Originally Posted by Archangel

This, for one statement: “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

This is all pretty hilarious. Let's ignore, for the moment, the funny math in amateur contrarian Mockton's "paper" (which, incidently, your link describes as published in a peer-reviewed outlet; it is not. Forum on Physics and Society is an unreviewed newsletter. They make this explicit on their website) and focus on this last claim about the sun. Mockton writes that the IPCC ignored:

...the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years

and cites "Hathaway, 2004 [sic; I assume this is Hathaway & Wilson 2004]; Solanki et al., 2005."

Now, it is true that Solanki et al. find that past several decades are exceptional in terms of sunspot activity, but only relative to the past 11,400 years. This is vitally important because, as Frohlich & Lean (2004) among a number of others report, there has been no trend in recent decades toward increased solar activity, whatever measure you want to use (TSI, UV, etc). Solanki and coauthors understand this, which is why they write that (pg. 1086):

solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades. In ref. 3 [Solanki & Krivova 2003], reconstructions of solar total and spectral irradiance as well as of cosmic ray flux [which also shows no trend] were compared with surface temperature records covering approximately 150 years. It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.

Oopsie! Note too that the 30% cited above is not a figure they actually endorse ("We believe that even this fraction is too high," they say on page 7-7 of the 2003 paper).

Originally Posted by Smallax

Could it possibly be that we should be considering an increased activity of the volcano? Are we interpreting what we observe erroneously?

No. Mauna Loa was chosen as a site because it showed little short term variation from sources or sinks. The same is true of other sites where measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations occur (principally Baring Head NZ, but also Cape Grim and the South Pole).

Originally Posted by Archangel

Good point. I had completely forgotten about the volcano. The chances are good that the station exists specifically because of Mauna Loa Volcano which is obviously active. So it isn't exactly a representative indicator, is it.

Isn't it totally weird that Keeling et al. 2008 report a concentration of 380.43 ppm at Baring Head in 2007? Isn't it weird that when you plot the monthly averages, the concentrations from both Bearing Head and Mauna Loa overlap?

WEIRD.

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

Isn't it totally weird that Keeling et al. 2008 report a concentration of 380.43 ppm at Baring Head in 2007? Isn't it weird that when you plot the monthly averages, the concentrations from both Bearing Head and Mauna Loa overlap?

WEIRD.

Do we have the technology to launch weather balloons out in the middle of the Pacific once a month, and grab a sample at 1000 ft, then 2000 ft, then 5000 ft, etc. etc.? Do it right b4 a typhoon then again right after a typhoon. Do you think we would learn anything from that?

Otherwise we should see data collected all over the world , plotted individually and compared globally over the long term. Something besides the single spots that support the theory, while ignoring the rest of the data.

Why do you reference a point in time called '2007' and that 2 separate locations shared the same reading?
What about the last 150 years that we supposedly have valid documentation of?

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

This is all pretty hilarious. Let's ignore, for the moment, the funny math in amateur contrarian Mockton's "paper" (which, incidently, your link describes as published in a peer-reviewed outlet; it is not. Forum on Physics and Society is an unreviewed newsletter. They make this explicit on their website) and focus on this last claim about the sun. Mockton writes that the IPCC ignored:

Hi Art, welcome to the forum. It's interesting that you consider Monckton's math funny, since that is exactly the point he is making about IPCC's math. He say's this: Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

And my link doesn't say it was published in a peer reviewed outlet at all. It clearly say's that the "major peer reviewed paper" was published in "Physics and Society;" Here's the quote: Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports. So it isn't saying the journal is a peer reviewed journal, only that the paper in it is. I just state this for the sake of accuracy.

and cites "Hathaway, 2004 [sic; I assume this is Hathaway & Wilson 2004]; Solanki et al., 2005."

Now, it is true that Solanki et al. find that past several decades are exceptional in terms of sunspot activity, but only relative to the past 11,400 years. This is vitally important because, as Frohlich & Lean (2004) among a number of others report, there has been no trend in recent decades toward increased solar activity, whatever measure you want to use (TSI, UV, etc). Solanki and coauthors understand this, which is why they write that (pg. 1086):

Oopsie! Note too that the 30% cited above is not a figure they actually endorse ("We believe that even this fraction is too high," they say on page 7-7 of the 2003 paper).

Again, there is evidence which belies their claims regarding the Suns impact on climate in recent decades. Here are some fallacies about Global Warming.
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Fallacies about Global Warming

The active volcano on Hawaii if far from where the sampling is taking place.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Hi Art, welcome to the forum. It's interesting that you consider Monckton's math funny, since that is exactly the point he is making about IPCC's math. He say's this: Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Difference is, the Monckton article actually does contain serious errors, which i'll detail later tonight when I have time. The IPCC AR4 does not.

This probably ought to be expected, seeing as how the man is a journalist, not a scientist.

