[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

A simple random sample of mine showed we are cooling, for at least the past 12 years
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

Most seem to agree with my dataset

link here

Furthermore, my data set on maxima shows we will be cooling for some time to come.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

this will cause a shift in cloud formation and condensation causing some places to get much cooler whilst other countries might get some GH benefit- even though they will see less sun…

an example is Alaska (getting much cooler) and CET (getting warmer)

[Bored chemist]

"A simple random sample of mine"
How was it randomised?

[CliffordK]

Your Hadcrut, RSS, etc charts, you are conveniently only showing a single decade.  Obviously the picture is different when looking at more than one decade.

The best one can say is that it has been flat for the last decade or so.  It would be hard to calculate trends from that.  We are in the middle of one of the weakest solar cycles in a century.  But, I think a lot will be learned from this solar cycle, and perhaps the next couple of cycles.

My biggest question is whether the increases in temperatures that most charts are showing from about 1980 to 2000 are real, or if there is some systematic error that is creating a bias in the samples.  Or, of course, whether it is part of a cycle.

From looking at the data, it is my belief that the temperatures are increasing somewhat, but there is a cyclical nature of the temperature increases that wasn't fully incorporated into the future projections.  And, thus the overall rate of temperature increase is lower than had been projected.

We may well be in a downswing now, continuing at least until about 2020.  However, it likely will not make up for the earlier temperature gains.  In fact, flat temperatures when temperatures should be decreasing may be a sign for bad things to come in the future.

One of the problems, though, is that I don't think there is a good understanding of the consequences of possible temperature (and CO₂) increases.

While local dry weather, and heat are often associated, that is not necessarily true on a global scale as warmer weather is also associated with more evaporation, and greater moisture in the atmosphere.

And, of course, while C₄ plants may not benefit from increasing CO₂ concentrations, C₃ plants likely will have a substantial benefit.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@bored chemist
The sample was random in that I only approved the (weather) station if it had complete or near complete records.
I also balanced it by latitude and 70/30 @sea and inland, more or less. Longitude does not matter as we are looking at the average yearly temperatures,
which includes earth's  seasonal shifts and earth turns every 24 hours. T
he interesing part is to look at the maxima, you can do a very nice binomial fit if you set the speed of cooling out against time.
@CliffordK
11 years is one whole time span of one sun cycle.
If you do a binomial on the speed of cooling versus time of the maxima you get high correlation but .... wrong, I hope.
It must be the sine wave fit that applies.
 

[CliffordK]

There are several overlapping climatologic cycles.

• 11 year solar cycles.
• Perhaps longer solar cycles.  I saw one paper about interference patterns in solar cycles, but don't see it now.  The current solar cycle (24) is one of the weakest in about a century, and some estimates are that the next cycle (25) may be even weaker.
  
• El Niño, La Niña
• Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)
• 60 year cycles?
  I tend to like the charts that indicate a rather strong 60 year climate cycle.
  
  If we are at the peak, then we should have some cooling over the next 30 years.  But, I find it doubtful that we will dip down to the levels in the last trough in the 1960's. 
  However, we may not hit the next trough until 2030 or 2040, and experience little change in global temperatures.
  If we fail to have any significant warming from 1998 to 2040, it is likely those that are predicting a warm future will have difficulties maintaining attention to the future dangers.

I am a bit suspicious about data continuity with all the equipment changes.  However, I do believe that we are seeing real, and long-term changes in the Arctic, so perhaps the northern ocean will act as a secondary confirmation about global changes.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@CliffordK
Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, people looked at the planets to explain weather cycles, rightly or wrongly.
see here
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
to quote from the above paper:
"A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with
maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence....

end quote

Acording to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap, as being around 1995.
and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted. please correct me if you think I am wrong.
This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998.

Anyway, look again at my best sine wave plot for my data
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

1900 minimum flooding - end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding - end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding - end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 - maximum flooding - end of cooling.

Do you see the pertinent correlation with my sine wave?

