OT: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

[ernest...@gmail.com]

Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721-druck.html

Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.


SPIEGEL: Will the greenhouse effect be an issue in the upcoming German parliamentary elections? Singer Marius M�ller-Westernhagen is leading a celebrity initiative calling for the addition of climate protection as a national policy objective in the German constitution.

Storch: It's a strange idea. What state of the Earth's atmosphere do we want to protect, and in what way? And what might happen as a result? Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2 into the air and thereby violates our constitution?

SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.

snip

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality�

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

snip

SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth....It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

snip

SPIEGEL: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?

Storch: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

[jonathan]

<ernest...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fba6ed4-7645-4777...@googlegroups.com...

> Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

> Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees
> Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this
> century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know
> exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might
> have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of
> highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process,
> and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists
> can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
>

Predicting the climate that far into the future is for prophets, not
science. What if say China decided to dramatically reduce
burning coal, or if some world war broke out laying waste
to the environment, or a new technology etc etc.

We should apply the principle of evolution, not try to predict the future
of systems operating under Butterfly Effect behaviors. And that
translates to having societies which best mimic naturally evolving systems.
So that our societies can adapt and innovate with the same kind
of resilience of nature.

So the solution to climate change is political, not scientific.
Let's see IDCC try to 'compute' the political change over
the next century with their simulations.

Below is the sound of Nature/democracy returning to
rule the Earth once again....it's a sound like no other.
A few more of these around the world, and climate change
will become a worry of the past.

Tahir Square 1:16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qCiSC_7M5Y




s

[alias Ernest Major]

On 21/06/2013 01:09, jonathan wrote:
> <ernest...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7fba6ed4-7645-4777...@googlegroups.com...
>> Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
>
>> Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees
>> Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this
>> century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know
>> exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might
>> have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of
>> highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process,
>> and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists
>> can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
>>
>
>
> Predicting the climate that far into the future is for prophets, not
> science. What if say China decided to dramatically reduce
> burning coal, or if some world war broke out laying waste
> to the environment, or a new technology etc etc.
>
> We should apply the principle of evolution, not try to predict the future
> of systems operating under Butterfly Effect behaviors. And that
> translates to having societies which best mimic naturally evolving systems.
> So that our societies can adapt and innovate with the same kind
> of resilience of nature.
>
> So the solution to climate change is political, not scientific.
> Let's see IDCC try to 'compute' the political change over
> the next century with their simulations.

The solution is both political and scientific. We need both the
political will to seriously address the problem and the scientific
knowledge to effectively address the problem.

>
> Below is the sound of Nature/democracy returning to
> rule the Earth once again....it's a sound like no other.
> A few more of these around the world, and climate change
> will become a worry of the past.
>
> Tahir Square 1:16
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qCiSC_7M5Y
>

Unfortunately your preferred "solution" seem to be to do nothing and
hope something turns up.


--
alias Ernest Major

[jonathan]

"alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message
news:jMTwt.149407$NJ2.1...@fx26.fr7...

Right, but free market democracies, which best mimic nature, are
better able to provide the economic strength and capabilities
to develop ground breaking technologies, and put them to use.
Dictatorships start wars and burn coal straight up and are corrupt
and so on. For our biosphere to become a stable co-evolutionary
sysytem our half of the equation must also be able to evolve

>>
>> Below is the sound of Nature/democracy returning to
>> rule the Earth once again....it's a sound like no other.
>> A few more of these around the world, and climate change
>> will become a worry of the past.
>>
>> Tahir Square 1:16
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qCiSC_7M5Y
>>
>
> Unfortunately your preferred "solution" seem to be to do nothing and hope
> something turns up.
>
>

Darwinian evolution is the best known problem solving process
and all by itself. Natural solutions are the best, but they are
emergent, not predictable. The minute you set out some master
plan, or design the final product in advance, it can no longer
be a natural or ideal solution.

I think we should build the problem solving method first, then
let the problem solve itself, as in any evolutionary system.
In other words have faith in nature or Darwin.

And as far as doing nothing, in the last 10 years the US has
spent mightily trying to bring democracy to the most
dictator ravaged region in the world.



> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

[Inez]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
>

<snip>
>
> SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
>

According to NASA, 9 or the 10 warmest years on record came after 2000. They have a graph here:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

[jonathan]

"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ede7f5f-f8ae-4c25...@googlegroups.com...

NASA is the place to go for information about the climate.


Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

[ernest...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 21 June 2013 18:09:13 UTC-4, Inez wrote:
> According to NASA, 9 or the 10 warmest years on record came after 2000.

The issue is 5-year moving average of temperatures, which, according to climate models, should have increased over the past 10 years given CO2 increase in the atmosphere, but in fact did not.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2013 5:09:13 PM UTC-5, Inez wrote:
> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
>
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
>
> > SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
>
> >
>
> According to NASA, 9 or the 10 warmest years on record came after 2000. They > have a graph here:

And you may also see in that graph that the slope has gone to zero since 2000. Even though CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.

[Paul J Gans]

This has been hashed out in some detail in the technical journals.
IIRC the result has been the discovery that the ocean below the
top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years. This
has horrible long term consequences, the most obvious of which
is the melting of Antarctic sea ice from below.

A less obvious effect is due to the fact that as temperature
goes up, gas solubility goes down. So instead of sequestering
carbon dioxide, the deeper ocean is likely doing the opposite.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[alias Ernest Major]

On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2013 5:09:13 PM UTC-5, Inez wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
>>
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
>>
>>>
>>
>> According to NASA, 9 or the 10 warmest years on record came after 2000. They > have a graph here:
>
> And you may also see in that graph that the slope has gone to zero since 2000. Even though CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

Your conclusion of stagnation comes from assuming a false premise - that
CO2 levels are the only thing affecting surface temperature levels.
Other factors are internal variability in the climate system, such as
ENSO, fluctuations in solar output, and changes in the amount of
particulates in the atmosphere. (Some people think that atmospheric
pollution in China has slowed the underlying temperature rise.) These
factors add noise to underlying trend. The consensus is that 5 years is
too small a period for the trend to outweigh the nose.

>
> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.
>

Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.

If you calculate the earth's temperature using solar radiation and the
earth's albedo (ignoring the effects of the atmosphere) you predict a
surface temperature well below that observed. If it wasn't for
greenhouse gases trapping solar energy the earth would be a frozen
wasteland.

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

And by the way, that "slight increase" is 40%.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Money]

> ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The issue is 5-year moving average of temperatures, which, according to climate models, should have increased over the past 10 years given CO2 increase in the atmosphere, but in fact did not.
>
>
Paul J Gans wrote:
> This has been hashed out in some detail in the technical journals.
> IIRC the result has been the discovery that the ocean below the
> top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years.

1. How can the lower levels of the ocean warm without the higher levels warming?

2. Modern Global Circulation Models include 3D simulation of ocean behavior. If the models failed to anticipate ocean warming in the last 10 years, they are no good, are they? And the case for AGW rests on the infallibility of GCMs ("the science is in" says Al Gore), so....

3. To quote von Storch in the Der Spiegel article: "..according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened." But the specific heat of water is 4 times that of air, so how much warming of the deep ocean would we expect? What does "significantly" mean in "the ocean below the top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years"?.

[ernest...@gmail.com]

Ernest Major wrote:
> Your conclusion of stagnation comes from assuming a false premise - that
> CO2 levels are the only thing affecting surface temperature levels.
> Other factors are internal variability in the climate system, such as
> ENSO, fluctuations in solar output, and changes in the amount of
> particulates in the atmosphere.

.. but the AGW position depends on the results from Global Circulation Models, which should be able to anticipate these factors. If they cannot, how can we rely on their results?

> The consensus is that 5 years is
> too small a period for the trend to outweigh the nose.

Presumably you mean "the noise". Who says 5 years is too short? And how do you know it is noise? Who in the atmospheric modelling community is making this argument? Hans von Storch (interviewed in Der Spiegel article cited above) is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre and a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics. He does not mention internal variability in the climate system or fluctuations in solar output etc.

> > The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.

> Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
> hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
> body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.

This is not a good argument. It is way beyond comparing apples and oranges. The problem, from the warmist position, is that relatively small-scale warming due to CO2 will increase the proportion of other greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, leading to more warming, more GH gases, etc in a + feedback cycle.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 22/06/2013 04:02, Ernest Money wrote:
>> ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The issue is 5-year moving average of temperatures, which, according to climate models, should have increased over the past 10 years given CO2 increase in the atmosphere, but in fact did not.
>>
>>
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>> This has been hashed out in some detail in the technical journals.
>> IIRC the result has been the discovery that the ocean below the
>> top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years.
>
> 1. How can the lower levels of the ocean warm without the higher levels warming?

Hypothesis 1: disequilibium. Heat is transported in the oceans by
currents. If the source regions of the currents that take surface water
to the deep ocean are warmer than historically then even if the source
regions aren't warming the penetration of warmer water is still
proceeding downstream.

Hypothesis 2: local warming of source regions. One source of water in
the deep ocean is the Mediterranean. If, hypothetically, that region is
warming then more heat is transferred to the deeper ocean even if the
average surface temperature is static.

Hypothesis 3: increased current velocities. If more new warm water is
entering the deep ocean and more old cold water is leaving it, the
average temperature of the deep ocean will increase independent of the
surface temperature (and such a process will have the effect of slowing
the surface temperature rise).

>
> 2. Modern Global Circulation Models include 3D simulation of ocean behavior. If the models failed to anticipate ocean warming in the last 10 years, they are no good, are they? And the case for AGW rests on the infallibility of GCMs ("the science is in" says Al Gore), so....

There is a faulty premise there. The case for AGW doesn't depend on the
infallibility of GCMs. (You are effectively adopting a form of
epistemological nihilism - concluding that if we don't know every detail
of the response of the climate system to a perturbation we don't know
the gross characteristics of the response.)

>
> 3. To quote von Storch in the Der Spiegel article: "..according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened." But the specific heat of water is 4 times that of air, so how much warming of the deep ocean would we expect? What does "significantly" mean in "the ocean below the top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years"?.

Considering that specific heat is measured in J.kg^-1.K^-1, and the
oceans are much more massive than the atmosphere it requires very little
heating of the ocean on average to correspond to a lack of 0.25K heating
of the atmosphere.

But the claim, as quoted, is incorrect. The expectation is a range of
values - the secular trend +/- the noise in the series.
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 22/06/2013 04:32, ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>> Your conclusion of stagnation comes from assuming a false premise - that
>> CO2 levels are the only thing affecting surface temperature levels.
>> Other factors are internal variability in the climate system, such as
>> ENSO, fluctuations in solar output, and changes in the amount of
>> particulates in the atmosphere.
>
> .. but the AGW position depends on the results from Global Circulation Models, which should be able to anticipate these factors. If they cannot, how can we rely on their results?

Don't you know the difference between climate and weather?

How do you expect Global Circulation Models to anticipate fluctuations
is solar output?

>
>> The consensus is that 5 years is
>> too small a period for the trend to outweigh the nose.
>
> Presumably you mean "the noise". Who says 5 years is too short? And how do you know it is noise? Who in the atmospheric modelling community is making this argument? Hans von Storch (interviewed in Der Spiegel article cited above) is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre and a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics. He does not mention internal variability in the climate system or fluctuations in solar output etc.

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing
anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere." - Hans von Storch, fide Wikipedia.

To be more accurate, he is not quoted as mentioning internal variability
or solar fluctations by Der Spiegel. It is beyond the bounds of
credibility that he is unaware of them.

>
>>> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.
>
>> Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>> hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>> body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
>
> This is not a good argument. It is way beyond comparing apples and oranges.

Are you agreeing that your claim was a bad argument? You were comparing
greenshouse gases with non-greenhouse gases, and forcings with feedbacks.

