Hansen et al. 1981 "Climate impact of ...

[glc]

So Steve said the effective emitting layer goes up by 150 meters. If one looks at the satellite data you find about an average 255k temperature layer at about 4,000 meters. So 150 meters is 3.75%.

Now Steve said we will add 280 parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere which works out to about 2.8 hundredths of one percent additional gas to the atmosphere.

If there were no ghgs the effective emitting layer would be at the surface, i.e. ~4000m lower than it is at present.

If we double CO2 from pre-industrial levels then we increase the ghg forcing by ~3.7 w/m2. The total ghg forcing is ~155 w/m2 so the percentage increase in forcing is 3.7/155 or ~2.4%.

You are talking about the percentage of the total atmsophere which is completely irrelevant.

[steve]

Dec 18, 2009 11:39:58 GMT glc said:

GLC. I guess I am saying that!

I suppose you are - in a way, but I was trying to point out that CO2 has an affect (at pre-industrial levels) and we have increased CO2 by a relatively larger proportion than that suggested by Icefisher.

And it looks like Icefisher misunderstood the post I made in response to yours which made a similar point that you cannot just look at the absolute levels of CO2. The relative levels is what is interesting.

Now with sceptic hat on.

So the science gets stronger and the scepticism gets more careless.

I disagree with the first part of this. Most of us never disputed that the earth has got warmer over the past ~150 years (a good thing too). 'Our' argument was that this warming is not particularly unusual.

Perhaps people within the science do already realise that for every adjustment up, there may be a matching adjustment down elsewhere. Even so, presenting the evidence that the overall trend is unchanged by adjustments is a good way of strengthening the presentation of the science. In a similar way, the windy vs. non-windy paper by Parker "Evidence that warming is not urban", had a big impact on the perceptions of whether UHI was important - more so, possibly than the Peterson analyses of urban vs rural where it was possible to purport that poor selection methods were used.

1. The trend between 1915 and 1945 was 0.14 deg per decade - compared to 0.16 deg per decade over the past 30 years. i.e. there is not a statistically significant difference between the trends in the 2 periods. Lots of attempts ("detection and attribution studies") have been made to explain the warming and they have been included in 'climate models'. We now know they are wrong. The models are still using outdated solar reconstructions (Lean et al). Even Lean has conceded that her reconstructions show too much variability - particularly in the earlier years.

I don't know about this, but...more below.

2. The "hide the decline trick" was fraudulent. It was done to hide a 20th century temperature decline in 2 key reconstructions, i.e. Briffa et al , Mann et al. These reconstructions showed a relatively flat MWP and LIA - contrary to hundreds of studies from all over the world which showed the MWP (and LIA) to be a real and widespread event. The fact that the reconstructions were heading in the opposite direction to observations in the post (and pre) calibration period suggests that the reconstructions are junk. Something we knew anyway (for lots of reasons). In other words, the MWP could easily be as warm if not warmer than to-day.

I agree that the lack of knowledge of the cause of the decline is evidence against the veracity of tree-ring data. I disagree that it is fraudulent as the reasons for excluding the data are in a 1998 Nature paper. I disagree that it says anything about 20th Century temperatures (not sure whether you were claiming it did). I agree that there is evidence of a real and widespread Medieval climate change, but disagree that it is evidence that it is warmer than now, and there are multiple lines of evidence that do not dispute that line.

Also, I agree that the hockey stick is not a true representation of even the "team" scientific consensus at the time. But I note that even Briffa referred to MWP temperatures in the *northern hemisphere* possibly being as warm as 20th Century temperatures. The 21st Century is, so far, much warmer.

3. The CET (Central England Temperature) record. Although I'm generally reluctant to conclude anything on a global scale from local observations, the CET is the longest thermometer record available and, for that reason, it warrants special attention. First, a couple of points: (i) The smoothed (10 year) CET record is a pretty decent proxy for the NH surface temperature record. (ii) The CET record tracks other long term records fairly closely.

Between the 1690s and 1730s (~40 years) the CET shows a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees. As I've said above, over the last 150 years the smoothed CET record and NH record have never drifted apart by very much so I don't see any reason why there should have been a significant divergence during any previous period. I reckon it's reasonable to assume that the NH, at least, experienced a minimum 1 deg shift in temperatures in the early 18th century.

Maybe... after looking at the data I have expressed the opinion before that the late 20th/early 21st Century CET shows much more warming than the global average - which is why it is so obvious to people in the UK. I've not looked at just the NH average for that period.