I share your concern about looking at older data which is why I looked only at data from 1973-1974, when automatic recording began.

I really don't trust the base line of temperatures before 1925 as it seems nobody can supply me with a calibration certificate of thermometer from those days.
Also, the way of recording, meant that you did a reading every 4 hours or so,
which may have affected the average for the day, nevermind the fact if people were sick or on leave and the job just did not "get done"

[Bored chemist]

"Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense,"
Let's just clarify a few things about this so called "nonsense"
CO2 is a strong absorber of IR
Not all those IR transitions are saturated so more CO2 absorbs more IR.
The sun is much hotter than the earth so it emits proportionately more of it's radiation in the visible range and less in the IR.
We know that the CO2 levels are rising.
We know that (on a global basis and a reasonable time frame) the temperatures are rising.
We know that mankind is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

But you still call it nonsense.

Nope, nonsense is saying "I know we but another blanket on the bed,
and I know we are warmer,
but I refuse to accept that there's any relation between those two facts."

Also, a "random" sample, doesn't mean cherry picking data that's taken over a very short timescale.


Incidentally, can someone sort out the screwed up formatting of this thread?

[JP]

Incidentally, can someone sort out the screwed up formatting of this thread?

Done.  It has to do with someone posting long urls without using the
 [url_=www.mylink.com][/url_] tags (removing the _). 

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@bored chemist
The greenhouse effect and the principle of re-radiation
 
Quote from Wikipedia (on the interpretation of the greenhouse effect);

“The Earth’s surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth.”

I am watching with amusement all scholar discussions on the green house effect as I realised again that the people that I encounter on most scientific blogs don’t understand the chemistry principle of absorption and subsequent re-radiation. In fact very few people do understand it because if they did they would have raised the alarm bells ringing long time ago. But they all got stuck at Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. … They know that CO2 (carbon dioxide) “absorbs” in the 14-16 um region. Most people think that what it means is that the molecules absorbs photons here which then subsequently get transferred as heat to neighbouring molecules. Then it absorbs again, and so on, and so on…and all the absorbed light is continuously transferred to heat…Although this may happen up to a certain saturation point as soon as the light or radiation hits on the gas, that is in fact not what is causing the heat entrapment.

I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas. We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically. If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat. If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened. Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.

The best way to experience re-radiation for yourself is to stand in a dark forest just before dawn on a cloudless night. Humidity must be high. Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapour. This is also the reason why you will quickly grab for your sun glasses when humidity is high, because even with the sun shining for you from your back and driving in your car, you can feel on your eyes that the light from the sun is re-radiated by the water vapor in the atmosphere.A third way to experience how re-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, again on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water vapour has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum.

 We can conclude from all these experiments that what actually happens is this:

in the wavelength areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little spherical mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. We may assume that at least 50% of a certain amount of radiation is sent back in a radius of 180 degrees in the direction where it came from. (However, because the molecule is very small and therefore might behave more or less like a sphere, it could be up to ca. 62,5% ). This re-radiation in the sun’s spectrum and in the earth’s spectrum is the cooling effect, or warming effect, respectively, of a gas hit by radiation. An effect that is very similar to this, is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions: your light is returned to you!!

Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas (i.e. the closed box experiments). If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects. If you really want to understand what happens in the atmosphere, this rough graph / representation (on a cloudless day) is very important:

http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o

- never mind the fact that the amounts of radiation heat from the sun’s 5525K and 210-310K from earth displayed, are completely out of proportion -

just see how the absorptions that are apparent in the spectra of the individual components of the atmosphere affect the outgoing radiation of earth and see how they affect the incoming radiation. For example, let us look at the absorption of ozone at between 9-10 um? It makes a dent in earth’s outgoing radiation at 9-10. In other words what happens: Radiation from earth of 9-10 goes up, hits on the ozone, most of which is high up in the sky and which is already absorbed to capacity, and therefore a great percentage (at least 50%, probably more) is sent back to earth, leading to entrapment of heat, leading to delay in cooling, leading to a warming effect. Also look at water vapor and CO2 around 2 um and see how that makes a dent in the incoming solar radiation. Notice that the ozone shields us from a lot of sunlight by absorbing and re-radiating in the UV region. In fact, if you really grasp what you are seeing in this graph/ representation (from a cloudless day), you would realize that without the ozone and CO2 and H2O and other GHG’s you will get a lot more radiation on your head. In fact, you would probably fry.

