2012 Global Temperatures

[TerryM]

Friv

Nice post! I lived in Las Vegas at the tail end of the above ground testing period, and my wife worked at the EPA monitoring the damage, but I never thought of climatic effects.

Terry

[PhillipS]

I really want to know how much extra heating 90ppm co2 is contributing. We see experiments with co2 absorbing heat, but its always 1000's of ppm co2. There are so many factors to consider in the comparison.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

Where are you getting your 90ppm figure from? The pre-industrial value for CO2 was 280 ppm. The current seasonally adjusted value at Mauna Loa is 394 ppm - that's a delta of 114 ppm. But a better, more accurate, way of looking at it is that 114 ppm is a 40% increase in CO2 due to our burning fossil fuels - with a corresponding increase in its GHG effect (yes, i know the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear). We are well on our way towards doubling atmospheric CO2, and many of us will live to see what happens at 560 ppm.

Compare the 40% increase with the magnitude of measured solar fluctuations. As Cyclonebuster posted earlier, the max to min solar variation has been 1368 w/m2 to 1365 w/m2 - so, if you remember your grade-school math, you can understand that (1368 - 1365)/1365 = 0.002 which is a fluctuation of 0.2%. Two tenths of one percent. And remember that there has not been a long-term trend in solar variation. Even if you buy the denialist pseudoscientific claim that there is a mysterious amplification factor of 7 that still means that solar forcing varies by less than 1.5%.

So do your own reality check - CO2 and solar variation are two independent factors which influence global temperatures. CO2 has risen 40% while during that same period solar activity has fluctuated +- 0.1% with no rising trend. For attributing the measured rise in global temperatures which is the more likely cause?

And your claim that all experiments with CO2 have been done at high concentrations is just wrong. Here's a

to a brief video from the series Earth - The Operators manual which talks about the Air Force experiments in the effects of CO2. I recommend the whole ETOM video series as educational and entertaining.

[cyclonebuster]

Both periods look to have warmed around 1 degree F according to your chart. CO2 by itself shows very little correlation with temp.

That's NOAA's chart not mine, : ) Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years. Also,note both temperature and Co2 are both rising........

[cyclonebuster]

Where are you getting your 90ppm figure from? The pre-industrial value for CO2 was 280 ppm. The current seasonally adjusted value at Mauna Loa is 394 ppm - that's a delta of 114 ppm. But a better, more accurate, way of looking at it is that 114 ppm is a 40% increase in CO2 due to our burning fossil fuels - with a corresponding increase in its GHG effect (yes, i know the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear). We are well on our way towards doubling atmospheric CO2, and many of us will live to see what happens at 560 ppm.

Compare the 40% increase with the magnitude of measured solar fluctuations. As Cyclonebuster posted earlier, the max to min solar variation has been 1368 w/m2 to 1365 w/m2 - so, if you remember your grade-school math, you can understand that (1368 - 1365)/1365 = 0.002 which is a fluctuation of 0.2%. Two tenths of one percent. And remember that there has not been a long-term trend in solar variation. Even if you buy the denialist pseudoscientific claim that there is a mysterious amplification factor of 7 that still means that solar forcing varies by less than 1.5%.

So do your own reality check - CO2 and solar variation are two independent factors which influence global temperatures. CO2 has risen 40% while during that same period solar activity has fluctuated +- 0.1% with no rising trend. For attributing the measured rise in global temperatures which is the more likely cause?

And your claim that all experiments with CO2 have been done at high concentrations is just wrong. Here's a

to a brief video from the series Earth - The Operators manual which talks about the Air Force experiments in the effects of CO2. I recommend the whole ETOM video series as educational and entertaining.

BRAVO ENCORE

[ben4vols]

That's NOAA's chart not mine, : ) Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years. Also,note both temperature and Co2 are both rising........

And close to the same thing could have been said in and around the period of 1940. Just because CO2 is rising and temperature is rising do not mean they are correlated.

[cyclonebuster]

And close to the same thing could have been said in and around the period of 1940. Just because CO2 is rising and temperature is rising do not mean they are correlated.

Correct.... However, there is a correlation when they both do it at the same time.

[ben4vols]

Correct.... However, there is a correlation when they both do it at the same time.

It is a very weak correlation. The global hind casting models also have a hard time with the warming period between 1910-1940 and the cooling period of 1940 to 1970.

