Climategate Scientist Michael E. Mann Exonerated

New York Times:

An American scientist accused of manipulating research findings on climate science was cleared of that charge by his university on Thursday, the latest in a string of reports to find little substance in the allegations known as Climategate.

An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. Mann, had "seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities," declared that he had not.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[maxwells]

11:24 AM on 07/27/2010

Now we have these two guys, Richard2, who so perfectly fits the paid professional AGW denier profile that he won't even tell you what AGW means to him.

Then there's this sly guy, Guiganbresil, whose only purpose here seems to be to tie up professional scientists and worthy amateurs' time with elaborate obfuscation, while pretending to misinterpret what he's understood for quite some time.

You were right all along, Reed. Guigan's sharper than he puts on.

But I'm not sure how grandpa Zeiss (who talked optics with me 35 years ago) and other progeny would regard Guigan's activities here.

[guinganbresil]

08:20 PM on 07/26/2010

I just finished reading the Trenberth paper you linked... Overall I think it contributes to the conceptual view of the energy balance, but does not provide a good demonstration of AGW.

That is not a criticism of the paper - but in light of adjustments made to the OLR & albedo (pg 313) to reduce the imbalance from 6.5 to 0.9 W/m^2 AND the discussion in Wong et. al (2006) stating that the accuracy of the LW, SW and insolation do not support doing an energy balance calculation, that it does not provide any evidence one way or another... rather it provides some numbers for a conceptional view of the energy balance...

I did see that the OLR has decreased from 235 W/m^2 (over 1985-1987 in Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 paper) down to 238.5 W/m^2 (over 2000-2004 in the paper you linked)...

235 > 238.5.... 2 + 2 = 5...

RY, I may be pulling your chain - but the OLR looks like it went up... Maybe you should yield that point (or at least stop saying I am lying about it) and rather argue that increasing OLR does not rule out AGW...

[ReedYoung]

09:19 PM on 07/26/2010

guingan before: "I was looking forward to a vigorous technical debate - up to the challenge?"

guingan now: "I may be pulling your chain - but ..."

Which do you really want - a vigorous technical debate, or to pull chain? It's one or the other, kid. Choose now, and if you really want the former, keep in mind that goofing off makes your claim of wanting that kind of conversation look like a lie.

[guinganbresil]

12:33 AM on 07/27/2010

Fine - disregard the increase in the energy balance charts (I agree it is not significant... I just thought it was funny...) I have read it and commented.

Seriously though, do you see more in the Trenberth paper that I should look at more closely?

[ReedYoung]

12:59 AM on 07/27/2010

A more sophisticated analysis of the question than ASR - OLR, and more subtle interpretation of those data. Particularly, satellite data are not to be taken at face value, but interpreted according to other, more reliable (a known fact which we will not debate) Earth-based measurements.

[Publicola]

01:14 PM on 07/26/2010

To guinganbresil:

You still apparently seem to be unclear of the basic scientific fact that water vapor is a feedback and not a driver of relatively long term (mutlidecadal) global temperature change.

Is that correct, despite all of the time you have spent on this subject?

[Publicola]

05:37 PM on 07/27/2010

guinganbresil: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}

[ReedYoung]

01:09 PM on 07/23/2010

Next question, guingan.
Have you taken Texfly's suggestions yet?

"CO2 REDUCES the RATE at which heat is lost to space. As T increases, there will be more and more heat lost to space. The **residence time** of heat in the atmosphere INCREASES. That is the trapping time increases and temperature increases until rate equations are balanced.

I don't think you really understand how Beer's Law works nor how σT^4 fits in."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/texfly/climategate-michael-mann-cleared_n_633207_53605887.html

"Please reevaluate the papers you cite in light of
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Radiance/Anderson_Arr01.pdf "
(just above previous comment; no Permalink URL exists)

And have you read the Trenberth paper that I linked? I think it's the same one Riccardo on Skeptical Science recommended to you before I did, btw. Definitely the same author and same subject. Maybe a little older or a little newer. Definitely required.
http://content.imamu.edu.sa/Scholars/it/net/trenbert.pdf

You claim:
"I was looking forward to a vigorous technical debate - up to the challenge?"

