Correlation between temperature and CO2

[IanC]

I already told you ian...print the graph from 1970 and the graph from 2006...the black lines are identical...not comparing observation to models...comparing observation to observation.

Okay, observation to observation. Both graphs are taken under very similar conditions. They produce very similar results. So what? Which changes were you expecting? What is the size of those changes? Would they even be visible at the scale of these graphs?

I am trying to understand your point but you haven't made it clear.

You are not talking about surface warming because you have defined the temperature as being similar (although it appears that the 2006 graph is about 1/2C warmer).

What specific information do you want me to glean from these graphs? And how is it important?

CO2 warms the surface. The amount would be around 1/2C for a change from 280-400 ppm. But CO2 wasn't 280 in 1970, nor 400 in 2006. Is 1/2C difference in brightness obvious in your graphs? Are the changes you are looking for smaller than the thickness of the line on the graph?

Specifically state what changes you think are missing from 1970-2006, keeping in mind that you are holding temperature invariant. And then point out where on the graph they would be found, keeping in mind that the range in your graph is for the atmospheric window where most of the GHG effects are not present.

 

[SSDD]

Okay, observation to observation. Both graphs are taken under very similar conditions. They produce very similar results. So what? Which changes were you expecting? What is the size of those changes? Would they even be visible at the scale of these graphs?

No ian, they produced identical results...one from 1970...one from 2006...outgoing LW is identical in the frequencies at question...there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 2006 than there was in 1970. If your hypothesis had any merit, the lines would not be identical...the observed outgoing LW would be less if what you believe were true. The outgoing LW hasn't decreased even though there is considerably more CO2 in the air...hasn't decreased means that your hypothesis fails...you have been wrong and the observed, measured, quantified data prove you wrong.

I am trying to understand your point but you haven't made it clear.

Then you are either being obtuse or are stupid beyond belief.

You are not talking about surface warming because you have defined the temperature as being similar (although it appears that the 2006 graph is about 1/2C warmer).

No ian, I am not talking about warming because this isn't about warming...this is about the amount of LW in the relevant bands escaping at the top of the atmosphere...according to your magical belief, more CO2 in the atmosphere should result in less outgoing LW in the relevant bands...there has been no change in outgoing LW between 1970 and 2006 even though there has been a considerable change in atmospheric CO2...that means that what you believe CO2 is doing with energy in the atmosphere isn't happening...the evidence proves you wrong.

CO2 is not doing anything...look to some other cause for whatever warming you believe is happening.

 

[IanC]

No ian, they produced identical results...one from 1970...one from 2006...outgoing LW is identical in the frequencies at question...there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 2006 than there was in 1970. If your hypothesis had any merit, the lines would not be identical...the observed outgoing LW would be less if what you believe were true. The outgoing LW hasn't decreased even though there is considerably more CO2 in the air...hasn't decreased means that your hypothesis fails...you have been wrong and the observed, measured, quantified data prove you wrong

I didn't say there would be less OLR. I said the surface would warm up, so that extra energy would leave through the atmospheric window, and renew the balance between solar input and radiation loss to space.

While there would be some lag time between increased CO2 and increased surface temperature, it certainly isn't 36 years.

Seeing as you will not come out and specifically say what you think happened between 1970-2006, I will.

I think CO2 warmed the surface. That will push up the radiation in all of the wavelengths of the atmospheric window not affected by GHGs. Your graph identifies CO2, O3 and methane bands. I think the CO2 and methane bands will produce less radiation in2006 because they have both increased. I am not sure if ozone has increased or decreased, so I don't know if its radiation has changed, or in which direction.

The decrease in GHG bands will be matched by increases in bands that escape freely to space. The narrowed band in your graph may or may not exactly cancel out but the whole range of IR will (unless more heating or cooling was happening).

I believe the evidence that you provided supports my position as stated. I carefully looked at the graphs and you did not.

You base your claim on the strawman that OLR must go down with increased CO2. While there is a small lag time, much more likely to be a day (edit- a day/night cycle) rather than a year, the OLR will always (edit- roughly) remain balanced with solar input in the IR range of wavelengths present in your graphs.

If you disagree, be SPECIFIC!

 

[SSDD]

I didn't say there would be less OLR. I said the surface would warm up, so that extra energy would leave through the atmospheric window, and renew the balance between solar input and radiation loss to space.

And do tell genius...how would the surface heat up due to CO2 without changing the amount of OLR at the TOA in the CO2 absorption band? This is just another bit of wacko pseudoscience like your missing hot spot...your hypothesis keeps failing but you keep believing. It seems that you are incapable of learning anything....or admitting that you are wrong no matter how much actual, observed, measured, quantified evidence you see.

