Greenhouse effect is a myth, scientists say

[B. Max]

How about NASA?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

(They normalize their urban stations to the surrounding rural ones.)

Seriously, climatologists know about things like Urban Heat Island Effect and take it into account in their calculations.

And how exactly do you account for choosing 1998 as your starting year? If you go back just 10 years before 98, it is obvious that warming is continuing, and that 98 was an anomaly. The NASA page I linked above even gives a graph that shows the times of El Ninos- red squares, La Ninas- blue semi-circles, and large volcanic eruptions- little green triangles.

That graph never was. Have you done the math on the data sets yet, that I posted.

[B. Max]

And how exactly do you account for choosing 1998 as your starting year? If you go back just 10 years before 98, it is obvious that warming is continuing, and that 98 was an anomaly. The NASA page I linked above even gives a graph that shows the times of El Ninos- red squares, La Ninas- blue semi-circles, and large volcanic eruptions- little green triangles.

Since 1998 the temperature has not increased, seems like as good a place as any to start. We know that temperature correlates to sun spot activity not CO2 and never has.

[Electric Monk]

Please back up your assertion that they did not adjust for UHIE.

Do the math when I can look at the graph that you posted that was generated from that data set? Have you done the math? If so how does it differ?

[B. Max]

Please back up your assertion that they did not adjust for UHIE.

Do the math when I can look at the graph that you posted that was generated from that data set? Have you done the math? If so how does it differ?

I told you I did the math. The average temperature every year is less than 1998.

[Electric Monk]

Since 1998 the temperature has not increased, seems like as good a place as any to start. We know that temperature correlates to sun spot activity not CO2 and never has.

I showed you why 98 is a bad year to start with if you want a correct answer. Global temperature is affected by many different factors, that work together to produce the end result. That's why we pay climatologists to do their analyses. On this page is a graph showing 5 of the factors.

Climate change attribution

[Electric Monk]

We know that temperature correlates to sun spot activity not CO2 and never has.

How do you reconcile that with this?

Just watched Beck's show. Not bad but I think he could have done a better job. For instance when he exposed the CO2 lag verses temperature he never mentioned that it was an 800 year lag. I think that's important...

[speaker]

On this page is a graph showing 5 of the factors.

Climate change attribution

Thanks Electric Monk, good reference, sometimes you almost need a holistic detective agency to get to the bottom of these things.

[B. Max]

Since 1998 the temperature has not increased, seems like as good a place as any to start. We know that temperature correlates to sun spot activity not CO2 and never has.

I showed you why 98 is a bad year to start with if you want a correct answer. Global temperature is affected by many different factors, that work together to produce the end result. That's why we pay climatologists to do their analyses. On this page is a graph showing 5 of the factors.

Climate change attribution

We know that is wrong.

We know that sun spot activity correlates nicely with temperature.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/picture_text/causes2.gif

[B. Max]

We know that temperature correlates to sun spot activity not CO2 and never has.

How do you reconcile that with this?

Just watched Beck's show. Not bad but I think he could have done a better job. For instance when he exposed the CO2 lag verses temperature he never mentioned that it was an 800 year lag. I think that's important...

As a driver of temperature it is not. But nice try anyway. It seems to be typical of the alarmists.

[Electric Monk]

Ok, so you agree that global temperature rise can be linked causally to a global rise CO2 levels, correct?

They do seem to be fairly tightly linked, (on a global climate kind of timeline, 200-800 years is a pretty long time for us!)

Correctly read, the data does indicate that in the past, global temperature has been the driver for increased global CO2 levels. However, this does not preclude increased global CO2 levels from being able to drive global temperature.

An interesting article on the subject.

[Electric Monk]

On this page is a graph showing 5 of the factors.

Climate change attribution

Thanks Electric Monk, good reference, sometimes you almost need a holistic detective agency to get to the bottom of these things.

I find just digging gently around for a while, rather than trying to cut through like a Dirk works the best.

[B. Max]

Ok, so you agree that global temperature rise can be linked causally to a global rise CO2 levels, correct?