Sure. We all know I'm more than equal to any challenge you can dish out.

We have all patiently investigated everything you have presented and debunked your claims scientifically and factually, dismissing nothing out of hand. Now it's on you to read these papers, and seriously consider what texfly, Publicola and others have taught you -- if what you really want to have is a civilized dialogue.

[guinganbresil]

02:02 PM on 07/24/2010

"That is the trapping time increases and temperature increases until rate equations are balanced."

--- I would not have phrased it that way... I think it is more that the outgoing emission (LW & SW reflected) needs to be balanced with the incoming solar to be in something close to equilibrium...

Here is a fun link I just found:

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html

"I don't think you really understand how Beer's Law works nor how σT^4 fits in."

--- There is a "Ground T offset" in the above link... that is how T^4 fits in...

I will spend some more time w/ Trenberth's and Anderson's papers...

[ReedYoung]

05:15 PM on 07/24/2010

re: "I would not have phrased it that way... "

Why not, exactly? Texfly is correct, and to clarify why your simplistic expectation of monotonically decreasing OLR is plain wrong, I would just add a couple words to what Texfly said:

"That is the trapping time increases and temperature increases until rate equations are balanced" at a new, higher equilibrium global mean temperature corresponding to the higher atmospheric CO₂ concentration.

re: "There is a "Ground T offset" in the above link... that is how T^4 fits in..."

Please comment on the paper Texfly recommended on this subject, not what you prefer to believe. As I already pointed out, we have read plenty of what you have linked. Now it's your turn to reciprocate.

[guinganbresil]

09:43 PM on 07/24/2010

"trapping time"?

IR light travels at c/n - nearly the speed of light - between emission and absorption events (in a gas). The relaxation time of an excited molecule is very short. The phrase "trapping time" just seems odd - I just wouldn't have phrased it that way.

It gives the wrong impression - almost as if the IR is "slowed down" so it warms the air more because it spends more time going through (I have seen others use this phrase like this and it is incorrect.)

I did comment on the Anderson paper - I am suprised you missed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/guinganbresil/climategate-michael-mann-cleared_n_633207_54062048.html

I stated I needed more time with it. I am in fact re-evaluating my thoughts on OLR:

1 - I understand that a net decrease in OLR is the basis for the energy imbalance and subsequent AGW (If I am mistaken - please correct.) The question is how this manifests itself...

2 - I am considering whether the change in GHG's merely changes the shape of the OLR spectrum (which I absolutely agree it does) or whether it shifts the balance point about which the climate moves (not so sure here...)

3 - There is a demo involving chaotic pendulums that caught my eye:

http://www.clivar.org/science/magnets.php

I know it is a just an anology - but it is thought provoking...

[ReedYoung]

01:33 PM on 07/25/2010

In short, gui's honest answer to my question "Have you taken Texfly's suggestions yet?" would have been

"No."

He has still not done his homework.

[guinganbresil]

07:17 PM on 07/25/2010

I am not yet ready to comment on those papers...

Here is one I thought was interesting - skimmed it only... I am not prepared to comment on it either.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~yhuang/research/JCLI2874.PDF

[Richard2]

10:54 AM on 07/23/2010

1212073451.txt

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil

[ReedYoung]

02:07 PM on 07/23/2010

It is eight months since those data were stolen, and about four months since Dr. Jones was exonerated of the false allegations you are parroting. You're wasting bandwidth.

[Richard2]

10:03 AM on 07/25/2010

The subject of this e-mail is: IPCC and FOI. The author, Phil Jones, is the head of CRU.
Someone stated that there is no connection between CRU and the IPCC. This e-mail shows this isn't true.

This e-mail involves discussions on hiding e-mails from FOI requests. E-mails about the IPCC report. E-mails that someone doesn't want the public to see. What was Phil Jones trying to hide from the public? Who knows?

[ReedYoung]

01:08 PM on 07/25/2010

Unlikely.

Richard2: "Someone stated that there is no connection between CRU and the IPCC."

CRU and IPCC are separate institutions which work in the same field. They have working relationships and nobody ever said that they don't. So your whole premise for even bringing this up now is a lie.