You see just a bit of warming and claim it is due to CO2 without regard to the fact that if it were CO2 there would be certain undeniable fingerprints as a result...tropospheric hot spot...less OLR in the CO2 absorption bands...etc...none of those things is happening therefore whatever warming there is is not due to CO2 or anything you believe CO2 is doing. Energy movement is a one way street...warm to cool...no energy moves from cool to warm without some work having been done to make it happen.

You believe you believe you believe...regardless of what the observed, measured, quantified evidence tells you...that should tell you something about yourself and the position you have taken ian, but you must have purchased the super deluxe blinders and they are certainly doing their job.

 

[IanC]

And do tell genius...how would the surface heat up due to CO2 without changing the amount of OLR at the TOA in the CO2 absorption band?

Excellent! You asked a specific question. Now I can address a single issue rather than explain the big picture over and over again.

CO2 warms the near surface atmosphere by absorbing all of the surface generated 15 micron radiation which is transformed into heat by molecular collision. None escapes directly, not at 280 ppm or 400 ppm.

The CO2 emission is generated much higher up, in rarified air where the photons can escape without being recaptured. CO2 emission on the graph has nothing to do with the surface.

Most of the IR emissions in the atmospheric window escape freely to space, directly from the surface with no interaction from the atmosphere. This radiation is completely dependent on surface temperature. The maximum brightness levels on your graph give the surface temperature.

If you put these two concepts together you can make a prediction about what will happen when CO2 is increased. First the lowest level of the atmosphere will warm because CO2 will put the 15 micron IR into a smaller volume of air (absorbed to extinction at a lower level). Second, the CO2 emission level will climb to a higher level because there is more CO2. If this new height is colder then the CO2 emission will be reduced because it is generated by molecular collision, which is controlled by kinetic speed (otherwise known as temperature).

There you have it. Atmospheric window controlled by surface temperature, CO2 emission controlled by the temperature at the height where it can escape.

Is this clearer to you now? The data in your graphs confirm this. Under identical conditions the atmospheric window increased radiation, the CO2 emission decreased. The overall outgoing OLR remained the same to a very fine degree, as to be expected.

 

[IanC]

I thought I would look at the AmericanThinker article again to hunt for more clues to the paper which is the source of your graphs because the link is dead and Google images was no help.

Imagine my surprise when I saw this graph that I overlooked before!

Just what I was saying! Atmospheric window up, CO2 down.

It is also important to add that the amount of energy released is greater on the left side compared to the right side for equal brightness temperature. See the Planck curves for the reason why.

I can see why you neglected to add this graph. It points out the details that we're difficult to access in the coarse scale graphs that you provided. Just like I said. Remember when I said it appeared that the atmospheric window was up half a degree in brightness and the CO2 was down, or at least only equal? Here is the proof.

As usual, when you attempt to prove me wrong it turns around and bites you in the ass by strengthening my case.

Hahahaha.

 

[SSDD]

I thought I would look at the AmericanThinker article again to hunt for more clues to the paper which is the source of your graphs because the link is dead and Google images was no help.

Imagine my surprise when I saw this graph that I overlooked before!

Just what I was saying! Atmospheric window up, CO2 down.

You aren't getting any smarter ian...and you keep making the same stupid mistake...the black line is observation...one TES...one IRIS...both identical so they look like a single line...the red is the f'ing model which predicted less outgoing LW down in the CO2 band...the model was wrong because what you, and it, and all the other warmer wackos think CO2 is doing in the atmosphere simply isn't happening. Now, if the TES and IRIS lines were not identical then you would have something...but all this graph shows is that no change has happened at the TOA in OLR in the CO2 absorption band and the model based on the physics you believe in so fervently was wrong....that is all that it shows...you are wrong and the observed, measured, quantified evidence proves it.

 

[IanC]

There are two lines on this graph. The red line is model out put so you can ignore it.

That leaves the black line. What is the black line showing? The 2006 values less the 1970 values. It is showing the differences between the two data sets, using a scale that allows the differences to be more easily seen.

For example- at wavenumber 700, the 1970 reading appears to be 223 brightness temperature. The 2006 reading appears to be 222.5 brightness temperature. But only if you zoom in on the spot and squint a bit. That means the difference is 222.5 - 223 = -0.5 brightness temperature. Extremely hard to see on a scale that covers over a hundred degrees of brightness.

That is where this new graph with a magnified scale comes into play. If we look at wavenumber 700, the difference has already been calculated from numeric data. It appears to be -0.25, although you still have to zoom in and squint. At 701 it has jumped down to -0.5, my estimate. CO2 brightness temperature dropped from The year 1970 to the year 2006.

edit- Convinced yet? I can add more of the same evidence from the other data set if you need a second opinion.

Personally I think you should put more effort into reading graphs for the information they provide, and less effort trying to distort them into showing something that they don't.

 

[skookerasbil]

One simple term...........MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD..........done.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.

 

[IanC]

One simple term...........MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD..........done.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.

