http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

While I don’t necessarily subscribe to all of the political undertones of this film, its definitely still pretty questionable

http://junkscience.com/2012/05/03/the-methane-hydrates-revolution-successful-natural-gas-extraction-test-is-a-game-changer/

Tom Curtis at 13:21 PM on 27 April, 2012

“anthony @16, predictions of the equilibrium
climate response include the Planck feedback function which you describe (and
which is explained in more detail by Chris Colose here). So your argument amounts to the claim that
a prediction which incorporates the Planck feedback cannot be realized because
of the Planck feedback.

I still remain mystified as to why self describe “skeptics” think
that simply citing a well known physical effect which is incorporated into all
Global Circulation Models (GCMs) (as both the Planck feedback and Beer’s Law)
will show the predictions of those GCMs to be false, without any need of
calculation on their behalf. It is as though they thought yelling “But
E=mc^2″ would disprove the special theory of relativity.”

Tom has linked to Colose’s piece on climate
sensitivity; Colose says this:

“Note that the logarithmic relation suggests
that the fractional change in CO2 is what is important, since every doubling
produces the same effect.”

This is not correct; for example by AGW’s own
criteria:

280ppm to 560ppm = 1.2c rise
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .4 C rise)
560ppm to 1120 ppm = 1.2c rise
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .2 C rise)
1120 ppm to 2240 ppm = 1.2c rise.
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .1C rise)Colose uses an amount of 1C but the point is the
same.

The reason why this negative feedback to heating occurs is because of
Stefan Boltzmann; as the temperature increases the radiation emitted increases
in a non-linear fashion as I explained:

From
200K-250K radiated energy increases from 91-222 W/m^2 – an increase of 131
W/m^2.

From 300-350K
radiated energy increases from 459-851 W/m^2 – an increase of 392 W/m^2.

But Colose states:

“The temperature response can then be linearly
related to a forcing”
How can that be when the radiation emitted does not have a linear
response to temperature?

A couple of things about this:

1 The temperature since 1750 is MUCH less than would be expected from the AGW forcing; which is, I suppose, why so much interest is in the ‘hidden’ heat in the ocean.

2 If forcing is to be expected to be less, as explained in the 1st paragraph, as the system gets closer to the higher equilibrium temperature then, as an unavoidable consequence, the future temperature must be less too.

This final point makes a mockery of the notions of future, MUCH higher, equilibrium temperatures; unless the heat can be found to be in the oceans. BUT Levitus shows that heat is not in the oceans; or at least sufficient heat to produce the equilibrium temperatures predicted by AGW theory.

At least that is my understanding; please feel free to critique.

“But you are still not correcting for the false assumption that the TOA
imbalance at a time, t, is at least equal to the forcing at t relative
to some earlier time.”

Okay.  Since humans increase CO2 monotonically, then averaged over some time period that exceeds ENSO variability, the TOA imbalance for such an interval ought to be > the TOA imbalance over an earlier interval – if temperature is somehow held artificially constant.

You mention that temperature has increased, and this should have partially restored the TOA energy balance.  The increase in T since 1750 is about 0.8 K, and since 1960 about 0.3 K (from memory).  0.3 K is certainly small relative to the 3 K per 2xCO2 that is expected.

At the same time, though, the CO2 forcing has increased, and this creates more imbalance.

One would think that as an approximation, the additional forcing might cancel the effect of the temperature increase.  Thus, one would think that David’s comparison is reasonable.

So, I think I understand the point you’re making, but lack the mathematical skills to quantify it.  Is it possible that someone could put numbers to it?

Please list succinctly your two claimed egregious errors