Kramm steps on another rake

Just when you think that Michael Fumento has retired the Golden Rake Award, Gerlich and Tscheuschner (also here) send Gehard Kramm up to the plate again (#999)

The sole question is: Is the criticism of Gerlich & Tscheuschner on the explanation of the greenhouse effect justified or not?

The basis for this explanation is the equation of the planetary radiation balance given in my comment #770. When we recognize that, in contrast to the common assumption, the Earth not a blackbody radiator is, then this radiation balance must read

(1 – a) S/4 = eps sigma T_e^4 .

The symbols are explained in my comment #770, with exception of eps, a planetary emissivity. If we use a value for eps less than unity, we will obtain an equilibrium temperature T_e higher than 255 K. For eps = 0.61 the temperature T_e amounts to 288 K. In such a case there would be no greenhouse effect. This means that this simple instance of a planetary radiation balance is inappropriate to explain the greenhouse effect, as correctly stated by Gerlich & Tscheuschner.

UPDATE: One of the anonymice has found where 0.61 comes from, the Wikipedia, go RTFR

Now, true this is an advance over G&T (light on the G please, Eli has work to do) who manage to completely bollix the thing by using the solar intensity in orbit in the plane perpendicular to the sun rather than the average intensity on a m^2 of the earth. This means that G&T take the average intensity of the sun on the ground to be four times higher than it is even without correction for the aldebo. In Kramm's equation G&T are taking S to be ~1368 W/m^2 as can be seen in the section of page 61 of their Arxiv manuscript

If one accounts for both the geometric correction and the earths average albedo using a reasonable estimate of a~.3 then eps = (1-.3)*1/4 = . and T for the ground is ~255 K. This is a major error by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. After that you can basically say never mind and walk away with your ears covering your mouth to avoid laughing. It won't work.

However, Kramm goes this one better by taking eps, the emissivity of the earth to be what G&T should have taken the aldebo, a, to be.

But what is the emissivity of the earth. Good of you to ask little mice. In the visible 0.61 ain't bad, but the infrared, that is a very different story. Try between 0.95 and 1.00. If you don't trust Eli look at the MODIS emissivity data base
and for those who like to plot here are values btw .97 and .98 for a wind roughened sea.

It's not as if Kramm hasn't been told about all this by Arthur Smith who went over the whole, according to Kramm, vitally important section 3.7, with an even finer comb at dot earth #776.

In section 3.7.1, Introduction, they set the agenda: “Though there exists a huge family of generalizations, one common aspect is the assumption of a radiative balance, which plays a central role in the publications of the IPCC and, hence, in the public propaganda. In the following it is proved that this assumption is physically wrong.”

So they are setting out to demolish the idea of radiative balance. Let’s see how they do.

Section 3.7.2 - A note on “radiation balance” diagrams. They claim “the popular climatologic radiation balance diagrams describing quasi-one-dimensional situations (cf. Figure 23) are scientific misconduct since they do not properly represent the mathematical and physical fundamentals.”

In fact, the radiation balance diagrams are completely physically well defined as an integral of radiative (or convective/evaporative) energy flux over the globe, averaged over time, at the various physically relevant altitudes. The fluxes are usually expressed in the diagrams in watts per square meter; that should make pretty clear what these diagrams refer to.

Nevertheless, they insist the diagrams are nonsense since the authors claim they don’t fit into one of the categories they believe they should fit into. In particular, they claim the diagrams “cannot represent radiation intensities” and refer back to two earlier sections (2.1.2 and 2.1.5) that talk about the details of radiation fields. They don’t even seem to consider the integration across Earth’s surface that makes a one-dimensional analysis as shown in the radiative diagrams perfectly well-defined.

One value of radiation balance diagrams is in forcing conservation of energy on the system - what goes in has to come out or, in the case of imbalance, has to warm or cool the planet beneath.

So the authors somehow are unable to understand a well-defined basic concept. Moving on…

Section 3.7.3: the case of purely radiative balance. Here they start off with an elementary error: equation 73 is valid only for a flat planet always facing the sun. Their numbers in table 10 are ridiculously wrong as a result. And why do they call epslion “phenomenological”? It’s a measurable albedo factor for sunlight, not some parameter somebody would adjust to fit some other agenda.

They correct themselves reluctantly in equation 76 (and 80) and table 11, but hit themselves with another elementary error in the claim that setting the albedo to 0.7 means you are saying “a grey body absorber is a black body radiator, contrary to the laws of physics.”

In fact, the low temperature of Earth’s surface relative to the sun means the spectrum radiated is at much longer wavelengths than the incoming radiation. And at those long wavelengths Earth is in fact essentially a full absorbing black body, while it is partially reflective for the incoming short-wave radiation. Those conditions are perfectly consistent with the laws of physics - and are exactly what happens here on this planet.

So error upon error upon error here. Well, what comes next?

Section 3.7.4 - “The average temperature of a radiation-exposed globe”. Here they put up a straw-man atmosphere-free planet and look at how averaging works for temperature, and for temperature to the fourth power. Obviously, you get different numbers. But that has little relevance to any argument any climatologist ever makes. When the temperatures are relatively close, as they are on our actual planet, the two averages come much closer. But in their straw man planet where the sun is always in the same position overhead on one side and never seen on the other, they get a much lower average temperature. Fine as a calculation - relevant? Even the Moon has an average temperature of some -23 degrees C, because it doesn’t lose all its heat on the dark side during the two-week night-time. The climatologist’s effective temperature is much closer to the real number for an actual rotating planet with a nonzero heat capacity.

Section 3.7.5 - “Non-existence of the natural greenhouse effect”. Here they take their -129 C average temperature on their straw-man planet and the fact that actual temperatures are about +15 C, and claim that the resulting 144 C “physical” greenhouse effect is evidence that “something must be fundamentally wrong here”. The only thing wrong is their idea that their straw-man is what anybody else is talking about.

The rest of this section comes from their confusion about the radiation balance arguments and what climate scientists mean when talking about cause and effect. They claim that “the radiation is locally determined by the local temperature.” Cause and effect here are simple: incoming solar energy and energy coming from the atmosphere heats the surface. Outgoing radiation (and other energy) from the surface is determined by whatever temperature the surface has gotten to. The radiation balance diagrams explain what happens when everything is back in a steady-state situation, but the instantaneous cause and effect is clear. The authors are making extraordinary claims here.

The next section rehashes the fourth-power vs first-power averaging problem. This only proves that a 30-degree temperature range across a new-straw-man planet makes less than half a degree difference to the average with the two methods. So a realistic planetary model, rather than their original straw man, might need a greenhouse effect of 33.5 degrees rather than 33. The authors ironically claim at this point they have proved there is “no longer any room for a natural greenhouse effect”. They have of course proved no such thing.

Section 3.7.7 is just incoherent. There is no global mean temperature? They’ve just calculated one, twice! Maybe a global mean fourth-power-of-temperature would be more physically relevant - but that’s exactly what the radiation diagrams look at (energy fluxes, which vary as fourth power of temperature).

3.7.8 and 3.7.9 finally look at a rotating globe with a (unexplained?) heat capacity lambda. They seem to believe no computer could solve their equations - well, no, they can’t be solved in analytic closed form. But they provide a very simple model that in fact is almost trivially integrable - engineers tackle differential equations ten times as hard before breakfast every morning. Really, “Rough estimates indicate that even these oversimplified problems cannot be tackled with any computer”!!! And when you solve it, you’ll get numbers very much like what you see on the Moon.

Section 3.7.10 seems to be an attempt to add an atmosphere to their straw-man models, but I doubt it would add much enlightenment. The more heat capacity you add to the system, the closer you get to the “effective” temperature that climatologists talk about, rather than their straw-man “physical” temperature.