And my link doesn't say it was published in a peer reviewed outlet at all. It clearly say's that the "major peer reviewed paper" was published in "Physics and Society;" Here's the quote: Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports. So it isn't saying the journal is a peer reviewed journal, only that the paper in it is. I just state this for the sake of accuracy.

But that's still not accurate. Preceeding the paper:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

The paper was not peer-reviewed. Why? Because FPS does not peer-review.

Have you actually read the paper?

Again, there is evidence which belies their claims regarding the Suns impact on climate in recent decades. Here are some fallacies about Global Warming [snip]

Instead of this scattershot of links tactic you seem to be fond of, hows about addressing my criticism? It is true that there has been no trend in TSI for as long as we've had direct measurements, right? And it is also true that there has been, in the same period, an upward trend in global mean temperature, right? So how can the sun explain the warming trend?

Please be specific and cite scholarly sources.

One quick observation about Monckton's math. He writes:

Since the great majority of the incoming solar radiation incident upon the Earth strikes the tropics, any reduction in tropical radiative forcing has a disproportionate effect on mean global forcings. On the basis of Lindzen (2007), the anthropogenic-ear radiative forcing as established in Eqn. (3) are divided by 3 to take account of the observed failure of the tropical mid-troposphere to warm as projected by the models –

ΔF2x≈ 3.405 / 3 ≈ 1.135 W m^–2. (17)

Now this is odd. He divides the forcing by 3 on the basis of Lindzen (2007)? But Lindzen writes that (pg. 945-6):

For reference purposes, the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 is about 3.5 watts per square meter (as noted in the last 3 IPCC Scientific Assessments).

So clearly Lindzen disagrees that the forcing ought to be a third of the standard estimate. Could he have used this (pg. 948)?

Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm–assuming current observed surface and tropospheric trends and model depictions of greenhouse warming are correct.

But this is not talking about sensitivity, not forcing.

Archangel, since you approvingly cite Monckton, perhaps you could empirically justify this rather baffling move for me?

Originally Posted by Smallax

Do we have the technology to launch weather balloons out in the middle of the Pacific once a month, and grab a sample at 1000 ft, then 2000 ft, then 5000 ft, etc. etc.? Do it right b4 a typhoon then again right after a typhoon. Do you think we would learn anything from that?

Otherwise we should see data collected all over the world , plotted individually and compared globally over the long term. Something besides the single spots that support the theory, while ignoring the rest of the data.

Why do you reference a point in time called '2007' and that 2 separate locations shared the same reading?
What about the last 150 years that we supposedly have valid documentation of?

This entire post is utterly bewildering to me.

1) I haven't the foggiest idea if it is possible to "launch weather balloons out in the middle of the Pacific once a month...[etc]," nor do I understand why we'd want to. I'm sure we could learn something from it, if it is indeed possible, but I have no idea what relation it has to your initial, unsupported speculation about Mauna Loa or my response thereto. We already have good readings of atmospheric CO2, and the ones from Hawaii in particular cannot be the result of any ostensible volcanic contamination.

2) I don't know what it means to "ignore the rest of the data" here. All the extant data agrees with respect to the absolute concentration of atmospheric CO2 and its relative increase.

3) Why did I mention 2007 and the other reading? Because I was showing you that the same concentration is found at sites nowhere near volcanos. I also mentioned the longer term monthly means, which also agree.

Why did I not mention "the last 150 years"? Beause that had nothing to do with what I was showing you. Your speculation was about contamination of a site involved in direct measurements of CO2 extant since the late 1950s.

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

This entire post is utterly bewildering to me.

1) I haven't the foggiest idea if it is possible to "launch weather balloons out in the middle of the Pacific once a month...[etc]," nor do I understand why we'd want to. I'm sure we could learn something from it, if it is indeed possible, but I have no idea what relation it has to your initial, unsupported speculation about Mauna Loa or my response thereto. We already have good readings of atmospheric CO2, and the ones from Hawaii in particular cannot be the result of any ostensible volcanic contamination.

2) I don't know what it means to "ignore the rest of the data" here. All the extant data agrees with respect to the absolute concentration of atmospheric CO2 and its relative increase.

3) Why did I mention 2007 and the other reading? Because I was showing you that the same concentration is found at sites nowhere near volcanos. I also mentioned the longer term monthly means, which also agree.

Why did I not mention "the last 150 years"? Beause that had nothing to do with what I was showing you. Your speculation was about contamination of a site involved in direct measurements of CO2 extant since the late 1950s.

In all fairness to you it was another poster that said - these measurements date back 150 years. As it was also not you - that claimed the levels have been steady between 280 and 300 over the last 650,000 years.
Did you have a link to 50 years of charted CO2 levels? If so. I missed it, sorry.

My point is that the atmosphere is a big place. The oceans are big places. The oceans and the atmosphere share a relationship that is NOT being brought into the discussion. [Stunted science alert!!!]

