Correlation between temperature and CO2

[IanC]

Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.

And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.

All the instruments you have shown were either cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere or they were only measuring changes in temperature of internal thermopiles....just you being fooled by instrumentation

Can you elaborate a bit on this 'fooled by instrumentation' idea? In what way are we being fooled? Where does the cause and effect relationship break down? The measurements seem to be precise and repeatable.

Any example would be fine. Just go into detail on how the measurements are wrong, and in which direction. Then perhaps how these mistaken results have led to a faulty conclusion.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.

And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.

All the instruments you have shown were either cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere or they were only measuring changes in temperature of internal thermopiles....just you being fooled by instrumentation

Can you elaborate a bit on this 'fooled by instrumentation' idea? In what way are we being fooled? Where does the cause and effect relationship break down? The measurements seem to be precise and repeatable.

Any example would be fine. Just go into detail on how the measurements are wrong, and in which direction. Then perhaps how these mistaken results have led to a faulty conclusion.

You believe an internal thermopile can determine from which direction it is being warmed or cooled or for that matter what is warming or cooling it?

It reacts to temperature changes...period. they warm and they cool and a mathematical model takes the amount and rate of change and makes a determination based on the model. To try and claim that you know that you are measuring down dwelling radiation with such an instrument is to fool oneself with radiation.

 

[IanC]

Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.

And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.

All the instruments you have shown were either cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere or they were only measuring changes in temperature of internal thermopiles....just you being fooled by instrumentation

Can you elaborate a bit on this 'fooled by instrumentation' idea? In what way are we being fooled? Where does the cause and effect relationship break down? The measurements seem to be precise and repeatable.

Any example would be fine. Just go into detail on how the measurements are wrong, and in which direction. Then perhaps how these mistaken results have led to a faulty conclusion.

You believe an internal thermopile can determine from which direction it is being warmed or cooled or for that matter what is warming or cooling it?

It reacts to temperature changes...period. they warm and they cool and a mathematical model takes the amount and rate of change and makes a determination based on the model. To try and claim that you know that you are measuring down dwelling radiation with such an instrument is to fool oneself with radiation.

The instruments are tested against known amounts of radiation and give precise and consistent results.

You say we are being fooled by them. How are we being fooled? Are they reading too high, too low, what?

Are you upset because they don't directly measure the property that you are interested in? ie you can measure the height of a tree by the shadow it casts. Is that type of measurement not valid to you?

 

[SSDD]

The instruments are tested against known amounts of radiation and give precise and consistent results.

I didn't say that they aren't accurate...I said that they can't tell where the energy that is warming them comes from.. you are making an assumption that backradiation is being measured based on a flawed mathematical model.

 

[IanC]

I see you finally came up with a PSI paper on another thread about instrumentation and backradiation.

It claims that back radiation exists. Are you modifying your position? And that instruments can measure it. Are you modifying your position?

It also uses vague terminology to conclude back radiation does not 'warm' the surface. But my position is that back radiation impairs heat loss, indirectly raising surface temps. I only skimmed the article but the nighttime results seem to support that.

The instrument range is cut off before the main CO2 band at 15 microns, so we can't make any inferences about CO2.

Back to measurements of atmospheric radiation.

Caption from Petty: Fig. 6.6: Example of an actual infrared emission spectrum observed by the Nimbus 4 satellite over a point in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Dashed curves represent blackbody radiances at the indicated temperatures in Kelvin

Caption from Petty: Fig. 8.1 Two examples of measured atmospheric emission spectra as seen from ground level looking up. Planck function curves corresponding to the approximate surface temperature in each case are superimposed (dashed lines).

[Fig. 8.2 from Petty] (a) Top of the Atmosphere from 20km and (b) Bottom of the Atmosphere from surface in the Arctic. Note that this is similar to the Tropical Pacific, at temperatures that are about 30ºK to 40ºK cooler. The CO2 bite is more well-defined. Also, the bite in the 9.5μ to 10μ area is more apparent. That bite is due to O2 and O3 absorption spectra


These are actual measurements. They match up very well with modeled results but that is besides the point. They actually include the CO2 specific portion of the range, unlike your PSI or American Thinker graphs.