Section 3.7.11 finally discusses CO2, based on some ancient papers from a fellow named Schack. I don’t think we need to delve into this too much, but their one statement that “He did not get the absurd idea to heat the radiating warmer ground with the radiation absorbed and re-radiated by the gas.” indicates pretty clearly that the authors of this paper are still very confused about radiation balance diagrams and the way the real greenhouse effect works.

And that’s it for the tremendously important section 3.7. Did we learn anything? The authors made many errors, displayed ignorance of several critical topics they claimed to be conversant with. They set up several straw-man models to attack them because of their unphysical nature, then set up a slightly more realistic straw-man and claimed it was too hard to solve. Nowhere did they prove anything about CO2 not causing greenhouse warming - they didn’t even get into discussing the meaning of the radiation balance diagrams that proves this, because they dismiss them out of hand.

Not a promising start. Is there another section of this paper you somehow feel is more representative? I’d be happy to demolish that too.

Rakes, more rakes please.

Ethon brings news

After a short visit in Ethon flew in bearing a letter from the Registrar of Cambridge University in England (he went up there to bird on the fens and visit Stoat. Stoat is taking inventory of the much depleted larder. Eli had been wondering about our friend Richard S. Courtney, often called doc by Marc Morano and other basic denialists. Based on his own description, Richard is clearly no Ph.D. or D. Phil, but maybe he is a DiplPhil (holder of a Diploma - a low post-graduate qualification)

Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath).

The Registrar writes

From: "Student Records' Secretary"
Date: February 6, 2008 5:52:04 AM CST
Subject: RE: Degree Verification for Richard S. Courtney

Dear Sir,

Richard S Courtney

Further to your letter dated 5 February 2008, I am writing to say that we have no record of the above named as having registered as a student at this University under the spelling of the names you have given.

We wish to advise you that the Dip.Phil is not a degree that is offered or awarded by the University of Cambridge.

Yours sincerely,
Judith Dyer
Senior Records Assistant
Student Administration & Records
10 Peas Hill
Cambridge
CB2 3PN

So which university in what Cambridge did Richard Courtney get a Diploma in Philosophy from in which department having to do with materials science and when? This is not exactly an idle question as Courtney has testified before both houses of the UK Parliament as well as the US Congress as an expert on climate related matters.

A light dawns (and the sun sets)

G. Kramm over at dotearth.com #717 finally makes clear to Eli what Gerlich and Tscheuschner were trying to express in their Arxiv manuscript Falsifiation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within The Frame Of Physics,. It remains wrong.

Kramm writes

“Please explain, for instance, in which way the tropopause region for which the so-called anthropogenic radiative forcing was estimated can warm the earth’s surface which has a temperature of about 65 K higher than the tropopause region. This is not possible without any kind of compensating changes. If it would be then we would be able to build a perpetual motion machine of second kind.”

Actually he wrote this a few times # 457

(4) Do you believe that the tropopause region for which the anthropogenic radiative forcing is calculated can warm the nearly 65 K warmer Earth’s surface without any compensating changes?

(5) Is it true that a perpetual motion machine of second kind can exist?

(6) Give the various citations of greenhouse effect explanations listed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner evidence that this greenhouse effect really exist?

(7) Is the current explanation of the greenhouse effect physically correct?

before the curtain fell from Eli's eyes. Eli also had the usual kindly personal missive from Tscheuschner. Needless to say the greenhouse effect does not require a perpetual motion machine of any kind, but as we will see the terminology used to describe the greenhouse effect can mislead the willing.

At equilibrium the Earth (including the atmosphere) must radiate the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the sun. If the amount of absorption is greater than the emission then something has to change so that the emission increases. As a general rule this means something has to warm up. Remember that radiation from the Earth in this context includes the atmosphere.

Without greenhouse gases the surface temperature would be about -20 C ON AVERAGE (right now the temperature in Barrow Alaska). Greenhouse gases absorb energy radiated from the surface, blocking a portion of the radiation that is emitted from the surface so it can’t escape to space directly. A further portion of the atmospherically absorbed radiation is later radiated to space, a portion is radiated down to the ground and absorbed there. GT&K object that this contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

It does not. The net energy flow from the warmer surface flowing into the colder atmosphere is positive. There is no violation of the second law. We can see this using a detailed illustration of the energy balance

The surface loses energy to the atmosphere by convection (thermals) 24 W/m2, evaporation 78 W/m2 and surface radiation 350 W/m2. An additional 40 W/m2 radiates directly from the surface to space. 452 W/m2 is transferred to the atmosphere from the surface. 324 W/m2 is radiated from the atmosphere to the surface. On net 128 W/m2 moves from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. Net energy is moving from the warmer body to the colder body. The second law is fine with that. Energy is also moving from the hotter sun to the surface (168 W/m2) and from the hotter sun to the cooler atmosphere (67 W/m2). Again, the second law is fine with that.

So, how do greenhouse gases “warm” the surface. Note the scare quotes. One can formulate the process as the back radiation from the greenhouse gases warming the surface, but on net, radiation from the surface is larger than the back radiation. Greenhouse gases don't so much warm the surface as slow the NET energy flow from the surface to the atmosphere and from the surface and atmosphere to space. If you turned the sun off, the ground would cool because the NET energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere and to space. But the sun rises and pours energy onto the ground. In that case the NET energy flow onto the ground is positive, composed of a solar and a back radiation component. This requires the surface to warm until radiative balance is achieved.

The point that GT&K miss is that what is warming the ground is solar radiation + the back radiation from the atmosphere.

Let us just look at the radiation part of the problem and ignore latent heat and convection (the numbers are not accurate but indicative. See the figure for more accurate numbers). If the intensity of the sun at the surface was 300 W/m2 without greenhouse gases the surface would warm until 300 W/m2 were radiated to space from the surface. With greenhouse gases (for arguments sake) 200 are radiated to space and 100 to the atmosphere, of which 50 are radiated back to the surface and 50 to space. The sunlight is still pouring in at 300 W/m2 so the energy flow to the surface is 350 (300+50) in and 300 out (200+100) of which 250 make it to space. The net energy input to the surface which includes both the solar and the back radiation is +50. This will warm the surface beyond what it was at without the greenhouse gases until enough emission is generated that the radiation to space equals the radiation from the sun. The effect is a combination of solar radiative heating and the fact that the greenhouse gases block a portion of the long wavelength radiation to space and return it to the surface.

If one increases the amount of greenhouse gas, the absorption surface longwave radiation will increase, the amount of back radiation will increase, less radiation will escape to space until the surface and the atmosphere warm enough to restore the balance.

UPDATE: Flavius Collium has a better way of putting this (see comments)

I'd summarize it that the greenhouse gases "hinder the cooling of earth's surface".

Same if you use a resistor to heat a less insulated object vs a more insulated one - the insulation in both cases will always be colder than the object but the better insulated one will reach a warmer steady state.

Eli also corrected some minor misspeaks (see comments)

All functions belong to the firm of Mclaren Maclaurin and Taylor in the short term

See UPDATE BELOW and FURTHER UPDATE

Further UPDATE: His original mistake has cost Eli no end of aggro, coupled with more than a bit of chocolate flung his way by Msr. Pielke, however, being a thinking bunny, he has gone back and thought. What we all have missed, and what explains the results in the chart below is that the Maclaurin series is a power series expansion around a point

where the function and its derivatives are evaluated at a not constantly changing. This continues at the return of Maclaurin and Taylor. In the end, using a linear approximation within the range of temperature found on Earth is perfectly reasonable no matter what the Old Guy says


Ethon flew back from Boulder where he had been keeping company with the math department while Roger Pielke Sr. was retaking Cal I. To tell the truth the JGR D editors could use a refresher too. Atmoz first pointed Eli to this, so when Eth came flying in Rabett Labs was up and running. Were Eli a cynical Brit he would think the old Guy might be the only person trying to enter the IPCC with honourable intentions:

The definition of the global average surface temperature used by the IPCC and others can be expressed as

dH/dt = f -T’/λ

where H is the heat content of the land-ocean-atmosphere system, f is the radiative forcing (i.e. the radiative imbalance), T’ is the change global average surface temperature in response to the change in H, and λ is called the “climate feedback” parameter which defines the rate at which the climate system returns forcing to space as infrared radiation and/or as changes in reflected solar radiation (such as from changes in clouds, sea ice, snow, vegetation, etc).

