[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@bored chemist
We may have to think about this a bit and develop a thought experiment. If you understood my posts here, we would have to try an experiment in a vessel that is open from the top i.e. not a closed box experiment. Lets assume we can get two football sites next to each other walled like a normal GH but not covered from the top. This must be somewhere on earth where we have average 342 W/m2. It must also be sunny and wind still, or as wind still as possible. Then, in the one box we introduce CO2 and the other box we leave as is. Now, CO2 is heavier than air, so I am expecting that we will be able elevate the CO2 in the air of the one box somewhat. In both boxes we are monitoring CO2 and temperature at various distances from the ground, continuously.
At this point we have to consider that earth shines 24 hours a day while the sun shines 12 hours a day. (if we conduct the experiment at a time when the exposure is indeed 12 hours sunshine)
So we have to do an experiment at night and mulitply the result by 2
And we have to do the experiment by day and realize that this is all you get in 24 hours.
I imagine the result would be something like a difference (when we increase CO2) of a cooling effect during the day between the two boxes and a warming effect during the night between the two big boxes.
The dimension would be deltaT which can be converted to W/m2/m (height of the sensor from the ground) per % CO2 in the surrounding air per m2 per time period
You agree? I am very open to your ideas as I am not a very good engineer.
Seeing that W/m2/m= W/m3, I think that my dimensions were correct.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@bored chemist
you can ignore my data and those of all the others of the past 11 years (= one full solar cycle)
but the snow will still follow you....

LOL

[Bored chemist]

The units you cited (W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours) are W/m^5/day/% CO2
Watts per day is stupid enough but having a term in metres to the fifth is absurd.

The units you really want are K
For example, the temperature rise is 0.3K
You might want something like K/century as the rate of change.

Anyway, as I said, we know the temperature is going up.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

Bored chemist says
Anyway, as I said, we know the temperature is going up.

henry says
no it is not! in the graph below we still see CO2 rising but global temperature rise has stalled.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend/plot/uah/from:2008.5/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise:0.5/scale:0.5/offset:0.34

As shown in my first post, if we take it to the past 11 years we see temperatures have started falling. Also, even CliffordK's graph shows this. We both think or suspect that the observed incline of that sine wave could just be due to changes in equipment and methods of testing, over time.
On top of that, if you had understood my previous postings of how the GH effect works, namely that it causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect, then it follows that if more CO2 or more H2O or more other GHG's were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minima rising faster, pushing up the means. That has not happened. If you look at my tables here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
you will notice that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period, we find a ratio of maxima : means: minima of 0.036:0.014:0.006. That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means. And not the other way around.

[Bored chemist]

"On top of that, if you had understood my previous postings of how the GH effect works, "
You explained wow it doesn't work

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@bored chemist
Clearly, you did not even read or understand my very first post and the implications of my results, especially the last sentence.


You can ignore them, but to ignore them is the same as ignoring the truth. The truth has a habit of showing up, eventually,
(John 19-37&38 - how appropriate for this time of the year),

(I am not worried except for the waste of $trillions, on so-called climate science, and expensive energy alternatives).

How on earth are we expected to do terra forming on future planets if we cannot even get the basic science of the ideal atmospheric composition right?

Here you can see that putting up more CO2 in the air is good for you,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

People wanting less CO2 and less H2O are actually denying their own father and mother.....
if you go far enough back in time. Chris should have figured that one out.
Anyway, goodbye, God bless you all,
I wish you and all my brethren here the best for the future.

Henry

[Bored chemist]

Or, in the real world:

"Earth's temperature is changing faster now than at any time since the last ice age, according to a new analysis of global temperatures spanning the last "
from

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@bored chemist
it appears there were inconsistencies with the statistical analysis there

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/16/marcotts-uptick-a-result-of-proxy-sign-inconsistency/

I already gave you a link to the greenland ice core analysis earlier up the thread which clearly you did not read or understand


now please, can I, for once,  be the one who has the last word on this blog?
I am sure you have better things to do than educate a "screw-up" like me.