The MWP and LIA certainly do show that CO2 is not the main control knob for climate. Natural factors rule (but CO2 still has a bit part).

 

[LuckyDuck]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

The disappearing North Polar Icecap, diminishing as well as disappearing glaciers and less mountain snowfalls in some regions indicates a global warming trend; t's cause, manmade or otherwise is irrelevant.
The only reason I can see why there are those who object vehemently that the climate change is actually occurring, are those whose pocket books it may affect, should stringent global regulations put in place in an effort to resolve this. If so, money to them is no different than cocaine or heroin to an addict. They cannot get enough and don't want anything to diminish what they do get, even if it kills the planet and everyone in it, including themselves.
One of our planet's most brilliant minds, Stephen Hawking has estimated that humanity has about one hundred years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable due to temperature rises and a growing number of scientists are beginning to agree with that estimate and some others thinking that it might be sooner than that.
So, just for argument sake, let us say that years have passed and it turns out that the scientists were correct and you, very old, who may have been saying it wasn't true all along, are struggling to stay alive with your children and grandchildren, but people are overheating and dying around you, what would you say to your children and grandchildren who believed you, if they ask you why people didn't at least try to prevent the possibility of the earth overheating?

 

[westwall]

One simple term...........MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD..........done.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.

The MWP and LIA certainly do show that CO2 is not the main control knob for climate. Natural factors rule (but CO2 still has a bit part).

I don't even think it's effect is measurable. I think that the GHG effect of water vapor is so overwhelming that the CO2 signal is for all intents, invisible.

 

[westwall]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

The disappearing North Polar Icecap, diminishing as well as disappearing glaciers and less mountain snowfalls in some regions indicates a global warming trend; t's cause, manmade or otherwise is irrelevant.
The only reason I can see why there are those who object vehemently that the climate change is actually occurring, are those whose pocket books it may affect, should stringent global regulations put in place in an effort to resolve this. If so, money to them is no different than cocaine or heroin to an addict. They cannot get enough and don't want anything to diminish what they do get, even if it kills the planet and everyone in it, including themselves.
One of our planet's most brilliant minds, Stephen Hawking has estimated that humanity has about one hundred years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable due to temperature rises and a growing number of scientists are beginning to agree with that estimate and some others thinking that it might be sooner than that.
So, just for argument sake, let us say that years have passed and it turns out that the scientists were correct and you, very old, who may have been saying it wasn't true all along, are struggling to stay alive with your children and grandchildren, but people are overheating and dying around you, what would you say to your children and grandchildren who believed you, if they ask you why people didn't at least try to prevent the possibility of the earth overheating?

The Arctic ice cap is within the 30 year average so it ain't going anywhere. Hawkings statement is ridiculous on its face. The Earth has PROVABLY had CO2 levels that were twenty times what they are now and nothing happened. What is it? The 5% of the CO2 global yearly budget that man produces is somehow different from the 95% of the natural CO2? How about showing us how that works.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

The disappearing North Polar Icecap, diminishing as well as disappearing glaciers and less mountain snowfalls in some regions indicates a global warming trend; t's cause, manmade or otherwise is irrelevant.
The only reason I can see why there are those who object vehemently that the climate change is actually occurring, are those whose pocket books it may affect, should stringent global regulations put in place in an effort to resolve this. If so, money to them is no different than cocaine or heroin to an addict. They cannot get enough and don't want anything to diminish what they do get, even if it kills the planet and everyone in it, including themselves.
One of our planet's most brilliant minds, Stephen Hawking has estimated that humanity has about one hundred years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable due to temperature rises and a growing number of scientists are beginning to agree with that estimate and some others thinking that it might be sooner than that.
So, just for argument sake, let us say that years have passed and it turns out that the scientists were correct and you, very old, who may have been saying it wasn't true all along, are struggling to stay alive with your children and grandchildren, but people are overheating and dying around you, what would you say to your children and grandchildren who believed you, if they ask you why people didn't at least try to prevent the possibility of the earth overheating?

The Arctic ice cap is within the 30 year average so it ain't going anywhere. Hawkings statement is ridiculous on its face. The Earth has PROVABLY had CO2 levels that were twenty times what they are now and nothing happened. What is it? The 5% of the CO2 global yearly budget that man produces is somehow different from the 95% of the natural CO2? How about showing us how that works.

The "hypothetical" question is......what would you say to those you love and who trusted you, were it all to be real? This is all hypothetical doofus.

