[alancalverd]

Australia is an extreme example of human habitation globally - practically everyone lives in a tiny strip around the coast and we have almost no useful historic data about the middle of any continent apart from Europe and even less about the oceans than cover 75% of the surface. That's the main problem with historic "data" - it derives from less than 1% of the earth's surface, and most of that very atypical.

[alancalverd]

Reverting to Mauna Loa, they do publish an annual CO2 cycle with the underlying trend removed.  I'm baffled as to why the CO2 level rises whilst the trees are growing, reaches a peak in summer, and decreases as photosynthesis shuts down.  When I was a lad, we were taught that photosynthesis extracts CO2 from the atmosphere, so I'd expect exactly the opposite behaviour if your model is correct (and they haven't moved Hawaii!). Where does the summer CO2 come from? Certainly not human activity, unless you Aussies have found some way of exporting your winter barbie smoke across the equator and halfway round the world.

[alancalverd]

The Amundsen-Scott data from the US station at the South Pole shows almost no seasonal modulation.

Not a lot of seasonal variation in vegetation or invertebrate activity either. I'm no expert on penguin farts but I doubt that they vary much as they are warm-blooded.

[damocles]

Reverting to Mauna Loa, they do publish an annual CO2 cycle with the underlying trend removed.  I'm baffled as to why the CO2 level rises whilst the trees are growing, reaches a peak in summer, and decreases as photosynthesis shuts down.  When I was a lad, we were taught that photosynthesis extracts CO2 from the atmosphere, so I'd expect exactly the opposite behaviour if your model is correct (and they haven't moved Hawaii!). Where does the summer CO2 come from? Certainly not human activity, unless you Aussies have found some way of exporting your winter barbie smoke across the equator and halfway round the world.

Alan please check this diagram and tell me if that is the graph you are referring to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

If so, then you must appreciate two things:
firstly that the maximum and minimum are in May and October respectively, not June and December.
secondly that the amount of photosynthetic activity is reflected in the rate of change (slope) of the mixing ratio graph rather than the mixing ratio per se.

The months of maximum negative gradient (high photosynthetic activity) are June and July -- summer months -- while those of maximum negative gradient (low photosynthetic activity) are December, January, and February, the winter months.

[damocles]

Australia is an extreme example of human habitation globally - practically everyone lives in a tiny strip around the coast and we have almost no useful historic data about the middle of any continent apart from Europe and even less about the oceans than cover 75% of the surface. That's the main problem with historic "data" - it derives from less than 1% of the earth's surface, and most of that very atypical.

Australia is the world's driest continent with the least reliable rainfall, and the leading nation with expertise on dryland farming. From very early times, the Bureau of Meteorology was faced with a significant problem -- how to reliably forecast significant rainfall and weather events. Every outback station has a rain gauge and most of them regularly send in rainfall reports to the Met Bureau. There is ample coverage of rainfall right across the continent. But temperature, wind, and barometric pressure is quite another matter. Weather stations were set up in remote locations quite early in the piece to fill in the blank spaces in order to have better data available for forecasting: a survey of the data at http://bom.gov.au will give station locations and the number of years for which data is available.

I think that you will find that the Americas have a similar coverage, although for South American countries the data might be incomplete or of questionable quality because of poverty and political instability.

[MoreCarbonOK]

I note with some amusement that neither JP nor BC (bored chemist) replied on my challenge here:


<mod edit>
Editorialising, non-peer reviewed links removed (yet again!)
The NASA story is  about the thermosphere when it gets hit by solar flares. Here’s the Press release:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
<//end>
henry@moderator
believe it or not, that was in fact the paper I googled for...thanks!
It was just that there was so many "non-peer" reviewed stuff popping up....
I am sorry...

henry@bc & jp

now , to quote from the above paper,  "peer reviewed" & all

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

 
Why, wow,

did you see that 95% of that 26 billion kWh went back into space? (cooling!!)

now, if you both continue to "believe" in man made global warming,
\

why don't you show me how the testing was done to prove that the net effect of an increase from  0.03% CO2 (300 ppm) to 0.04% (400 ppm) is that of warming, rather than cooling?

hint:Forget about the closed box experiments of those that died a hundred years or so ago. It only shows the warming part.

[Bored chemist]

Do you mean this "challenge"?

"In fact, as I have been saying all along, by challenging all of you to come with a balance sheet, it is not really even sure anymore  if more CO2 does not cause cooling rather than warming."