But a demonstration that small concentrations can have significant
effects should cause your to reconsider the valid of your argument from
incredulity.

> The problem, from the warmist position, is that relatively small-scale warming due to CO2 will increase the proportion of other greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, leading to more warming, more GH gases, etc in a + feedback cycle.

Yes, that the majority of feedbacks appears to be positive is a problem.
It makes the impacts worse, and makes remedial action more urgent. But I
imagine you mean to claim that it a scientific problem; but I don't have
any idea what line of argument you could offer in support of such a claim.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Rolf]

"alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> skrev i melding
news:0F9xt.95034$bl6....@fx09.fr7...

For myself, I feel like I would have to do an awful lot of study before I
could claim to have a firm grip on the issue of global warming,
anthropogenic or not.
Maybe a lifetime and yet not know enough. But it may not be very relevant to
judge long time climate trends by short term weather fluctuations.

WRT this thread, I can only note that the source cited is, IIRC, a retired
meteorologist and not a climatologist. That's a significant difference.
If people stop and think they may recognize that we are in a similar
situation wrt climate change as with evolution. A solid majority of
scientists who ought to know what they are talking about agree; evolution is
both a theory and a fact. OTOH, there also is an opposition, some with
scientifc credentials - and a large following of less informed but strongly
biased people.

WRT ocean temperatures, I suppose the issue is a bit more complex than the
currents in a bathtub. There is a complex system of currents around the
globe and I wouldn't be surprised if even oceanographic scientists find
their job is not easy; always to know everyting both past and present.

For the time being, my money is on the climatologists. CO2 is on the rise,
Glaciers are melting.

Rolf

[jillery]

What's interesting about reality is that it doesn't really care that
you have trouble believing in it.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/21/13 8:32 PM, ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>> Your conclusion of stagnation comes from assuming a false premise - that
>> CO2 levels are the only thing affecting surface temperature levels.
>> Other factors are internal variability in the climate system, such as
>> ENSO, fluctuations in solar output, and changes in the amount of
>> particulates in the atmosphere.
>
> .. but the AGW position depends on the results from Global Circulation
> Models, which should be able to anticipate these factors. If they
> cannot, how can we rely on their results?

The "AGW position" predates the invention of the computer, much less
global circulation models. It is based on multiple lines of evidence,
the main two being the physical fact that adding CO2 to an atmosphere
makes it trap more heat, and the observed fact that that has been
happening in our atmosphere.

>> The consensus is that 5 years is

>> too small a period for the trend to outweigh the noise.

>
> Who says 5 years is too short? And how do you know it is noise?

Climate records. There are weather events that do not repeat within
every five-year period. Good grief, can't you see that for yourself?

>>> [C02 is a trace element. How could a slight (40%) change have an effect?]

>
>> Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>> hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>> body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
>
> This is not a good argument. It is way beyond comparing apples and
> oranges. The problem, from the warmist position, is that relatively
> small-scale warming due to CO2 will increase the proportion of other
> greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, leading to more warming, more
> GH gases, etc in a + feedback cycle.

Okay, I am perplexed. Are you even trying to make a consistent argument?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Inez]

On Friday, June 21, 2013 9:04:44 PM UTC-7, alias Ernest Major wrote:
> On 22/06/2013 04:02, Ernest Money wrote:
>
> >> ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> The issue is 5-year moving average of temperatures, which, according to climate models, should have increased over the past 10 years given CO2 increase in the atmosphere, but in fact did not.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> >> This has been hashed out in some detail in the technical journals.
>
> >> IIRC the result has been the discovery that the ocean below the
>
> >> top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years.
>
> >
>
> > 1. How can the lower levels of the ocean warm without the higher levels warming?
>
>
>
> Hypothesis 1: disequilibium. Heat is transported in the oceans by
>
> currents. If the source regions of the currents that take surface water
>
> to the deep ocean are warmer than historically then even if the source
>
> regions aren't warming the penetration of warmer water is still
>
> proceeding downstream.
>
>
>
> Hypothesis 2: local warming of source regions. One source of water in
>
> the deep ocean is the Mediterranean. If, hypothetically, that region is
>
> warming then more heat is transferred to the deeper ocean even if the
>
> average surface temperature is static.
>
>
>
> Hypothesis 3: increased current velocities. If more new warm water is
>
> entering the deep ocean and more old cold water is leaving it, the
>
> average temperature of the deep ocean will increase independent of the
>
> surface temperature (and such a process will have the effect of slowing
>
> the surface temperature rise).
>

You might find this article interesting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200602/-The-Antarctic-Half-of-the-Global-Thermohaline-Circulation-Is-Faltering

Apparently cold deep ocean water tends to flow from Antarctica, but warm currents are melting the ice shelves around Antarctica from below, creating a layer of lighter less salty water that prevents cold salty water formed when the surface sea ice freezes from sinking. As a result, less cold water is spread to the more northerly oceans and they are heating up in their depths.

[Paul J Gans]

Ernest Money <ernest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >The issue is 5-year moving average of temperatures, which, according to climate models, should have increased over the past 10 years given CO2 increase in the atmosphere, but in fact did not.
>>
>>
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> This has been hashed out in some detail in the technical journals.
>> IIRC the result has been the discovery that the ocean below the
>> top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years.

>1. How can the lower levels of the ocean warm without the higher levels warming?

The upper levels have always been warmer than the lower ones.
What has changed is the rate of heat transfer from those
upper levels to lower ones.

>2. Modern Global Circulation Models include 3D simulation of ocean behavior. If the models failed to anticipate ocean warming in the last 10 years, they are no good, are they? And the case for AGW rests on the infallibility of GCMs ("the science is in" says Al Gore), so....

Models are complex and take into account much of what is known.
Unfortunately they don't take into account things previously
unknown. I do not think we yet have detailed 3D understanding
of all the ocean currents.

>3. To quote von Storch in the Der Spiegel article: "..according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened." But the specific heat of water is 4 times that of air, so how much warming of the deep ocean would we expect? What does "significantly" mean in "the ocean below the top layers has warmed significantly in the last 10 years"?.

Yes, what does it mean?

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
> On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, >>water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I >>find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a >>beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap >>an excessive amount of solar energy.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>
> hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>
> body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.

I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.

> If you calculate the earth's temperature using solar radiation and the
>
> earth's albedo (ignoring the effects of the atmosphere) you predict a
>
> surface temperature well below that observed. If it wasn't for
>
> greenhouse gases trapping solar energy the earth would be a frozen
>
> wasteland.

That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet radiation from the sun, leading to warming.

As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect. Since most of the water vapor enters the atmosphere from evaporation from the oceans, there is almost nothing we can do to affect it.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:

> On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>> And you may also see in that graph that the slope has gone to zero since >>2000. Even though CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase.
>
>
>
> Your conclusion of stagnation comes from assuming a false premise - that
>
> CO2 levels are the only thing affecting surface temperature levels.
>
> Other factors are internal variability in the climate system, such as
>
> ENSO, fluctuations in solar output, and changes in the amount of
>
> particulates in the atmosphere. (Some people think that atmospheric
>
> pollution in China has slowed the underlying temperature rise.) These
>
> factors add noise to underlying trend. The consensus is that 5 years is
>
> too small a period for the trend to outweigh the nose.

I have never assumed that CO2 levels are the only thing that affect surface temperatures. It is your fellow warmists who have tried to claim that fluctuations in solar output are irrelevant.

You have a lot more than 5 years of non-warming to account for. Look at the global average temperature data. HADCRUT4, HADCRUT3, NCDC, and GISS are all below the levels in 1998. You need to explain why temperatures have not risen during the last 14 years, even though atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased steadily during that time.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

So explain the reality that temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years. You warmists have trouble believing that.

[Jim T.]

You don't analyze data by discarding all of it except for two points
and drawing a straight line between them. This is exactly what you are
doing when you compare the current temp. with a single year in the
past. Learn a little regression analysis.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/23/13 9:53 PM, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So explain the reality that temperatures have not increased over
> the last 15 years.

They have. The average trend over the last 15 years is still upward.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/616907main1_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg%5B1%5D-670.jpg

[Paul J Gans]

I'll do this one time and one time only. You are cherrypicking
the data. 1998 was one of the hotttest years on record. In
comparison to 1998 the average temperature has fallen.

Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.

You can't pick one year to use as a baseline. What is normally
done is to pick a 10 year (at least) stretch and use the average
as a baseline.

Got it?

I thought not.

[alias Ernest Major]

Was that meant to be 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, etc?

>
> You can't pick one year to use as a baseline. What is normally
> done is to pick a 10 year (at least) stretch and use the average
> as a baseline.
>
> Got it?
>
> I thought not.
>


--

alias Ernest Major

[Jim T.]

The "no warming in 15 years" crowd has been corrected on this so many
times that one begins to have less than charitable opinions on the
motives of those who repeat it...

[eridanus]

there is an interesting question here to present to our resident
philosopher.

It is the question of "what is reality?" It is reality a question
independent of our thinking? Then, if it is independent... then
"we do not what it is." If reality is something we can know and
understand, then it can be a product of our thinking. In this former
case, "reality would be what we think it is". Then, when when we are
in a confrontational course with a fundamentalist that "knows reality
from the words of a holy book", so, we are in watching a war of
different visions of reality.

So, we can be arguing like children in primary school, my reality is much better than yours. Or like with other sort of comparisons, "mine is bigger
than yours."

Even if you ask for the help of logic, we are in a similar case; my logic
is bigger than yours, it can get harder and pee farther off.

Eridanus

[Paul J Gans]

No, that was a peculiarity of my operating system that
with an errant keystroke, causes lines to repeat multiple
times.

>>
>> You can't pick one year to use as a baseline. What is normally
>> done is to pick a 10 year (at least) stretch and use the average
>> as a baseline.
>>
>> Got it?
>>
>> I thought not.
>>



--

--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Yup.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kqalfj$r9v$2...@reader2.panix.com...

So pick a 15 year "stretch", loon.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <kqalbf$r9v$1...@reader2.panix.com>,

So I figured, but it seemed at the time to be particularly appropriate
to the idiocy of the "not warming" claim... :-)

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:30:58 AM UTC-5, Jim T. wrote:
> You don't analyze data by discarding all of it except for two points
>
> and drawing a straight line between them. This is exactly what you are
>
> doing when you compare the current temp. with a single year in the
>
> past. Learn a little regression analysis.

I got the average annual temperatures from HADCRUT4, HADCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC and ran a linear regression for the period from 1998 to 2012.

temp = Constant + b X year

For each data set, the first number is the estimate slope coefficient b, the second is its t-statistic:

HADCRUT4 0.005 0.989
HADCRUT3 -0.003 -0.514
GISS 0.006 1.361
NCDC 0.004 0.907

The slope coefficients for all four data sets are statistically indifferent from zero at any reasonable level of confidence (95% or higher), from which I conclude there is no evidence of warming since 1998. And for the HADCRUT3 data, the point estimate shows cooling! (But also statistically insignificant).

Since so many of you got your panties in a wad over my use of 1998 as the beginning year, I ran the regressions again using the data from 1997 to 2012:

HADCRUT4 0.005 1.249
HADCRUT3 -0.002 -0.354
GISS 0.008 1.813
NCDC 0.004 1.215

Same results. No statistician worth a damn would interpret any of those results as anything other than a horizontal line.

If any of you wish to verify my data, I will be happy to share my spreadsheet.

The earth is not warming. Deal with it.

[Jim T.]

Assuming you are correct, why did you pick 1998? What happens if you
use the same data and project back in time? Does if match the
temperature record? If not, why not?

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 8:32:25 PM UTC-5, Jim T. wrote:

> Assuming you are correct, why did you pick 1998? What happens if you
>
> use the same data and project back in time? Does if match the
>
> temperature record? If not, why not?

