Global Air Temps

Because of industrial use of carbon-based fuels of course (in addition to the CO2 rise concomitant with the 1976-1998 warming spell). But to assume that this is justification for climate-alarm is foolish. The link between rising CO2 and temperature rise is causal in the opposite direction. There's no strong evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect.

Higher CO2 by itself is more beneficial than harmful in many ways. Plant growth is enhanced all over the globe, thereby increasing the carbon-sink, which will do more to reduce atmospheric carbon than all the taxation in the world will ever do.

 

The graph shows how the US temp record has been "adjusted".
Its not bait and switch.Its a large part of the global temp record.
Heres how GISS Gavin Schmidt lies about global temps.They just make up warming in areas that have no temp readings.
Polar Amplification | Real Science

 

Mojo, if Mr. Schmidt's blog and real science disagree, I would agree with greg, it may be all political, since those are political blogs. I have noticed short cuts on each that are trying to score political points.


Fortunately we have some things that take this out of politics and into science. Real science is definitely in the wrong here and on the side of politics. They hope to pass off regional data that disagrees with global data as being superior to you guessed it global data to judge global data. This is an old trick and it has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science.

Do temperatures need to be adjusted? Of course they do. Thermometers move, and we have more thermometers today than we used to have. Urban heat island effect needs to be removed. Luckily we have 4 organizations looking at how to adjust. CRU, GISS, NCDC, and B.E.S.T. BEST even looked into the allegations and found that with only using the old thermometers there is even more warming. BEST provides all the data and adjustments to the public so real science is welcome to try their own adjustments. I understand people not wanting to use CRU, I would throw that data out myself, but that is the one that shows the possibility of cooling between 1998-2013, so throw it out and the other 3 all show warming.

If there was a conspiracy to inflate current temperatures, why would we have a "pause" in temperature increase. Please look at least at NCDC and B.E.S.T. before you believe that NASA has a secret conspiracy to falsify the instrument reccord, and has the ability to pull that off.

 

They are trying to make each month in 2014 the warmest in history.
They want the headline "2014 warmest year in history".
Weather isnt cooperating .Nobody is going to believe Gavins lies this year.

 

Corrupting The Global Temperature Record At NASA | Real Science

 

We are working on having a rational discussion, which I appreciate.
Let's discuss the climate science, not this "climate alarm" you mentioned.

The long wave absorption of radiation by CO2 molecules is very well understood. It is easily measured and repeatable in the lab.
We have also taken measurements of long wave radiation at ground level and the same radiation leaving the atmosphere.
Not only have we found that more long wave radiation is not making it back to space, we have seen that the specific wavelength that CO2 absorbs are becoming a larger and larger chunk of that deficit.

We also can measure how much of the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere are due to burning fossil fuels and how much from plants, the oceans, etc. The earth naturally is currently cabable of absorbing all the CO2 from natural sources.
The increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere is 15Gtons. Through burning fossil fuels we emit 26Gtons. So the planet is absorbing about half of what we produce. Global Warming FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

Source: Greenhouse Gases

As you can see by the table, CO2 has the lowest potential as a greenhouse gas (1). Methane is 21 times as effective. Water vapor is missing from the list, but by sheer volume, it has the largest effect overall.

 

Excellent table, good information!
Yes, a single CO2 molecule is a less powerful GHG than the others.
However, due to its concentration CO2 is responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect that makes life comfortable on this planet.

From the article the graph you shared came from:

Another point, your graph showed a concentration of 350,000 ppb. That number is now about 400,000 ppb.

 

Well first since we are talking climate not weather, if 2014 had the hottest months for the whole year, it would be wierd, but not meaningful. As it is January 2014 was 4th warmest, so there goes that theory that they are cheating every month to make it the warmest.

Global Analysis - January 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

• The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January was the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest on record at 12.7°C (54.8°F), or 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is ± 0.08°C (± 0.14°F).

 

I fully agree with this point.

However -and this is just thinking out loud based on my experience as an operational meteorologist in the National Weather Service- it seems unlikely to me that we are still seeing arctic air masses with historically low temperature readings over widespread areas (current synoptic situation over North America).