 

[SSDD]

I see you finally came up with a PSI paper on another thread about instrumentation and backradiation.

It claims that back radiation exists. [/quote


What is funny ian is that you think that paper disagrees with me and somehow makes your point. I guess either you can't read, or no matter what you read, you twist in your mind so that it does agree with you. There were several key phrases in that paper that you managed to skip right over and somehow decide that the paper agrees with you.

For example:

I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.

There is a section in which he speaks as if backradiation actually exists, but he ends the section with this statement:

The above explanation is only a theoretical explanation.

He goes on, in the experiment to say...and to demonstrate via actual observation and measurement:

As soon as we focus our radiometers or IR thermometers towards the sky in an angle of 90° with respect to the surface, we measure thermal radiation from stratus clouds, cirri clouds and cirrostrati at about 6 km in altitude, not any backradiation from the atmosphere.

1. Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers measure thermal radiation limited by the range adjusted[12] at 0.1-14 μm emitted from cirri and globules of air at different heights, which are rising vertically through the atmosphere.
   
   In other words, Infrared thermometers, radiometers, pyrgeometers, and pyrometers are measuring apparent temperature[12], i.e. content of thermal energy of an array of highly variable subsystems in the atmosphere[12], not thermal backradiation. There are not surfaces emitting radiation in the atmosphere.
   
   The recorded values correspond to a combination of radiation[12] which is an average made by the instruments from a series of instantaneous measurements of globules of air moving up, stratus clouds, water vapor present in the atmosphere, and dust particles.

People who believe back radiation has been measured with an instrument at ambient temperature are either being fooled by instrumentation, or are being duped by people who are being fooled by instrumentation....I would say you qualify for both categories. Back radiation does not exist...CO2 does not have an effect on the global climate...you are a dupe which is bad enough, but you take your position to others and try and convince them it is right which also makes you a useful idiot.

 

[IanC]

These are important graphs if you want to understand what is going on.

The top graph is a variation of the commonly seen TOA (top of atmosphere) except it is for a cooler, dryer Arctic location. The 8-14 atmospheric window that is comprised of freely escaping radiation except for the ozone notch, the deep CO2 notch, and the varigated H2O bands on either side.

The bottom graph is less well known and poorly understood. There is very little radiation in the 8-14 atmospheric window because it has to be created in the atmosphere itself and directed at the surface, none is scattered surface radiation because that all escapes freely. The CO2 band is very strong because it is coming from just above the instrument. The water bands are also strong because they are close to the surface, although some wavelengths are somewhat transmitted, giving a sawtooth pattern.

The PSI experiment uses a radiometer and IR temperature gun that are only reactive up to 14 microns, cutting off much of the back radiation. These are cheap instruments that were created for a different purpose than measuring back radiation, it is not the fault of the instruments that they give incomplete results here. The IR gun is calibrated to calculate temperature, which would be impossible if it was 'blinded' by CO2 specific radiation, it needs to 'see' through the atmosphere so it uses atmospheric window wavelengths. I couldn't easily find the specs for the French made radiometer but it also cuts off after the AW.

The experiment itself is a travesty, the known unknowns are ignored, the truncated measurements are considered to give the whole picture.

In both graphs you can see that the surface temperature is almost 270K. The area under the line is the amount of radiation. The top graph shows most of the radiation escapes through the atmospheric window, the bottom graph shows that the back radiation is in the wavelengths NOT in the atmospheric window. The experiment used data only in the AW, so you can see how their conclusions are skewed.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

2016 confirmed as planet's hottest year
The report is the most comprehensive assessment of climate change released by the Trump administration.



Neil deGrasse Tyson slaps dimwits: 'Odd no one denies the eclipse -- like climate change, science predicts it'

 

[SSDD]

These are important graphs if you want to understand what is going on.