Finally, Steve, if you're from the UK you might be familiar with Iain Stewart who presented 'The Climate Wars' programme on BBC. I emailed Iain recently with some comments about the mid-20th century cooling which he, along with many other 'experts', believes was caused by industrial aerosols. I say it wasn't. The main reason being that it was only the arctic that experienced significant cooling, i.e. a non-industrialised region.

I don't think Iain Stewart claimed to be an expert. Certainly it didn't come across in his programme (part of which I re-watched on Wednesday). He played it as a geologist who has recently researched the controversy.

The "but..." from earlier is that 20th Century reconstruction of climate does not tell us much about climate sensitivity. This is a point that was recently made on realclimate and has been wildly misunderstood, by Lucia for example.

The 20th Century reconstructions by the various modelling centres all come in unfeasibly close to the observations given that the models all differ in sensitivity. The reason is that they are essentially tuned to match by different assumptions on the amounts and impacts of aerosols. In reality, the model experiments are sanity checks rather than proof of the ability to predict - ie. they answer the question "Can this model realistically model climate". This information is quite well known, and it is clear that it is the aerosols that are tuned, not the sensitivity.

Stronger evidence about sensitivity comes from past climates, and other recent observational data.

Anyway, Iain replied and forwarded me the Wild et al paper on global dimming/brightening. I'd come across the paper before but hadn't really read it. I have now and it is quite interesting. I might even start a separate thread on the subject. The main point of interest concerns Wild's tabled measurements of solar insolation forcing. Between 1960 and 1990, it seems the decrease in solar radiation at the surface was somewhere between 10 and 15 w/m2. Between 1986 and 2000 there was an increase of ~3 w/m2 (much more if you take one particular measurement).

Now remember Iain sent this to me in order to bolster his claims.

Iain appears not to know that the total CO2 forcing since ~1850 is only ~1.7 w/m2. Even if we double CO2 that only gives ~3.7 w/m2. Ok, I accept there is probably some amplification at the surface relative to the TOA forcing, but the dimming/brightening forcings are orders of magnitude larger than the CO2 forcings over the same period.

If Wild's numbers are correct, and he does use figures from other researchers, then we can only conclude that

(i) The total warming from doubling CO2 will be, at most, about twice as much the warming between 1986 and 2000. Lets go mad and call it ~0.7 deg.
(ii) Most, if not all, of the warming since ~1986 is due to more sunlight reaching the surface.

I wonder if Iain would like to debate this on TV?

[glc]

Stronger evidence about sensitivity comes from past climates, and other recent observational data.


What "stronger evidence"?

[hunter]

I think that to treat CO2 in a linear fashion is a misrepresentation of the reality.

brneurosci.org/co2.html
motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html

The bizarre idea that AGW theory makes useful predictions while using what are wel know incomplete models, is amazing to me.
Sea levels, temperatures, storms, ice, rainfall, drought, OHC, are all declining to validate AGW theory. yet here we are, using God knows how much bandwidth, discussing how many global warming demons are dancing on our soon to be filled graves.

[nautonnier]

Dec 17, 2009 22:47:54 GMT hunter said:

nautonnier
could you please review the evidence and sources for the assertion that CO2 is largely unchanged over the past ~100+ years?
I am a definite skeptic, but I am puzzled as to how we can burn as much carbon based fuel as we do and NOT increase CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.
What is the evidence for this static level?
What is the explanation for where the CO2 went?
thanks,
hunter

I am travelling so I don't have access to all my files - but here is a post from the board I have made already. As Sig says there are other papers out on this topic. Now that 'the AGW team' may not have quite the stranglehold on peer review and Journals perhaps we may see some real research being done.


From:
solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=937&page=10#36833

<<<SNIP>>>

quote author=nautonnier board=globalwarming thread=937 post=36833 time=1260119700

I thought it was time for a thread summary so from earlier in this thread...



You will note that from this NOAA satellite there is NO huge amount of CO₂ being produced in the USA the great Satan with all those SUVs and coal fired power stations. There *is* a hotspot over central South America. This needs to be explained I am sure that Steve and SoCold will be able to explain how it is.



This is a second NOAA picture in more detail and finer granularity focused on the Great Satan - and strangely most CO₂ seems to be emitted by open country in the North West, Montana or even Canada, and in the Rockies - perhaps this may be due to the volcanism in those areas? It is definitely higher than the industrial 'heartland'.