There is a fundamental problems, however, with the use of this equation for the description for global warming.

T is defined in the above equation as a global proxy for the thermodynamic state of the climate system. As such, it must be tightly coupled to that thermodynamic state of the climate system. Specifically, in this context, T is the global average radiative temperature of the Earth’s surface since the outgoing radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere is determined to a large extent by the surface radiative temperature. However, this outgoing longwave radiation is proportional to the fourth power of T. T’ = +1 C in the polar latitudes in the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect on the change of longwave emission than T’=+1°C increase in the tropics. The spatial distribution of T’ matters, whereas the equation given above ignores the consequences of spatially varying values of T’.

which he elaborates in the comments at Atmoz (At does a pretty good job of demolishing this himself)

To assess the use of the global average of [T**4 - (T+T’)**4], the spatial map of this field should be presented. This would show where the change to the value of sigma T**4 is the largest. Please show this. The plot of “normal” and ‘average” radiative temperature is not what we are proposing.

Indeed, it is easy to show that weighting by (T+T’)**4 significantly emphasizes the lower latitudes, since the relationship is to the 4th power of temperature. I look forward to your analysis as we have recommended.

Eli pointed out that since Maclauren and Taylor tell us something more

(T+T’)^4 = T^4*(1+T’/T)^4

assuming T’<<>

(1+T’/T)^4 ~ 1 + 4 T’/T+ higher order smaller terms, and then

[T**4 - (T+T’)**4] = 4 T’

UPDATE 2/6/08: As pointed out in the comments Eli screwed this up
[T^4 - (T+T’)^4] = T^4-T^4*(1 + 4 T’/T) = T^4* 4 T’/T= 4T'*T^3
good thing no one reads this blog. The change in emission depends on T^3 for a constant change T'. OTOH for the 250-350 K interval this is also pretty well approximated by a linear function in T.

so as long as T’ is small compared to T (1K/300K is pretty small) the change in radiation is linear in T’ EVERYWHERE so Roger’s ”

“Indeed, it is easy to show that weighting by (T+T’)**4 significantly emphasizes the lower latitudes, since the relationship is to the 4th power of temperature. I look forward to your analysis as we have recommended.”

is just wrong, as anyone who learned about series expansions of functions in Cal I would know. Given the back and forth with Roger Pielke Jr. about Hansen's 1988 scenarios being exponential or linear, this failing appears to be genetic.

Above, Eli has shown that the CHANGE, in blackbody emission for a body at any temperature T by a small amount T' is linear in the change in temperature. This means that if you are looking at changes in emission due to changes in temperature, it doesn't much matter if you take it as functions of T'^4 power or T'.

UPDATE: This still holds

Yet, young bunnies, lets see how well a linear form fits the Stefan-Boltzmann curve itself over a reasonable temperature range of 250 to 320 K (-23 to +47 C, ethical science bunnies don't do no F).

The red line (the red S-B curve) fit's pretty well to a linear function of temperature (the straight line). Tant pis Roger.

On the astounding DipPhil Courtney

Interesting byplay broke out last week on dot.earth. Ray Pierrehumbert has been replying to Marc Morano's fulminations by listing the qualifications of selected individuals in the 400 399 Club. Marc had put forth a short reprise of his most distinguished including (in #314)

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

In a reply to Pierrehumbert's investigation of his qualifications, Courtney, who somehow forgets to tell everyone that he does not hold a doctorate (see below) made an astounding claim (#558 in a thread approaching usenet length):

Importantly, Pierrehumbert implies that I am not an IPCC Expert Peer Reviewer. I was appointed to peer review the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC Chairman) personally asked me to work on the current IPCC Synthesis Report.

NOAA and the IPCC issued blanket invitations to everyone to look at the AR4 and submit reviews. Besides the announcements on the net there may have been a mailings. Some that were returned were useful some not, but Mr. Courtney implies a higher level, so Eli would ask him for proof of that claim.

The claim that the IPCC Chairman personally asked Courtney to work on the current IPCC Synthesis Report is truly astounding and requires a much higher level of proof. This is a claim that Pachauri personally invited Courtney to be an author on the Synthesis Report which is the highest level of the AR4 and approved line by line by all governments. Nomination requests for authors on IPCC reports go to governments and international and national organization not to individuals.

IEHO unless Courtney can provide additional information, this has to be filed somewhere between an extremely self-generous interpretation or hallucination. Having dealt with the Moranos and Courtneys of the world Eli has little doubt there is some implausible, strange and complex justification out there, but would be amused to see it and it might even make a nice article in the NY Times. To paraphrase Eli's thoughts (this is an R-rated blog and we have to keep it clean for the bunnies) there is no way anyone would have asked someone like this guy to come anywhere close to an IPCC report.

Still, we should discuss what Ray found (#550) (Ray in blue, Courtney in red, Eli in black)

Part I: In search of Richard S. Courtney

Dear Mr. Morano,

Let’s talk about Dr. Richard S. Courtney, whom you list as an Expert Reviewer of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and a “Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Consultant.” Dr. Courtney is one of your highlighted skeptics, featured at the top of your report, so I figure he must be something really special. As justification for the rather remarkable claims he makes, you provide a link to what turns out to be an op-ed in the newspaper Canada Free Press. I’ll come back later to the arguments stated in that article, but first it would be nice to know a bit more about Dr Courtney’s training and area of expertise.

Ray, is far too trusting. He should read Rabett Run. As Eli pointed out in December 2007 Richard is a charter member of Stoat's official nutters list. Belette mentioned that the rumor was that Courtney was skating about on his qualifications. Eli located them (page 17)

Richard is also an Accredited Methodist Preacher. He is a founding Member of the Christ and the Cosmos Initiative that explores the interactions of religious and scientific ideas. The Initiative started in the UK but became active in 28 countries.

Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath).

A DipPhil is not a Doctor of Philosopy, but a Diploma in Philosophy. The University of Cambridge offers one year postgraduate courses leading to Diplomas, but not in Philosophy, at least not now however there are other, less distinguished universities in Cambridge such as Anglia Ruskin.(corrected 2/5, Angelia weeps). It would be nice knowing what field and what University those Diploma's came from. Eli also notices that there are not a whole lot of references to DipPhil (170 in google), and it is very easy for the unwary to confuse this with a Doctorate in Philosophy or DPhil (277,000 in google) We could speculate further, but as Desmogblog put it with their usual delicacy

But Richard Courtney is hardly a source to be taken seriously. In fact, there is every reason to believe that if he has a Ph.D. at all, he got it out of a box of cracker jacks.

However, Richard has managed to get himself as an expert witness in front of a House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and also the House of Lords Select Committee on the Environment. Tim Ball is jealous. Ray continued

That isn’t exactly easy to find out. The article you link provides a bio of Courtney’s co-author, but not of Courtney himself. Courtney’s former organization (the “European Science and Environment Forum”) has vanished without a trace. For what it’s worth, the Sourcewatch article on Courtney describes him as:

“a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK). [1] In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management.”

Courtney’s consulting business seems to have no web presence. No CV or bio has turned up, and it appears to be unknown whether he really does have a doctorate, and if so where it is from and what field it is in. Heartland Institute lists him as a global warming expert here but the link to the bio appears to be a completely different Richard S. Courtney — a young associate professor in urban studies who lives in Pennsylvania, not the UK. Will the real Richard S. Courtney please stand up? The fact that your own Richard S. Courtney was an IPCC “Expert Reviewer” tells us little about him since almost anybody can request a draft of the report, submit comments, and count themselves as an “Expert.” This is good, because it opens up the reports to comments from a wide audience, but it also means that the term “Expert” here conveys little information.

