By Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science

There is an important and informative new paper on the role of the radiative forcing of CO2 on the climate system. It is

Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy, 2008: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth. Energy and Environment, accepted.

The abstract reads “The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Nino/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”

This is an excellent paper which provides a new perspective on the role of CO2 as a radiative climate forcing. There is one statement in the paper that should be clarified. “The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of delta T from CO2 forcing to be also small”.

The actual radiative forcing is not as small as indicated from 4% value. We have explored this issue in two Climate Science weblogs; i.e. Relative Roles of CO2 and Water Vapor in Radiative Forcing and Further Analysis Of Radiative Forcing By Norm Woods.

While much smaller than the effect of the more heterogeneous climate forcings {as we reported for example, in Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974, it is larger than 4% since i) the temperatures within the atmosphere vary latitudinally, and ii) the higher water vapor levels in the lower latitudes reduces the fraction of absorption that can be attributed to CO2.

The conclusions of the Douglas and Christy paper, however, are not altered by this issue, and all of us should look forward to objective scientific scrutiny of their study [after all, that is the scientific method].

The paper should be required reading for all climate scientists, and the conclusions tested to order to build confidence or to refute their findings. Climate scientists who ignore this paper (as seems to be a frequent policy by some) must mean that they agree with the science in the Douglas and Christy paper, but elect to ignore it since it conflicts with their narrow perspective of the dominance of the radiative effect of human-added CO2 as an anthropogenic climate forcing. Of course, ignoring peer reviewed papers, is not the scientific method. Update: I have been informed that the journal Energy and Environment is not scinetifically peer reviewed nor in any citation index. Unfortunately, this significantly diminishes the impact of this very important paper. While the publication process is a difficult road for research that differs from the IPCC type perspective, papers must stll be submitted and published in peer reviewed journals that appear in science citation indexes].

See full post here.

The media elite have bought into the propaganda that you and I are responsible. Yet, there are numerous experts who say the proponents are wrong. Their stories are not being told, which means pro-global warming tactics (to silence the opposition) have worked. “The argument is over,” they declare. What that says to me is, “we’re too lazy to investigate the other side.”

There are thousands of scientists that have their doubts about “man made global warming.” Here in Paradise we have a well-qualified voice speaking out against what many call the, “Global Warming Myth.” His name is Paul Crapuchettes, who spent his lifetime working with General Electric and Litton Industries designing electron tubes. He also spent time overseeing the preservation of marshes and wetlands.

“Opinions are opinions, not facts,” he said. “We’ve known about greenhouse gases since the early 1800s green house gas (was discovered) in the early 1800s. The atmosphere was a greenhouse.” We pay “carting costs” to haul waste that releases CO2 that, “should go to a digester, rather than the dump,” he concludes.

Crapuchettes has strong qualifications. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry and as a chemist he said the calculations to develop the global the warming theory have not been properly carried out. “They (pro-global warming enthusiasts) only look at CO2 they need to check all gasses and the change in inventory and that’s not being done!” The retired chemist notes, “we don’t have enough data we have to know what’s going on everywhere on the planet we have 17,000 weather stations in the world nowhere near enough (to get adequate data).”

He says our press corps is the major problem because they prefer using inadequate data and information to amplify problems that do not exist. “The spotted owl was not endangered yet thousands lost their jobs because of irrational and thoughtless reporting by the mainstream media.” He’s also challenging the idea of using “ethanol” as a means to eliminate carbon in the environment noting such actions will drive up the cost of food, and lower the mileage we presently get on gasoline produced in our refineries.

He believes the global warming movement is a “blind adherence to people who don’t know what they are talking about. Character assassination (a trait of the pro-global warming crowd who get angry when they are challenged) is abhorrent to me.” The retired chemist concludes, “somebody has established an imperial relationship between themselves and melting ice they don’t know why!” He concludes those pushing the issue such as Al Gore, “don’t know what they are talking about.”

Anyone who has spent time on a University of California campus in recent years will tell you about the “tyrannical atmosphere” developing between social and “real” scientists. Those that speak out on some campuses do so at the risk of losing their jobs, and that is dangerous. Only the media elite, social scientists and politicians support the global warming theory. Real scientists know we have a lot more to investigate before we make any solid conclusions. We all need to pay more attention to people with solid credentials like Paul Crapuchettes, and less attention to “pseudo-scientists,” like Al Gore. Read more here.

Maurizio Morabito’s Blog

From Nature’s Climate Feedback: ”Shock climate change verdict acquits Hansen’s heroes”:

“Criminal damage in the name of climate change is not a criminal offence, according to a shock ruling from a British court. Eco-warriors’ UK paper of choice The Independent says the verdict “will have shocked ministers and energy companies”. In the Guardian, veteran environment correspondent Jon Videl says it will “embarrass the government and lead to more direct action protests against energy companies"."

The so-called “Kingsnorth case” was a trial-by-jury. Given the verdict, it means that Hansen and the defence team in general have convinced the jury that it is a bad idea to build coal-based power stations: bad enough for a certain class of criminal damages to be considered necessary.

And why so bad? Because burning coal is linked to global warming and unimaginable future disasters. The verdict also means that the prosecution was unable to convince the jury otherwise. But wait! What could have the prosecution done? Could they have dared to demonstrate that burning coal is not linked to global warming?

Had that happened, the entire “Anthropogenic Global Warming is real” construct of successive UK Governments would have collapsed. No more Kyoto, no more dreams of “carbon taxes” and “carbon allowances”. Instead now, since the “phasing out” of “coal-burning power stations” has been shown as “crucial” in a court of law, either lights will starting going off in the Sceptred Isle or nuclear power will be given a very high priority.

And so in hindsight one can rest assured that under no circumstance could the UK Government afford to win the “Kingsnorth case”. And as a matter of fact, it lost it. After all, this is a crucial year for the future of Britain’s power supply. Look at another note from the Greenpeace’s article:

“Before travelling to Kent, Prof Hansen met the David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who is thought to be unhappy about the plan for Kingsnorth, which is being promoted by John Hutton, the Business Secretary. Mr Brown will have the final say later this year.”

Greenpeace 1 - Coal power 0? More like Miliband 1 - Hutton 0. Read more here.