Now moving onto the monotonic rise in CO₂ graph above Steve has claimed that the huge Indonesian peat fire in 1997 that put >2gt of CO₂ into the atmosphere (more than 3 times that due to aviation) shows on the graph - I cannot see it. Perhaps Steve will produce another graph that does. This does raise ones doubts especially after seeing that AGW proponent scientists have no qualms about fixing the raw data to support their hypotheses.

That leads to the graph below



This graph is based on figures produced before there was a reason to massage CO₂ concentrations. It shows that atmospheric concentrations were higher in the 1800s than they are now - a central plank of the AGW 'hypothesis' appears to be falsified by this. Note also no Indonesia hump in the Mauna Loa figures for 1997. Also interesting is that the graph is based on proxy ice-core data until the 60's - now look at the NOAA image of the Earth again - you will note that the pole is really low compared to the rest of the Earth - is this a sensible place to use proxies that then MAGICALLY run straight onto the other sensed metrics on an island in the mid Pacific. One wonders how many 'tricks' were used to get such an accurate match.... perhaps the arbitrary 83 year move of date was used to hide a decline???

Then there is some concern in the thread about the way the CO₂ levels due to anthropogenic activity are actually being calculated.

If this was a financial institution with this level of disagreement with external financial numbers in a company figures there would be calls for an immediate INDEPENDENT audit NOT a quick rubber stamp peer review by another member of the AGW 'team'.

<<<SNIP>>>

Then two following posts from Graeme

<<<SNIP>>>

quote author=gkw board=globalwarming thread=937 post=36865 time=1260134394

Thanks, nautonnier, for a great summary. I checked up on that last graph, since obviously historical CO2 levels is important for the AGW debate, and I hadn't previously seen anything other than the ones used by the IPCC.

The URL on that graph is out of date and the website has been moved to:
www.biomind.de/realCO2/

The current graph on that site is:


This clearly shows that historical measured CO2 levels were comparable to the levels today, but the temperatures reported for those times don't show global warming effects.

Can someone please provide links or references to papers that debunk these figures? If I had to choose between direct measured levels of CO2 and the use of proxies via ice cores, I think I would have to weight my preference to the direct measured levels. I believe that most scientists are fair when viewing data that contradict their hypothesis. Since this graph seems to be a clear refutation of the AGW hypothesis, there must be a reasonable reason why the AGW scientists have discounted this graph. I'd like to know what it is

/quote

<<<SNIP>>>

AND

<<<SNIP>>>

quote author=gkw board=globalwarming thread=937 post=36866 time=1260134895

That CO2 site is quite interesting. The following graph shows a link between CO2 levels and temperature, but with a five year lag (ie. the CO2 levels go up about five years after the temperature).



More importantly, when the temperature goes down, the CO2 levels go down, too, which isn't what I've read about otherwise. In reference to the paleoclimatic research using ice cores, and how the CO2 levels lagged after the temperature, I've read that the AGW view is that the temperature rises, which triggers a CO2 rise (possibly from the oceans, though that's not confirmed), and that the CO2 rise allows the temperature to rise more (say, by an extra 30-50%).

But that isn't shown in this graph. Given the lag, there is no corresponding 'kick' to the temperature from the rise in CO2 as the above explanation would suggest. The graph clearly shows a link between temperature and CO2 levels, but it doesn't appear to show any significant temperature increase from CO2 level increases. I can't believe that this has been missed by all the AGW scientists, so what's their explanation?

/quote

<<<SNIP>>>


Hunter you will note from the graphics that if you wanted to find a LOW CO₂ measurement you would get it at the poles.

If you wanted a HIGH CO₂ reading then the Amazon basin or Central SW Canada would be good.

This map does not look like the picture painted by politicians that have the USA and China as the main source of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

So the AGW 'team' had a choice believe the satellites or adjust the reports to meet their political paymasters' expectations.

We have already seen the response of University of East Anglia and Penn State University is to alter the reports (and the data) to ensure that their research results meet their expectations. Then 'peer review' each others' papers and publish the results withholding the original data and methods.

The ONLY journal/publisher with any kind of ethical scientific approach appears to be the Royal Society which insisted on the original data (yet even that was only after prompting).

I would say that ALL and ANY scientific paper that does not make its original data and meta-data, the provenance of that data and the methods for the research completely and openly available, should be discarded and any paper that uses one of these 'closed' papers as a a basis should similarly be discarded. The scientific citing systems could be used to identify all those papers that are to be removed from scientific literature or flagged with an asterisk and 'DO NOT TRUST THESE RESULTS' overstamped on the Abstract.