Courtney responded in # 558

Re: #550 By Pierrehumbert

I see no reason to defend myself against the slurs and falsehoods presented by Pierrehumbert. Those who want correct information on me can get it from page 17 of the item at http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20060331_wind.pdf

This is the same source that Eli found earlier at Heartland and says no more or less other than Richard is currently an inhabitant of Cornwall a point of great interest to Courtney who puts on the harumphing cloak and rises in high dudgeon to berate Ray Pierrehumbert for falsely accusing him of being an Epsomite or a Surrey Man, Eli forgets which, it being of no import.

The veracity and value of Pierrehumbert’s comments is demonstrated by his claim that I live in Epsom. My complete address is stated in the above reference that he could have found merely by googling. (In fact, I have never lived in Epsom, never visited or passed through Epsom, and – to my knowledge – never flown over there.)

We would count our ears before betting on the last with DiplPhil Courtney. There follows more irrelevancy as Cortney sets the mark up.

However, he does correctly say I do not have a website and do not advertise my services. I mostly work for politicians (several countries) and my client list is confidential. I have good reasons not to advertise.

His attack on my credentials is a scurrilous smear that I reject with contempt.

Importantly, Pierrehumbert implies that I am not an IPCC Expert Peer Reviewer.

What Pierrehumbert SAID was that Courtney was not an expert

The fact that your own Richard S. Courtney was an IPCC “Expert Reviewer” tells us little about him since almost anybody can request a draft of the report, submit comments, and count themselves as an “Expert.” This is good, because it opens up the reports to comments from a wide audience, but it also means that the term “Expert” here conveys little information.

and then Courtney makes the same empty claim that Morano made and Ray P. pointed out

I was appointed to peer review the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA),

and the extraordinary one.

and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC Chairman) personally asked me to work on the current IPCC Synthesis Report.

It seems that Pierrehumbert is not very good at what he does. He cannot even mount an effective or reasonable smear campaign. I shall take no notice of him or any further smears he cares to proclaim. Entering a defence of myself would require that I lower myself to his level.

However, I would accept his apology if he were man enough to provide it.

All the best

Richard

And Ray is silly enough to fall for this rather than challenging it

#554

Dear Mr. Courtney,

I appreciate the additional information you provided, but you make several untrue statements in your comment #558. First, I did not say or imply that you weren’t an Expert Reviewer. What I said was that the designation in itself does not provide a great deal of information. I will naturally take you at your word as to how you came to be a reviewer, but that is not information that I could have been expected to know from any public sources.

Further, you say that I claimed you live in “Epsom, Surrey.” I said no such thing. Having failed to find biographical information in either the Free Press biographical link or by other means, I quoted the only other biographical information that I could find, prefacing it clearly with “for what it’s worth,” since I could not substantiate it independently. In fact, that biographical information turned out to be largely correct, except for your address.

I will admit that I did not think to check your report on wind power for biographical data, since the report was posted on Heartland and I assumed their bio of you would be correct if it were available. Perhaps that link has been corrected by now. For that one oversight alone, I will offer an apology. The main new bit of information in the bio, which I did not have from other sources, is that it clears up the confusion expressed on SourceWatch as to what subject your degrees are in.

But my main point all along, has been to examine the actual arguments people have made about climate, not to quarrel with their qualifications (though knowing something about educational and professional activities does provide useful background, which I am now grateful to have in more complete form.) So, since the quotes that Mr. Morano featured in his listing of you dealt with climate predictions, I am really eager to know what is the scientific basis of your claims. Based on the additional biographical information you pointed me towards, I am happy to defer to your expertise in matters of mining and coal engineering, but I am still looking for some basis for your statements on climate.

In my Part II, I discussed my reading of all of your published journal writing which I could find, and did not find any support for your statements there. In the bio you provide, by the way, you claim to have published “papers” in Nature, but all I found there were two Letters to the Editor. Have I missed something?

Now about that word “smear.” I really don’t know how anybody can construe my curiosity about educational background, publications and scientific arguments as “smear,” but if anybody has taken it that way, it was certainly not my intent. In some cases, I do take issue with the way Mr. Morano has described some of the people on his list (particularly the overly broad designation “Prominent Scientists” at the top), but many of the people on the list did not ask to be put there, and cannot be faulted for the way Mr. Morano has described them.

But please let’s try to remember the main thing I’m trying to dig out: Anybody can express an opinion — but on what arguments are those opinions founded and to what extent have they stood up to the test of review by the scientific community? In focusing on that, I believe I am completely in accord with what Roger Pielke Jr. wrote in his blog about the recent exchanges here.

— Posted by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

Of course, there are a lot of places that refer to Our Dick as Richard Courtney, Ph.D., Dr. Richard Courtney. You would think that Richard would be writing them to correct this error. The Heartland paper is interesting, others would do well to read a response from the American Wind Energy Association. Give Ray credit, he did eventually get Andrew Revkin to post Part II #578.

#578 ——-Richard S. Courtney Part II: The arguments

Now let’s take a look at what Richard S. Courtney has written. A search of Science Citation Index under “Courtney RS” turns up a total of seven written documents (excluding another RS Courtney who has worked on personnel management).

One of these is a two page discussion summary on Environmental Economics in a 1995 issue of the Journal of Power and Energy and all the rest are Letters to the Editor. Three of the Letters to the Editor are in the popular science magazine New Scientist. The most recent of these is on butterfly wings, and the next most recent concerns a patent dispute over a wind energy generating device. The oldest letter in New Scientist (1991) is titled “Not So Little.” I haven’t read that and can’t comment.

There is one Letter to the Editor that appeared in the journal SPECTROCHIMICA ACTA PART A, pertaining to an article that appeared in that journal that claimed to prove that neither water vapor nor CO2 could act as a greenhouse gas. The article itself was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of local thermodynamic equilibrium. This was set right in a reviewed Technical Comment in the same journal by Houghton. There are several other reviewed technical comments on the paper, but Courtney’s comment for some reason was published as a Letter to the Editor instead. I’ve read this letter and it doesn’t say much. It criticizes an analogy used in one of the technical comments and basically praises the original paper without addressing Houghton’s rebuttal. In any event, the original paper, like the opus by Gerlich, would — if true — disprove all greenhouse effects of water vapor and CO2 everywhere, not just the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. If either Mr. Morano or Richard S. Courtney know of some way to account for the temperature of Venus or the Earth without any greenhouse effect whatever, I would be delighted to know of it.

Then there are two Letters to the Editor in Nature. Note that these are correspondence, not the short reviewed articles which in Nature go by the name of “Letters.” The first letter, titled “On Changing Water into Wine” deals with the psychological basis for religion. The second is a five-paragraph comment concerning the procedure the IPCC used to handle a flawed chapter in the Working Group III economics report, at the time of the Second Assessment report. This may be a useful statement of Dr. Courtney’s opinion on one facet of long-past IPCC procedure, but it provides no justification for the rather remarkable opinions about climate science voiced in the quotes you reproduce on the Inhofe 400 web site.

So, failing to find any sound published basis for Courtney’s skepticism — indeed hardly any published basis of any sort — I turn at least to the arguments expressed in the two paragraphs of the Canada Free Press op-ed which dealt with climate science and which presented arguments rather than just making declarations. The arguments amount to the following: (a) Global Warming stopped in 1998, and (b) Antarctic cooling is inconsistent with anthropogenic global warming. The first is a common fallacy that arises from fitting a trend line to the endpoints of a short time series. For a discussion of this point, see the recent article “Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison” on RealClimate.org . The statement about Antarctica is just untrue; the small Antarctic interior cooling seen in a relatively short recent part of the record can be adequately accounted for in terms of ozone depletion and atmospheric circulation changes, even in the face of increasing CO2. That is discussed in the article “Antarctic Cooling, Global Warming,” Dec. 3,2004, on RealClimate.org. And you needn’t believe RealClimate; you can just go directly to the peer-reviewed articles cited there.