They do seem to be fairly tightly linked, (on a global climate kind of timeline, 200-800 years is a pretty long time for us!)

Correctly read, the data does indicate that in the past, global temperature has been the driver for increased global CO2 levels. However, this does not preclude increased global CO2 levels from being able to drive global temperature.

An interesting article on the subject.

First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature.

Real climate is quite the spin machine in the sense that they aren't very good at it.

[Electric Monk]

Historical, as in recorded human history? Versus the much longer timelines of glaciation? That's the point he's making there, in the time period that is relevant to anthropogenic global warming (about 1920-Present), we have been elevating CO2 levels far above past temperature induced levels and are now forcing more warming.

[B. Max]

Historical, as in recorded human history? Versus the much longer timelines of glaciation? That's the point he's making there, in the time period that is relevant to anthropogenic global warming (about 1920-Present), we have been elevating CO2 levels far above past temperature induced levels and are now forcing more warming.

Like I said, spin. The warming is natural, caused by sun spot activity. CO2 does not cause the warming and mans contribution of CO2 barely registers.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

[sunsettommy]

And remember, we're talking about global climate change here, not just North America, so we really need to see average temps for the whole world. (Which I believe Jones, Mann, and those 9 other reconstructions attempt to provide us with.)

The idea of an average temperature of the world is no longer a good one.The data for it are not reliable or consistent.The stations themselves has been compromised by paint and by location.

Dr. Jones large 1986 study has been recently shown to be worthless because the data behind it are not available.They have not been available for many years either.No way to know if his research was any good.

Warwick Hughes has been vidicated.

Dr Mann and his "Hockey Stick" paper is no longer worthy since it has been statistically debunked.

The NSF had reduced it to just the last 400 years of confidence and stated that the MWP and the LIA existed as shown for a few decades now.The Wegman report invalidated it.

The "other 9 reconstructions are mostly in camp.True independence from the camp are hard to find and not only that.They base a large portion of their conclusions on SECONDARY PROXY data.

It is truly sad when you put so much interest in questionable studies and overlook the solid ones published the last few decades clearly establishing the existence of the LIA and MWP.

The Satellite data coupled with weather balloon data are the only reasonably accurate temperature data we have and they go back to 1979 and 1958 respectively.They both show far less warming trend than those compromised surface temperature data show.

[sunsettommy]

Historical, as in recorded human history? Versus the much longer timelines of glaciation? That's the point he's making there, in the time period that is relevant to anthropogenic global warming (about 1920-Present), we have been elevating CO2 levels far above past temperature induced levels and are now forcing more warming.

Do you realize that the additional molecular CO2 contribution to warming is less and less?

The IPCC admits to it and so does Astronomers who knows better.

Here is a handy link:

Climate CO2 sensitivity

SNIP:

You should realize that the carbon dioxide only absorbs the infrared radiation at certain frequencies, and it can only absorb the maximum of 100% of the radiation at these frequencies. By this comment, I want to point out that the "forcing" - the expected additive shift of the terrestrial equilibrium temperature - is not a linear function of the carbon dioxide concentration. Instead, the additional greenhouse effect becomes increasingly unimportant as the concentration increases: the expected temperature increase for a single frequency is something like

1.5 ( 1 - exp[-(concentration-280)/200 ppm] ) Celsius

The decreasing exponential tells you how much radiation at the critical frequencies is able to penetrate through the carbon dioxide and leave the planet. The numbers in the formula above are not completely accurate and the precise exponential form is not quite robust either but the qualitative message is reliable. When the concentration increases, additional CO2 becomes less and less important.

In particular, there exists nothing such as a "runaway effect" or a "point of no return" or a "tipping point" or any of the similar frightening fairy-tales promoted by Al Gore and his numerous soulmates. The formula above simply does not allow you more than 1.5 Celsius degrees of warming from the CO2 greenhouse effect. Similar formulae based on the Arrhenius' law predicts a decrease of the derivative "d Temperature / d Concentration" to be just a power law - not exponential decrease - but it is still a decrease.

SNIP:

In all cases, such a possible warming distributed over centuries is certainly nothing that a person with IQ above 80 should be producing movies about and nothing that should convince him to stop the world economy.