Because you did get a reply to that.
I said "Nobody can give an exact figure for 100 ppm will cause x degrees more warming, but they can show that warming will take place (and a simple experiment can show the same thing)" in post 78
Did you not understand?
Since the system is non linear (as you have pointed out) your question makes no sense.
Asking it again doesn't help your case.


"Why, wow,[/size] [/size]did you see that 95% of that 26 billion kWh went back into space? (cooling!!)"
No
Did you see that 5% was not re-radiated (warming!!).
If I give you a hundred buckets of water and take away 95 of them you still end up with more water.
Did you really not understand that?

[MoreCarbonOK]

BC says
and a simple experiment can show the same thing)" in post 78

henry says
you did not show me there (in 78) an experiment that shows the extra amount of sunshine being back radiated to space versus the extra amount being back radiated to earth caused by the extra 100 ppm CO2.

In fact, I suspect you have probably have no idea what type of experiment would prove this conclusively.

You honestly think or believe that 95% is less than 5%?

Let us face it: your answer does not make sense.

 

[Bored chemist]

"You honestly think or believe that 95% is less than 5%?"
No, of course not. That's why I didn't say that. What you did there was try to use a "straw man" argument.
I don't know why you chose to do that because I have pointed out before that it just makes you look silly.

I think 95% is less than 100% (because it is).

As I said, if the CO2 absorbs some heat and re-radiates 95% of that heat to space then it keeps the other 5%.
That's a net heating effect.

[alancalverd]

The months of maximum negative gradient (high photosynthetic activity) are June and July -- summer months -- while those of maximum negative gradient (low photosynthetic activity) are December, January, and February, the winter months.

Never mind the gradient, why does the CO2 level start below and increase above the trend level as the weather gets warmer? When trees become dormant they don't release more CO2 than they absorbed when active - indeed the release is negligible compared with the uptake, and in a closed system plants gradually absorb nearly all the atmospheric CO2 until there isn't enough to sustain growth. And as the weather gets warmer, humans discharge less CO2. So what is putting CO2 into the atmosphere as the sun gets higher in the sky? The annual cycle has been going on with the same amplitude and phase even when the underlying trend was much less steep than it is now. 

And regarding Australian temperature records

The Stevenson screen was first introduced to Australia in the 1880s and was installed everywhere, with a few exceptions, by 1910. Prior to this date, thermometers were located in various types of shelter, as well as under verandas and even in unheated rooms indoors. Because of this lack of standardisation, many pre-1910 temperatures in Australia are not strictly comparable with those measured after that date, and therefore must be used with care in analyses of climate change within Australia.

from Statistics Australia. Rainfall is fairly easy to measure consistently, so those stats are believable, but even with standard Stevenson screens and calibrated thermometers, point records can show point trends reliably but it's extremely difficult to extract meaningful area data or even to compare screens a mile apart if the vegetation and terrain are different. Hence my considerable caution in evaluating historic temperature data even from scientifically sophisticated sources like the Aussie outback.

The art of glider flying is to spot variations in terrain. Brown fields heat up more than green ones, and the contrast produces the thermals that give us the energy to fly. The art of farming is to introduce temporary variations in terrain by rotating crops and grazing. So you might expect the very best point measurements to show a 5 year cycle even if the climate were absolutely constant!

[damocles]

The months of maximum negative gradient (high photosynthetic activity) are June and July -- summer months -- while those of maximum negative gradient (low photosynthetic activity) are December, January, and February, the winter months.

Never mind the gradient, why does the CO2 level start below and increase above the trend level as the weather gets warmer? When trees become dormant they don't release more CO2 than they absorbed when active - indeed the release is negligible compared with the uptake, and in a closed system plants gradually absorb nearly all the atmospheric CO2 until there isn't enough to sustain growth. And as the weather gets warmer, humans discharge less CO2. So what is putting CO2 into the atmosphere as the sun gets higher in the sky? The annual cycle has been going on with the same amplitude and phase even when the underlying trend was much less steep than it is now. 

Seriously Alan? I do mind the gradient! Surely you can work out why from my explanation.
Please note that the CO2 level starts to decrease as the weather is warming up (May), and the decrease continues through the summer months (June through September). But it does not bring the mixing ratio to below par for a few months. Similarly when photosynthesis starts to shut down (October and November), the decrease tapers off and is soon replaced by an increase which continues through the winter (December through April) at a steady rate until the photosynthesis restarts the following spring (May)!
This explains the shape of the monthly correlation graph. It is not the mixing ratio that is linked to photosynthesis, but the rate of change of the mixing ratio!