[guinganbresil]

08:49 PM on 07/22/2010

I think I would like to hear more about this:

"Without greenhouse gases, any water vapor precipitates and does not re-vaporize. That is why greenhouse gases like CO₂ are global warming forcing agents and water vapor is only a feedback agent."

Care to elaborate?

[ReedYoung]

09:53 PM on 07/22/2010

I know you have seen this explained by Publicola before, so no, I won't elaborate unless you have a specific question about some aspect of these facts which you still don't understand.

[guinganbresil]

10:37 PM on 07/22/2010

I don't recall publicola making this statement before. It is exceptional.

[ReedYoung]

12:33 PM on 07/23/2010

I have a confession to make: I did not Google "site: huffintonpost.com guinganbresil Publicola water vapor" *before* I made the claim that the facts that CO₂ is a global warming forcing agent and that H₂O is *only* a global warming feedback agent have been told to you before, and specifically that Publicola has told you those facts.

I just know (1) that those are crucial facts about Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory, (2) that Publicola mentions them frequently to deniars, and (3) that you make a habit of denying the basic facts of climate science. I played the odds.

And I won. Publicola *has* said that *to you*!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/global-warming-measuremen_n_539381_45477617.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/global-warming-measuremen_n_539381_45473316.html

And *you* *have* *replied*!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/global-warming-measuremen_n_539381_45473225.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/guinganbresil/global-warming-measuremen_n_539381_45475367.html

Granted, your reply is not responsive to that point, but these facts *have* been presented to you before.

If anything is "exceptional" about my phrasing:
"Without greenhouse gases, any water vapor precipitates and does not re-vaporize. That is why greenhouse gases like CO₂ are global warming forcing agents and water vapor is only a feedback agent."

... it is only the succinctness. The *claim* is not _extraordinary_ in any way. It is proven fact.

[guinganbresil]

12:49 PM on 07/24/2010

The "exceptional" part is your statement that without GHG's all the water vapor will precipitate out of the atmosphere - making it a feedback rather than a driver.

I do not recall publicola saying THAT.

As for it being a "proven fact" - please provide a paper (or anything...) supporting you assertion.

[ReedYoung]

03:20 PM on 07/18/2010

Okay guinganbresil, for somebody whose modus operandi is claiming that peer reviewed scientific publications mean the opposite of what the authors say they mean, my opinion of your complaints about my statements that you are a liar is that your complaints are laughable, histrionic defensive tactics, and just more acts of deception on your part.

But it's a serious accusation I'm making against you and I am absolutely serious about it, and so to show everybody reading this -- including you -- who of the two of us is more fair and truthful, I will fully consider your side for as long as your replies are substantive and on the topic of my questions. In the interest of clarity and continuity, if you want to discuss something else, including this preamble, please do it in a new sub-thread, either above or continuing existing, other sub-threads.

guinganbresil 12:25 PM on 7/17/2010
(1) Yes - I was using it (the word "trend") in the colloquial vice statistical sense prior to your valid correction (trend vs. change downthread)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/guinganbresil/climategate-michael-mann-cleared_n_633207_54031936.html

Question: When using the colloquial sense of the word "trend" were you aware that in science, a more rigorous definition of the word "trend" exists?

Elaborate as much or as little as you wish in one comment, but please be sure to include a clear and unequivocal "yes" or "no" to the question.

[guinganbresil]

09:21 AM on 07/19/2010

Answer: Yes. I have admitted my error in describing the ERBS data as a 'trend', when in fact it was described by the authors as a 'decadal change' numerous times. My use of the term trend to describe the ScaRaB data is valid.

http://www.isprs.org/publications/related/ISRSE/html/papers/332.pdf

Question for you: Yes or No:

Are you now, or have you ever, defended SkepticalScience's clearly deceptive use of Harries et al. 2001 figure 1C to support the claim that outgoing radiation is decreasing?

[ReedYoung]

09:53 AM on 07/19/2010

That is not responsive to my question, which was not *whether* you agree that your use of the word "trend" in reference to ERBS was correct; your acknowledgment of that error was already clear.

The question is:
When you used the colloquial sense of the word "trend" while referring to ERBS data, were you aware that in science, a more rigorous definition of the word "trend" exists?