[WeatherRusty]

I really want to know how much extra heating 90ppm co2 is contributing. We see experiments with co2 absorbing heat, but its always 1000's of ppm co2. There are so many factors to consider in the comparison.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

The answer is about 0.5C directly attributable to the additional CO2 entered into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution concentration value of 280ppm.

where F is the change in forcing, C₀ the original concentration and C the new concentration of about 390ppm.

The result comes to 1.6/w/m^2 of increased forcing.

According to the Planck response per watt of energy (0.3C/watt) we get about 0.5C of warming before any feedback consideration and at radiative equilibrium.

[Jonger]

Where are you getting your 90ppm figure from? The pre-industrial value for CO2 was 280 ppm. The current seasonally adjusted value at Mauna Loa is 394 ppm - that's a delta of 114 ppm. But a better, more accurate, way of looking at it is that 114 ppm is a 40% increase in CO2 due to our burning fossil fuels - with a corresponding increase in its GHG effect (yes, i know the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear). We are well on our way towards doubling atmospheric CO2, and many of us will live to see what happens at 560 ppm.

Compare the 40% increase with the magnitude of measured solar fluctuations. As Cyclonebuster posted earlier, the max to min solar variation has been 1368 w/m2 to 1365 w/m2 - so, if you remember your grade-school math, you can understand that (1368 - 1365)/1365 = 0.002 which is a fluctuation of 0.2%. Two tenths of one percent. And remember that there has not been a long-term trend in solar variation. Even if you buy the denialist pseudoscientific claim that there is a mysterious amplification factor of 7 that still means that solar forcing varies by less than 1.5%.

So do your own reality check - CO2 and solar variation are two independent factors which influence global temperatures. CO2 has risen 40% while during that same period solar activity has fluctuated +- 0.1% with no rising trend. For attributing the measured rise in global temperatures which is the more likely cause?

And your claim that all experiments with CO2 have been done at high concentrations is just wrong. Here's a

to a brief video from the series Earth - The Operators manual which talks about the Air Force experiments in the effects of CO2. I recommend the whole ETOM video series as educational and entertaining.

Lets pretend it was 200ppm increase, show me a controlled experiment where 280-480ppm warms the atmosphere.

[ben4vols]

http://www.skeptical...d-1910-1940.htm

Thanks for backing up my point.

[Jonger]

Thanks for backing up my point.

That chart pretty much confirmed what you were saying, the period of warming between 1910-1940 was almost identical to today. I really wish we had data showing the warming since 1880 without the 1940-1990 aerosols in the atmosphere; we would really get a nice trend line. We will never know...

[PhillipS]

Lets pretend it was 200ppm increase, show me a controlled experiment where 280-480ppm warms the atmosphere.

As you, and other pseudo-skeptics, have been shown numerous times the GHE is based on radiative physics. There is a mountain of data corroborating the fundamental theories - but since you've consistently denied the validity of that science why should I waste my time relisting all of the peer-reviewed research for you. You are simply not worth it because you just want to play rhetorical games. Go to the climate change information thread and follow some of those links if you really want to understand the science.

[donsutherland1]

Thanks for backing up my point.

The numbers from the charts Wxtrix posted do not support your point. The numbers showed the following rate of increase in temperatures (°C per century):

1860-1880: 1.01°C

1910-1940: 1.56°C

1975-2005: 1.90°C

The 1975-2005 rate of increase is almost 22% faster than the 1910-40 warming.

[ben4vols]

The numbers from the charts Wxtrix posted do not support your point. The numbers showed the following rate of increase in temperatures (°C per century):

1860-1880: 1.01°C

1910-1940: 1.56°C

1975-2005: 1.90°C

The 1975-2005 rate of increase is almost 22% faster than the 1910-40 warming.

I didn't say they were exact I said they were close. Which they are. The responding graph also didn't pick the best years to represent the data but it was close enough for government work. Not bad considering CO2 rose 6 times faster in the 1975-2005 period.

[WeatherRusty]

Lets pretend it was 200ppm increase, show me a controlled experiment where 280-480ppm warms the atmosphere.

What you need to understand is that the warming of the climate is not a consequence of how much the CO2 in the atmosphere directly warms the air. Remember, it is the surface which warms the atmosphere rather than the other way around. The greenhouse effect warms the surface, or rather and more correctly stated, keeps it warm.