Because 1998 is the year the warming stopped. I do not dispute the fact there was a slight warming during the 1980s and 1990s. But it may have been exaggerated due to poor siting of temperature stations and the urban heat island effect.

If I project back in time, using the data set with largest positive slope, the GISS with a slope of 0.008 degrees celsius per year would give you a temperature of 0.324 in 1980 (versus actual of 0.23 from GISS) and 0.244 in 1970 (versus actual of 0.04 from GISS). If I used any of the other three data sets, the discrepancy would be even larger.

Why not? Even though atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been increasing MOL steadily, the increase in global average temperatures has slowed or even completely stopped. This leads me to question the theory that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have any effect on temperature at all.

[Mike Painter]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:51:11 -0700 (PDT), jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:30:58 AM UTC-5, Jim T. wrote:
>> You don't analyze data by discarding all of it except for two points
>>
>> and drawing a straight line between them. This is exactly what you are
>>
>> doing when you compare the current temp. with a single year in the
>>
>> past. Learn a little regression analysis.
>
>I got the average annual temperatures from HADCRUT4, HADCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC and ran a linear regression for the period from 1998 to 2012.

Somebody should tell NCDC that you are right and they are wrong.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:44:08 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El sábado, 22 de junio de 2013 10:47:18 UTC+1, jillery escribió:

[...]

>> What's interesting about reality is that it doesn't really care that
>>
>> you have trouble believing in it.
>
>there is an interesting question here to present to our resident
>philosopher.

Which one?

>It is the question of "what is reality?" It is reality a question
>independent of our thinking?

Reality is not altered by what one thinks about it. One's perception
of reality may be altered, but the underlying reality remains the same
regardless.

>Then, if it is independent... then
>"we do not what it is." If reality is something we can know and
>understand, then it can be a product of our thinking. In this former
>case, "reality would be what we think it is". Then, when when we are
>in a confrontational course with a fundamentalist that "knows reality
>from the words of a holy book", so, we are in watching a war of
>different visions of reality.
>
>So, we can be arguing like children in primary school, my reality is much better than yours. Or like with other sort of comparisons, "mine is bigger
>than yours."

The argument above is juvenile.

>Even if you ask for the help of logic, we are in a similar case; my logic
>is bigger than yours, it can get harder and pee farther off.

Piss off.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:55:38 PM UTC-5, Mike Painter wrote:

> Somebody should tell NCDC that you are right and they are wrong.
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

I'm using NCDC's own data. If anyone wants to double check the data or the regressions, feel free.

[Arkalen]

On 24/06/13 05:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, >>water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I >>find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a >>beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap >>an excessive amount of solar energy.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>>
>> hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>>
>> body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
>
> I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.
>
>
>> If you calculate the earth's temperature using solar radiation and the
>>
>> earth's albedo (ignoring the effects of the atmosphere) you predict a
>>
>> surface temperature well below that observed. If it wasn't for
>>
>> greenhouse gases trapping solar energy the earth would be a frozen
>>
>> wasteland.
>
> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet radiation from the sun, leading to warming.

M. Höpfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The
natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)",
in Geophysical Research Letters :

"The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and
nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's
atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average
under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm-2
and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm-2. Together this amounts to 15% of the
OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over
Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to
about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is
explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption
features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions. "

>
> As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect.

cite ?

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:00:35 AM UTC-5, Arkalen wrote:
> On 24/06/13 05:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse >>gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's >>atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet >>radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>
>
>

> M. H�pfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The

>
> natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)",
>
> in Geophysical Research Letters :
>
>
>
> "The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and
>
> nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's
>
> atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average
>
> under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm-2
>
> and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm-2. Together this amounts to 15% of the
>
> OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over
>
> Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to
>
> about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is
>
> explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption
>
> features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions. "

This paper does not address the issue I have raised at all. I am referring to shorter wave radiation (i.e. visible and ultraviolet light) and how they can be trapped by O2 and N2.

> >
>
> > As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect.
>
>
>
> cite ?

Water vapor is usually around 4% of the earth's atmosphere over the oceans. 2% - 3% over land. That's a range of 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm. Compare that with 400 ppm for CO2.

[shane]

On 24/06/2013 14:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, >>water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I >>find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a >>beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap >>an excessive amount of solar energy.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>>
>> hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>>
>> body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
>
> I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.
>
>
>> If you calculate the earth's temperature using solar radiation and the
>>
>> earth's albedo (ignoring the effects of the atmosphere) you predict a
>>
>> surface temperature well below that observed. If it wasn't for
>>
>> greenhouse gases trapping solar energy the earth would be a frozen
>>
>> wasteland.
>
> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>
> As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor,

Just out of interest, are you conflating concentration with importance?
In the above comment, and the one elsethread where you pooh pooh the
dangers of atmospheric CO2 because its concentration is significantly
less that water vapour, it seems that you are.

> it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect. Since most of the water vapor enters the atmosphere from evaporation from the oceans, there is almost nothing we can do to affect it.

Science tells us that a concentration of CO in the atmosphere only a
quarter that of water vapour could easily lead to mass extinctions. I'm
interested in establishing if you disagree with them and would only feel
that CO is a problem when its concentration exceeds that of water vapour?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 24 June 2013 05:20:27 UTC+1, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the
> so-called 'greenhouse gases' trap solar radiation.
> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are
> N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and
> ultraviolet radiation from the sun, leading to warming.

Therefore they too are greenhouse gases. If the Earth
had no atmosphere it'd be below freezing on average.
I don't know how valid it is to look at
<http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html>
but apparently the day and night extreme temperatures
on the Moon are 123 C and -153 C, which looks kind of
as though if it rotated faster, the average would
be -15 C.

(Apparently, artificial satellites also get hot real fast -
on one side.)

> As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most
> important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to
> be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could
> increase much more than it has over the last 200 years

> and have almost no effect. Since most of the water vapour

> enters the atmosphere from evaporation from the oceans,
> there is almost nothing we can do to affect it.

Arkalen's reply to this incidentally mentions that there's
less water vapour in the atmosphere over Antarctica.
I take it that this is because it's colder. So, as for
what could be done to affect the water vapour -

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:09:50 AM UTC-5, Shane wrote:
> On 24/06/2013 14:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

> > That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse
> >gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's
> > atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet
> >radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>
> >
>
> > As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor,
>
>
>
> Just out of interest, are you conflating concentration with importance?
>
> In the above comment, and the one elsethread where you pooh pooh the
>
> dangers of atmospheric CO2 because its concentration is significantly
>
> less that water vapour, it seems that you are.

Since water vapor is around 20,000 - 40,000 ppm in the atmosphere as compared with approx 400 ppm for CO2, that implies that CO2 would have to be 50 to 100 times more effective at trapping solar radiation than water vapor, in order for it's importance to be equal. If you have evidence that CO2 is so effective, I'm listening.

> > it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It >>could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost >>no effect. Since most of the water vapor enters the atmosphere from >>evaporation from the oceans, there is almost nothing we can do to affect it.
>
>
>
> Science tells us that a concentration of CO in the atmosphere only a
>
> quarter that of water vapour could easily lead to mass extinctions. I'm
>
> interested in establishing if you disagree with them and would only feel
>
> that CO is a problem when its concentration exceeds that of water vapour?

I assume you mean CO2 (carbon dioxide) and not CO (carbon monoxide)?

For now, I'm not going to worry about the issue of whether CO2 equal to a quarter of water vapor would cause mass extinctions. I think we can safely postpone worrying about that for a while. Here are the Mauna Loa average CO2 from the NOAA:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

CO2 is currently at about 400 ppm. It looks to me like it is currently increasing at a rate of about 4 ppm/year. To get to one quarter of the water vapor concentration, it would have to get to at least 5,000 ppm. To rise by 4,600 ppm at 4 ppm per year would take 1,150 years. Why don't you check back with me in June, 3163 AD and we can debate whether or not mass extinctions are about to happen at that point?

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/24/13 5:51 PM, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:30:58 AM UTC-5, Jim T. wrote:
>> You don't analyze data by discarding all of it except for two points
>>
>> and drawing a straight line between them. This is exactly what you are
>>
>> doing when you compare the current temp. with a single year in the
>>
>> past. Learn a little regression analysis.
>
> I got the average annual temperatures from HADCRUT4, HADCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC and ran a linear regression for the period from 1998 to 2012.
>
> temp = Constant + b X year
>
> For each data set, the first number is the estimate slope coefficient b, the second is its t-statistic:
>
> HADCRUT4 0.005 0.989
> HADCRUT3 -0.003 -0.514
> GISS 0.006 1.361
> NCDC 0.004 0.907
>
> The slope coefficients for all four data sets are statistically
> indifferent from zero at any reasonable level of confidence (95% or
> higher), from which I conclude there is no evidence of warming since
> 1998.

So you agree that the atmospheric data cannot rule out a continued warming.

What about sea temperature data? Does it show a significant warming
over that period?

> Since so many of you got your panties in a wad over my use of 1998
> as the beginning year, I ran the regressions again using the data
> from 1997 to 2012:
>
> HADCRUT4 0.005 1.249
> HADCRUT3 -0.002 -0.354
> GISS 0.008 1.813
> NCDC 0.004 1.215
>
> Same results. No statistician worth a damn would interpret any of
> those results as anything other than a horizontal line.

No statistician worth a damn would interpret those results as
significantly different from a horizontal line, which is quite a
different thing from what you said. No statistician worth a damn would
interpret any of those results as a horizontal line.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 25/06/2013 14:25, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:00:35 AM UTC-5, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 24/06/13 05:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse >>gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's >>atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet >>radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>>
>>
>>
>> M. H�pfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The
>>
>> natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)",
>>
>> in Geophysical Research Letters :
>>
>>
>>
>> "The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and
>>
>> nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's
>>
>> atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average
>>
>> under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm-2
>>
>> and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm-2. Together this amounts to 15% of the
>>
>> OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over
>>
>> Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to
>>
>> about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is
>>
>> explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption
>>
>> features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions. "
>
> This paper does not address the issue I have raised at all. I am referring to shorter wave radiation (i.e. visible and ultraviolet light) and how they can be trapped by O2 and N2.
>

But absorption of incoming short wave radiation has a cooling effect on
the surface. If solar energy is deposited in the upper atmosphere (in a
simplistic one-layer model) half of it will be reradiated back to space
without having the opportunity to effect the surface temperatures.

The outgoing radiation from the earth is dominated by long wave
radiation, so the effects of short wave absorption by O2, O3 and N2 is
dominated by the effects on incoming radiation.

Furthermore, climate change is caused by changes to the system. We know
that an earth without the effects of the atmosphere would be a frozen
wasteland. What we are interested in when we talk of climate change are
changes to the atmospheric effects. Have you any reason to infer that
the effects of O2 and N2 have changed?

The concentration of O3 has increased at low altitudes. As O3 is a
greenhouse gas this adds a warming contribution (but less, for example,
than those of CO2 and H2O). The concentration of O3 has decreased at
high altitudes, especially at high latitudes. This reduces the cooling
effect of short wavelength absorption.

>>>
>>
>>> As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> cite ?
>
> Water vapor is usually around 4% of the earth's atmosphere over the oceans. 2% - 3% over land. That's a range of 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm. Compare that with 400 ppm for CO2.
>

That is not a citation.

As an argument it has the following flaws.

1) The water vapour concentrations you give are a trifle exaggarated.
They are lower at high latitudes.
2) The water vapour concentrations you give apply to low altitudes in
the atmosphere, whilst CO2 is well mixed throughout the whole
atmospheric column.
3) At low altitudes in the atmosphere heat transport is ((IIRC)
dominated by convection.
4) The greenhouse effect is sublinear in concentration (approximately
logarithmic over a considerable range). Thus you should be comparing the
logarithms of the concentrations, rather than concentrations (water
vapour and CO2 have different absorption spectra, so you can't just
model the CO2 as an addition to the H20).