[ReedYoung]

01:35 PM on 07/22/2010

We know you were wrong when you asserted a trend in ERBS data. We know you have admitted you were wrong. That is not what I am asking you.

When, in this discussion about science, you used the word trend "in the colloquial vice statistical sense," were you aware of the more precise statistical meaning of the word trend as it is commonly used in science?

And I am not asking whether you knew exactly what that definition is because it is very clear that you did not. I am asking only, were you *aware* that a more precise, scientific definition *exists* and *were* you aware of it, *when* you used that word in the other, colloquial sense?

[JerryAguy]

12:37 PM on 07/16/2010

Of course he's cleared, but I think most people see the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

[guinganbresil]

09:56 AM on 07/16/2010

texfly:

"As I review some of the citations posted by you and Reed Young, I find them to be sorely lacking in introspective error analysis. Perhaps they were done somewhere along the way; I don't know. But for you to go beyond what the authors claimed (Harries2001) is too much for me."

http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Radiance/Anderson_Arr01.pdf

Thanks for the valid criticism - I did not spend nearly enough time with that paper. There are quite a few things in it that are very relevant.

[texfly]

01:29 PM on 07/17/2010

I still have'nt gotten Harries 2001 to review it. My genearl conclusion about what I have read and what you and Reed Young have been debating is that trends in radiance data cannot as yet be used in a meaningful way to assess global warming trends.

In light oy Anderson, etal there are too many factors that would move trends from positive to negative at any point in space and time.

So to me, the debate you are having is mute - an intellectual joust with litlle if any merit in the grand scheme. Personally I'll wait for the real scientists assessment in the future..

[ReedYoung]

02:32 PM on 07/17/2010

Certainly not by direct measurement of ASR & OLR.

"My genearl conclusion about what I have read and what you and Reed Young have been debating is that trends in radiance data cannot as yet be used in a meaningful way to assess global warming trends."

But I do know that satellites orbit at or very near the equator and that temperature measurements show greatest warming at the poles. The alleged "discrepancy" of Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory vs direct satellite measurements of ASR and OLR is not and never was the great riddle as guinganbresil would have it be.

That CO₂ causes warming is a known fact.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

No honest person resorts to known faulty measurements to disprove what any passing student can prove in any moderately equipped chemistry laboratory.

[guinganbresil]

06:08 PM on 07/17/2010

texfly - I agree w/ you - off the rails.

The point I have been trying to make is summarized:

CO2 ---> OLR ---> Temperature

We seem to have some difficulty showing the first relationship, so we just skip over it and show:

CO2 ---> (don't look here) ---> Temperature.

With all the points brought up (many by ReedYoung), it seems that SkepticalScience's claim that Harries et al. 2001 and subsequent papers are just as flawed in showing OLR going down as I was in showing it went up. If ReedYoung disputes my characterization, it should be easy enough to reference some papers meeting the standards he imposed on me...

[ReedYoung]

01:54 PM on 07/18/2010

In fact, you have spent far too much time on Harries 2001 -- applying many different dead-wrong analytical frameworks to it, clearly intentionally.

guinganbresil: "You must realize that the comparison to a planet with NO ATMOSPHERE does not accurately respresent the effect of the GHG. A real atmosphere has clouds ..."

Without greenhouse gases, any water vapor precipitates and does not re-vaporize. That is why greenhouse gases like CO₂ are global warming forcing agents and water vapor is only a feedback agent. This is just one of many fatal flaws in your analytical framework.

Another is the assumption that a particular trend must be directly measured in total outgoing longwave radiation. In fact, more subtle analysis is required, of various trends and how they interact physically.

See Trenberth & Fasullo 2009 & Murphy et al, 2009.

But above and beyond all of that, your dishonesty is revealed in your repeated claims of inconsistencies with Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory, by intentional distortion of peer reviewed scientific research which all concludes that the Theory has correctly predicted what they observe in the data.

Unless and until you can your findings peer reviewed and published, theirs are exactly what they say they are, in the Conclusion a/o Abstract. Given your admissions that you are not a scientist and do not even know how to do proper statistical analysis, your questions about peer reviewed science should all assume your own failure to understand, never errors by anybody else. Which honestly, you already know.