.

They are not important in the least...They show that so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit...so what? If they restricted the exit of IR from the atmosphere in any way, there would be a hot spot...clearly, there isn't...and I just read an article this morning where NASA acknowledged that their measurements of outgoing LW at the TOA is off by as much as 5 wm2....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

2016 was hottest year on record, international report confirms
Source: The Hill

A report compiled by scientists around the world confirmed Thursday that 2016 was the hottest year since tracking began.

The State of the Climate in 2016 report, led by the United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with the help of scientists from 60 nations, found that “the major indicators of climate change continued to reflect trends consistent with a warming planet.”

The comprehensive report came days after The New York Times publicized a draft of a separate major climate change report that is awaiting Trump administration approval.

The Times reported that scientists working on that quadrennial report feared the administration would try to bury some or all of its conclusions, since Trump and much of his Cabinet are skeptical about global warming. The report is congressionally mandated every four years. A final version hasn’t been released, so it remains to be seen if anything will be changed or removed.

<more>

Read more: 2016 was hottest year on record, international report confirms

 

[SSDD]

2016 was hottest year on record, international report confirms
Source: The Hill

A report compiled by scientists around the world confirmed Thursday that 2016 was the hottest year since tracking began.

The State of the Climate in 2016 report, led by the United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with the help of scientists from 60 nations, found that “the major indicators of climate change continued to reflect trends consistent with a warming planet.”

The comprehensive report came days after The New York Times publicized a draft of a separate major climate change report that is awaiting Trump administration approval.

The Times reported that scientists working on that quadrennial report feared the administration would try to bury some or all of its conclusions, since Trump and much of his Cabinet are skeptical about global warming. The report is congressionally mandated every four years. A final version hasn’t been released, so it remains to be seen if anything will be changed or removed.

<more>

Read more: 2016 was hottest year on record, international report confirms

Even if it were true that 2016 was the hottest year evah in the instrumental record and not merely the result of data manipulation as is the case....exactly what do you think that proves? How do you suppose that makes the temperatures our responsibility?...and what do you think we could possibly do about it.

Look for a second, if your eyes can stand it, at the longer view and tell me what the proclamation that 2016 was the hottest year evah actually means...hint...look to the far right of the graph at the red line to see where we are today relative to the past 10,000 years.

 

[Slash]

.hint...look to the far right of the graph at the red line to see where we are today relative to the past 10,000 years.

Seeing as your graph ends at 95 years before 2000, or 1905, it's kind of tough to see where we are today. Your data pre-dates the titanic. Why do you need to hide that and try to make it seem like it is showing current dates?

But interesting way of using a graph that conveniently forgets to show the man made global warming years to disprove man made global warming.

Also. That graph came from someone who's stage name is Joanne Nova. She has a bachelors in Microbiology and worked in DNA. Then she got a job as a TV personality for the Shell Questacon Science Circus (As in Shell oil). Now granted she used to say CO2 had no impact on temperatures, and also that the temperatures haven't changed. Since Shell oil changed it's corporate stance on that, she's softened to CO2 has a limited impact on the temperatures and the temperature increases we have had due to CO2 are likely all that we will get.

And of course you are showing ONE location. They've taken core samples all over the world and put together composite graphs... Why not combine them all to get a representative sample? We know temperatures can be higher in one place, but lower in another. Oh that's right. That Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change. Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in certain regions, like Greenland, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures. That peak on the Minoan period... That's when temperatures were about where they are today.

When you have to omit major facts, take a sharpie and cross out 90% of the information and just find the one little location that sells the story you want to see, when you have to lie and pretend that 1905 is recent especially when talking about climate change that humans effect. When you have to find the person who was on Shell Oil's payroll to make your point... It really just takes away anything you are trying to say.

 

[IanC]

These are important graphs if you want to understand what is going on.

.

They are not important in the least...They show that so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit...so what? If they restricted the exit of IR from the atmosphere in any way, there would be a hot spot...clearly, there isn't...and I just read an article this morning where NASA acknowledged that their measurements of outgoing LW at the TOA is off by as much as 5 wm2....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.