Climate modellers model the heat flow in the atmosphere, using the known
physical properties of its constituent gases. They find that a 40%
increase in CO2 concentration has a significant effect. Why should we
believe your argument from incredulity rather than their models?


--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

.... is to stop raising the ocean surface temperature by putting other
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Arkalen]

On 25/06/13 14:25, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:00:35 AM UTC-5, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 24/06/13 05:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse >>gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's >>atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet >>radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>>
>>
>>
>> M. H�pfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The
>>
>> natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)",
>>
>> in Geophysical Research Letters :
>>
>>
>>
>> "The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and
>>
>> nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's
>>
>> atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average
>>
>> under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm-2
>>
>> and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm-2. Together this amounts to 15% of the
>>
>> OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over
>>
>> Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to
>>
>> about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is
>>
>> explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption
>>
>> features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions. "
>
> This paper does not address the issue I have raised at all. I am referring to shorter wave radiation (i.e. visible and ultraviolet light) and how they can be trapped by O2 and N2.
>

Why do you care about shorter wave radiation ? The point of the
greenhouse effect is that the longwave radiation radiated by the Earth
is captured by the atmosphere and re-emitted, thus heating the Earth
from the inside. Molecules that capture short-wave radiation (i.e. what
comes to us from the Sun) would re-emit that energy from the top of the
atmosphere downwards, so most of that heat is lost to space. If anything
molecules that absorb shortwave radiation work *against* the greenhouse
effect.

tl;dr : the point of the greenhouse effect is to stop energy from going
out, not from going in.

>>>
>>
>>> As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> cite ?
>
> Water vapor is usually around 4% of the earth's atmosphere over the oceans. 2% - 3% over land. That's a range of 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm. Compare that with 400 ppm for CO2.
>

I didn't ask about a cite on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere;
you are aware that even things in small concentrations can have large
effects, good or bad. I asked for a cite on your claim that "CO2 could

increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost
no effect".

In your parallel response to Shane you halfway address this point,
saying that "CO2 would have to be 50 to 100 times more effective at
trapping solar radiation than water vapor, in order for its importance
to be equal". And that's beyond the pale, because... ?

Just from looking at the absorption spectra I'm guessing CO2's high
contribution to the radiative forcing compared to water (still only like
26% to water's 60%, according to Kiehl and Trenberth's "Earth's Annual
Global Mean Energy Budget" pdf linked to on Wikipedia, mind) is a result
both of its higher absorption of longwave radiation, and the fact that
water also absorbs shortwave radiation (i.e. decreases the amount of
energy that reaches the Earth in the first place) while CO2 does not.

[Arkalen]

Thanks for the credit but I don't think that was me...

[Inez]

Are you looking at surface temperatures or total heat content of the earth? Because NOAA seems to have found that the oceans are warming up quite a bit since 1998.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif

The deep ocean is also getting hotter, but I don't see data for that.

[chris thompson]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20:27 AM UTC-4, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>
> > On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, >>water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I >>find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a >>beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap >>an excessive amount of solar energy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>
> >
>
> > hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>
> >
>
> > body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
>
>
>
> I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.

***
Really. I once had to euthanize about 40 mice. I put them into a sealed fish tank, attached a hose to a CO2 tank and ran the hose into the tank. The mice found it rather toxic. I invite you to breathe a 10% CO2 gas mix for an hour or two.

Oxygen is also not generally thought of as toxic. I invite you to don your SCUBA gear and dive to about 40 meters with a tank loaded with pure oxygen. Stay down there for a while and see how toxic oxygen can become.

Yes, both CO2 and O2 are essential for our lives. O2 is essential for aerobic respiration. CO2 is essential for maintaining the proper pH in our blood. But have you ever heard the expression "too much of a good thing"?

Finally, if you make it through the first 2 experiments, I invite you to find a large patch of poison ivy. First, eat any berries you find. Then chew on some leaves. Finally, set the plants on fire, stand downwind, and inhale the smoke. A rabbit would not suffer any ill effects, but you would form bleeding blisters in your GI tract and lungs, and may very well die.


This should not even have to be said but different conditions and different concentrations can generate different effects. Your argument is not only a flawed non sequitur, it's so simplistic as to expose a complete ignorance of the science involved.

Chris

>
>
>
>
>
> > If you calculate the earth's temperature using solar radiation and the
>
> >
>
> > earth's albedo (ignoring the effects of the atmosphere) you predict a
>
> >
>
> > surface temperature well below that observed. If it wasn't for
>
> >
>

> > greenhouse gases trapping solar energy the earth would be a frozen
>
> >
>
> > wasteland.
>
>
>

> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>
>
>

> As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect. Since most of the water vapor enters the atmosphere from evaporation from the oceans, there is almost nothing we can do to affect it.

[Robert Carnegie]

Here?

M. Höpfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The

[Arkalen]

On 25/06/13 20:31, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 19:04:00 UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 25/06/13 16:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> Arkalen's reply to this incidentally mentions that there's
>>> less water vapour in the atmosphere over Antarctica.
>>> I take it that this is because it's colder. So, as for
>>> what could be done to affect the water vapour -
>>
>> Thanks for the credit but I don't think that was me...
>
> Here?
>

> M. H�pfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The

> natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)",
> in Geophysical Research Letters :
>
> "The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and
> nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's
> atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average
> under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm-2
> and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm-2. Together this amounts to 15% of the
> OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over
> Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to
> about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is
> explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption
> features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions. "
>

LOL ! I knew I had a tendency not to read other people's posts carefully
enough but you know it's bad when you don't even read your own...

[Glenn]

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b66883f4-089a-4826...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20:27 AM UTC-4, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
> > > On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.
> >
> >
> > > Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
> > > hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
> > > body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
> >
> > I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.
>
> ***
> Really. I once had to euthanize about 40 mice. I put them into a sealed fish tank, attached a hose to a CO2 tank and ran the hose into the tank. The mice found it rather toxic. I invite you to breathe a 10% CO2 gas mix for an hour or two.
>
> Oxygen is also not generally thought of as toxic. I invite you to don your SCUBA gear and dive to about 40 meters with a tank loaded with pure oxygen. Stay down there for a while and see how toxic oxygen can become.
>
> Yes, both CO2 and O2 are essential for our lives. O2 is essential for aerobic respiration. CO2 is essential for maintaining the proper pH in our blood. But have you ever heard the expression "too much of a good thing"?
>
> Finally, if you make it through the first 2 experiments, I invite you to find a large patch of poison ivy. First, eat any berries you find. Then chew on some leaves. Finally, set the plants on fire, stand downwind, and inhale the smoke. A rabbit would not suffer any ill effects, but you would form bleeding blisters in your GI tract and lungs, and may very well die.
>
>
> This should not even have to be said but different conditions and different concentrations can generate different effects. Your argument is not only a flawed non sequitur, it's so simplistic as to expose a complete ignorance of the science involved.
>

Actually he said he couldn't believe a *slight increase* could cause significant warming. What he said is true, that CO2 is
not toxic, and is essential for life. Your mice died of asphyxiation, not because of CO2 toxicity.

[Mitchell Coffey]

It may be true, but it's irrelevant to the subject. The key point of his
post, "I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the

amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the

atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy" is pure
assertion and contrary to the science and the evidence.

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kqd1g6$ccb$5...@dont-email.me...

It is true, and whether it is irrelevant depends on individual point of view. The subject of global warming is inappropriate for talk.origins, and I avoid participating in protracted arguments about it. IMO what is relevant in this thread is the mindset and tactics of those who supposedly support "the" science.

> The key point of his
> post, "I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the
> amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the
> atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy" is pure
> assertion and contrary to the science and the evidence.
>

It is not necessarily "pure assertion", and is not made in isolation. There is evidence to support it, you just don't accept any evidence that doesn't lead to what you believe. As far as "the science", it is a complex issue that is not fully understood, and scientists have also made what you call assertions, some of which have been wrong.

[John Stockwell]

The water vapor capacity of the atmosphere increases as it warms up so that is
a more interesting calculation.



The real issues are historical levels of CO2 versus temperature. Temperatures
are determined from proxy measurements of the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16.

1) The past 800,000 years from the Vostok ice core data.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png


Over the past 800,000 years, until about 1960 the CO2 levels were never above
280 parts per million.

Now, there are some global warming denialists who will point to the sharp
sawtooth changes and point out that there is a 600-800 year time lag between
temperature increase and CO2 (that CO2 leads temperature change). That is
thought to be because when CO2 is less than 400-600 ppm the temperatures are
driven by the Milankovich cycles. The Milankovich cycles are the periodic changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and Earth's axial tilt that
change the amount of sunlight reaching the Northern hemisphere.

The spike in CO2 is thought to have provided a positive feedback that raised
temperatures much more rapidly than Milankovich cycles would suggest.



2) Here are global temperatures for the past 5 million years

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

You can see that for the past 3 million years, the earth was in an ice age,
with the Milankovich cycles dominating the climate picture. If we look back
further than 3 million years, then the CO2 levels were above 400ppm (not shown
on this graph) and the global temperatures really seem to be tied primarly
to CO2.

3) If we look at global temperatures for the past 65 million years, compared with estimates of CO2, then it seems that CO2 is very important regarding
temperature. However, as we go back beyond a few million years, the positions
of the continents, and ocean currents were different, so it is difficult
to understand the effects of these influences.


http://claudiocassardo.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/image007.jpg

Some milestones.

About 5 million years ago, the concentration of evaporites in the floor
of the Mediterranean Sea, due to the drying up of the Mediterranean from
the closure of the Straits of Gibraltar raised the temperature at which
sea ice forms, providing a mechanism for increasing the Earth's albedo (reflectivity).

33 million years ago - opening of the Drake passage, which permitted Antarctica
to have an ice cap. We are at or above 400ppm, and we don't see much of the
Milankovich cycle effect.


42 million years ago, the collision of the Indian subcontinent with Tibet

Note that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by the weathering of rocks,
so the decline from 1000ppm to 450ppm from 42-33 million years ago is thought
to be because of increased erosion caused the uplift of the Tibetan plateau.

60 Million to 42 million years, this large triangular warming event is thought
to be the result of the subduction of the Tethys ocean basin under as India
was moving north to Asia.

The interesting spike at 55 million years is called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). This is thought to have been due to outgasing of CO2
due to volcanic eruptions, combined with an outgasing of methane from the
from methane hydrates in the ocean floor. The amount of CO2 released is
thought to be more or less equivalent to what we will release due to the
burning of fossil fuels in the next century or so.

At any rate, these are important parts of the data. The question of modeling
this sort of stuff is important, but we do have to bow to the current facts

1) there has been warming in recent decades that is beyond normal climate
models to predict
2) the past 40 or 50 years are clearly different from the previous 3 million
years in terms of the amount of CO2. It's coming from human activities,
largest of which is the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels account for
about 200 times as much carbon than from other sources.
3) when CO2 gets above about 450ppm it starts looking scary. The world was
a very different place, temperatures ruled by locations of continenents


Anyway we do live in interesting times.

-John

[John Stockwell]

I don't think that you can argue that warming "stopped" in 1998, but that
from 1998 to the present temperatures have maintained their higher level more
or less.

Considering that the ocean has a tremendous heat capacity, it is more likely
that 15 years doesn't mean much when were are talking about climate.

What it does mean is that climate models have to be reevaluated.

-John

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:19:43 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/24/13 5:51 PM, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

> > The slope coefficients for all four data sets are statistically
>
> > indifferent from zero at any reasonable level of confidence (95% or
>
> > higher), from which I conclude there is no evidence of warming since
>
> > 1998.
>
>
>
> So you agree that the atmospheric data cannot rule out a continued warming.