[icefisher]

Dec 18, 2009 13:04:01 GMT glc said:

You are talking about the percentage of the total atmsophere which is completely irrelevant.

But that is all he provided GLC. . . .280 parts per million.

My comment was he must be missing some major pieces of his argument. I am not sure if you are agreeing or arguing with me.

[nautonnier]

Dec 18, 2009 10:03:55 GMT glc said:

Hunter:
Do a search for co2 levels in the near past. There have been two papers published this year that show that the Keeling curve is pure and utter baloney.

I don't remember exactly where, but by searching you should find them. co2 level in the early 1800's was 420 ppm. That is a proven fact.

This is not a "proven fact". You are no doubt referring to the Beck study which, to take one example, shows CO2 levels at 481 ppm in 1827 and at 385 ppm in 1829, i.e. a drop of nearly 100 ppm in just 2 years. The problem with these studies is that the readings are clearly not taken at the same time or from the same location.

If you were to measure the CO2 concentration in London or New York, say, you might find it's as high as 450 or 500 ppm. What's more it could be higher on a Friday than it is on a Sunday.

The big advantage in using remote measuring sites like Mauna Loa and Barrow (Alaska) is that the gas is "well mixed" in the atmosphere. The readings from these sites are not affected by the local conditions.

The Beck 'measurements' may be accurate but they are irrelevant. The problem for the sceptics is that arguments such as these can be easily knocked back by the warmers. It's like all the solar guff it eventually results in a loss of credibility.

Yes choose Mauna Loa next to a volcano that emits CO₂ so needs to have its readings adjusted DOWN to make up for the local CO₂; and Barrow in Alaska which you will see from the NOAA satellites is under a polar air mass that is extremely LOW in CO₂ already. This has all the careful siting of the USHCN and no doubt as many adjustments.

As I said in my post the CO₂ is so well mixed that the hottest spots are not in the USA but over the Amazon. More focused views of the States shows that the high CO₂ concentrations are in SW Canada or the Rockies.

You can explain those hot spots glibly too I suppose in the way you discount serious scientists back in 1850 who also knew about sources of CO₂ and were not doing the metrics for fun or to prove a hypothesis?

I did ask Steve to explain the lack of a blip in the Mauna Loa monotonic rise in CO₂ in 1997 when the Indonesian peat fires released >2gt of CO₂ (more than 3 times world aviation) there isn't one.


Looks like we are looking at another validation failure in this clever modern system.

[steve]

Dec 18, 2009 13:25:30 GMT glc said:

Stronger evidence about sensitivity comes from past climates, and other recent observational data.


What "stronger evidence"?

Seems that Wikipedia list some of the papers I've read, so I'll just link there:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Most of these are consistent with the IPCC 1.5-4.5C range.

[steve]

Yes choose Mauna Loa next to a volcano that emits CO2 so needs to have its readings adjusted DOWN to make up for the local CO2; and Barrow in Alaska which you will see from the NOAA satellites is under a polar air mass that is extremely LOW in CO2 already. This has all the careful siting of the USHCN and no doubt as many adjustments.

Nautonnier, I've just posted a link to many other stations that support the Mauna Loa data. Even the Mauna Loa data is carefully checked to avoid contamination. Different times of year have different distributions, but the upward trend is the same everywhere. Also, this data (the same source as the globe plot you showed) is measured well above the surface, so Satan's emissions are mixed into the average before it becomes apparent.

[nautonnier]

Dec 18, 2009 17:11:22 GMT steve said:

Yes choose Mauna Loa next to a volcano that emits CO2 so needs to have its readings adjusted DOWN to make up for the local CO2; and Barrow in Alaska which you will see from the NOAA satellites is under a polar air mass that is extremely LOW in CO2 already. This has all the careful siting of the USHCN and no doubt as many adjustments.

Nautonnier, I've just posted a link to many other stations that support the Mauna Loa data. Even the Mauna Loa data is carefully checked to avoid contamination. Different times of year have different distributions, but the upward trend is the same everywhere.

But the source is not where you would like it to be is it Steve

[steve]

I just updated my post above. But are you claiming that the statistics from the oil and coal industry are also wrong. Is America really occupied by Amish, and the image of you all needing to drive when you visit your next door neighbour a Hollywood lie?