Hahahaha. You have your eyes firmly shut, hands over your ears, and you're chanting soothing talking points to placate your fears. Like a child who doesn't want to acknowledge an unwanted truth. Hahahaha.


There is a hot spot for every wavelength that is being absorbed. And every one is different. For the broad range of CO2 specific radiation the average free path is about 2 metres and the extinction height at sea level is about 10 metres, so the hot spot is 0-10 metres above the surface. But for the most favoured wavelength at 666.7 the mean free path is shorter. That is why there is a spike, the emission height is higher up in the stratosphere where the temperature is higher and more energy is available to be converted into radiation.

Water has many wavelengths that it interacts with, some much stronger than others, even when they are very close in the spectrum. Are we looking for the hot spot of each and every wavelength? Hahahaha.

The problem of measuring the absolute amount of radiation at the TOA has been around since satellites first went up. The gap has always been artificially imposed, the changes and trends are much more reliable. The measurements are precise not accurate, depending on your definitions of those words.

There is an obvious radiative greenhouse effect. Our weather patterns are a direct response to it. CO2 is not the biggest player but it certainly does have a constant background effect by adding energy to the atmospheric total, where it is redistributed into many pathways.

Without CO2 the atmospheric window would be wider. More energy would escape directly to space, less energy would go into the atmosphere. Both the surface and the atmosphere would be cooler. I don't understand how you can ignore these effects, or the obvious conclusions drawn from them.

 

[IanC]

.hint...look to the far right of the graph at the red line to see where we are today relative to the past 10,000 years.

Seeing as your graph ends at 95 years before 2000, or 1905, it's kind of tough to see where we are today. Your data pre-dates the titanic. Why do you need to hide that and try to make it seem like it is showing current dates?

But interesting way of using a graph that conveniently forgets to show the man made global warming years to disprove man made global warming.

Also. That graph came from someone who's stage name is Joanne Nova. She has a bachelors in Microbiology and worked in DNA. Then she got a job as a TV personality for the Shell Questacon Science Circus (As in Shell oil). Now granted she used to say CO2 had no impact on temperatures, and also that the temperatures haven't changed. Since Shell oil changed it's corporate stance on that, she's softened to CO2 has a limited impact on the temperatures and the temperature increases we have had due to CO2 are likely all that we will get.

And of course you are showing ONE location. They've taken core samples all over the world and put together composite graphs... Why not combine them all to get a representative sample? We know temperatures can be higher in one place, but lower in another. Oh that's right. That Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change. Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in certain regions, like Greenland, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures. That peak on the Minoan period... That's when temperatures were about where they are today.

When you have to omit major facts, take a sharpie and cross out 90% of the information and just find the one little location that sells the story you want to see, when you have to lie and pretend that 1905 is recent especially when talking about climate change that humans effect. When you have to find the person who was on Shell Oil's payroll to make your point... It really just takes away anything you are trying to say.

What a load of self serving crap.

 

[Slash]

What a load of self serving crap.

And what didn't you like?

That the graph didn't come from anyone who studied anything about climates, but a paid worker for Shell oil?
That while it claims today, it clearly ends in 1905?
That the poster couldn't find anything better than a chart made nearly 2 decades ago to support science?
That is only uses one point for the ice core temperatures, even though we have dozens that could have been combined when talking about the mean earth temperature (which is normal procedure)?
Do you dislike that the author on that has changed her position multiple times and contradicted her own writings?

You started this thread on the importance of using real data. Granted when you use your real data you have there and use the ice samples, you see a nearly identical trend of CO2 and temperature variations. But those charts we shouldn't talk about right? I mean the exact same groups that came up with your chart you like came up with the one you are saying is bunk. But whatever.

 

[SSDD]

Seeing as your graph ends at 95 years before 2000, or 1905, it's kind of tough to see where we are today. Your data pre-dates the titanic. Why do you need to hide that and try to make it seem like it is showing current dates?