If radiational cooling conditions are become less and less favorable (as a result of the absorption of outgoing long-wave radiation), not to mention the lower levels of Arctic sea ice, how are air temps getting so cold, especially this early in the season? I find it hard to believe that upper air flow (i.e. jet stream) configuration has NEVER in recorded history been this amplified in November over North America before.

Something else must be occurring, and I'm not sure I've seen an adequate explanation for it.

 

That is a ridiculous figure 60%.
CO2 is a minor player as a greenhouse gas.Responsible for a few percent of warming.

 

Just a quick side-question for you: For any operational meteorologist, what might be your career lifespan after you started talking about climate data from a neutral, scientific standpoint, that is to say, questioning whether some of the predictions are as dire as claimed?

When I hear a climatologist espousing the "consensus view" I can imagine what duress they may be under with regard to expressing that "consensus view." Interestingly, we seem to hear most of the dissenting views from emeritus or retired professionals who no longer have a career to risk by speaking their minds. Is it possible that academic freedom is being compromised? This phenomenon is easy to dismiss, but much harder to disprove.

 

I'm retired (2012), so I have no "pressure" to conform to any specific agenda.

From my personal experience, very few operational meteorologists fully agree with the AGW "consensus", even though that's not something that would be discussed in public.

Most of the dissension is from results of climate model projections. Atmospheric models are inherently dubious the futher out in time you go.

 

I may be divulging internal information that I shouldn't be, but apparently, there was a perception when the new (Obama) Administration took over in 2009 that there was such an unacceptable level of skepticism among operational meteorologists in the NWS that we were required to complete a training module on climate change ("Climate Change: Fitting the Pieces Together" by MetEd). I was under the impression that few minds were actually changed after that training.

I don't see how anyone can be considered a "denier" if you don't necessarily swallow climate model projections, which haven't happened yet, especially for those who have actually worked with related models on essentially a daily basis.

 

I don't either, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone...

 

I was a bit surprised by it myself. I simply repeated it from the site Greg posted.

At your prompting, I did some more digging and found that number is when you don't include water vapor.
So of all the GHGs other than water vapor, CO2 is responsible for about 60% of the green house effect.
Water Vapor wasn't included as it varies greatly and has a "lifetime" in the atmosphere of only nine days.
It acts as a positive feedback to climate change, not a driver.


Global Warming and Climate Change - The Science


Scroll down to the 'Global Warming and Climate Change' section. For the full chart and discussion.

 

The lifetime of a gas in the atmosphere is irrelevant unless compared to the replacement rate. If it's always present in the atmosphere, it's having a constant effect.

It's a bit like saying, the average human lifespan is an average of 75, years, therefore within a century, we'll all be extinct.

 

One of least skilled strawman posts seen . . . since the last one:

Nothing in my original post had anything to do with CO{2} (see below.) It has to do with empirical facts:

• Sea level is rising in the age of satellite observations - unlike many historical records, satellite observations are global in relatively short intervals. We call this a direct observation whose source is cited. It has the advantage ob being independent of any paleo or reconstructed temperature records gossiped by "mojo."
  
• Deer mice are just one fauna whose northern migration along with pine beetle and other pests are well documented. In this case, the actual professor doing the field work was cited. But it is good to see 'warming' has been acknowledged even by a gossip.
• The satellite record for sea level is fairy short, 22 years, to draw any conclusions about the second derivative, the acceleration. There is evidence of significant noise in the sea level data some of which we understand. For example, the 11 year solar cycle, air particulates, and other large-scale ocean cyclic events play a part in the 'noise'. I don't see where anyone has claimed CO{2} is the sole source. But given another 20 years, the effect of rising CO{2} levels should be more evident as well as the associated, particulate deposition (i.e., combustion soot and ash) on Northern ice sheets.
  
• We see some ocean warming effects with the greatly increased, Arctic Ice melt each year. It is approaching a point where it can be commercially exploited.

Bob Wilson

ps. This is the actual quote:

 

Not quite as it is part of a feedback mechanism. In effect, cycling water between ice, water, cloud, and vapor are mechanism that help our planet maintain a reasonable balance so even intelligent life can understand what is going on.

Bob Wilson