As for the rest of your post, the effects you point out are totally valid, as are many other similar ones. But that is why climate scientists have made a very serious and detailed effort to eliminate them with model corrections and adjustments (in some cases) or by abandoning point measurements at ground stations in favour of satellite proxies (in others). But you dismiss those efforts as "bullshit"? Which side are you batting for? Or are you simply trying to change a scientific debate into a political one?

[MoreCarbonOK]

BC says
As I said, if the CO2 absorbs some heat and re-radiates 95% of that heat to space then it keeps the other 5%.
That's a net heating effect.

Henry says
ok, ignoring the NO, let us assume all is CO2 up there, @ 0.05% in total
and we had 95% back radiated  to space and 5% absorbed heat:
and that is a ratio 19:1
Now let us make it 0.06% CO2 due to human emission in the future

that will increase the ratio to 19 x 0.06/0.05 = 22.8 : 1.
in which case we have 95.8% being back radiated to space and 4.2% absorbed heat.

That would be a net cooling effect caused by the increase in CO2
(remember we were only talking here about the thermosphere)

[Bored chemist]

"that will increase the ratio to 19 x 0.06/0.05 = 22.8 : 1."
No, that's just made up stuff.

Once again, you have not understood that the system is non linear.
Please learn about this before posting again.

[MoreCarbonOK]

 BC says
Once again, you have not understood that the system is non linear.
Please learn about this before posting again.
henry says
not once have you spoken to me about "non linear"

but once again you have not  understood that the CO2 is causing cooling from the top (12 hours per day) as proven to you from numerous papers, and warming from the bottom (24/7).
And nobody has provided either you or me with a balance sheet.
Yet you continue to "believe" that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming, rather than cooling....

Here is something for you from my compatriots (in Holland) to think about:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/dutch-meteorological-institute-knmi-critical-of-ipcc-suggests-they-are-leaving-out-study-of-natural-climate-variability/

[alancalverd]

Please note that the CO2 level starts to decrease as the weather is warming up (May), and the decrease continues through the summer months (June through September).

not according to the inset on this graph
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=XU7NI4a4HkIJlM&tbnid=AaQqiTlNR_JUkM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AMauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png&ei=b2DXUey-N4ul0wXIhYGQCQ&psig=AFQjCNFFGFCI3UdKtRO6OD0LB_77meqJCA&ust=1373155780412660
which clearly shows CO2 increasing as the temperature rises to a maximum in May/June.

Which side are you batting for? Or are you simply trying to change a scientific debate into a political one?

I'm batting for a scientific approach to climate. That means starting with good data and trying to work out what is going on. It's difficult to find an analogy*, except in the realm of jokes about politicians and statisticians, but just in case nobody has heard it before, the three usual suspects are travelling in a train in Peru when they see a white cow and a black cow.

Politician: "the vast majority of cows in Peru are black"

Statistician: "on a limited sample one can infer that half the cows in Peru are black"

Physicist: "At 0400UTC I saw two bovine quadrupeds. At least one side of one of them was black"

I am a physicist.

There are three sources of good data: satellite measurements (which cover the entire globe on an even grid with a reasonably consistent technique), ice cores (which provide unequivocal historic data from a consistent source at a single point), and a few observatories such as Mauna Loa in places remote from agricultural or urban development. So we need to explain three phenomena: any trends in satellite data untainted by additions, corrections, or smoothing based on nonsatellite data; the historic cyclic sawtooth of temperature followed by CO2; and the actual seasonal variation of CO2.

*hey, I just thought of one! You have been trying to ascertain the distance between two lumps of rock, to set a baseline for a new survey of Victoria. You have historic data based on surveyors' chains, intermediate surveys, triangulation, ant migration times, aerial photography, folklore, pedometers.....and I offer you a laser interferometer. What use do you make of the historic data?

[damocles]

...{shrug}...

One last try:

Quote from: damocles on 05/07/2013 00:27:38
Please note that the CO2 level starts to decrease as the weather is warming up (May), and the decrease continues through the summer months (June through September).


not according to the inset on this graph
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=XU7NI4a4HkIJlM&tbnid=AaQqiTlNR_JUkM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AMauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png&ei=b2DXUey-N4ul0wXIhYGQCQ&psig=AFQjCNFFGFCI3UdKtRO6OD0LB_77meqJCA&ust=1373155780412660
which clearly shows CO2 increasing as the temperature rises to a maximum in May/June.

Firstly, the month of maximum CO2 is definitely May, not May-June. Secondly the months of maximum insolation are June-July, and the months of maximum temperature (in the region where the boreal forests are) are July-August.

