Johnson for the present amount of CO2, which is not all that different from what many in the climate community predict, does not leave humanity much time considering the scale of the task and the need to reach a new low CO2 balance quickly.

On the Earthshine. This has been beat to death already elsewhere and in the recent past. Most will not say it is an overly weak proxy but I will say it is a very weak proxy, and I would not be hanging the farm on it.

Increased albedo does not really lead to "cooling," unless other circumstances occur. For example, water vapor increases, and likely clouds increase, but any temperature cooling actually depends on the w