My, isn't that clever? I also cannot rule out that temperatures have begun decreasing.

The burden of proof lies with the warmists to show that temperatures are currently increasing and that increase is caused by burning fossil fuels. To make expensive government-mandated changes to both industrial and consumer use of fossil fuels, without reason to believe they are causing any harm, is foolish.

> What about sea temperature data? Does it show a significant warming
>
> over that period?

The datasets I used include both land annd sea temperatures.

> > Since so many of you got your panties in a wad over my use of 1998
>
> > as the beginning year, I ran the regressions again using the data
>
> > from 1997 to 2012:
>
> >
>
> > HADCRUT4 0.005 1.249
>
> > HADCRUT3 -0.002 -0.354
>
> > GISS 0.008 1.813
>
> > NCDC 0.004 1.215
>
> >
>
> > Same results. No statistician worth a damn would interpret any of
>
> > those results as anything other than a horizontal line.
>
>
>
> No statistician worth a damn would interpret those results as
>
> significantly different from a horizontal line, which is quite a
>
> different thing from what you said. No statistician worth a damn would
>
> interpret any of those results as a horizontal line.

Actually, we could do a test with the null hypothesis that the slope of the regression line is nonzero, and then reject it if the absolute value of the slope is less than some minimum. Tell me what minimum slope you wish to test for, I will will think of the best way to do it. I think GMM with instrumental variables might do the trick.

[shane]

On 26/06/2013 02:00, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:09:50 AM UTC-5, Shane wrote:
>> On 24/06/2013 14:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse
>>> gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's
>>> atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet
>>> radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor,
>>
>>
>>
>> Just out of interest, are you conflating concentration with importance?
>>
>> In the above comment, and the one elsethread where you pooh pooh the
>>
>> dangers of atmospheric CO2 because its concentration is significantly
>>
>> less that water vapour, it seems that you are.
>
> Since water vapor is around 20,000 - 40,000 ppm in the atmosphere as compared with approx 400 ppm for CO2, that implies that CO2 would have to be 50 to 100 times more effective at trapping solar radiation than water vapor, in order for it's importance to be equal. If you have evidence that CO2 is so effective, I'm listening.

I'll take that as a yes then. Your argument it all about concentration,
and not about chemical properties.

I take it you think nitrogen is much healthier for us as it is 3.5 times
the concentration in air than oxygen?

>>> it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It >>could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost >>no effect. Since most of the water vapor enters the atmosphere from >>evaporation from the oceans, there is almost nothing we can do to affect it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Science tells us that a concentration of CO in the atmosphere only a
>>
>> quarter that of water vapour could easily lead to mass extinctions. I'm
>>
>> interested in establishing if you disagree with them and would only feel
>>
>> that CO is a problem when its concentration exceeds that of water vapour?
>
> I assume you mean CO2 (carbon dioxide) and not CO (carbon monoxide)?

No I meant CO. I am trying--unsuccessfully it seems--to see if you
understand that you cannot automatically assume that one chemical
operates just like another in any aspect, including that of
concentration. If you cannot demonstrate that you understand that, then
pretty much anything you have to say about the effect of varying
concentrations is valueless.

> For now, I'm not going to worry about the issue of whether CO2 equal to a quarter of water vapor would cause mass extinctions. I think we can safely postpone worrying about that for a while. Here are the Mauna Loa average CO2 from the NOAA:

I doubt if anyone is going to die from Mauna Loa CO2 emissions, yet
people are dying every day from CO inhalation. It seems you don't even
know enough to live.

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 6:51:11 PM UTC-6, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:30:58 AM UTC-5, Jim T. wrote:
>
> > You don't analyze data by discarding all of it except for two points
>
> >
>
> > and drawing a straight line between them. This is exactly what you are
>
> >
>
> > doing when you compare the current temp. with a single year in the
>
> >
>
> > past. Learn a little regression analysis.
>
>
>
> I got the average annual temperatures from HADCRUT4, HADCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC and ran a linear regression for the period from 1998 to 2012.
>
>
>
> temp = Constant + b X year
>
>
>
> For each data set, the first number is the estimate slope coefficient b, the second is its t-statistic:
>
>
>
> HADCRUT4 0.005 0.989
>
> HADCRUT3 -0.003 -0.514
>
> GISS 0.006 1.361
>
> NCDC 0.004 0.907
>
>
>

> The slope coefficients for all four data sets are statistically indifferent from zero at any reasonable level of confidence (95% or higher), from which I conclude there is no evidence of warming since 1998. And for the HADCRUT3 data, the point estimate shows cooling! (But also statistically insignificant).

>
>
>
> Since so many of you got your panties in a wad over my use of 1998 as the beginning year, I ran the regressions again using the data from 1997 to 2012:
>
>
>
> HADCRUT4 0.005 1.249
>
> HADCRUT3 -0.002 -0.354
>
> GISS 0.008 1.813
>
> NCDC 0.004 1.215
>
>
>
> Same results. No statistician worth a damn would interpret any of those results as anything other than a horizontal line.
>
>
>

> If any of you wish to verify my data, I will be happy to share my spreadsheet.
>
>
>
> The earth is not warming. Deal with it

No. What you have shown is that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere hasn't increased. That doesn't mean that the Earth isn't warming. It means
we haven't seen any appreciable warming in the past 15 years.

15 years isn't a huge window, though.



-John

[Paul J Gans]

Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>In article <kqalbf$r9v$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> alias Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

>> >On 24/06/2013 18:02, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> >> jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>> >>>> On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>

>> >>>>> And you may also see in that graph that the slope has gone to zero
>> >>>>> since >>2000. Even though CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to
>> >>>>> increase.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your conclusion of stagnation comes from assuming a false premise - that
>> >>>>
>> >>>> CO2 levels are the only thing affecting surface temperature levels.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Other factors are internal variability in the climate system, such as
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ENSO, fluctuations in solar output, and changes in the amount of
>> >>>>
>> >>>> particulates in the atmosphere. (Some people think that atmospheric
>> >>>>
>> >>>> pollution in China has slowed the underlying temperature rise.) These
>> >>>>
>> >>>> factors add noise to underlying trend. The consensus is that 5 years is
>> >>>>
>> >>>> too small a period for the trend to outweigh the nose.
>> >>
>> >>> I have never assumed that CO2 levels are the only thing that affect
>> >>> surface temperatures. It is your fellow warmists who have tried to claim
>> >>> that fluctuations in solar output are irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >>> You have a lot more than 5 years of non-warming to account for. Look at
>> >>> the global average temperature data. HADCRUT4, HADCRUT3, NCDC, and GISS
>> >>> are all below the levels in 1998. You need to explain why temperatures
>> >>> have not risen during the last 14 years, even though atmospheric CO2
>> >>> concentration has increased steadily during that time.
>> >>
>> >> I'll do this one time and one time only. You are cherrypicking
>> >> the data. 1998 was one of the hotttest years on record. In
>> >> comparison to 1998 the average temperature has fallen.
>> >>
>> >> Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a
>> >> baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and
>> >> see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that
>> >> warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has
>> >> continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick
>> >> 1997 as a baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a
>> >> baseline and see that warming has continued.Pick 1997 as a baseline and
>> >> see that warming has continued.
>>
>> >Was that meant to be 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, etc?
>>
>> No, that was a peculiarity of my operating system that
>> with an errant keystroke, causes lines to repeat multiple
>> times.

>So I figured, but it seemed at the time to be particularly appropriate
>to the idiocy of the "not warming" claim... :-)

Yeah, it was the good old vi "repeat eight times" command. I
thought I'd eradicated all 8, but I seem to have missed several.

But now that you mention it, I will look for places to use it... ;-)

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, June 24, 2013 8:32:25 PM UTC-5, Jim T. wrote:

>> Assuming you are correct, why did you pick 1998? What happens if you
>>
>> use the same data and project back in time? Does if match the
>>
>> temperature record? If not, why not?

>Because 1998 is the year the warming stopped. I do not dispute the fact there was a slight warming during the 1980s and 1990s. But it may have been exaggerated due to poor siting of temperature stations and the urban heat island effect.

Oh yes? 2012 was the warmest year on record. I suggest that you
(and everybody else) go look at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

and see for yourselves.

[snip]

[John Stockwell]

That should say "CO2 lags the temperature change" At those spikes, the
temperature goes up, and then the CO2 goes up.

[Paul J Gans]

Mike Painter <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:51:11 -0700 (PDT), jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>>On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:30:58 AM UTC-5, Jim T. wrote:
>>> You don't analyze data by discarding all of it except for two points
>>>
>>> and drawing a straight line between them. This is exactly what you are
>>>
>>> doing when you compare the current temp. with a single year in the
>>>
>>> past. Learn a little regression analysis.
>>
>>I got the average annual temperatures from HADCRUT4, HADCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC and ran a linear regression for the period from 1998 to 2012.

>Somebody should tell NCDC that you are right and they are wrong.
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

I like the part where that article says:

"Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have
occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all
occurred since 1995."

I have no idea why this "global warming has stopped" bullcrap
pops out every so often. I especially love the part about
not believing that a little bit of CO2 can so seriously modulate
the temperature.

It is almost like the political "echo chamber" effect that
became so obvious in the last six or seven years in the US.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:39:02 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
> On 25/06/2013 14:25, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

> > This paper does not address the issue I have raised at all. I am referring >>to shorter wave radiation (i.e. visible and ultraviolet light) and how they >>can be trapped by O2 and N2.

>
> But absorption of incoming short wave radiation has a cooling effect on
>
> the surface. If solar energy is deposited in the upper atmosphere (in a
>
> simplistic one-layer model) half of it will be reradiated back to space
>
> without having the opportunity to effect the surface temperatures.

Then the other half that is not re-radiated back to space is warming the atmosphere.

> The outgoing radiation from the earth is dominated by long wave
>
> radiation, so the effects of short wave absorption by O2, O3 and N2 is
>
> dominated by the effects on incoming radiation.

So how much radiation is being absorbed by the O2, O3, and N2? I doubt it is less than the amount absorbed by the miniscule amount of CO2.

> Furthermore, climate change is caused by changes to the system. We know
>
> that an earth without the effects of the atmosphere would be a frozen
>
> wasteland. What we are interested in when we talk of climate change are
>
> changes to the atmospheric effects. Have you any reason to infer that
>
> the effects of O2 and N2 have changed?

No, but there are other issues that can cause changes to the climate, such variations in the output of the sun and wobbles in the earth's orbit.

I doubt there was a significant increase in the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere during the dark ages from burning coal, peat, or wood. And yet, the climate changed, with a significant increase in temperatures during the medeival warming period.

> 1) The water vapour concentrations you give are a trifle exaggarated.
>
> They are lower at high latitudes.
>
>
> 2) The water vapour concentrations you give apply to low altitudes in
>
> the atmosphere, whilst CO2 is well mixed throughout the whole
>
> atmospheric column.

So what is the total percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere?

>
> Climate modellers model the heat flow in the atmosphere, using the known
>
> physical properties of its constituent gases. They find that a 40%
>
> increase in CO2 concentration has a significant effect. Why should we
>
> believe your argument from incredulity rather than their models?

Because their models routinely predict large increases in temperature into the future that have not been realized.

[Paul J Gans]

jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:55:38 PM UTC-5, Mike Painter wrote:

>> Somebody should tell NCDC that you are right and they are wrong.
>>
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

>I'm using NCDC's own data. If anyone wants to double check the data or the regressions, feel free.

I like looking at graphs. They seem to be fairly clear.

[chris thompson]

No, there was still plenty of O2 in that tank to support the mice. They died of respiratory acidosis, which in humans with emphysema can take years to kills you, but if you deliberately increase the CO2 levels you can kill a mammal rather quickly.