For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec

They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.

This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):

http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.

So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-16 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours).

I am doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data. I have not seen any work that convinces me. In the case of CO2, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 could be underestimated, i.e. the radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 may be only 1% of its total energy output, but how many Watts per m2 does it cause on earth? Here in Africa you cannot stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes, just because of the heat (infra-red) of the sun on your skin.

In all of this we are still looking at pure gases. The discussion on clouds and the deflection of incoming radiation by clouds is still a completely different subject.

CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. Plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. It appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of  0.01% of CO2  that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.

There are no such results in any study, let alone in the right dimensions. FOR EXAMPLE, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions.

For more on why it is considered highly unlikely that CO2 is a contributory cause to global warming, see here:

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
(the ratios show that it was maxima pushing up means and minima, not the minima pushing up means - due to a delay in cooling by increasing GHG's)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The above results suggest that a cooling cycle started around 1995 looking at energy-in (maxima) and 1998 for energy out (means)

[Bored chemist]

"I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas."

I happen to be a spectroscopist: and I do understand it.

"Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum."
Not really, no. Please tell me what the excited state is and what the strength of the absorbtion is.
".So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour you can see the light coming from every direction."
No, and this is obviously wrong to anyone who ahas been around at sunrise.
In particular it was clearly nonsense when they built Stonehenge.
If the light came in from all directions than they couldn't have lined the stones up with the sun.

"This is also the reason why you will quickly grab for your sun glasses when humidity is high, because even with the sun shining for you from your back and driving in your car, you can feel on your eyes that the light from the sun is re-radiated by the water vapor in the atmosphere."
Wrong again.
The light is scattered back by whatever is in front of you.
One group of so called "primitive" people who developed sunglasses were those living in the extreme North. The air there is typically dry, but the glare is intense.
Glare is also commonly observed in the hot deserts of the world.

" (However, because the molecule is very small and therefore might behave more or less like a sphere, it could be up to ca. 62,5% )."
From what orifice did you pull that number?

"An effect that is very similar to this, is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions: your light is returned to you!! "
Yes, the IR emitted by the earth is back scattered by the atmosphere.
That's what keeps the planet warm.

This:
"Radiation from earth of 9-10 goes up, hits on the ozone, most of which is high up in the sky and which is already absorbed to capacity"
doesn't make sense.

And the paper you cite saying "For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here: " doesn't show cooling, it shows that
the earth's atmosphere contains CO2 (etc)
and that the earth is not at absolute zero.
Neither of those was a matter of contention.

"So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2?"
Mainly warming, as pointed out by a lot of atmospheric physicists who know more about it than you clearly do.
The simple reason for this is that the ground is warmer than the high atmosphere.
The CO2 near the top can re-radiate energy into space, but it hasn't got much.
The stuff near ground has more energy, but it can't re-radiate so well because there's a lot of CO2 in the way.

Saying "I am doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data. I have not seen any work that convinces me." doesn't help much either.
On what basis do you reject the analysis?
Is it just because it doesn't fit with your belief?

It would also help if you made up your mind.
Do you mean "In all of this we are still looking at pure gases. The discussion on clouds and the deflection of incoming radiation by clouds is still a completely different subject." or do you mean "An effect that is very similar to this, is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions: your light is returned to you!! "

And don't use CAPS LOCK to highlight things that you don't  understand like units.
"FOR EXAMPLE, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions."
Using the wrong units (such as " W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours") doesn't make you look any more credible  at best, but telling other people to use the right units when you don't is silly.