 

[westwall]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

The disappearing North Polar Icecap, diminishing as well as disappearing glaciers and less mountain snowfalls in some regions indicates a global warming trend; t's cause, manmade or otherwise is irrelevant.
The only reason I can see why there are those who object vehemently that the climate change is actually occurring, are those whose pocket books it may affect, should stringent global regulations put in place in an effort to resolve this. If so, money to them is no different than cocaine or heroin to an addict. They cannot get enough and don't want anything to diminish what they do get, even if it kills the planet and everyone in it, including themselves.
One of our planet's most brilliant minds, Stephen Hawking has estimated that humanity has about one hundred years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable due to temperature rises and a growing number of scientists are beginning to agree with that estimate and some others thinking that it might be sooner than that.
So, just for argument sake, let us say that years have passed and it turns out that the scientists were correct and you, very old, who may have been saying it wasn't true all along, are struggling to stay alive with your children and grandchildren, but people are overheating and dying around you, what would you say to your children and grandchildren who believed you, if they ask you why people didn't at least try to prevent the possibility of the earth overheating?

The Arctic ice cap is within the 30 year average so it ain't going anywhere. Hawkings statement is ridiculous on its face. The Earth has PROVABLY had CO2 levels that were twenty times what they are now and nothing happened. What is it? The 5% of the CO2 global yearly budget that man produces is somehow different from the 95% of the natural CO2? How about showing us how that works.

The "hypothetical" question is......what would you say to those you love and who trusted you, were it all to be real? This is all hypothetical doofus.

Your hypothetical is nonsensical. We have LOADS of actual, verifiable, historical and paleoclimate evidence that shows the weeping hysteria of the global warming crowd to be silly and ridiculous. We KNOW that it has been warmer in the not too distant past and not a single catastrophe that the warmers claim "might" happen. Ever did. Not once.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thread DOMINATED by skeptic conveyed astuteness!!

 

[IanC]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

The disappearing North Polar Icecap, diminishing as well as disappearing glaciers and less mountain snowfalls in some regions indicates a global warming trend; t's cause, manmade or otherwise is irrelevant.
The only reason I can see why there are those who object vehemently that the climate change is actually occurring, are those whose pocket books it may affect, should stringent global regulations put in place in an effort to resolve this. If so, money to them is no different than cocaine or heroin to an addict. They cannot get enough and don't want anything to diminish what they do get, even if it kills the planet and everyone in it, including themselves.
One of our planet's most brilliant minds, Stephen Hawking has estimated that humanity has about one hundred years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable due to temperature rises and a growing number of scientists are beginning to agree with that estimate and some others thinking that it might be sooner than that.
So, just for argument sake, let us say that years have passed and it turns out that the scientists were correct and you, very old, who may have been saying it wasn't true all along, are struggling to stay alive with your children and grandchildren, but people are overheating and dying around you, what would you say to your children and grandchildren who believed you, if they ask you why people didn't at least try to prevent the possibility of the earth overheating?

Sorry luckyduck, I am only interested in the scientific aspect of CAGW. I am not inclined to hold your hand and wipe away your tears because you are emotionally upset over a fairy tale that you foolishly believed.

 

[IanC]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

Did any of you warmers out there actually get the point of the OP?

The first graph shows the actual correlation fluxuating over change in CO2 concentration. A direct comparison, as opposed to the misleading method of overlaying two graphs with different y axis, which will show a correlation between any two increasing variables, especially with creative scaling.

Should I put up the graph of Irish population/temperature again? It has a great r2 value. Much better than CO2/temperature.

 

[IanC]

I thought I would look at the AmericanThinker article again to hunt for more clues to the paper which is the source of your graphs because the link is dead and Google images was no help.

Imagine my surprise when I saw this graph that I overlooked before!

Just what I was saying! Atmospheric window up, CO2 down.

You aren't getting any smarter ian...and you keep making the same stupid mistake...the black line is observation...one TES...one IRIS...both identical so they look like a single line...the red is the f'ing model which predicted less outgoing LW down in the CO2 band...the model was wrong because what you, and it, and all the other warmer wackos think CO2 is doing in the atmosphere simply isn't happening. Now, if the TES and IRIS lines were not identical then you would have something...but all this graph shows is that no change has happened at the TOA in OLR in the CO2 absorption band and the model based on the physics you believe in so fervently was wrong....that is all that it shows...you are wrong and the observed, measured, quantified evidence proves it.

Please show me the observed, measured, quantified evidence that proves me wrong.

Why didn't you show that to me in the first place? Rather than go through the humiliation of seeing these graphs turned against you?

 

[IanC]

One simple term...........MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD..........done.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.

The MWP and LIA certainly do show that CO2 is not the main control knob for climate. Natural factors rule (but CO2 still has a bit part).

I don't even think it's effect is measurable. I think that the GHG effect of water vapor is so overwhelming that the CO2 signal is for all intents, invisible.

I concur that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas.

But CO2'S effect is not invisible, especially if you consider the total effect not just the effect of rising CO2.

If CO2 was not present the the atmospheric window would be widened, allowing more radiation to escape freely to space, and would cool the atmosphere by removing one of its sources of energy input.