So that sums up what I have been able to find of Richard S. Courtney’s arguments. No peer reviewed articles in any journal that shows up in Web of Science, two marginally relevant Letters to the Editor, of which one is essentially an endorsement of a paper proved to be wrong, and two fallacious arguments expressed briefly in a Canada Free Press op-ed.

If I have overlooked anything I should have discussed, please do let me know and I’ll have a look at it.

— Posted by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

Eli has taken out his flamethrower. Let's see if it gets posted at dot.earth

Please patronize our advertisers

With the rise of the blorg and various Elmer Fuddish activity down under and up north, the costs of operating this emporium have risen. Thus Eli has been forced to take advertising in the hope that Google will make him an offer he can't refuse. All funds will go to the Bunny Friend Alliance.

Come fly with me

One of the discussion groups that Eli follows recently linked to a survey on conference travel and carbon offsets. Rather than swamping the survey, Rabett labs will simply put up the questions and Eli's answers. See what your take is. A large part of the issue is that the bunny would be a lot happier paying a surcharge that was imposed on everyone for travel to cover the externality of carbon pollution than volunteer. This is part of his prejudice against free riders and frankly Jean Jacques Rousseau was full of crap and so is Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

All the questions have the usual five point scales,

1. I'll die for that,
2. Seems good to me,
3. Whatever,
4. You gotta be kidding and
5. Over my dead body

being good representations and there is room for comments for each question

1. Do you feel that CO2 offsets make a difference?
2. How large or small of a difference do you feel that CO2 offsets make?3. What alternative(s) do you propose to CO2 offsets, if applicable? (essay only)4. Would you be willing to pay money from a grant or other funding source to offset the CO2 used on your business-related travels?5. If you could not be reimbursed for CO2 offset expenses, would you be willing to pay out of your own pocket? 6. Should conference/workshop organizers include this fee in their registration fee and then pay for compensating the CO2? 7. Do you have any suggestion as to which CO2 offset company or organization you think is best?



Eli's answers were

1. Somewhat (2) They would only become significant if applied universally
2. Somewhat (2)
3. Eli Rabett's simple plan to save the world
4. No (5), this would be a large fiduciary stretch
5. Definitely (1), Eli intends to do so (1) since thinking about the survey.
6. No, see answer to 4, however the conference fees could be used to buy offsets for the conference activities themselves. That's a lot of hot air for most conferences
7. Eli needs to go look for offsets that benefit developing countries who are experiencing costs due to climate change.

To understand Eli's position on why it would be much better to have mandatory charges reigning in the free market fairy we have this amusing take

The Free Market Fairy is invoked to solve all problems with no explanation given for its wondrous powers, just look at the magical incantation: highlight a problem, invoke free markets, and poof, out pops the desired result. The most important aspect of the Free Market Fairy is that it is magical, with magical devices having three hallmarks; they work outside normal physics, they are outside science (they may be invoked by mere muggles but can never be comprehended by them), and finally they have intent (either good or evil).

What works is a combination of regulation taxation and social pressure such as killed off plastic bags in Ireland.

In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.
“When my roommate brings one in the flat it annoys the hell out of me,” said Edel Egan, a photographer, carrying groceries last week in a red backpack.

WGIII o gee (added to last 1/31/08)

Well, here is the list of WGIII authors. WGIII was charged with figuring out how to mitigate problems arising from climate change based on the WGI (scientific basis) and WGII (impacts, adaptation and vulnerability), so they needed economists, agronomists, and oil company people as well as climate scientists. Again, using Google Scholar it is pretty easy to see that these folk had been working on climate related problems. Eli has provided a sample publication for the first 14 or so

1. ACHARD, Frédéric, Joint Research Centre of the EC, Italy, France Determination of Deforestation Rates of the World's Humid Tropical Forests - all 23 versions »
F Achard, HD Eva, HJ Stibig, P Mayaux, J Gallego, … - Science, 2002 - sciencemag.org
A recently completed research program (TREES) employing the global imaging
capabilities of Earth-observing satellites provides updated information on the
status of the world's humid tropical forest cover. Between 1990 and 1997,

2. ADEGBULUGBE, Anthony, (see p.3) Centre for Energy Research and Development, Nigeria, Energy Use and CO 2 Emissions in the West and Central African Region AO Adegbulugbe, GA Oladosu - Energy Policy, 1994 - ideas.repec.org .

3. AHMED, Mohammed Abdelrafie, University of Khartoum, Faculty of Engineering & Architecture, Sudan

4. AHUJA, Dilip, National Institute of Advanced Studies, India, Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming - DA Lashof, DR Ahuja - Nature, 1990 - nature.com

5. AKUMU, Grace, Climate Network Africa, Kenya, OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
G Akumu - teri.res.in Ahmed Grace Akumu 1 This paper highlights gross inequities inherent in
human society which will be exacerbated by climate change. ...

6. ALFSEN, Knut H., Statistics Norway, Norway, Impacts of an EC carbon/energy tax and deregulating thermal power supply on CO 2, SO 2 and NO x … KH Alfsen, H Birkelund, M Aaserud - Environmental and Resource Economics, 1995 - Springer Abstract. Emission of CO2, SO2 and NOx are all closely linked to the burning of fossil fuels. Here we report on simulations done by linking a Sectoral European Energy Model (SEEM), covering energy demand in nine Western European ...

7. ALHARTHI, Awwad, Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia, Pore pressure versus confining pressure and their effect on oil–water relative permeability curves A Al-Quraishi, M Khairy - Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2005 - Elsevier MNJ Al-Awad, Relationship Between Reservoir Productivity and Pore Pressure

8. AMANN, Marcus, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria, Calculating emission control scenarios and their costs in the RAINS model: Recent experience and …
J COFALA, M AMANN, Z KLIMONT - Pollution atmosphérique, 2000 - cat.inist.fr .. experience and future needs. Janusz COFALA, Marcus AMANN, Zbigniew KLIMONT Pollution atmosphérique OCT, 37-47, Lavoisier, 2000.

9. AMBROSI, Philippe, World Bank, France, tate and trends of the carbon market 2007 (World Bank publication) K Capoor, P Ambrosi - Washington, DC, 2007

10. ANAYA, Carlos A., Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, Rainfall and labile carbon availability control litter nitrogen dynamics in a tropical dry forest - CA Anaya, F García-Oliva, VJ Jaramillo - Oecologia, 2007 - Springer Abstract N cycling in tropical dry forests is driven by rainfall seasonality but the mechanisms involved are not well understood. We studied the seasonal variation in N dynamics and microbial biomass in the surface lit- ter of a ...

11. ANDRASKO, Kenneth, USEPA, United States of America, Forest management for greenhouse gas benefits: Resolving monitoring issues across project and … - K Andrasko - Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1997 - Springe Abstract: Dcmand for new environmental services from forests requircs improvcd monitoring of these services at three scales: project-, regional-, and national-level. Most forest management activities are organized at the ...

12. APPS, Mike, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Canada, The climatic impacts of land surface change and carbon management, and the implications for climate- G Marland, RA Pielke Sr, M Apps, R Avissar, RA … - Climate Policy, 2003 - ucsusa.org ...

13. ASMUSSEN, Arne, Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria, Germany

14. AWERBUCH†, Shimon, United States of America, Investing in photovoltaics: risk, accounting and the value of new technology - S Awerbuch - Energy Policy, 2000 - Elsevier In Europe and the US, national energy planning agencies value resource alternatives using outmoded techniques, conceived around the time of the Model-T Ford. These models, long since discarded in manufacturing and other ...