As for the "slight increase" question, what constitutes "slight"? We have increased the CO2 load in the atmosphere by tons. Perhaps only 2% (but I think it is more) but is that "slight" enough to discard it as a cause of climate change? I don't think so. "Slight" means different things under different circumstances- which my other post was trying to point out. Slight changes in O2 concentration can be fatal- if the circumstance is when you're diving to a moderately deep depth.

Chris

[Paul J Gans]

jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:00:35 AM UTC-5, Arkalen wrote:

>> On 24/06/13 05:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse >>gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's >>atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet >>radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>>
>>
>>

>> M. H???pfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The

>>
>> natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)",
>>
>> in Geophysical Research Letters :
>>
>>
>>
>> "The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and
>>
>> nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's
>>
>> atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average
>>
>> under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm-2
>>
>> and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm-2. Together this amounts to 15% of the
>>
>> OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over
>>
>> Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to
>>
>> about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is
>>
>> explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption
>>
>> features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions. "

>This paper does not address the issue I have raised at all. I am referring to shorter wave radiation (i.e. visible and ultraviolet light) and how they can be trapped by O2 and N2.
>
>> >
>>

>> > As for your 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is water vapor, it is further erroneous to be concerned about the minute level of CO2. It could increase much more than it has over the last 200 years and have almost no effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> cite ?

>Water vapor is usually around 4% of the earth's atmosphere over the oceans. 2% - 3% over land. That's a range of 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm. Compare that with 400 ppm for CO2.

Which only proves that you know nothing about absorption
spectroscopy.

Certainly CO2 is not the only culprit. But we cannot effect most
of the others and their contribution (such as that from water)
has remained roughly constant for many centuries. CO2 is
different and the effect quite serious.

[Paul J Gans]

Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:
>On 25/06/13 14:25, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:00:35 AM UTC-5, Arkalen wrote:
>>> On 24/06/13 05:20, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> That is disingenuous at best to say that only the so-called 'greenhouse >>gases' trap solar radiation. The primary constituents of the earth's >>atmosphere are N2 and O2, both of which trap both visible and ultraviolet >>radiation from the sun, leading to warming.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> M. H???pfner, M. Milz, S. Buelher, J. Orphal, G. Stiller, 2012, "The

There is also the problem that the amount of water in the
atmosphere is governed mostly by the temperature because
of the vast amount of surface water on earth.

This has two effects: 1) there is little we can do to control
the amount of water vapor in the air, except via temperature,
and 2) the higher the CO2 raises the temperature, the more
water will appear in the atmosphere.

So there is reinforcement, also known as positive feedback
in the system.

[Paul J Gans]

jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:19:43 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/24/13 5:51 PM, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > The slope coefficients for all four data sets are statistically
>>
>> > indifferent from zero at any reasonable level of confidence (95% or
>>
>> > higher), from which I conclude there is no evidence of warming since
>>
>> > 1998.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you agree that the atmospheric data cannot rule out a continued warming.
>
>My, isn't that clever? I also cannot rule out that temperatures have begun decreasing.

>The burden of proof lies with the warmists to show that temperatures are currently increasing and that increase is caused by burning fossil fuels.

This is just an example of the nonsense you have been espousing.
The "warmists" have to prove nothing. Temperatures fluctuate on
a yearly scale and even on large scales.

The increase of surface temperatures since 1890 has been
absolutely remarkable. I think even the anti-climate change
folks gave up on challenging it a decade or so ago.

And yet if you look at that day you will find any number of 2, 3,
4, and 5 year periods when the average annual temperature *decreased*.

Nevertheless, the upward trend remains dramatic.

>To make expensive government-mandated changes to both industrial and consumer use of fossil fuels, without reason to believe they are causing any harm, is foolish.

Perhaps, but we DO have reason. You have no qualifications on
which to decide otherwise, nor do you have a large base of
climate scientists who support your view.

And don't respond with the "scientists are all in it to make
money", which is simply a projection of the anti-warmist world
view onto scientists.

I'd also remind you that it is cheaper to make these changes today
than it will be to make them 30 years from now.

[...]

>Actually, we could do a test with the null hypothesis that the slope of the regression line is nonzero, and then reject it if the absolute value of the slope is less than some minimum. Tell me what minimum slope you wish to test for, I will will think of the best way to do it. I think GMM with instrumental variables might do the trick.

Take the entire data set from 1890 to 2012 and use the GISS database.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kqd7gp$grg$2...@reader2.panix.com...

Find "2012". Result: "Not found".

"Last Updated Thursday, 03-Nov-2011 09:54:54 EDT by cmb.c...@noaa.gov"

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:24:13 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/25/2013 4:23 PM, Glenn wrote:

[...]

>> Actually he said he couldn't believe a *slight increase* could cause significant warming. What he said is true, that CO2 is
>> not toxic, and is essential for life. Your mice died of asphyxiation, not because of CO2 toxicity.
>
>It may be true, but it's irrelevant to the subject.

Yes, Glenn's point about CO2 is irrelevant to the subject, which is
typical of Glenn's posts. But his point is not even pedantically
correct, which is also typical of Glenn's posts.

<http://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm>
"...at levels above 5% concentration, CO2 is directly toxic."

<http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/assets/docs/major-hazard-potential-carbon-dioxide.pdf>
"...CO2 does create an immediate threat to life at a concentration of
only 15% in air due to the toxicological impact it has on the body
when inhaled at this concentration."

<http://www.ivhhn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84>
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a toxic gas at high concentration..."


Although CO2 is designated non-toxic, that is true at low
concentrations typically found in the environment. As described by
Chris, there was still plenty of O2 in the tank, as increasing
standard air to 10% CO2 displaces 02 to only 19%. That's more than
enough to maintain life *if* the CO2 concentration is normal. And
even if the atmosphere was 90% O2, the toxic effects of 10% CO2 would
still have killed the mice in less than 10 minutes.

[Glenn]

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:083d5526-70d7-421f...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:23:17 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > "chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b66883f4-089a-4826...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20:27 AM UTC-4, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
> >
> > > > > hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
> >
> > > > > body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ***
> >
> > > Really. I once had to euthanize about 40 mice. I put them into a sealed fish tank, attached a hose to a CO2 tank and ran the hose into the tank. The mice found it rather toxic. I invite you to breathe a 10% CO2 gas mix for an hour or two.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Oxygen is also not generally thought of as toxic. I invite you to don your SCUBA gear and dive to about 40 meters with a tank loaded with pure oxygen. Stay down there for a while and see how toxic oxygen can become.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Yes, both CO2 and O2 are essential for our lives. O2 is essential for aerobic respiration. CO2 is essential for maintaining the proper pH in our blood. But have you ever heard the expression "too much of a good thing"?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Finally, if you make it through the first 2 experiments, I invite you to find a large patch of poison ivy. First, eat any berries you find. Then chew on some leaves. Finally, set the plants on fire, stand downwind, and inhale the smoke. A rabbit would not suffer any ill effects, but you would form bleeding blisters in your GI tract and lungs, and may very well die.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This should not even have to be said but different conditions and different concentrations can generate different effects. Your argument is not only a flawed non sequitur, it's so simplistic as to expose a complete ignorance of the science involved.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Actually he said he couldn't believe a *slight increase* could cause significant warming. What he said is true, that CO2
> > is not toxic, and is essential for life. Your mice died of asphyxiation, not because of CO2 toxicity.
>
> No, there was still plenty of O2 in that tank to support the mice. They died of respiratory acidosis, which in humans with emphysema can take years to kills you, but if you deliberately increase the CO2 levels you can kill a mammal rather quickly.

I don't understand what "plenty" and "support" means, but Respiratory acidosis is "a medical condition in which decreased ventilation (hypoventilation) causes increased blood carbon dioxide concentration and decreased pH (a condition generally called acidosis)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_acidosis

>
> As for the "slight increase" question, what constitutes "slight"? We have increased the CO2 load in the atmosphere by tons. Perhaps only 2% (but I think it is more) but is that "slight" enough to discard it as a cause of climate change? I don't think so. "Slight" means different things under different circumstances- which my other post was trying to point out. Slight changes in O2 concentration can be fatal- if the circumstance is when you're diving to a moderately deep depth.
>

Well, I doubt "slight" meant "more than would ever occur". I don't know what you said in another post, but what the poster said is true, that CO2 is not toxic and is essential for life.

See "toxicity":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:h58ks8tultn7ht7u4...@4ax.com...

"The atmospheric CO2 was estimated to be 8 to 10% because oil lamps were extinguished. Deaths were presumably caused by CO2 displacing O2."
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf

"High carbon dioxide levels can cause poor air quality and can even extinguish pilot lights on gas-powered appliances."
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm

"It is possible to suffer anoxia or asphyxiation from breathing carbon dioxide, because increased levels of carbon dioxide may be related to decreased concentration of oxygen, which you need in order to live. "
http://chemistry.about.com/od/medicalhealth/a/Carbon-Dioxide-Poisoning.htm

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:47:15 PM UTC-5, Shane wrote:
> >> Science tells us that a concentration of CO in the atmosphere only a
> >> quarter that of water vapour could easily lead to mass extinctions. I'm
> >> interested in establishing if you disagree with them and would only feel
> >> that CO is a problem when its concentration exceeds that of water vapour?
>
> > I assume you mean CO2 (carbon dioxide) and not CO (carbon monoxide)?
>
>
>
> No I meant CO. I am trying--unsuccessfully it seems--to see if you
>
> understand that you cannot automatically assume that one chemical
>
> operates just like another in any aspect, including that of
>
> concentration. If you cannot demonstrate that you understand that, then
>
> pretty much anything you have to say about the effect of varying
>
> concentrations is valueless.

I see. The toxicity of carbon monoxide is well known. Throwing this into the argument is as irrelevant as mentioning the toxicity of cyanide, or strychnine.

Carbon dioxide is not toxic and the extraordinary energy-trapping ability ascribed to it by the warmists has never been observed in the laboratory.

>
> > For now, I'm not going to worry about the issue of whether CO2 equal to a quarter of water vapor would cause mass extinctions. I think we can safely postpone worrying about that for a while. Here are the Mauna Loa average CO2 from the NOAA:
>
>
>
> I doubt if anyone is going to die from Mauna Loa CO2 emissions, yet
>
> people are dying every day from CO inhalation. It seems you don't even
>
> know enough to live.

We're not talking about emissions from Mauna Loa. The site is one of the primary stations for measuring atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/#1958

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:01:45 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:

> Oh yes? 2012 was the warmest year on record. I suggest that you
>
> (and everybody else) go look at:
>
>
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
>
>
>
> and see for yourselves.

> --- Paul J. Gans

And here are the NCDC's combined (land and ocean) annual global averages.
Scroll down to 2012. It's not even close to being the warmest. There are nine earlier years with hotter averages:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Here are the land-only temps, followed by a link to ocean-only temps. Same result, 2012 wasn't the hottest.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:06:18 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:

> I like the part where that article says:
>
>
>
> "Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have
>
> occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all
>
> occurred since 1995."
>
>
>
> I have no idea why this "global warming has stopped" bullcrap
>
> pops out every so often. I especially love the part about
>
> not believing that a little bit of CO2 can so seriously modulate
>
> the temperature.
>
>
>
> It is almost like the political "echo chamber" effect that
>
> became so obvious in the last six or seven years in the US.
> --
>
> --- Paul J. Gans

The continued use of word games like "seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001" will not convince anyone except the gullible.

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you Branch Carbonians to see through this BS. Not I nor any other skeptics have tried to claim that global average temperatures have decreased. It warmed some during the 1980s and 1990s and then stopped in 1998. The temperatures have stayed within a range since then, neither warming nor cooling. We say it's not warming. Your 'seven out of eight' claim does not contradict this.

And if temperatures stayed in the same narrow range for the next 92 years, in the year 2101 you would also be able to say something like "ninety-nine out of one hundred warmest years on record have occured since 2001".....and it still wouldn't be warming.