If we monitored the CO2 levels away from their source to the areas where the atmosphere is being 'cleansed' of excessive CO2, perhaps we could get a better scientific understanding of the overall system.

World Book encyclopedia 1964 still has atmospheric CO2 at 3/10000 of the atmosphere by volume. It also claims that CO2 is heavier than the other gases so it makes sense that the ocean would contain more than a thousand times of CO2 than the air.
Particularily after a typhoon or hurricane.

Conversely it doesn't make sense that CO2 is forming a sort of bubble around the planet at altitudes capable of trapping excessive heat. What are the readings at 10,000 ft. anyways?
Very similar to the refrigerants rising up to the ozone layer and destroying it. Talk about Algore insulting our intelligence.

I'll address more of this stuff later, but I want to make a couple things exceedingly clear:

1) We do have measurements of pre-industrial CO2, but these are not direct measurements (i.e. they rely on proxies or air bubbles from ice cores). These measurements show that atmospheric CO2 has increased globally by about 100 ppm over the past 250 years.

2) There are dozens of projects taking CO2 measurements all over the globe(from land-based stations, ships and aircraft) and these data sets are maintained by the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (all of which are available on their website). However, not all of these projects have been under continuous operation, or under continuous operation for as long as the stations already mentioned. In addition, they tend to lack the remoteness to sources and sinks which prevents short run variability, a benefit of those found at Mauna Loa and Bearing Head.

There is no debate about this. CO2 concentrations have been sharply increasing since the industrual revolution, we know the magnitude, and we know that humans are the source.

Originally Posted by Smallax

My point is that the atmosphere is a big place. The oceans are big places. The oceans and the atmosphere share a relationship that is NOT being brought into the discussion. [Stunted science alert!!!]

Of course "the atmosphere is a big place" and of course "the oceans and the atmosphere share a relationship." But i'm not sure what you think is being neglected, either here or by consensus science.

If we monitored the CO2 levels away from their source to the areas where the atmosphere is being 'cleansed' of excessive CO2, perhaps we could get a better scientific understanding of the overall system.

We already have a good idea of "the overall system." Chapter 7 of the IPCC AR4 details the carbon cycle and the budgets of various sources in considerable detail.

World Book encyclopedia 1964 still has atmospheric CO2 at 3/10000 of the atmosphere by volume. It also claims that CO2 is heavier than the other gases so it makes sense that the ocean would contain more than a thousand times of CO2 than the air.
Particularily after a typhoon or hurricane.

Conversely it doesn't make sense that CO2 is forming a sort of bubble around the planet at altitudes capable of trapping excessive heat. What are the readings at 10,000 ft. anyways?
Very similar to the refrigerants rising up to the ozone layer and destroying it. Talk about Algore insulting our intelligence.

This makes no sense to me. Are you disputing the basic physics of greenhouse gases?

As for the "the readings at 10,000 ft," mixing throughout the troposphere is relatively constant. This can be seen in, e.g., the aircraft measurements mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

... This makes no sense to me. Are you disputing the basic physics of greenhouse gases?

As for the "the readings at 10,000 ft," mixing throughout the troposphere is relatively constant. This can be seen in, e.g., the aircraft measurements mentioned above.

Ok. The simplistic diagrams show sunlight coming in and striking the surface of planet earth and some of it bouncing off.
The diagram then proceeds to show the reflected light striking the outer limits of the atmosphere and bouncing back to earth.
That is the concept of trapping extra light and heat because CO2 is now out near the outer limits of the atmosphere acting as a blanket and/or mirror.

My question is: If CO2 is heavier than the rest of the atmoshere , then does CO2 really maintain that height?

For exa. Does the CO2 from a Jet @ 33,000 feet stay up there? or Would it eventually make its way back to the surface?

The air is thin up on top of the Himilayan mountains. What is the holding capacity of CO2 in that atmosphere?

I would like to see scietific data gathered organised and discussed b4 we make lots of these assumptions. Is that too much to ask?
Are we interestted in science or a political agenda?

Sensible, verifiable data is all it takes to prove me wrong.

I knew that everything what happened with climate during last ten years has been associated with Pentagon’s efforts in the domain of climatic weapons! World’s community, Scientifics and specialists of this sphere bell but it’s too late.
The fact is that the tempus of climate reversal is so high that call the carbon dioxide burst as the reason of it is stupid. Some experts supposed that the scale of catastrophe could be provoked by realizing by Americans tests! Look, Washington knows that direct impact at some countries is impossible and community will never support it that’s why Pentagon decided to use any global methods - climatic weapons! Just using and test operations of new weapons provoked the formation of holes in magnetosphere making it possible for the solar wind to penetrate onto Earth!
While we’ll continue to observe lying down how Americans are realizing their own plans nothing will change! The camisole for USA could save the world from destruction!