When you substitute the concentration of 560 ppm (parts per million), you obtain something like 1 Celsius degree increase relatively to the pre-industrial era. But even if you plug in the current concentration of 380 ppm, you obtain about 0.76 Celsius degrees of "global warming". Although we have only completed about 40% of the proverbial CO2 doubling, we have already achieved about 75% of the warming effect that is expected from such a doubling: the difference is a result of the exponentially suppressed influence of the growing carbon dioxide concentration.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-...-editorial.html

[sunsettommy]

This is a handy site for checking historical temperatures in the United States from 1895 to the present. Average temperature seems to be trending upwards.

I even tried breaking it down by month, they all are trending upwards.

Do you know how and where such data are gathered?

[sunsettommy]

How about NASA?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

(They normalize their urban stations to the surrounding rural ones.)

Seriously, climatologists know about things like Urban Heat Island Effect and take it into account in their calculations.

And how exactly do you account for choosing 1998 as your starting year? If you go back just 10 years before 98, it is obvious that warming is continuing, and that 98 was an anomaly. The NASA page I linked above even gives a graph that shows the times of El Ninos- red squares, La Ninas- blue semi-circles, and large volcanic eruptions- little green triangles.

Do you realize what a mess those stations are?

[sunsettommy]

Ok, so you agree that global temperature rise can be linked causally to a global rise CO2 levels, correct?

They do seem to be fairly tightly linked, (on a global climate kind of timeline, 200-800 years is a pretty long time for us!)

Correctly read, the data does indicate that in the past, global temperature has been the driver for increased global CO2 levels. However, this does not preclude increased global CO2 levels from being able to drive global temperature.

An interesting article on the subject.

So during those 200-800 years what promoted the warming trend?

[Electric Monk]

Historical, as in recorded human history? Versus the much longer timelines of glaciation? That's the point he's making there, in the time period that is relevant to anthropogenic global warming (about 1920-Present), we have been elevating CO2 levels far above past temperature induced levels and are now forcing more warming.

Like I said, spin. The warming is natural, caused by sun spot activity. CO2 does not cause the warming and mans contribution of CO2 barely registers.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Here's a good explanation of why Co2 is important, it absorbs radiation from a band that water vapour does not, effectively "closing" that radiative window at higher concentrations.

A reply to Augie Auer

Changes in solar radiation don't account for recent temperature rise according to the Max Planck Institute.

Graph

Source page

[sunsettommy]

B.Max you really need to stop using Junkscience website to bolster your argument using surface temperature data.They have been shown to be biased and compromised.

Stephen Milloy no longer consider them reliable or valid.There are simply too many problems with the data.

[Electric Monk]

So during those 200-800 years what promoted the warming trend?

Google Milankovitch cycle. (I hope I spelled it correctly.)

Edited to add this link.

[sunsettommy]

Here's a good explanation of why Co2 is important, it absorbs radiation from a band that water vapour does not, effectively "closing" that radiative window at higher concentrations.

A reply to Augie Auer

You do realize that no references were provided in the link?

Meanwhile you just talked about CO2 lag with temperature!

Again how did we get so much warming when CO2 was not a player and that Water Vapor was essentially unchanged?

Here is a link that will help clear your confusion:

Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures?

October 9, 2003

by Dennis T. Avery

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...ubType=HI_Opeds

[sunsettommy]

So during those 200-800 years what promoted the warming trend?

Google Milankovitch cycle. (I hope I spelled it correctly.)

Edited to add this link.

You need to go to the PROBLEMS section of your link.

I see nothing that in your link promoting this lag.

[sunsettommy]

SCIENCE MAGAZINE

Science 14 March 2003:

Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731

DOI: 10.1126/science.1078758

Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

Nicolas Caillon,12* Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,2 Jean Jouzel,1 Jean-Marc Barnola,3 Jiancheng Kang,4 Volodya Y. Lipenkov5

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (~240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

emphasis mine

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728

This would appear to rule out the Milankovich cycle as the cause of the 800 year lag.