Kevin Durant is 6' 10" tall. He was also 6' 10" tall in 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009. Therefore, we can say that, for five out of the last five years, Kevin has had his tallest height on record. BUT YET HE IS NO LONGER GROWING!

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? There are a large number of people who need to pull their heads out of their asses.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:41:53 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:

> jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

> >The burden of proof lies with the warmists to show that temperatures are
> >currently increasing and that increase is caused by burning fossil fuels.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is just an example of the nonsense you have been espousing.
>
> The "warmists" have to prove nothing. Temperatures fluctuate on
>
> a yearly scale and even on large scales.

>
> The increase of surface temperatures since 1890 has been
>
> absolutely remarkable. I think even the anti-climate change
>
> folks gave up on challenging it a decade or so ago.
>
>
>
> And yet if you look at that day you will find any number of 2, 3,
>
> 4, and 5 year periods when the average annual temperature *decreased*.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, the upward trend remains dramatic.

I don't see anything remarkable or dramatic about an increase of 0.8 degrees celsius over the past 123 years. It's mostly just a rebound of temperatures returning to a long-run equilibrium from the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (approx 1400 to 1800). Some researchers have speculated that the Little Ice Age had lower average temperatures than any time since the last Big Ice Age about 11,000 or so years ago.

And then there's the medeival warming period, which began during the Dark Ages without any big increase in atmospheric CO2.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 26/06/2013 00:05, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The outgoing radiation from the earth is dominated by long wave
>> >
>> >radiation, so the effects of short wave absorption by O2, O3 and N2 is
>> >
>> >dominated by the effects on incoming radiation.
> So how much radiation is being absorbed by the O2, O3, and N2? I doubt it is less than the amount absorbed by the miniscule amount of CO2.
>

One of your fellow denialist arguments is that adding CO2 doesn't have
any effect because it is "saturated", that is absorption is nearly 100%
in the absorption bands of CO2. Are you sure you want to call that
minuscule. (The "saturation" argument only "works" if you use a
one-layer model of the atmosphere - in reality radiation can be absorbed
and reradiated several times during its passage through the atmosphere,
and that does have an effect - it is why the greenhouse response is
roughly logarithmic in CO2 concentration. If the CO2 absorption was
really minuscule the response would be linear.)

Regardless of the absolute values of absorption by different gases, what
is relevant to the climate debate is the changes to heat transport due
to modification of the atmosphere. Absorption by O2, O3 and N2 is a red
herring, unless you have an argument that is has changed significantly.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 6/25/2013 6:22 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kqd1g6$ccb$5...@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/25/2013 4:23 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>> "chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b66883f4-089a-4826...@googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20:27 AM UTC-4, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>>>>>> hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>>>>>> body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>> Really. I once had to euthanize about 40 mice. I put them into a sealed fish tank, attached a hose to a CO2 tank and ran the hose into the tank. The mice found it rather toxic. I invite you to breathe a 10% CO2 gas mix for an hour or two.
>>>>
>>>> Oxygen is also not generally thought of as toxic. I invite you to don your SCUBA gear and dive to about 40 meters with a tank loaded with pure oxygen. Stay down there for a while and see how toxic oxygen can become.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, both CO2 and O2 are essential for our lives. O2 is essential for aerobic respiration. CO2 is essential for maintaining the proper pH in our blood. But have you ever heard the expression "too much of a good thing"?
>>>>
>>>> Finally, if you make it through the first 2 experiments, I invite you to find a large patch of poison ivy. First, eat any berries you find. Then chew on some leaves. Finally, set the plants on fire, stand downwind, and inhale the smoke. A rabbit would not suffer any ill effects, but you would form bleeding blisters in your GI tract and lungs, and may very well die.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should not even have to be said but different conditions and different concentrations can generate different effects. Your argument is not only a flawed non sequitur, it's so simplistic as to expose a complete ignorance of the science involved.
>>>>
>>> Actually he said he couldn't believe a *slight increase* could cause significant warming. What he said is true, that CO2 is
>>> not toxic, and is essential for life. Your mice died of asphyxiation, not because of CO2 toxicity.
>>
>> It may be true, but it's irrelevant to the subject.
>
> It is true, and whether it is irrelevant depends on individual point of view. The subject of global warming is inappropriate for talk.origins, and I avoid participating in protracted arguments about it. IMO what is relevant in this thread is the mindset and tactics of those who supposedly support "the" science.

You know tarn well I was referring to the fact it's irrelevant to the
global warming issue, Silly Brains.

>> The key point of his
>> post, "I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the
>> amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the
>> atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy" is pure
>> assertion and contrary to the science and the evidence.
>>
> It is not necessarily "pure assertion", and is not made in isolation. There is evidence to support it, you just don't accept any evidence that doesn't lead to what you believe. As far as "the science", it is a complex issue that is not fully understood, and scientists have also made what you call assertions, some of which have been wrong.

None of what you've added is true, but since you think this is off topic
I won't bother you pretty little head further about it.

Mitchell

[alias Ernest Major]

On 26/06/2013 04:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:47:15 PM UTC-5, Shane wrote:
>>>> Science tells us that a concentration of CO in the atmosphere only a
>>>> quarter that of water vapour could easily lead to mass extinctions. I'm
>>>> interested in establishing if you disagree with them and would only feel
>>>> that CO is a problem when its concentration exceeds that of water vapour?
>>
>>> I assume you mean CO2 (carbon dioxide) and not CO (carbon monoxide)?
>>
>>
>>
>> No I meant CO. I am trying--unsuccessfully it seems--to see if you
>>
>> understand that you cannot automatically assume that one chemical
>>
>> operates just like another in any aspect, including that of
>>
>> concentration. If you cannot demonstrate that you understand that, then
>>
>> pretty much anything you have to say about the effect of varying
>>
>> concentrations is valueless.
>
> I see. The toxicity of carbon monoxide is well known. Throwing this into the argument is as irrelevant as mentioning the toxicity of cyanide, or strychnine.

It is not irrelevant. Your are claiming that small concentrations can be
ignored. You don't get to dismiss counterexamples just because the mode
of action is different. You don't get to assert that small
concentrations of CO2 have negligible effects; you have to demonstrate
that is the case.

>
> Carbon dioxide is not toxic and the extraordinary energy-trapping ability ascribed to it by the warmists has never been observed in the laboratory.
>

But it has been observed in the laboratory. Where do you think the
climate modellers got the absorption spectra that they used, other than
in the laboratory?

>>
>>> For now, I'm not going to worry about the issue of whether CO2 equal to a quarter of water vapor would cause mass extinctions. I think we can safely postpone worrying about that for a while. Here are the Mauna Loa average CO2 from the NOAA:
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt if anyone is going to die from Mauna Loa CO2 emissions, yet
>>
>> people are dying every day from CO inhalation. It seems you don't even
>>
>> know enough to live.
>
> We're not talking about emissions from Mauna Loa. The site is one of the primary stations for measuring atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
>
>
> http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/#1958
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 26/06/2013 04:45, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:01:45 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>> Oh yes? 2012 was the warmest year on record. I suggest that you
>>
>> (and everybody else) go look at:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
>>
>>
>>
>> and see for yourselves.
>> --- Paul J. Gans
>
> And here are the NCDC's combined (land and ocean) annual global averages.
> Scroll down to 2012. It's not even close to being the warmest. There are nine earlier years with hotter averages:
>
> ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
>
> Here are the land-only temps, followed by a link to ocean-only temps. Same result, 2012 wasn't the hottest.

I see. You claim that warming stopped in 1998, even though 2006 and 2010
were even warmer.
>
> ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
>
> ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kqdu8g$rdl$4...@dont-email.me...

If what I added is not true, then you would only accept the argument that any increase in CO2, no matter how slight, could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy. The one you should consider is being bothered is yourself.

[Glenn]

"alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message news:fhvyt.28864$v96....@fx18.fr7...

> On 26/06/2013 04:45, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:01:45 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >
> >> Oh yes? 2012 was the warmest year on record. I suggest that you
> >>
> >> (and everybody else) go look at:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> and see for yourselves.
> >> --- Paul J. Gans
> >
> > And here are the NCDC's combined (land and ocean) annual global averages.
> > Scroll down to 2012. It's not even close to being the warmest. There are nine earlier years with hotter averages:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
> >
> > Here are the land-only temps, followed by a link to ocean-only temps. Same result, 2012 wasn't the hottest.
>
> I see. You claim that warming stopped in 1998, even though 2006 and 2010
> were even warmer.

I heard the bad 1998 date being used was naughty because it was a horrible El Nino year.

[shane]

On 26/06/2013 13:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:47:15 PM UTC-5, Shane wrote:
>>>> Science tells us that a concentration of CO in the atmosphere only a
>>>> quarter that of water vapour could easily lead to mass extinctions. I'm
>>>> interested in establishing if you disagree with them and would only feel
>>>> that CO is a problem when its concentration exceeds that of water vapour?
>>
>>> I assume you mean CO2 (carbon dioxide) and not CO (carbon monoxide)?
>>
>>
>>
>> No I meant CO. I am trying--unsuccessfully it seems--to see if you
>>
>> understand that you cannot automatically assume that one chemical
>>
>> operates just like another in any aspect, including that of
>>
>> concentration. If you cannot demonstrate that you understand that, then
>>
>> pretty much anything you have to say about the effect of varying
>>
>> concentrations is valueless.
>
> I see. The toxicity of carbon monoxide is well known. Throwing this into the argument is as irrelevant as mentioning the toxicity of cyanide, or strychnine.

So you readily accept that a tiny concentration of CO to be dangerous
and yet still maintain that CO2 is harmless because its atmospheric
concentration is less than that of water vapour, then further compound
your disingenuousness by saying that pointing out your foolishness is
irrelevant??? You, sir, are at best a deluded maroon, and at worst an
out and out hypocrite. In any case I think you have demonstrated that
you are secure in your ignorance and no amount of rationality is going
to shift you.

Thanks for the interesting exchange.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:33:52 AM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:

> Regardless of the absolute values of absorption by different gases, what
>
> is relevant to the climate debate is the changes to heat transport due
>
> to modification of the atmosphere. Absorption by O2, O3 and N2 is a red
>
> herring, unless you have an argument that is has changed significantly.

The miniscule change in the quantity of CO2 is not the only modification to the system of heat in the earth's atmosphere. There are also fluctuations in the sun's output, the increase in forest coverage, changes in tectonic activity, and many many more.

[Arkalen]

True, but all of this affects the concentration of water in the
atmosphere, not its "effectiveness at trapping solar radiation" compared
to CO2 at equal concentration, which is what the Jungle Jim was talking
about.

[Arkalen]

On 26/06/13 00:05, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:39:02 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 25/06/2013 14:25, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> This paper does not address the issue I have raised at all. I am referring >>to shorter wave radiation (i.e. visible and ultraviolet light) and how they >>can be trapped by O2 and N2.
>
>>
>> But absorption of incoming short wave radiation has a cooling effect on
>>
>> the surface. If solar energy is deposited in the upper atmosphere (in a
>>
>> simplistic one-layer model) half of it will be reradiated back to space
>>
>> without having the opportunity to effect the surface temperatures.
>
> Then the other half that is not re-radiated back to space is warming the atmosphere.

Which is not a greenhouse effect. That shortwave radiation would warm
the Earth in any case; if it hadn't been absorbed by molecules in the
atmosphere it would be absorbed by the Earth itself. All that absorption
of incoming radiation by the atmosphere means that some of it gets
re-emitted from the top of the atmosphere without getting to Earth at
all, i.e. as far as Earth's temperature goes that's energy that never
contributed at all. Those molecules function as a partial barrier to
incoming energy.