It is radiation which warms the surface, both from the Sun and Earth's own atmosphere. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the downward radiation and decrease the outward radiation.

[cyclonebuster]

What you need to understand is that the warming of the climate is not a consequence of how much the CO2 in the atmosphere directly warms the air. Remember, it is the surface which warms the atmosphere rather than the other way around. The greenhouse effect warms the surface, or rather and more correctly stated, keeps it warm.

It is radiation which warms the surface, both from the Sun and Earth's own atmosphere. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the downward radiation and decrease the outward radiation.

Excellent.....Hence the term "GHG BLANKET"........ Blankets tend to trap heat and hold it close to the surface.......

[cyclonebuster]

It is a very weak correlation. The global hind casting models also have a hard time with the warming period between 1910-1940 and the cooling period of 1940 to 1970.

Even in the upward trend in this chart

one can

downward trends when clearly the trend is upward........................

[ben4vols]

http://www.skeptical...correlation.htm

You enjoy making straw men?

[ben4vols]

you have to wonder when the mods are going to boot bethesdaboy from this forum again--all he does is post discredited talking points.

There is nothing I have said to discredit (unless you can't read a simple graph). You have just made stuff up...as usual.

[ben4vols]

one can

downward trends when clearly the trend is upward........................

Do you even know what you are talking about? You post a picture of a cherry and you show me a CO2 graph from the 1960's forward? Are you trying to show you are a cherry picker and then prove it?

[SVT450R]

you have to wonder when the mods are going to boot bethesdaboy from this forum again--all he does is post discredited talking points.

[cyclonebuster]

Do you even know what you are talking about? You post a picture of a cherry and you show me a CO2 graph from the 1960's forward? Are you trying to show you are a cherry picker and then prove it?

No. I just have more Cherries to pick..........

[TerryM]

3 consecutive posts attacking others may be some kind of record.

Cyclone's and WxTrix's graphs have been to the point, and clearly illustrate a connection between C02 and Global Warming. A pretense that the they show otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Terry

[cyclonebuster]

3 consecutive posts attacking others may be some kind of record.

Cyclone's and WxTrix's graphs have been to the point, and clearly illustrate a connection between C02 and Global Warming. A pretense that the they show otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Terry

So how do we remove the "Trapped Heat" caused by GHG's? Like to hear my idea on that?

[ben4vols]

3 consecutive posts attacking others may be some kind of record.

Cyclone's and WxTrix's graphs have been to the point, and clearly illustrate a connection between C02 and Global Warming. A pretense that the they show otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Terry

I reply in kind Terry. Looks like you want to be number 4 by taking my responses out of context. I never said there was no connection between CO2 and Global Warming. What I did say was that there is a low correlation if one were to look at CO2 only vs Global Temperatures.

[Jonger]

She would rather this be a simple forum repository for monthly numbers, no discussion or debates.

[WeatherRusty]

She would rather this be a simple forum repository for monthly numbers, no discussion or debates.

Have I answered your questions adequately or has the BS gotten in the way?

[Jonger]

Have I answered your questions adequately or has the BS gotten in the way?

I understand how CO2 functions in the atmosphere. Isn't the increase in wattage supposed to be 1.42w m2?

[WeatherRusty]

I understand how CO2 functions in the atmosphere. Isn't the increase in wattage supposed to be 1.42w m2?

The IPCC gives 1.6w/m^2 as the change in forcing over 280ppm.

If we use your 1.42w we get a Planck response a little more than 0.4C rather than 0.5C.

In either case, this gives you the direct surface temperature change at equilibrium directly attributable to increased CO2. For a whole doubling to 560ppm we get a bit less than 1.2C.

[cyclonebuster]

The IPCC gives 1.6w/m^2 as the change in forcing over 280ppm.

If we use your 1.42w we get a Planck response a little more than 0.4C rather than 0.5C.

In either case, this gives you the direct surface temperature change at equilibrium directly attributable to increased CO2. For a whole doubling to 560ppm we get a bit less than 1.2C.

And how is it they do not understand why the Arctic Ice is in decline with a warming like that on land,sea and air?

All thanks to the Co2 Hockey Stick:

Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. The 2008 observed value is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and projections are based upon future emission scenarios. More information on the data can be found in the Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. report.

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO₂ emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO₂ concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.

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