OK. We have matured. Ready for a new wrinkle?

[sigurdur]

stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

[sigurdur]

patricktbrown.org/

[acidohm]

Dec 23, 2017 0:29:58 GMT sigurdur said:

stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

I'm not sure about this guy, the same post has been placed at various sites for the last 3-4 years, word for word.

Can't seem to get a satisfactory Google on the name.

It may be true, but I smell a rat here....

Sorry ratty, I'm not suggesting YOUR smelly!

[nautonnier]

Dec 23, 2017 0:29:58 GMT sigurdur said:

stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

As usual it is the comments that provide the gems - like:

"
Morgan Wright says:
January 26, 2014 at 5:21 pm

None of that is necessary Bob. The overlaps between CO2 and water vapor don’t matter, because they don’t happen in the N-Band. Everybody is looking at IR in its entire spectral range from .75 microns to 300 microns and assuming that just because it’s IR, it is radiated from Earth. Not true. The heat radiated from earth is very specifically its temperature range of 220 to 320 K, and the peak IR associated with that temperature range is 9 to 13 microns. The CO2 can’t absorb energy outside that band, because it doesn’t exist."

[Ratty]

Dec 23, 2017 7:41:00 GMT acidohm said:

Dec 23, 2017 0:29:58 GMT sigurdur said:

stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

I'm not sure about this guy, the same post has been placed at various sites for the last 3-4 years, word for word.

Can't seem to get a satisfactory Google on the name.

It may be true, but I smell a rat here....

Sorry ratty, I'm not suggesting YOUR smelly!

I am a rat and I smelled one for the same reasons you have enunciated, Acid.

[Ratty]

Dec 23, 2017 3:34:43 GMT sigurdur said:

patricktbrown.org/

Patrick T. Brown, PhD is not known at DeSmogBlog so he is probably pure, unaffected by the Koch Brothers or Big Oil.

Abstract

Natural unforced variability in global mean surface air temperature (GMST) can mask or exaggerate human-caused global warming, and thus a complete understanding of this variability is highly desirable. Significant progress has been made in elucidating the magnitude and physical origins of present-day unforced GMST variability, but it has remained unclear how such variability may change as the climate warms. Here we present modelling evidence that indicates that the magnitude of low-frequency GMST variability is likely to decline in a warmer climate and that its generating mechanisms may be fundamentally altered. In particular, a warmer climate results in lower albedo at high latitudes, which yields a weaker albedo feedback on unforced GMST variability. These results imply that unforced GMST variability is dependent on the background climatological conditions, and thus climate model control simulations run under perpetual pre-industrial conditions may have only limited relevance for understanding the unforced GMST variability of the future.

What is that about?  Should I pay my $59.00 to find out?

[sigurdur]

I will try and get a copy.

[Ratty]

Dec 23, 2017 13:01:48 GMT sigurdur said:

I will try and get a copy.

Thanks Sig, but no need: I see he has a 14 minute video and a lot of discussion on the link you posted.

This the abstract from another Brown-nosed paper:

Abstract

Climate models provide the principal means of projecting global warming over the remainder of the twenty-first century but modelled estimates of warming vary by a factor of approximately two even under the same radiative forcing scenarios. Across-model relationships between currently observable attributes of the climate system and the simulated magnitude of future warming have the potential to inform projections. Here we show that robust across-model relationships exist between the global spatial patterns of several fundamental attributes of Earth’s top-of-atmosphere energy budget and the magnitude of projected global warming. When we constrain the model projections with observations, we obtain greater means and narrower ranges of future global warming across the major radiative forcing scenarios, in general. In particular, we find that the observationally informed warming projection for the end of the twenty-first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius) with a reduction of about a third in the two-standard-deviation spread (−1.2 degrees Celsius) relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our results suggest that achieving any given global temperature stabilization target will require steeper greenhouse gas emissions reductions than previously calculated.

'Video abstract' here: Brown Caldeira 2017 Nature Summary

[sigurdur]

www.sciencebits.com/

[Ratty]

Dec 23, 2017 23:18:15 GMT sigurdur said:

www.sciencebits.com/

Thanks Sig.  Bookmarked and link sent to my deplorable climate science group.