Molecules that absorb longwave radiation affect the radiation that's
coming *from* Earth. They absorb it, and re-emit some of it to space and
some of it to Earth, so as with the previous shortwave example the
amount of longwave radiation getting to space is less than the total
amount of longwave radiation emitted by Earth, i.e. they serve as a
barrier to outgoing energy, i.e. they contribute to the Earth being warmer.

>
>> The outgoing radiation from the earth is dominated by long wave
>>
>> radiation, so the effects of short wave absorption by O2, O3 and N2 is
>>
>> dominated by the effects on incoming radiation.
>
> So how much radiation is being absorbed by the O2, O3, and N2? I doubt it is less than the amount absorbed by the miniscule amount of CO2.

You've heard of how the ozone layers *stops* ultraviolet light from
getting to Earth, right ? If it wasn't there that light would still be
absorbed, it would just be absorbed by rocks and fragile organics
instead, so the Earth's energy budget would be the same.

[chris thompson]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:23:17 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b66883f4-089a-4826...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20:27 AM UTC-4, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54:04 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>
> > > > On 22/06/2013 01:35, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >> The primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor and Argon. CO2 is a trace element constituting approx 0.04%. I find it difficult to believe that a slight increase in the amount of a beneficial trace element in our atmosphere could cause the atmosphere to trap an excessive amount of solar energy.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > Do you also find it difficult to believe that trace quantities of
>
> > > > hydrogen cyanide are lethal? A concentration of 0.0001% in the human
>
> > > > body has a 50% chance of killing a random human.
>
> > >
>
> > > I also don't find it difficult to believe that a steel knife stabbed in my heart could be lethal. Unlike cyanide, CO2 is not toxic. It is essential for plant life and thus essential for our lives.
>
> >
>
> > ***
>
> > Really. I once had to euthanize about 40 mice. I put them into a sealed fish tank, attached a hose to a CO2 tank and ran the hose into the tank. The mice found it rather toxic. I invite you to breathe a 10% CO2 gas mix for an hour or two.
>
> >
>
> > Oxygen is also not generally thought of as toxic. I invite you to don your SCUBA gear and dive to about 40 meters with a tank loaded with pure oxygen. Stay down there for a while and see how toxic oxygen can become.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, both CO2 and O2 are essential for our lives. O2 is essential for aerobic respiration. CO2 is essential for maintaining the proper pH in our blood. But have you ever heard the expression "too much of a good thing"?
>
> >
>
> > Finally, if you make it through the first 2 experiments, I invite you to find a large patch of poison ivy. First, eat any berries you find. Then chew on some leaves. Finally, set the plants on fire, stand downwind, and inhale the smoke. A rabbit would not suffer any ill effects, but you would form bleeding blisters in your GI tract and lungs, and may very well die.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This should not even have to be said but different conditions and different concentrations can generate different effects. Your argument is not only a flawed non sequitur, it's so simplistic as to expose a complete ignorance of the science involved.
>
> >
>
> Actually he said he couldn't believe a *slight increase* could cause significant warming. What he said is true, that CO2 is
>
> not toxic, and is essential for life. Your mice died of asphyxiation, not because of CO2 toxicity.

And if you breathe cyanide, you essentially die of asphyxiation, since cyanide binds to the terminal receptor of an electron transport chain. It just takes a higher concentration of CO2 for it to have ill effects. That's why we invented the LD50 measure- what dose will be lethal in 50% of the subjects exposed to the substance. My point was that some thing in small concentrations can have drastic effects, while others might need greater exposures. Would you rather be exposed to 30ppm copper or 30ppm cadmium?

Chris

[Mark Isaak]

Hmm. So you use the term "miniscule change" to describe a magnitude of
change which, if you are of average height, would earn you an
unqualified label of "giant". That alone tells us that your mind is
made up. You do not reason from data to conclusion; you start with the
conclusion of your dogma and choose data and argument only to support
it. You do this even when the data are obviously irrelevant or
nonexistent, as with your mention of O2 and N2 and changes in tectonic
activity. You do this even when other data, such as destroyed
communities and altered ecosystems, show the very real consequences we
have to deal with.

You raise several questions ("What planet are you living on?" comes to
mind), but I will limit myself to one just now: How do you morally
justify your approach?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/25/13 3:44 PM, John Stockwell wrote:
>> [snip long lines]
> I don't think that you can argue that warming "stopped" in 1998, but that
> from 1998 to the present temperatures have maintained their higher level more
> or less.
>
> Considering that the ocean has a tremendous heat capacity, it is more likely
> that 15 years doesn't mean much when were are talking about climate.
>
> What it does mean is that climate models have to be reevaluated.

Have been reevaluated, apparently.

Virginie Guemas, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Isabel Andreu-Burillo, and
Muhammad Asif. Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown
in the past decade. _Nature Climate Change_ 3, 649�653 (2013).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1863.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201307

From the abstract: "Our results hence point at the key role of the
ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict
retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the
robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic
relevance of operational decadal climate predictions."

(I do not have access to the full article.)

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/25/13 9:03 PM, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't understand why it is so difficult for you Branch Carbonians
> to see through this BS. Not I nor any other skeptics have tried to
> claim that global average temperatures have decreased. It warmed some
> during the 1980s and 1990s and then stopped in 1998. The temperatures
> have stayed within a range since then, neither warming nor cooling.
> We say it's not warming.

You yourself said that, according to the t-statistics, the data are not
precise enough to support your conclusion.

As to the BS, consider the matter scientifically. You have a premise:
Global warming science is BS. Your premise has lead you to the
following conclusions: Temperatures since 1998 show lack of warming
(not just that they fail to show warming); anthropic CO2 increase has
been minuscule; CO2-based greenhouse warming has not been tested in the
lab; forest coverage is increasing; recent tectonic changes affect
climate. All of those conclusions are false. (And I have probably
missed a few others.)

When a premise leads to false conclusions, it is wise to discard the
premise. Thus I discard your premise that global warming science is BS.

[John Stockwell]

An explanation of the greenhouse gas mechanism, which deals with the absorption
spectra of green house gases (the real issue) and has nothing to do with "heat capacity".

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/





On Friday, June 21, 2013 6:35:54 PM UTC-6, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2013 5:09:13 PM UTC-5, Inez wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, ernest...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > <snip>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > According to NASA, 9 or the 10 warmest years on record came after 2000. They > have a graph here:
>
>
>
> And you may also see in that graph that the slope has gone to zero since 2000. Even though CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

[Paul J Gans]

jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:39:02 PM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 25/06/2013 14:25, jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > This paper does not address the issue I have raised at all. I am referring >>to shorter wave radiation (i.e. visible and ultraviolet light) and how they >>can be trapped by O2 and N2.

>>
>> But absorption of incoming short wave radiation has a cooling effect on
>>
>> the surface. If solar energy is deposited in the upper atmosphere (in a
>>
>> simplistic one-layer model) half of it will be reradiated back to space
>>
>> without having the opportunity to effect the surface temperatures.
>
>Then the other half that is not re-radiated back to space is warming the atmosphere.
>

>> The outgoing radiation from the earth is dominated by long wave
>>
>> radiation, so the effects of short wave absorption by O2, O3 and N2 is
>>
>> dominated by the effects on incoming radiation.

>So how much radiation is being absorbed by the O2, O3, and N2? I doubt it is less than the amount absorbed by the miniscule amount of CO2.

Let me try once again to point out how wrong you are. Take a piece
of window glass, as thick as you can find. Light goes right
through it, doesn't it?

Now paint a very thin layer of black paint on the glass and guess what!
You can't see through it any more. Imagine, that thin layer of black
paint blocks all the light. Who would have thought that!

[Paul J Gans]

I suspect that you've clipped a bit too much from my original
post. As a result things that are not related seem, in your
redcation, to be related.

But never mind. You are not worth arguing with. But since you've
implied that I lied, I will enlighten you. Click on the second
graph down from the top of that page and you will see written:

"2012 1st warmest in 118 year record".


Now see that search box at the top of the page whose URL I gave above?
Type into it "warmest year on record" and voila, guess what? The
first reference is to

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-announces-warmest-year-record-contiguous-us

which says:

"According to NOAA scientists, the average temperature for
the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 55.3??F, which was 3.2??F
above the 20th century average and 1.0??F above the previous
record from 1998."

In passing, I note the reference to 1998 as the *previous*
record-holder.

If you now go back to my original URL, the text that goes with
that, and I'm sure I had included this in my original post is:

"Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and
the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years."

That statement occurs in the section marked "The Global Surface
Temperature is Rising". And there's a graph there. If you
click on it, and I suggest you do, you will see that the
warming trend is unmistakable.

[Paul J Gans]

Not only that, but I believe that oxygen, in amounts greater than
0.30 atm, is toxic. The "normal" amount in the atmosphere is 0.20
atm or so.

Folks dying of heart failure and who are on oxygen have this problem.
The oxygen cannot be turned up indefinitely.

[Paul J Gans]

Glenn, you are being stupid.

Let me try to explain something to you, though I expect it is
impossible. Many animals, including those posting on talk.origins,
use hemoglobin to transfer oxgyen from our lungs to the rest of our
body. Hemoglobin, as most here know, but you don't, will bind
not only oxygen, but CO2, carbon monoxide, and cyanide among others.

The binding depends on the amount of the ligand (that's what those
things are technically called) present and to the innate binding
strength of that ligand. Cyanide, for example has a huge innate
binding strength. Once it binds to a hemoglobin molecule, that
molecule is finished as a transporter of oxygen.

The result is that you die. You die because your body does not
get enough oxygen. Technically, you are asphixiated. It is
not a good way to die because you gasp for air (oxygen) and
it enters you lungs and there it stops.

Now the balance between the binding abilities of oxygen and
carbon dioxide is rather close as these things go. So the
main determinant of binding is the amount present. In your
lungs when you inhale, oxygen predominates because the amount
of CO2 in the air is negligible.

That hemoglobin now circulates in the body. In various places
it encounters high concentrations of CO2. That forces the
oxygen off the hemoglobin and the CO2 onto the hemoglobin.
The hemoglobin eventually returns to the lungs where the
CO2 level is small and the O2 level is high.

Now do you see what happens? I thought not, so I will
spell it out. When you increase the amount of CO2 in the
air beyond a certain amount, the hemoglobin is no longer
able to get rid of the CO2 it has picked up in your body
and so is no longer able to pick up oxygen. So, technically,
you suffocate, asphyxiate, or whatever you want to call it.


I'm sorry to be so prolix, but I usually get paid for this
kind of instruction.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kqffmk$dq$1...@reader2.panix.com...

What an unpleasant thought.

[Paul J Gans]

jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:47:15 PM UTC-5, Shane wrote:
>> >> Science tells us that a concentration of CO in the atmosphere only a
>> >> quarter that of water vapour could easily lead to mass extinctions. I'm
>> >> interested in establishing if you disagree with them and would only feel
>> >> that CO is a problem when its concentration exceeds that of water vapour?
>>
>> > I assume you mean CO2 (carbon dioxide) and not CO (carbon monoxide)?
>>
>>
>>
>> No I meant CO. I am trying--unsuccessfully it seems--to see if you
>>
>> understand that you cannot automatically assume that one chemical
>>
>> operates just like another in any aspect, including that of
>>
>> concentration. If you cannot demonstrate that you understand that, then
>>
>> pretty much anything you have to say about the effect of varying
>>
>> concentrations is valueless.
>
>I see. The toxicity of carbon monoxide is well known. Throwing this into the argument is as irrelevant as mentioning the toxicity of cyanide, or strychnine.

>Carbon dioxide is not toxic and the extraordinary energy-trapping ability ascribed to it by the warmists has never been observed in the laboratory.

See my long reply to Glenn slightly upthread on this topic. Saying
CO2 is non-toxic is like saying that cyanide is non-toxic. They both
kill the same way.