15. BABIKER, Mustafa, ARAMCO, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model: revisions, sensitivities, and … MHM Babiker, JM Reilly, M Mayer, RS Eckaus, RC … - 2001 - dspace.mit.edu The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is an
organization for research, independent policy analysis, and public education in global environmental change. It seeks to provide leadership in ...

16. BARKER, Terry, University of Cambridge, Dep. of Land Economy, 4CMR, United Kingdom, Equity and Ecotax Reform in the EU: Achieving a 10per cent Reduction in C02 Emissions Using Excise … T BARKER, J KOHLER - Fiscal Studies, 1998 - Blackwell Synergy This paper inquires into changes in the distribution of expenditure and income that would follow the introduction of revenue-neutral tax changes to reduce C02 emissions across the European Union (EU). Consumer expenditures on ...

17. BASHMAKOV, Igor Alexeyevich, Center for Energy Efficiency (CENEf), Russia, An Energy Development Strategy for the USSR: Minimizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - AA Makarov, I Bashmakov - Energy policy, 1991 - ideas.repec.org

18. BEALE, Roger, Allen Consulting Group, Australia
19. BENITEZ, Pablo, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Canada, Equador, Site identification for carbon sequestration in Latin America: A grid-based economic approach - PC Benítez, M Obersteiner - Forest Policy and Economics, 2006 - Elsevier Latin America harbors a large potential for carbon sequestration and biomass production. This paper deals with the estimation of carbon supply curves for afforestation and reforestation and its implicit carbon sequestration in ...

20. BERNSTEIN, Lenny, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C., United States of America, Carbon dioxide capture and storage: a status report - L Bernstein, A Lee, S Crookshank - Climate Policy, 2006 - earthscanjournals.com Climate Policy 6 (2006) 241–246. Commentary. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: a status report.

21. BERTOLDI, Paolo, Joint Research Centre of the EC, Italy, Standby Power Use: How Big is the Problem? What Policies and Technical Solutions Can Address It? P Bertoldi, B Aebischer, C Edlington, C Hershberg, … - Proceedings of the 2002 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy, 2002 - repositories.cdlib.org ABSTRACT: Standby power, as defined in this paper, is the electricity consumed by end-use electrical equipment when it is switched off or not performing its main function. Standby power consumption represents an increasing fraction

22. BEUTHE, Michel, Facultés Universitaires Catholique de Mons, Belgium, Globalization and research issues in transportation - DG Janelle, M Beuthe - Journal of Transport Geography, 1997 - Elsevier Journal of Transport Geography Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 199-206, 1997 0 1997 Elsevier Science

23. BIROL, Fatih, International Energy Agency, France, Turkey, Prices, technology development and the rebound effect - F Birol, JH Keppler - Energy Policy, 2000 - Elsevier Energy efficiency is the critical parameter for policies that aim at reducing energy consumption while maintaining or even boosting economic growth. The two main options to influence energy efficiency are changes in relative prices, ...

24. BLOK, Kornelis, Ecofys, The Netherlands, Differentiating commitments world wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on … - H Groenenberg, D Phylipsen, K Blok - Energy Policy, 2001 - Elsevier

25. BOARDMAN, Brenda, Oxford ECI, United Kingdom, Lower Carbon Futures for European Households T Fawcett, K Lane, B Boardman - 2000 - eci.ox.ac.uk Substantial carbon savings can be made by European households from increasing the efficiency of use of gas and electricity. Although this may not be a new message, it is still a necessary one. Kyoto targets are fast approaching, ...

26. BOER, Rizaldi, Climatology Laboratory, Indonesia, Economic Assessment of Mitigation Options for Enhancing and Maintaining Carbon Sink Capacity in … - R Boer - Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2001 - Springer Abstract. Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects may become eligible under Article 12 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Some ...

27. BOGNER, Jean E., Landfills +, Inc, and University of Illinois, United States of America, Model comparisons of methane oxidation across a management gradient: Wetlands, rice production … - JE Bogner, RL Sass, BP Walter - Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2000 - Title: Model comparisons of methane oxidation across a management gradient: Wetlands, rice production systems, and landfill. ...

28. BOSCH, Peter, Ecofys, The Netherlands

29. BOSE, Ranjan, TERI, India, Transportation in Developing Countries: Greenhouse Gas Scenarios for Delhi, India - R Bose, D Sperling - published by Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, Arlington …, In Delhi, India, transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions are expected to soar. There are policy and technology choices that could significantly lower the emissions growth rate while increasing mobility, improving air quality, ...

30. BOUILLE, Daniel, Bariloche Foundation, Argentina, Reform of the Electric Power Sector in Developing Countries: Case Study of Argentina - D Bouille, H Dubrovsky - Buenos Aires: Institute of Energy Economics, Fundacion …, 2000 - pdf.wri.org This paper was written as part of a collaborative project on power sector reform and public benefits in developing and transition economies coordinated by the World Resources Institute.

31. BRADLEY, Richard, International Energy Agency, United States of America

32. BRINKMAN, Sander, Brinkman Climate Change, Consultancy, The Netherlands

33. BROWN, Marilyn A., Georgia Institute of Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States of America, Engineering-economic studies of energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: … - MA Brown, MD Levine, JP Romm, AH Rosenfeld, JG … - Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 1998 - Annual Reviews This paper compares the results of four recent engineering-economic studies of the potential for energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The review includes a sector-by-sector assessment of specific technology ...

34. BURCH, Sarah, University of British Columbia, Canada, A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate … S Burch, J Robinson - Climate Policy, 2007 - earthscanjournals.com .

35. BURGER, Nicholas, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States of America, Should we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? An economic perspective - MJ Kotchen, NE Burger - Energy Policy, 2007 - Elsevier