Anyway, I'm missing something interesting on telly, so I won't bother with the rest of your post for the minute.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

bored chemist says
And the paper you cite saying "For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here: " doesn't show cooling, it shows that
the earth's atmosphere contains CO2 (etc)

henry@bored chemist
We measure radiation specific to the spectrum of CO2 coming back from the moon and you don't call that radiative cooling? It is radiation coming back from earth going back to space. If CO2 is increasing then so is the back radiation caused by the CO2.
Here is another graph that illustrates my point even better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
the yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2.
(I think many people know that (more) UV + O2 => (more) O3 but not all people know that in a similar way HxOx (peroxides) and nitrous oxides are also formed TOA that also cause more back radiation if there is more of it. I was able to correlate the beginning of the decline of ozone with the beginning of warming (1950) and the start of cooling with the increase in ozone (1995). We can measure ozone both on the NH and the SH, but not the peroxides and the others. Hence we are cooling because ozone and others are increasing as F-UV and/or E-UV is (or must be) increasing)

So, anyway, what is important to know is that incoming radiation from the sun is being back radiated in the absorptive regions of the CO2 in the UV, 1-2um and 4-5um and hence,  this will increase if there is more of it in the atmosphere similar to the back radiation going back to earth of the 14-16 um.   
At this stage we should not forget that incoming radiation is 5000K and outgoing (14-16um) is 210K.

So, if you want to claim that an increase in CO2 causes a net warming effect, you first have to show me a balance sheet. And how much cooling is caused by the CO2 by the increase in greenery?
bored chemist says
Anyway, I'm missing something interesting on telly, so I won't bother with the rest of your post for the minute.

henry says
yes do go back to your telly. You might learn something there.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

CliffordK says
But, I find it doubtful that we will dip down to the levels in the last trough in the 1960's. 

@CliffordK
Actually, I do think we will dip to where we were in the 1950 and that all the arctic ice will come back.
There are several markers that point me in that direction,
namely as referred to in my previous post, the change in ozone is remarkable in that it follows exactly  on my a-c wave as predicted. Too much co-incidence there. This has led me to consider that this whole CFC scare was also a bit of a red herring and that the actual effect it had on the ozone layer was probably very little. There are natural processes that dominate the production of chemicals on TOA. Most probably it is a re-distribution within  TSI that is causing a difference in the composition of the chemicals lying on TOA.

Those that point to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in (maxima)  and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2012-88= we are in 1924. Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. But by 1950 all that ‘lost” ice had frozen back.

I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will come back, from 2015-2040 as also happened from 1925-1950.
Don't invest in the arctic, is my bet.

So, I  guess what I am saying is that I agree with your graph of the sine wave but I think it is straight. It has just been curling up because of differences in accuracy and changes in methods of testing that occurred in the past.

[CliffordK]

The Arctic vs Antarctic is a bit of an enigma.

I was expecting the Arctic sea ice to start rebounding by now.  But we are still hitting very low sea ice levels.  Although looking at the maps, it is really only a few areas on the Atlantic side that were slow with icing over this winter.

However, the one thing that the Global warming isn't accounting for very well is the Antarctic sea ice, which last year the maximum extent was about 1 million km² greater than average, and the minimum was about a half million km² greater than average, in the same time frame the Arctic was hitting record lows.

Perhaps the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) would have an extraordinary effect on the Fram strait, as well as the sea ice in general, especially on the Atlantic side which was slow freezing up this winter.

However, a bad sign with the Arctic is that both the Northwest Passage and the Northeast passage haven't been generally open several years in a row for at least 200 years, not that I'm convinced that early sailing ships would have been able to detect and utilize a few weeks of open passages for travel between the Pacific and Atlantic.

[evan_au]

Chlorofluorocarbons are potent greenhouse gasses. Fortunately, the Montreal protocol capped production of these, and levels in the atmosphere are starting to decline. This should slow down one aspect of lower-atmospheric warming=>upper-atmospheric cooling.