[nautonnier]

Dec 18, 2009 17:19:00 GMT steve said:

I just updated my post above. But are you claiming that the statistics from the oil and coal industry are also wrong. Is America really occupied by Amish, and the image of you all needing to drive when you visit your next door neighbour a Hollywood lie?

No need to get rattled

I am saying that satellite imagery can be used to identify the source of CO₂. If the human contribution is dwarfed by natural sources - and despite it being big to you it is VERY small compared to natural sources - then you would expect to see that in the satellite imagery - and that is just what is shown. The two NOAA satellite images show that the Amazon is a hot spot for CO₂ and not Detroit or Chicago. They show that Saskatchewan is a hot spot for CO₂ and not Los Angeles and Hollywood.

A scientist would seek to explain why that is - not try to find a different metric or display.

One other aspect of your diagrams that is interesting is the rate at which CO₂ declines in the atmosphere - doesn't look like the here for a 1000 years depictions of arguments past.

Perhaps if the metrics and associated methodologies for assessing rates were carried out by a group who had NO axe to grind or research grants to chase we might get a different picture of the source and behavior of atmospheric CO₂.

[steve]

Nautonnier, yes we all know that fossil fuel emissions are a tiny fraction of all emissions. It's just that "all emissions" tend to be balanced by "all absorption" whereas fossil fuel emissions have nothing much to balance them with. So there is not necessarily a prospect of seeing a big red fossil fuel blob over USA, China and Western Europe.

If the OCO mission hadn't ended up in the southern ocean then you would have had a better chance of seeing surface sources, because that was what OCO was designed to do.

If CO2 subsides so quickly then why has the trend been remorselessly up by 1-2ppm per year for the last 60 years. Surely if that graph you showed was a good reflection of global CO2 levels you'd see more similar sorts of variability in the more precise measurements that have been taken recently.

Perhaps if the metrics and associated methodologies for assessing rates were carried out by a group who had NO axe to grind or research grants to chase we might get a different picture of the source and behavior of atmospheric CO2.

That's just monstrously stupid. There is no "group" in charge of world CO2 measurements. You can measure CO2 levels with handheld equipment now. What chance has a world conspiracy against that!? Sometimes you really should think a bit more before coming out with these bland "they're all lying to us" mantras.

Anyway, it's beer O'clock in the UK now, so I'll leave you to your witterings.

[icefisher]

Dec 18, 2009 17:44:25 GMT steve said:

Nautonnier, yes we all know that fossil fuel emissions are a tiny fraction of all emissions. It's just that "all emissions" tend to be balanced by "all absorption" whereas fossil fuel emissions have nothing much to balance them with. So there is not necessarily a prospect of seeing a big red fossil fuel blob over USA, China and Western Europe.

In the biological science community there is an old saw that "nature abhors a vacuum".
The absorption rate is increasing and especially if it gets warmer we will have more moisture in the air, more precipitation, lusher forests, more food. Our biggest problem might actually be sequestering to much of it back in the ground in landfills and such.

I remember my first airplane ride. Boy was I nervous but then came the exhilaration of acceleration (first flight was in 707). You can't reach the stars without it.

Bottom line is the climate change freaks are nuts. Now they reach out with stuff like "whole nations sinking into the oceans". . . .they have to worry about stuff thousands of years off in the future. . . .without such nonsense. . . .heck the fossil fuels will have surely run out by then. . . .lets hope we have achieved something by then. . . .and instead deal with problems as they actually manifest themselves. Sea level has risen and fallen above where it is now since the last iceage no clear problem has manifested itself regarding manmade climate change. One only has to visit the La Brea Tar Pit Museum in Los Angeles and see instantly that natural change is enormous all by itself. . . .and man has adapted to it.

No doubt more than a few medicine men of thousands of years ago led more than a few tribes astray from sounding false alarms. The more things change the more they are the same.

[hunter]

I am hardcore skepticc on AGW theory. The theory fails because of problems besides the ppm of CO2. AGW fails because it does not account for the feedbacks in the climate.
If the graphs just posted actually reflect a highly variable nature of CO2 concentration, this would be total game changer.
But I am a skeptic- consistently asking for things to be proven.
I will read more on this on my own, but I would urge those who are championing this to post the support for it.
Starter Questions:
What mechanism outside of anthro-sources can attribute the rise in CO2 reported consistently?

What can cause the cyclical nature of CO2 as cliamed in the graphs?