36. CAI, Zucong, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.R. China
37. CALVO BUENDIA, Eduardo, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Peru
38. CHEN, Wenjun, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Canada
39. CIFUENTES, Luis, P. Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile
40. CLAPP, Christa, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, United States of America
41. CLARKE, Leon, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, United States of America
42. COCKLIN, Christopher R, James Cook University, Australia, New Zealand
43. CORFEE-MORLOT, Jan, OECD, France, United States of America
44. CRABBÉ, Philippe J., University of Ottawa, Canada, Belgium
45. DAVE, Rutu, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
46. DE LA CHESNAYE, Francisco, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, United States of America
47. DE LA RUE DU CAN, Stephane, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States of America, France
48. DELHOTAL, Casey, Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International, United States of America
49. DEN ELZEN, Michel, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
50. DIAZ, Luis F., CalRecovery, Inc., United States of America
51. DIAZ MOREJON, Cristobal Felix, Ministery of Science, Technology and the Environment, Cuba
52. DREXHAGE, John, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada
53. DUAN, Maosheng, Tsinghua University, P.R. China
54. DUTSCHKE, Michael, Biocarbon Consult, Germany
55. EDENHOFER, Ottmar, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
56. EDMONDS, Jae, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, United States of America
57. EICKHOUT, Bas, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
58. ELGIZOULI, Ismail, High Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR), Sudan
59. ELSIDDIG, Elnour Abdalla, University of Khartoum, Sudan
60. FAAIJ, Andre P.C., Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development - Utrecht University, The Netherlands
61. FENHANN, Jørgen, Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
62. FISHER, Brian S., CRA International, Australia
63. FLANNERY, Brian, Exxon Mobil Corporation, United States of America
64. FORD-ROBERTSON, Justin, Ford-Robertson Initiatives (FRI) Ltd, New Zealand
65. FRUMHOFF, Peter C., Union of Concerned Scientists, United States of America
66. GAO, Qingxian, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Science, P.R. China
67. GARG, Amit, Government of India/UNEP Risø Centre, Denmark, India
68. GASCA, Jorge, Mexican Petroleum Institute, México
69. GEHL, Stephen, EPRI, United States of America
70. GENG, Luis J., Consultant, Peru
71. GIELEN, Dolf, International Energy Agency, France, Netherlands
72. GOLAY, Michael, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States of America
73. GOLLIER, Christian, University of Toulouse, France, Belgium
74. GREENE, David L., Oak Ridge National Laboratory National Transport Research Center, United States of America
75. GREGORY, Robert, Golder Associates (UK) Ltd., United Kingdom
76. GRUBB, Michael, Carbon Trust /Cambridge University/ Imperial College London, United Kingdom
77. GRÜBLER, Arnulf, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis/Yale University, Austria
78. GULLISON, Raymond E., Hardner & Gullison Associates, LLC, Canada
79. GUPTA, Joyeeta, Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University, The Netherlands
80. GUPTA, Sujata, Asian Development Bank, Philippines, India
81. GWARY, Daniel, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria
82. HA DUONG, Minh, Cired, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France
83. HAITES, Erik, Margaree Consultants Inc., Canada
84. HALSNÆS, Kirsten, Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
85. HANAOKA, Tatsuya, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
86. HARE, Bill, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, Australia
87. HARNISCH, Jochen, Ecofys, Germany
88. HARRIS, Jeffrey, Alliance to Save Energy, United States of America
89. HARVEY, Danny, University of Toronto, Canada
90. HASHIMOTO, Seiji, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
91. HATA, Hiroshi, Railway Technical Research Institute, Japan
92. HAVES, Philip, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States of America, United Kingdom
93. HAWKINS, David, Natural Resources Defence Council, United States of America
94. HAYAMI, Hitoshi, Keio University, Japan
95. HEGGEDAL, Tom-Reiel, Statistics Norway, Norway
96. HEIJ, BertJan, The Netherlands
97. HELLER, Thomas C., Stanford University, United States of America
98. HIGUCHI, Niro, National Institute for Research in the Amazon, Brazil
99. HOHMEYER, Olav, University of Flensburg, Germany
100. HÖHNE, Niklas, Ecofys, Germany
101. HOOGWIJK, Monique, Ecofys, The Netherlands
102. HOURCADE, Jean-Charles, Cired, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France
103. HOWDEN, S. Mark, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Australia
104. IBITOYE, Francis I., Centre for Energy Research and Development, Nigeria, I, VANOVA BONCHEVA, Antonina, Autonomous University of, Southern Baja California, México
105. JANZEN, H. Henry, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada
106. JEPMA, Catrinus J., University of Groningen, The Netherlands
107. JIANG, Kejun, Energy Research Institute, P.R. China
108. JOBBAGY, Esteban, Universidad Nacional de San Luis & CONICET, Argentina
109. JOCHEM, Eberhard, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Germany
110. JOOSEN, Suzanne, Ecofys, The Netherlands
111. KAHN RIBEIRO, Suzana, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
112. KAINUMA, Mikiko, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
113. KANOAN, Gorashi Mohammed, University of Nizwa, Sultanate of Oman, Sudan
114. KARJALAINEN, Timo, Finnish Forest Research Insititute, Finland
115. KHESHGI, Haroon, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, United States of America
116. KJELDSEN, Peter, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
117. KOBAYASHI, Shigeki, Toyota Central R&D Labs, Inc, Japan
118. KOLSTAD, Charles, University of California, Santa Barbara, Dept of Economics & Bren School, United States of America
119. KONAR, Manaswita, Global Change Programme, Jadavpur University, India
120. KONSTANTINAVICIUTE, Inga, Lithuanian Energy Institute, Lithuania
121. KRANKINA, Olga, Oregon State University Department of Forest Science, United States of America, Russia
122. KRUGER, Joseph A., National Commission on Energy Policy, United States of America
123. KUIJPERS, Lambert, Technical University Eindhoven, The Netherlands
124. Kumar, Pushpam, University of Liverpool, UK, India
125. KURZ, Werner A., Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Canada
126. KVERNDOKK, Snorre, Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Norway
127. LA ROVERE, Emilio Lèbre, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
128. LANG, Siwei, China Academy of Building Research, P.R. China
129. LARSEN, Hans, Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
130. LATHAM, John, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, United States of America
131. LECOCQ, Franck, Laboratory of Forestry Economics, INRA-AgroParisTech (ENGREF), France
132. LEE, David S., Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
133. LEE, Hoesung, Council on Energy and Environment Korea/Keimyung University, Korea
134. LEFEVRE, Nicolas, International Energy Agency, France, United States of America
135. LEVERMORE, Geoffrey J., The Univerity of Manchester, United Kingdom
136. LEVINE, Mark D., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States of America
137. LLANES-REGUEIRO, Juan F., Havana University, Centre for Environmental Studies, Cuba
138. MALONE, Elizabeth L., Joint Global Change Research Institute, United States of America
139. MARECKOVA, Katarina, Umweltbundesambt, Austria, Slovakia
140. MARKANDYA, Anil, University of Bath/FEEM, Italy, United Kingdom
141. MARTINO, Daniel L., Carbosur, Uruguay
142. Martinot , Eric, Tsinghua University, P.R. China, United States of America
143. MASERA, Omar, Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, UNAM, México, Argentina
144. MASTRANDREA, Michael D., Stanford University, United States of America
145. MATSUHASI, Ryuji, Tokyo University, Japan
146. MATSUMOTO, Mitsuo, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Japan
147. MATSUOKA, Yuzuru, Kyoto University, Japan
148. MATYSEK, Anna, CRA International, Australia
149. McALLISTER, Tim, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada
150. McCARL, Bruce, Texas A&M University, United States of America
151. McFARLAND, Mack, DuPont Fluoroproducts, United States of America
152. MEHLWANA, Monga, CSIR, Natural Resources and the Environment, South Africa
153. METZ, Bert, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
154. MEYER, Leo, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
155. MICHAELOWA, Axel, University of Zurich, Switzerland, Germany
156. MINER, Reid, NCASI, United States of America
157. MIRASGEDIS, Sevastian, National Observatory of Athens, Greece
158. MOEZZI, Mithra, HELIO International, United States of America
159. MONNI, Suvi, Benviroc Ltd, Finland
160. MOOMAW, William, US The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Tufts University, United States of America
161. MOREIRA, Jose Roberto, National Reference Center on Biomass, Institute of Electr.& Energy, Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
162. MUNASINGHE, Mohan, Munasinghe Institute for Development, Sri Lanka
163. MURASE, Shinya, Faculty of Law, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan
164. MUROMACHI, Yasunori, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
165. NABUURS, Gert-Jan, Alterra, The Netherlands
166. NAJAM, Adil, Boston University Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, United States of America, Pakistan
167. NAKICENOVIC, Nebojsa, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis/Vienna University of Technology, Austria, Montenegro
168. NEWTON, Peter J., Dept. for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, United Kingdom
169. NIKITINA, Elena, Russian Academy of Science Inst.of World Economy and Int. Relations, Russia
170. NIMIR, Hassan B., University of Khartoum, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, Sudan
171. NOVIKOVA, Aleksandra, Central European University, Hungary, Russia
172. ODINGO, Richard, University of Nairobi, Kenya
173. OGLE, Stephen, Colorado State University, United States of America
174. OKAZAKI, Teruo, Nippon Steel Corporation, Japan
175. OLIVIER, Jos G.J., Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
176. O’MARA, Frank P., University College DUblin, Ireland
177. O’NEILL, Brian, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria, United States of America
178. OPSCHOOR, Hans (J.B.), Insititute of Social Studies/Free University, The Netherlands
179. OYHANTÇABAL, Walter, Minstry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries. Uruguay, Uruguay
180. PAN, Genxing, Nanjing Agricultural University, P.R. China
181. PAN, Jiahua, USDA Forest Service, P.R. China
182. PERSHING, Jonathan, World Resources Institute, United States of America
183. PETSCHEL-HELD†, Gerhard, Germany
184. PICHS, Ramon, CIEM, Cuba
185. PIPATTI, Riitta, Statistics Finland, Finland
186. PITCHER, Hugh M., Joint Global Change Research Institute, United States of America
187. PIZER, William A., Resources for the Future, United States of America
188. PLOTKIN, Steven, Argonne National Laboratory, United States of America
189. POPP, David, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, United States of America
190. PRICE, Lynn K., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States of America
191. RANA, Ashish, Reliance Industries Ltd., India
192. RAO, Shilpa, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Austria, India
193. RAVINDRANATH, N. H., Indian Institute of Science, India
194. RAYNER, Steve, James Martin Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, United States of America
195. READ, Peter, Massey University, New Zealand
196. RIAHI, Keywan, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria
197. RICE, Charles, Kansas State University, United States of America
198. RICHELS, Richard G., Electric Power Research Institute, United States of America
199. RILLING, Jacques, CSTB Building Research Center, France
200. ROBINSON, John, UBC, Canada
201. ROGNER, H-Holger, International Atomic Energy Agency, Austria, Germany
202. ROMANENKOV, Vladimir, All-Russian Institute of Agrochemistry named after D.Pryanishnikov, Russia
203. ROSE, Steven K., United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States of America
204. ROY, Joyashree, Jadavpur University, India
205. RYPDAL, Kirstin, CICERO, Norway
206. SAIJO, Tatsuyoshi, Osaka University, Japan
207. SANDERS, Johan, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands,
208. SÁNZ SÁNCHEZ, María José, Fundación CEAM, Spain
209. SARI, Agus, PT Ecosecurities, Indonesia
210. SATHAYE, Jayant, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States of America
211. SCHAEFFER, Roberto, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
212. SCHLAMADINGER, Bernhard, Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria
213. SCHLEICHER, Stefan P., University of Graz, Austria
214. SCHNEIDER, Uwe A., Hamburg University, Germany
215. SCHOCK, Robert, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory/World Energy Council United States of America/United, Kingdom, United States of America
216. SCHOLES, Robert (Bob) J., Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa
217. SEKI, Shigetaka, Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, Japan
218. SHEINBAUM PARDO, Claudia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México
219. SHUKLA, Priyadarshi, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India
220. SILVEIRA SOARES FILHO, Britaldo, Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Brazil
221. SIMS, Ralph E. H., Massey University/International Energy Agency, New Zealand
222. SIROTENKO, Oleg D., All-Russian Research Ins. For Agricultural Meteorology, Russia
223. SKJOLSVIK, Kjell Olav, Marintek, Norway
224. SMITH, Kirk R., University of California / Woods Hole Research Center, United States of America
225. SMITH, Michael H., University of Leeds, United Kingdom
226. SMITH, Peter, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
227. SOHNGEN, Brent, The Ohio State University, United States of America
228. SOKONA, Youba, Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS) Tunis, Tunisia, Mali
229. SPERLING, Daniel, University of California, Davis, United States of America
230. STRENGERS, Bart, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
231. SUGIYAMA, Taishi, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan
232. SUTAMIHARDJA, R.T.M., Ministry of Environment, Indonesia
233. SWART, Rob J., Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
234. TANAKA, Kanako, International Energy Agency, France, Japan
235. TIRPAK, Dennis A., UNFCCC Secretariat, France, United States of America
236. TORRES-MARTÍNEZ, Julio, Cuban Observatory for Science and Technology, Cuba
237. TOTH, Ferenc L., International Atomic Energy Agency/ Corvinus University of Budapest, Austria, Hungary
238. TOWPRAYOON, Sirintornthep, KM University, Thailand
239. TRINES, Eveline, Treeness Consult, The Netherlands
240. TURNER, Clive, Eskom, South Africa
241. UCHIYAMA, Yohji, The University of Tsukuba, Japan
242. URGE-VORSATZ, Diana, Central European University, Dept. of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Hungary
243. VAN KOOTEN, G. Cornelis, University of Victoria, Canada
244. VAN VUUREN, Detlef P., Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands
245. VERBRUGGEN, Aviel, University of Antwerp, Belgium
246. VILLAVICENCIO, Arturo, Equador
247. VUORI, Seppo, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland
248. WA GITHENDU, Mukiri, Ministry of Science and Technology, Kenya
249. WAMUKONYA, Njeri, Division of Policy Development and Law, Kenya
250. WARREN, Rachel, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom
251. WATTENBACH, Martin, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom, Germany
252. WEYANT, John, Stanford University, United States of America
253. WINKLER, Harald, University of Cape Town, South Africa
254. WIT, Ron, Stichting Natuur en Milieu/CE, The Netherlands
255. WORRELL, Ernst, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/Ecofys, The Netherlands
256. WYATT, Andrew B., University of Sydney, Australia
257. XU, Huaging, Chinese Acedemy of Sciences, P.R. China
258. YAMAGUCHI, Mitsutsune, The University of Tokyo, Japan
259. YAMAJI, Kenji, The University of Tokyo, Japan
260. YAMBA, Francis, University of Zambia, Zambia
261. YANG, Hongwei, Energy Research Institute, P.R. China
262. YOSHINO, Hiroshi, Tohoku University, Japan
263. ZHANG, Tianzhu, Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tsinghua University, P.R. China
264. ZHANG, Xiaoquan, Chinese Academy of Forestry, P.R. China
265. ZHANG, Xiliang, Tsinghua University, P.R. China
266. ZHOU, Dadi, Energy Research Institute, P.R. China
267. ZHOU, Fengqi, Energy Research Institute of NDRC, P.R. China
268. ZHOU, Peter P., EECG Consultants (Pty) Ltd., Botswana, Zimbabwe
269. ZOU, Ji, Renmin University of China, P.R. China,