The claim is that temperatures have risen 1.2 degrees in the past 150 years...even if that were true, which it isn't, go ahead and add 1.2 degrees to the end of the map...now were does the present temperature stand relative to most of the past 10,000 years? Hint, still cooler than most of the past 10,00 years.

But interesting way of using a graph that conveniently forgets to show the man made global warming years to disprove man made global warming.

Guess you are unaware that most of the 1.2 degrees of temperature increase claimed over the past 150 years happened before the mid 20th century...so the graph covers a good deal of the so called manmade warming. Aside from that, the claims are simply untrue. Most of the claimed temperature increase is the result of ,warm bias in the temperature gathering network, urban heat island effect, and plain old data manipulation. Here is some peer reviewed science looking at the problems with the global temperature record.

Remote sensing of the urban heat island effect across biomes in the continental USA - ScienceDirect

On a yearly average, urban areas are substantially warmer than the non-urban fringe by 2.9°C

Mapping urban heat islands of arctic cities using combined data on field measurements and satellite images based on the example of the city of Apatity (Murmansk Oblast)

This article presents the results of a study of the urban heat island (UHI) in the city of Apatity [Russian Arctic] during winter that were obtained according to the data of field meteorological measurements and satellite images. Calculations of the surface layer temperature have been made based on the surface temperature data obtained from satellite images. … As a result of the analysis of temperature fields, an intensive heat island (up to 3.2°C) has been identified

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431169208904271

The results indicate that urban heating is attributable to a large excess in heat from the rapidly heating urban surfaces consisting of buildings, asphalt, bare-soil and short grasses. In summer, the symptoms of diurnal heating begin to appear by mid-morning and can be about 10°C warmer than nearby woodlands.

Climate change in fact and in theory: Are we collecting the facts?

(Karl et al., 1988) has shown that at some ‘sun belt’ cities in the West, the rise of temperature that can be attributed to the urban heat island is as much as 0.3 to 0.4°C per decade. In the East, the rise is over 0.1°C per decade. … The artificial warming in the primary station network, relative to the climate division data, is nearly 0.17°C over the past 34 years [1950s]. Such trends are at least as large as any of the observed trends over the United States (Karl, 1988) or the globe (Jones and Wigley, 1987).

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1989)070<0265:UBIAAS>2.0.CO;2

Results indicate that in the United States the two global land-based temperature data sets have an urban bias between +0.1°C and +0.4°C over the twentieth century (1901-84). … The magnitude of this urban bias in two global, land-based data sets was found to be a substantial portion of the overall trend of global and regional temperatures.

Estimated influence of urbanization on surface warming in Eastern China using time‐varying land use data

We examine the urban effect on surface warming in Eastern China, where a substantial portion of the land area has undergone rapid urbanization in the last few decades. Daily surface air temperature records during the period 1971–2010 at 277 meteorological stations are used to investigate temperature changes. Owing to urban expansion, some of the stations formerly located in rural areas are becoming increasingly influenced by urban environments. To estimate the effect of this urbanization on observed surface warming, the stations are dynamically classified into urban and rural types based on the land use data for four periods, i.e. 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010. After eliminating the temperature trend bias induced by time-varying latitudinal distributions of urban and rural stations, the estimated urban-induced trends in the daily minimum and mean temperature are 0.167 and 0.085 °C decade−1, accounting for 33.6 and 22.4% of total surface warming, respectively. The temperature difference between urban and rural stations indicates that urban heat island intensity has dramatically increased owing to rapid urbanization, and is highly correlated with the difference in fractional coverage of artificial surfaces between these two types of stations. This study highlights the importance of dynamic station classification in estimating the contribution of urbanization to long-term surface warming over large areas.