[ReedYoung]

11:09 PM on 07/15/2010

guinganbresil: "I did in fact miss the caveat."

No, liar, you did not. You quoted from the paragraph just before it and you had to scroll past the "Table of Contents" to get to the text you quoted.

Table of Contents

Nature of Data Product
Algorithm Changes between Previous Edition2 and Original Release
Algorithm Changes between New Edition3 and Previous Edition2 Release
User-applied Revision Adjustment to the Archived Edition3 Data
Interim Edition3_Rev1 Website
Cautions when Using Data
Validation Study Results
Web Links to Relevant Information
Expected Reprocessing
Referencing Data in Journal Articles

The section "Cautions when Using Data" is not one you're allowed to fail to read before making claims about what the data can be used to infer. That would make you grossly incompetent, and we both know you've had enough education in science and mathematics to lead us all on a long wild goose chase. Nobody's buying your wounded, innocent routine, you worthless liar.

[guinganbresil]

09:02 AM on 07/16/2010

I admit that I have been imprecise and inarticulate. I have yielded to legitimate corrections that you have brought up. You have piled on ad hominem - unprofessional at best. The claims I am making:

1 - Three datasets show POSITIVE decadal changes as listed in the paper Wong et al. 2006. This is listed in table 1 with caption:

"TOA radiative flux changes (W/m^2) from the 1980s to 1990s from different datasets. Values are given as tropical mean (20°N to 20°S) for the 1994–97 period minus the 1985–89 period"

2 - The single dataset showing negative decadal change was not of the quality of the other three:

"We conclude that both the AVHRR pathfinder and the corrected AVHRR Pathfinder ERB datasets are not sufficiently accurate to resolve decadal changes in tropical mean or global-scale radiative fluxes."

I am working under the assumption that Wong et al. read the "Cautions when using data" section of the ERBE S10N_WFOV ERBS Edition3 Data Quality Summary and applied the cautions appropriately (i.e. 20N-20S for calculating decadal changes).

[ReedYoung]

11:04 PM on 07/16/2010

No. Nothing I have said to you has been unprofessional nor ad hominem.

When I made an error about Edition_3_Rev_1 data, I admitted it the first time you pointed it out. You have been lying about a "trend" in OLR for months.

"Yes" or "no" to all of the following:

(1) Do you know the statistical definition of the word "trend"?
(2) Do you know how to do the calculations to determine the existence or non-existence of a statistical trend in a set of data?
(3) Did you apply those calculations to the Edition_3_Rev_1 data in which you repeatedly claimed a trend?

You will admit to lying about the claims you have previously made, or provide a plausible explanation of the course of study in which you learned radiation physics and optical theory, but no statistics, before I consider anything else you want to say to me.

[guinganbresil]

11:23 AM on 07/17/2010

RY: "No. Nothing I have said to you has been unprofessional nor ad hominem."

I think that statement alone is very revealing.

Let's test the objectivity of RY. Will he apply the statistical criticisms (which I believe are valid) applied to my statements about OLR trends to the statement he HIMSELF has quoted from SkepticalScience:

(RY:)

"The truth:
'Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space.'
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=154&&n=73

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander...

Note also that RY has not disputed the statements 1 & 2 made above, yet continues assert that I am lying.

[guinganbresil]

09:13 AM on 07/16/2010

Your excessive use of ad hominem is revealing:

I see someone who is:

1 - Such a 'defender of of the faith' of AGW that they would use any means necessary to defend it - see Alinsky (2001). Or,

2 - Someone without the self displine to keep technical disagreements from leaking leaking into their emotions and from there (like BP) spewing out as vitriol. Or,

3 - Someone with the straps on their tin foil hat on so tight that they see BIG-OIL conspiracies at every turn - legions of high paid lackeys commenting on HuffPost who have sold their souls... Or,

4 - Someone who, when the going gets tough on an argument, finds it easiest to prepare a steaming cocktail of non sequitur and ad hominem, mix it well, lob it out there and hope the opposition leaves the field in disgust.