My point is that photosynthetic activity correlates both with insolation and temperature (insolation is not such a good correlation as temperature, probably because new growth is still "coming on line" in early summer). What is involved in this correlation is actual temperature, not the amount of warming. But photosynthetic activity also correlates well with rate of CO2 reduction. That is, with the rate of change of mixing ratio, not the actual mixing ratio

[Bored chemist]

BC says
Once again, you have not understood that the system is non linear.
Please learn about this before posting again.
henry says
not once have you spoken to me about "non linear"

but once again you have not  understood that the CO2 is causing cooling from the top (12 hours per day) as proven to you from numerous papers, and warming from the bottom (24/7).
And nobody has provided either you or me with a balance sheet.
Yet you continue to "believe" that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming, rather than cooling....

Here is something for you from my compatriots (in Holland) to think about:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/dutch-meteorological-institute-knmi-critical-of-ipcc-suggests-they-are-leaving-out-study-of-natural-climate-variability/

I meant you in the plural sense.
IIRC it was post 144 where it was pointed out that absorption was non linear.
But the point remains that since the system isn't linear (whoever pointed it out)  the naive maths you did isn't valid.




Also, as I already pointed out, repeatedly asking for an impossible balance sheet just makes you looks silly.

[alancalverd]

Damocles

I don't really care whether photosynthesis is driven by insolation, past temperature history, or the arbitrary will of the fairies. The question is, why does the CO2 level increase as the temperature rises?  What is generating the new CO2? It clearly isn't dominated by human activity as the amplitude of the oscillation hasn't changed over recorded time. If the only driver was photosynthesis, the CO2 level would have decreased year on year until all the trees died, several million years before humans evolved. But it didn't. Something was generating CO2, and the rate of generation was and still is temperature-dependent.

[damocles]

To summarize what we (i.e. the consensus of atmospheric chemists, with very few dissenting voices) know about atmospheric CO2: basically, there are three quite different effects.

(1) There is a well established and well understood seasonal pattern to the CO2 mixing ratio. It lags the insolation, its ultimate cause, by about 5 months. The chain of causality is mostly down to the extensive boreal forests in the cool temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere:

insolation (maximum late June)
---> (lag of 0.7±0.5 months due to new growth coming on line)
photosynthetic activity (maximum mid July)
---> (lag of approximately 3.0 months because of 90° phase shift associated with time to achieve a minimum with a quasi sinusoidal rate of change)
CO2 mixing ratio minimum near boreal forests (mid October)
---> (lag of 0.7±0.3 months associated with thorough intrahemispheric mixing, Hawaii not being anywhere near the boreal forests)
CO2 mixing ratio seasonal minimum observed at Mauna Loa observatory (late October/early November)

(2) There is a rather less well understood lag of CO2 mixing ratio behind temperature by 50-300 years over the historical ice-core record of 4 ice ages and 4 interglacials in the last half million years, with ice age CO2 levels typically being around 200 ppm and interglacial levels being around 280 ppm. There have been several plausible hypotheses about why this should be the case, but it is a matter for continuing scientific enquiry.

(3) There has been a very steep rise in CO2 starting with the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the mid 19th century. It is certainly anthropomorphic. How do we know this?
• Because we can do carbon accounting and point to how the rise in atmospheric CO2 corresponds to consumption of fossil fuel
• Because if it were a natural effect then we would expect that it would be heralded by some extreme temperature rise, and this is certainly not in the temperature record
• Because it has taken CO2 mixing levels well outside the regime that has operated over the previous half million years or more, with CO2 levels varying between 200 and 280 ppm up to 400 ppm.
• Because there are much more subtle indications from isotope ratios that most of the additional CO2 burden in the atmosphere indicates that most of the increasing CO2 mixing ratio is coming from fossil fuels rather than living (i.e. recently dead) plants.

The fact that the recent rise in CO2 mixing ratio is anthropogenic is really a no-brainer!

[alancalverd]

(1) There is a well established and well understood seasonal pattern to the CO2 mixing ratio. It lags the insolation, its ultimate cause, by about 5 months. The chain of causality is mostly down to the extensive boreal forests in the cool temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere:

That would explain a decrease in CO2 level. It doesn't explain an increase. Plants do not exhale carbon dioxide. Where, please, does the new CO2 come from in the months leading up to May? There's no doubt that human activity adds CO2 to the atmosphere, but most of that addition takes place when the plants are dormant, so you'd expect to see a maximum in winter, not summer, surely? And the amplitude of the oscillation appears to be independent of the gradually increasing mean.

Not sure what you mean by CO2 "mixing ratio". Mixed with what? The Mauna Loa data just talks about absolute concentration of CO2 - or is that the same thing?