[yor_on]

BC you are fighting a losing battle here. This is not only a man of good old fashioned common sense, he also goes with God at his side as I get it, reading  

Anyway, you being right won't solve this. Only divine intervention will.

[Bored chemist]

Indeed,
As long as you can quote the Bible you don't need to supply actual evidence to overrule reality: just point out that someone on some site somewhere disagrees with it.

I think part of his problem is that he thinks it's a blog.
If it were then he could have the last word, as it stands, there is no reason why he should.

I think the evidence should have the last word.
What does everyone else think?

[Henry Pool]

@bored chemist
Remember Steve McIntyre? You think
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

there, we got that sorted out for you.

Your-on is a bit off. I always make my observations and judge the results.

I wish you many happy wet and snowy days - be glad that you are right:
it is getting warmer in central England
Paradoxically it gets warmer in CET because globally it is getting cooler,
… it is called the GH effect…..

remember my name

[Bored chemist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

[yor_on]

I especially like 'Remember my name'. It's soo, Hollywood?

Anyway, with more humidity you will get more water coming back from the atmosphere, some as rain some as snow, and all things in between When the Arctic melts you get open waters, where there formerly was ice reflecting back the suns rays. That means that the water will consume 'heat' from those rays, and store it to release, as well as transport it to other parts of the world, depending on streams, winds, etc. Greenland and the Arctic are getting a lot of heat those days, keeping Greenland over zero The Greenland melt. . Sweden, parts of USA, and England  (Europe) on the other hand is getting a lot more cold and snow. The reason being  It’s Official: Arctic Sea Ice Shatters Record Low and those (new to us at least) atmospheric conditions that it creates. The Winter the Polar Vortex Collapsed.

But this is a new situation, and I'm sure we will see more of it as the number one 'reality show' global warming reveal itself for us. And remember, we're all participants this time

==

If you only read one of the links, choose the Greenland melt. Because that one gives me worries.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@Yor_on
you completely removed my last comment, implicating UEA, in part, for the whole global warming scam...
Nevertheless, I will answer your comment. Count back 88 years? where are we?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Read the whole newspaper report. The warming was caused by the warmer Gulf stream.
As I said: all "LOST" arctic ice will freeze back in the next 2 decades, as it did from 1925-1950.
You don't have to worry. Except, of course for more snow there, where you live...
just keep shoving it...
and still believe the world is warming...

[yor_on]

It's okay. Wasn't writing about your sources. Only presenting what is commonly thought of, amongst those working with with climate, as being the explanation for the winters we've seen recently in northern Europe, and parts of the USA. As for climate conspiracies Well. I'll leave that to you.

I expect the peer reviewed papers to be okay, especially after being scrutinized. It may well be that a former weather reporter, as your link goes too, is competent to have a differing view, but? I will put my money with those working in the field, bringing home their conclusions in form of good peer reviewed papers And those consist of a overwhelming majority, finding us to creating a global warming.

[yor_on]

Eh, I haven't removed a thing btw?
You need a moderator for that.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

Yor_on says
It may well be that a former weather reporter, as your link goes too, is competent to have a differing view, but? I will put my money with those...
Henry says
I was talking about the newspaper report he was showing from 1922
Read it and get wise>

[yor_on]

You do see this as your blog, right?
Far from me to discourage you, but we do have 'new theories'. I'm not sure that it covers this material, but if it doesn't we need to create one more And I read, and laughed the whole way through You made my day Carbon, thnx.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

Blog? You call this a blog?
I am the one laughing....

[Bored chemist]

Blog? You call this a blog?
I am the one laughing....

No, you called it a blog 16/03.
"now please, can I, for once,  be the one who has the last word on this blog?
I am sure you have better things to do than educate a "screw-up" like me."