I probably left some options out, and I was again imprecise. All of the "Or,"'s should read "And/Or..."

So what is it, really? Some combination of 1 - 4 above? Or do you offer another option?

[ReedYoung]

11:05 PM on 07/16/2010

5 - You're a liar and I caught you at it, liar.

[guinganbresil]

10:15 PM on 07/15/2010

Where we we?

ReedYoung was going to show how the OLR decreases with increasing CO2 - providing the actual mechanism for CO2 to warm the Earth.

As it stands I have peer reviewed evidence showing positive "decadal changes" in THREE datasets (ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1, HIRS Pathfinder and ISCCP FD).

I also have peer reviewed evidence of clear sky spectral brightness temperature increases in the range 750-1000 cm-1...

I await ReedYoung's evidence of decreasing OLR... We should of course hold it to the same level of scrutiny (perhaps w/o the ad hominem - unprofessional...)

[ReedYoung]

11:20 PM on 07/15/2010

The fact that CO₂ is a "greenhouse gas" was proved in 1859. The shortcomings in satellite data from top of atmosphere do not open that fact for dispute.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand.

[guinganbresil]

09:27 AM on 07/16/2010

"Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, AIRLESS rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is."

You must realize that the comparison to a planet with NO ATMOSPHERE does not accurately respresent the effect of the GHG. A real atmosphere has clouds and suspended particles which affect the effective optical surface when seen from space. You aren't trying to hide something are you?

I agree that IR absorbing gases have an effect of the planetary heat balance - but it is not the only effect. Using that logic the GH effect of CO2 on Venus would be Tsurf - Teff, or ~740K - ~220K or about 520K --- You wouldn't defend THAT would you?

[ReedYoung]

08:12 PM on 07/17/2010

That's not true.

guinganbresil: "You must realize that the comparison to a planet with NO ATMOSPHERE does not accurately respresent the effect of the GHG. A real atmosphere has clouds ..."

Without greenhouse gases, any water vapor precipitates and does not re-vaporize. That is why greenhouse gases like CO₂ are global warming forcing agents and water vapor is only a feedback agent. Spencer Weart's analysis for AIP is perfectly valid.

Yours, of Venus, is idiotic and no, I would not defend your idiotic analysis.

[guinganbresil]

08:57 AM on 07/22/2010

You are neglecting the temperature lapse rate. Precipitates tend to fall down into layers of higher temperature, where they evaporate.

Look very closely at the adiabatic lapse rate equation and tell me where IR absorption factors in.

Calling my analysis 'idiotic' contributes little to the discussion, and less to my opinion of your debating skills. Making a clearly false statement:

"Without greenhouse gases, any water vapor precipitates and does not re-vaporize."

sure doen't help much either. In fact, the precipitation forms clouds. The cloud tops (& % cloud cover) determine the altitude of the effective radiative temperature. Even my 'Venus' with an Argon atmosphere has clouds (as you pointed out), and going down through the atmosphere from the cloud tops using the ltemperature lapse rate, the surface temperature is still SCORCHING.

[Richard2]

04:13 PM on 07/14/2010

From "Climategate and the Big Green Lie" in the Atlantic:

...."The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

[ReedYoung]

05:20 PM on 07/14/2010

You call him "MIT's Richard Lindzen," I call him tenured & unfireable Richard Lindzen, but hey, tomato / tomotto, right?

http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-wipes-hands-clean-of-oil-and-gas
I guess it may be technically correct that Lindzen has never conducted "research" for oil and coal interests, but that of course would depend on how you define "research."

Here is what we do know about Lindzen's connections to the fossil fuel industry over the years:

Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

Three skeptics—Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling—were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
**************************************************

REAL climate scientists are NOT petroleum & coal shills. Lindzen's opinion of his professional betters really isn't worth a dump and Dr. Michael E. Mann is absolutely a better scientist than Lindzen.

[Richard2]

06:55 PM on 07/14/2010

Some people appear stuck on throwing mud on persons who disagree with them. The Atlantic Magazine is a highly credible publication with East Coast, well educated elites. These people, who are more interested in "ideas" than in negative gossip about individuals, may not have previously realized that the investigations into Climategate have been inept.