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/quageo.2017.36.issue-1/quageo-2017-0006/quageo-2017-0006.pdf

The global reconstructions as GISS (Hansen et al. 2010, GISTEMP Team 2017) are artificially biased upwards to reproduce the carbon dioxide emission trend, but the strong natural oscillation signal prevails. The very likely overrated warming rate since 1880 is 0.00654°C/year or 0.654°C/century. This rate increases to 0.00851°C/year or 0.851°C/century by considering the data only since 1910. The warming rate cleared of the oscillations is about constant since the 1940s.

As there is no way to perform a better measurement going back in the past, there is no legitimate way to correct recorded data of the past. Therefore, we should stick to the raw data.

Removing the relocation bias from the 155‐year Haparanda temperature record in Northern Europe

We here assess these influences and demonstrate that even in villages urban heat island biases might affect the temperature readings. … Due to the station movement from the village centre to the outskirts, the net correction results in an additional warming trend over the past 155 years. The trend increase is most substantial for minimum temperatures (+0.03 °C /10 years−1) [+0.47°C over 155 years] . … An increase in trend is even more severe if the 20th century is regarded exclusively, displaying a rise in annual mean temperature trend by +0.03 °C /10 years−1 and +0.07 °C /10 years−1 in annual minimum temperatures, respectively. … The adjustment of the Haparanda station record results in an increased warming trend.

The increasing trend of the urban heat island intensity - ScienceDirect

The urban heat island intensity in Manchester has a highly significant rising trend which by the end of the century could add 2.4 K to the average annual urban temperature, on top of the predicted climate change increase. An analysis of the urban morphology showed that the urban site had indeed become more urban over 9 years of the study, losing green spaces which mitigate against the UHII [urban heat island intensity].

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...zu&s=b57486fda9766b98d75e3980e046e1810d971f2c

[E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.

Implications of temporal change in urban heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations

The annual urban warming at the city stations can account for about 65∼80% of the overall warming in 1961∼2000, and about 40∼61% of the overall warming in 1981∼2000.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809515000988

UHI [the Urban Heat Island effect] accounts for almost half of Athens’ warming.

The study explores the interdecadal and seasonal variability of the urban heat island (UHI) intensity in the city of Athens. Daily air temperature data from a set of urban and surrounding non urban stations over the period 1970–2004 were used. Nighttime and daytime heat island revealed different characteristics as regards the mean amplitude, seasonal variability and temporal variation and trends. The difference of the annual mean air temperature between urban and rural stations exhibited a progressive statistically significant increase over the studied period, with rates equal to +0.2 °C/decade. A gradual and constant increase of the daytime UHI intensity was detected, in contrast to the nighttime UHI intensity which increases only in summer, after the mid 1980s

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062803/abstract

Artificial Amplification of Warming Trends …Western United States Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (US) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here, we critically evaluate this network’s temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network’s 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16 °C decade−1 to +0.106 °C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western US elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western US.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...99608)16:8<935::AID-JOC64>3.0.CO;2-V/abstract

The long-term mean annual temperature record (1885 –1993) shows warming over the past century, with much of the warming occurring in the most recent three decades. However, our analyses show that half or more of this recent warming may be related to urban growth, and not to any widespread regional temperature increase.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015452/abstract

[R]apid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI [urban heat island] effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade−1. The most substantial UHI effect occurred after the early 2000s, implying a significant effect of rapid urbanization on surface air temperature change during this period.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z

New Zealand’s national record for the period 1909 to 2009 is analysed and the data homogenized. Current New Zealand century-long climatology based on 1981 methods produces a trend of 0.91 °C per century. Our analysis, which uses updated measurement techniques and corrects for shelter-contaminated data, produces a trend of 0.28 °C per century.

Also. That graph came from someone who's stage name is Joanne Nova. She has a bachelors in Microbiology and worked in DNA. Then she got a job as a TV personality for the Shell Questacon Science Circus (As in Shell oil). Now granted she used to say CO2 had no impact on temperatures, and also that the temperatures haven't changed. Since Shell oil changed it's corporate stance on that, she's softened to CO2 has a limited impact on the temperatures and the temperature increases we have had due to CO2 are likely all that we will get.