On the straight and not so narrow

A day or so ago Eli pointed out that there is a remarkable correlation between all of the global temperature measurements, GISS, HadCRUT, RSS and UAH. Over at Tamino's place some of the unusual suspects are claiming that the GISS temperature record is diverging from the satellite records. The data says no, but it also says some other interesting things. First, let us look at the annual differences between the two microwave sounder reconstructions, RSS-UAH

The diagram shows the difference between the RSS and UAH series, after the different zeroing for the two series has been corrected for by subtracting the average difference over the entire period. The most interesting thing here (at least to your friendly bunny) is that there was a systematically increasing difference between RSS and UAH (shown by the trend line btw 1979 and 2005), but that appears to have decreased starting in 2002 and disappeared in ~2005. That could be a statistical fluctuation or a result of something physical. Perhaps related to the launch of the AMSU on Aqua. Time will tell.
Next, we can look at the difference between the RSS MSU lower troposphere record and the GISS ocean+surface stations record. There is no trend here. It is interesting that in 1998, with a strong El Nino, the lower troposphere (~0.5K) warmed more than the surface (~0.3K)








UPDATE: The abbreviations are getting to the mice. Here is a brief summary:

MSU - Microwave Sounder Unit - First flown on satellites in 1979
AMSU - Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit - Flown first on satellites in the late 1990s
RSS - Remote Sensing Systems - a global temperature reconstruction from the (A)MSUs. Key people are Carl Mears and Frank Wentz
UAH - University of Alabama Huntsville - the original (A)MSU reconstruction, 1993. Key people are John Christy and Roy Spencer, aka Christy and Spencer
GISSTEMP - often called GISS - Goddard Institute for Space Studies surface temperature record. Comes in two flavors, surface stations only, and combined with ocean surface temperatures. Key people are Jim Hansen, Makito Sato and Reto Ruedy
HadCRUT - Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research surface temperature record. Comes in several flavors. See the link. Key person Phil Jones