Perhaps the next investigation will actually hire experienced attorneys to question witnesses, and then direct them to do so. Perhaps individuals with a wide spectrum of views about Climategate will be invited to testify. Perhaps scientific papers that are being challenged will actually be reviewed. Perhaps attempts will be made to obtain additional data, such as related emails at CRU, to assist in understanding the Climategate emails.

[ReedYoung]

07:35 PM on 07/14/2010

I do not "disagree" with Richard Lindzen, I disrespect his cherry-picking, for which his work suggesting that more water vapor causes cooling, not warming, is rightly rejected by the academy. And I disrespect his decision to fudge results in his work as a scientist to suit his other employers, coal and petroleum.

[Richard2]

03:56 PM on 07/14/2010

The Atlantic Monthly has attacked the Mann investigation, along with the British ones. Mr. Crook's introduction is:

"By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy.

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."

[ReedYoung]

09:40 AM on 07/13/2010

Due diligence requires knowing the limitations of available data and refraining from making any claims data cannot support.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/quality_summaries/s10n_wfov/erbe_s10n_wfov_nf_sf_erbs_edition3.html
Cautions when Using Data

There are several cautions the ERBE Team notes regarding use of reprocessed monthly mean ERBE S10N_WFOV ERBS Edition3 and Edition3_Rev1 data:

Because of the 57° inclination orbit, the ERBE S10N_WFOV ERBS dataset only covers regions between 60°N and 60°S. Therefore global mean fluxes can not be produced by using this single satellite ERBE/ERBS data product alone.

Therefore global mean fluxes can not be produced by using this single satellite ERBE/ERBS data product alone.

Therefore global mean fluxes can not be produced by using this single satellite ERBE/ERBS data product alone.

Just keep reading that sentence until you understand it.

Therefore global mean fluxes can not be produced by using this single satellite ERBE/ERBS data product alone.

Therefore global mean fluxes can not be produced by using this single satellite ERBE/ERBS data product alone.

That you simply did not see this caveat is not plausible, particularly in light of your quick reply to my misstatement below about Edition 3 Rev 1, which in fact applies to Edition 3 v. Edition 2, but not Rev 1.

You read that caveat and you chose to disregard it. You knew all along the data you were using cannot support your assertions. You're a liar. Fact.

[guinganbresil]

10:09 PM on 07/13/2010

I did in fact miss the caveat. Loosen the straps on your TFH... Note first that I did not call you a liar for your error regarding the Rev 1 correction. Secondly the values of +0.7 W/m^2 applies to 20N-20S... not the full 60N-60S...

I happen to know about the UV sensor dome darkening being corrected in Rev1 because Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), "On the determination of climate feedbacks from
ERBE data", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628. failed to use the Rev1 corrections to the data.

So I have admitted that the ERBE satellite covers only ~60N-60S... - this is a good point you bring up. Can you admit that the data for that region 20N-20S shows an positive decadal trend of 0.7 W/m^2 over the period 1985-1997?

We can then look at whether or not the tropical behavior differs significantly from the global...

[ReedYoung]

11:11 PM on 07/13/2010

"Can you admit that the data for that region 20N-20S shows an positive decadal trend of 0.7 W/m^2 over the period 1985-1997?"

There's nothing for me to admit about any "positive decadal trend" in that data set because no "trend" of the kind that you have dishonestly asserted may be inferred from that data.

NASA: "Because of the 57° inclination orbit, the ERBE S10N_WFOV ERBS dataset only covers regions between 60°N and 60°S. Therefore global mean fluxes can not be produced by using this single satellite ERBE/ERBS data product alone.
Therefore global mean fluxes can not be produced by using this single satellite ERBE/ERBS data product alone."

What you have claimed about a trend in total OLR is a lie. End of discussion.

gui: "We can then look at whether or not the tropical behavior differs significantly from the global..."

No. You can follow correct scientific research procedure and look it up in the existing peer-reviewed literature. You do not claim peer-reviewed research is wrong in a public forum, you claim it in your own research which you submit to scientific peer review. If you're right and they're wrong, your correction passes peer review and THEN you cite it, as peer-reviewed research.

Got it?