Actually the graph "came from" The Journal of Quarternary Science Reviews. Joanne Nova simply provided the graphic I used....and the graph resulting from the GISP2 Ice Core is considered one of the "gold standard" temperature reconstructions.

It was obliging of you to demonstrate how shallow your knowledge on the topic actually is....as is the case with most warmers. Most of you lack the education to even begin to understand the topic so you simply parrot what your political peers tell you to say. Those who are educated tend to be political activists who are pursuing a political agenda where the climate change scare is simply a means to an end.

But back to the graph and your lack of knowledge on the topic. If you had ever done even the most cursory actual research on the topic, you would have found that the Vostok ice core studies, also considered gold standard ice core studies done at the south pole show the same temperature fingerprint as those reflected in the graph above from the Greenland GISP2 ice core.

Now perhaps you might like to try to explain how it is that gold standard ice core studies from both poles would show the same temperature signatures but leave out the rest of the world? Don't bother, here is a link to a world map showing proxy studies from all over the world that have found the same sort of temperature fingerprint as shown in the two ice core studies...demonstrating that the warm periods that came before today were warmer than the present without the benefit of the internal combustion engine. If you want to know what makes the climate change, you need to look somewhere besides CO2 because the climate has been changing all along with warmer temperatures and more rapid changes when CO2 levels were lower.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...=-3.81666561775622e-14,38.038184000000115&z=1

A degree in biology huh...biology is one of the hard sciences as opposed to climate science which is a soft science. Here degree in biology means that she has far more education in chemistry, math, and physics than most of the climate scientists working out there. Climate science is where people go who wish they could be scientists but can't cut it in the hard science programs.

And of course you are showing ONE location. They've taken core samples all over the world and put together composite graphs... Why not combine them all to get a representative sample?

Look above... I have provided you with locations, and studies worldwide...all supporting the two graphs I have provided you from opposite poles. Sorry guy, actual science does't support your belief.

We know temperatures can be higher in one place, but lower in another. Oh that's right. That Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change. Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in certain regions, like Greenland, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures. That peak on the Minoan period... That's when temperatures were about where they are today.

Take a look at the map...it provides locations, studies, authors and findings. It clearly demonstrates that the medieval warm period was both warmer than the present and global in nature. Note how few blue flags there are on the world map indicating temperatures that are lower than the present. The red flags represent studies that found that the period was warmer than the present...blue flags represent findings of cooler temperatures...yellow represents findings of drier climate which tends to be the case with warmer temperatures...the green and grey represent no trend, or an unclear trend.

Those findings pretty much mirror the present. I started a thread titled "if the globe isn't warming, why is it called global warming" It provides temperature records from individual regions of the earth. A couple of places show some small bit of warming...the rest either show little change if any, or cooling. Warming on a "global" scale only shows up in the heavily manipulated, and homogenized global record....meaning it is an artifact of the methods used....not real....fabricated.

When you have to omit major facts, take a sharpie and cross out 90% of the information and just find the one little location that sells the story you want to see, when you have to lie and pretend that 1905 is recent especially when talking about climate change that humans effect. When you have to find the person who was on Shell Oil's payroll to make your point... It really just takes away anything you are trying to say.

Alas, that is precisely what warmers do in an attempt to make the present appear to be warming at an unprecedented rate...and appear to be warmer than it has ever been...and make it appear as if we have anything whatsoever to do with it. You are just one more top shelf, first class dupe playing the part of useful idiot arguing in favor of pseudoscience that you simply aren't equipped to understand. Your position is based on your politics, not actual science...but just to prove my claim I will ask you, as I ask all warmers to please provide a single piece...that is just one....a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one...and will you be able to provide it?...of course not because no such evidence exists.

 

[IanC]

That the graph didn't come from anyone who studied anything about climates, but a paid worker for Shell oil?

That graph was not put together by her. It is a set of data that anyone can use to illustrate their points. Why didn't you search out the original source of the information? Is that data now tainted forever because it was used by a skeptic, or will you use it yourself if it becomes convenient to your purpose?