Unfortunately, CO₂ does not have so many substitutes readily at hand, and so the rapidly escalating production of CO₂ will soon overwhelm any small gains from the Montreal protocol.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

evan_au says
Unfortunately, CO2 does not have so many substitutes readily at hand, and so the rapidly escalating production of CO2 will soon overwhelm any small gains from the Montreal protocol.
henry says
clearly you missed what I posted earlier on, namely 11/03.2013 at 06:03:11. Perhaps you want to check that out again. And bring me your balance sheet. Or you can also go and watch the telly and "believe" everything they tell you there.
Just for the record here: I am saying the warming and cooling can be explained by natural processes. Hence we are now cooling, as proven to you by my post at the beginning of this thread.
Anyway, don't worry about the extra CO2 that we produce either. They recently discovered that they could not find 60% of it back. It simply disappeared.....into "thin" air, so to speak...

 Now we all know where that went. Right, we all want more trees, more lawns, more crops, more coffee, more wine, don't we?
Cheers.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@CliffordK

My forefathers (William Barentz from the 16th century etc) were convinced that a passage did exist. They even died on Nova Zembla trying to find it. I think they must have heard in their "history" lessons from the Norwegians that the passage must have been open at some time in the past, which is how the Vikings were able to move so quickly. ... That could have been in the Medeviel Warm Period, as referred to in the 2nd graph, shown here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
in the time when Greenland was really green.

That time has not arrived and seeing that a cooling process has now started it will not happen.
All bets should be off on developing the arctic. It will all freeze up there aqain in the next few decades.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@CliffordK

BTW it seems there is some similarity between the AMO
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg/300px-Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg.png

and my a-c curve for the drop in global maximum temperatures,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

but there maybe some lags/unlags due to other interference, like earth's own volcanic activity, rotation if the iron core, etc.
Just remember with maxima, I am looking at energy coming through the atmosphere whereas with AMO we are looking at the energy going into the sea, from all directions, including earth itself.

[Bored chemist]

"We measure radiation specific to the spectrum of CO2 coming back from the moon and you don't call that radiative cooling? It is radiation coming back from earth going back to space. If CO2 is increasing then so is the back radiation caused by the CO2."

You are muddling the two uses of the word.
It's the transfer of heat but, to a good approximation, all that heat was just provided to the earth by the sun so the earth isn't cooling.
You are trying to call a process "cooling" even though it doesn't result in anything becoming cooler.
that's just playing with words.

And you seem not to have noticed that I shot holes in all your major points.

What would be the point of a balancesheet?
Give your inability to choose the right units to aclculate an outcome from that sheet, you wouldn't understand it if we gave you one.
Secondly, and more importantly.
Screw the calculation: we have the experiment. The earth is getting warmer.
If the balance sheet didn't agree with that observation, it would be the wrong sheet.
So it's not going to tell us anything that we don't already know.
The earth is getting hotter.

Incidentally, the Montreal protocol was to stop us screwing the ozone layer. That's a good thing, but it wasn't designed to alter the greenhouse effect.
It will, but only to a rather small extent and only "by accident".
It would be better to leave it out of the discussion of global warming.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

bored chemist says
Give your inability to choose the right units to aclculate an outcome from that sheet, you wouldn't understand it if we gave you one.
Secondly, and more importantly.
S_____ (Mod edit) the calculation: we have the experiment. The earth is getting warmer.
(sic)

henry says
I think my units are right. I addressed that problem here.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/#comment-294
But I am open to other suggestions.

I think we should not  not allow the word "screw" and "screwing" on a public blog website such as this.
Clearly, you are entirely missing the point of my initial  post which was to show that earth has been cooling, globally, for the last 11 or 12 years.

[Bored chemist]

These are the wrong units
 W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours

And I don't understand your problem with the word.
Nor did shakespeare
But sS_____ (Mod edit) your courage to the sticking-place,   
And we’ll not fail.
http://www.bartleby.com/46/4/17.html

And I'm ignoring your questionable data over a carefully chosen interval for the reasons I and others have given above.