[guinganbresil]

10:34 PM on 07/14/2010

ReedYoung... I did not infer, eyeball, approximate or otherwise fabricate the statement about the positive decal trend.

From the abstract of Wong et al. 2006:

"With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, -2.1, and 1.4 W m^2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record."

Does it say this or not? Yes or No? Your stubborn failure to admit your error reminds me of... denial.

[guinganbresil]

01:26 AM on 07/13/2010

texfly:

"Where (...) do I find this MATHEMATICALLY REMOVED data. Is there a free pdf? Is it Harries 2001? Is there a free pdf?"

-------> I couldn't find a free pdf, but the full graph and caption can be found here:

http://primaklima.blogg.de/eintrag.php?id=8

-------> Note that the caption for C (Skeptical Science) reads: "C, Component of simulated spectrum due to trace-gas changes only." The brightness temperature difference PRIOR to removing the simulated spectrum is in figure B centered on 0 from 20N-20S or centered on -10 for 60N-60S. Centered on -5 is the simulated spectrum.

"Where is the paper (link) for 650 going down and 800-1000 going up? How do we know how you a looking at the data without seeing it?"

------> Figure B shows that the IR from 750-1000 cm-1 has gone UP over the period studied. You can see the CO2 band ~650 cm-1 and CH4 ~1300 cm-1 going down in the same spectra. Would I lie to you? ReedYoung thinks so. Check the facts yourself!

Some observations:
1 - The spectra do not cover the whole band. H2O hides just to the left of the vertical axis.
2 - Harries mentions ice crystal contamination of the clear sky data that could explain the rise. There are good reasons to believe that it is not just ice crystal contamination.

Here is a paper:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI4204.1

[ReedYoung]

08:14 AM on 07/13/2010

1) The spectra do not cover the whole band for a very good reason: your entire analytical framework is wrong.

"Although the mean differences among the TOA radiative flux data sets are large enough that direct measurements of planetary energy imbalances are still unreliable, comparison of the interannual anomalies of the ocean heat content with the two (satellite-derived) planetary energy imbalances converted to accumulated ocean heat content (or equivalently comparison of the anomalies of ocean heat content converted to ocean heat storage rate with the planetary energy imbalances) show excellent quantitative agreement."
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2007JD008435.shtml

2) Your argument depends on data you don't have and making assumptions about the data that you don't have. That is not legitimate, in science nor otherwise.

[guinganbresil]

09:04 AM on 07/13/2010

ReedYoung contnues to make faulty assertions. I am sensing a trend...

The reason the data does not cover the whole OLR range is NOT because my analytical frame work is wrong... The researchers could only compare data in the spectral ranges where the sensors overlap. Cause-and-effect... I am not in that loop...

ReedYoung (via SkepticalScience) uses this data (or at least the manipulated figuure 1C) to incorrectly show decreasing OLR. When I call it out, and show that increases in the spectral region 750-1000 cm-1 was REMOVED from the graph, all of sudden I don't have all the data - I see how this game is played.

My observations were made in the spirit of full disclosure. I agree that these data do not provide evidence of total OLR going up. Niether can it support total OLR going down as falsely asserted by ReedYoung and SkepticalScience.

I am not sure where ReedYoung is going with his non sequitur - There is a big difference between planetary flux imbalances and spectral trends...

I have not made any assumptions about data I do not have - The ERBE data covers the whole spectral region of interest with two different types of detectors (not spectrally resolved):

"...the longwave fluxes during daytime are determined from the total channel (0.2 to 100 um) minus the shortwave channel (0.2 to 5 um)."

[ReedYoung]

09:12 AM on 07/13/2010

Liar. You absolutely asserted that total OLR is increasing until I proved that you're lying. Now, you're lying about what you have claimed.

[guinganbresil]

11:03 PM on 07/13/2010

By "these data" I am refering to the spectrally resolved work IMG, IRIS, AIRS of Harries and others.

It is my opinion that the INCREASE over the region 750-1000 cm-1 counters AGW just as the DECREASE in the 600-700 cm-1 supports it. I really didn't appreciate SkepticalScience trying to hide the former while touting the latter.

I still assert that the ERBE and other datasets show a positive decadal trend.