Most climate scientists have accepted funding from Big Oil at some point in their careers, are they all to be dismissed out of hand? Or is it different when your guys take the money?

 

[IanC]

That is only uses one point for the ice core temperatures, even though we have dozens that could have been combined when talking about the mean earth temperature (which is normal procedure)

I have both contributed to and started many threads on proxy reconstructions.

I couldn't be bothered to rehash everything again but I would like to point out that using many proxies removes most of the variation.

Marcott was the last famous hockey stick. Interestingly enough it showed a stronger MWP signal in all the areas where it wasn't supposed to be, and only a faint signal in the places it was supposed to show up.

The MWP was real and global. No amount of cherrypicking proxies and distorting methodologies will make it disappear for good. It happened.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR.

And this assumption has been proven demonstrably wrong in sea water by observed and quantified evidence. You "Believe" without fact. Show me demonstrable evidence that LWIR has any effect on a grey body of water, where its energy is released in the first 10 microns and results in surface cooling. I'll wait.

First off, are you acknowledging that the atmosphere does give off LWIR in all directions, some of which reaches the surface? You have never openly disagreed with SSDD'S weird dimmer switch theory of radiation, so I thought you might be in his camp.

There are three possibilities for the atmospheric LWIR. Absorption, transmission or reflection. Your point is based on LWIR not penetrating sea water so that option is off the table. Absorption or reflection?

Claes Johnson is a slightly loopy physicist over at PSI that has a convoluted theory of harmonic reflection, that the incoming LWIR is not actually absorbed but the same amount of radiation is not emitted from the water. He freely admits that the numbers are identical to classical physics so I don't see the point of adding in an epicycle.

So what was your point exactly? Are you saying that LWIR is absorbed but because the energy is positioned so close to the boundary that it will be re-radiated quickly? So what? That is what thermodynamics is all about, redistribution of energy.

Perhaps you are confused because other processes are going on at the same time. Evaporation removes a lot of energy from the skin of the ocean. High speed (high 'temperature') molecules leave the ocean taking their energy with them. This predominantly happens when the Sun is actively heating the surface. Conduction is also happening at the skin. Air molecules bounce off the surface and either subtract or add to the energy of the skin, depending on the size and direction of the temperature differential between the atmosphere and surface at the boundary.

All these things are happening at the same time. Just because there are many pathways that does not mean that LWIR being absorbed by water doesn't count. It just means it is difficult to separate out and measure directly.

You simply will not give up on the almighty model.. All while ignoring the physical evidence.. I don't know what to tell you. Your faith is unmovable even when the physical evidence shows your models a failure.

I hadn't realized it was a model that said LWIR was fully absorbed in the first millimetre of water. I thought it was measured.

Are you now saying it's not true? Or are you just pissed because it means water is a great absorber (and emitter) of IR?

LWIR was measured. It can not be absorbed beyond the skin layer. The instrumentation used was cooled and a base line was determined before adding LWIR. As the instrument was lowered into sea water, the above surface measurement was taken and then monitored. At just 10 microns of water depth the LWIR 16-20um measured at surface was gone. Water temp was 46 degrees F. Room temp was 46 Degrees F and was allowed to cool all objects prior to the measurements which were done remotely to remove any chance of secondary sources of LWIR.

That is Empirically Observed Evidence... WE know by repeatable verified experiments that it does this..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.

And yet more evidence that you are just another dupe...all that is evidence of is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR...look at the other side of that CO2 molecule and you will see that if it didn't lose it immediately due to a collision with another molecule, then it emitted it on to cooler pastures. CO2 has no warming influence. Only the most profound sort of idiot would believe that any substance that increases the emissivity of anything would result in warming...get up and go look in the nearest mirror and ask yourself seriously just how stupid you really are.

look at the other side of that CO2 molecule and you will see that if it didn't lose it immediately due to a collision with another molecule, then it emitted it on to cooler pastures.

Or warmer pastures. Or pastures of the same temperature.