I deny that anything is changing catastrophically outside of normal variability.

Besides, as we can’t rely on the temp measurements themselves, we can’t even make a reasonable correlation in the first place.

Yes, one would expect a higher constant for Melbourne. But the gold speck here is not the level of the temp but the differing rates of the temp change. One has to wonder how the Melbourne records were adjusted to account for urban creep.

robnesvacil

I doubt if there’d be much problem for animal life if CO2 went from a thirtieth of a percent to, say, a twentieth. Other than its potential for climate change (degree still in dispute), I am not worried much about CO2 as a “pollutant”. (There are gasses which are seriously harmful to health at much lower levels.)

Yes, CO2 is a GH gas, but the “positive reinforcing” bit may be way offbase. It may not warm the atmosphere enough to matter worth a hill of beans (or it may). More study seems to be required.

It’s like UHIs. Yes, they are heat sinks that contribute to global temps, but at a–much–smaller rate than they contribute to increased surface station measurement because the % surface stations subjeted to UHI is much larger than the % of earth’s surface subjected to UHI.

We need to a.) set up a much better network (like the new CRN), and b.) readjust the existing records to reflect correctly the results of UHI and the unaccounted-for site violations. This will result in a fair amount of statistical snow, but that cannot be avoided.

Bt ti’s small comfort that the existing net is set up properly. We NEED those historical records, and currently, their data is a scandal. As it is, we can’t safely rely on the accuracy of the data we have.

I know almost no one that denies that there have been changes over the last century or so. In the overall scheme of the geological history of this planet, they are quite small, and there is no proof that man is responsible for any but a very small part of that small part. I think we should constantly strive to be the best stewards of the planet that we can be. We should place a priority on finding and developing new, clean, renewable, economical forms of energy and share the technology with developing nations.

And the “theorized phenomenon” I was discussing was the theory that the sun’s radiation may be increasing and that that may be the cause for global climate change.

Producing more greenhouse gasses, which we know create a greenhouse effect, would indeed exacerbate such a phenomenon if it were found to exist.

And if the sun is not the cause for climate change, what is? Or do you deny that anything’s changing at all?

Laverton would certainly record a lower temp increase. The site in La Trobe Street is five minutes walk from where I work, and is now in the northern part of downtown Melbourne. Laverton is on a windswept plain westwards around Port Philip Bay. It gets on shore breezes that are blocked from the La Trobe Street site by the bulk of downtown Melbourne.

Also, Laverton has a small airport and not much else, it is nowhere near as urbanised as Melbourne.

So, wich is it?

Peter, Parker picked a peck of packed parking?

Or, she’s got Davis UHIs?

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/10/significant-urban-heat-island-in.html

robnesvacil, tell that to my 6-year-old grandson. He has more than theoretical proof, in the form of cold, hard cash, to the contrary. Besides, you’re the one who suggested we shouldn’t do anything to “exacerbate” a “theorized phenonemon”. I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your wording. If you have proof that what you say is true, let’s hear it. Like Evan, I still have an open mind on this issue, but I too would like to see your study on when plants reach the CO2 saturation point.

I don’t want his type against us. I want to win him over. Or even vice-versa–we ourselvces also must remember the debate is not over. If we have common ground, I’m interested. If not, I’m still interested.

We all have our prejudices. But that doesn’t mean we can’t lay out what we consider to be the facts (or even make our attempts at jokes) in a respectful manner.

As for any mild snipes that have passed since, let us put them aside and proceed rationally as friends, as men of the world who, above all, want to get at the truth of the matter.

And we’re actually at historic low points for atmospheric CO2.

Yes greenhouse gases trap SOME solar radiation for a certain amount or time and at certain wavelengths. The ability of CO2 to do so is logarithmic, which means the more you add less and less radiative absorbption occurs. the first 20ppm of CO2 had more radiative forcing capability than the next 300ppm.

Where’s your study that shows plants simply don’t need any more CO2? That’s a good one, lol.

Please explain to the shipping captains on southern routes why they are dodging more and more icebergs as ice shelves calve from Antarctica.

And it’s mighty convenient for you to ignore completely what is happening to the exponentially shrinking northern polar ice(melt) cap.

CO2 is not a pollutant?

Definition of pollutant – any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

Pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the environment can handle (those plants only need so much CO2) fits that definition.

Or perhaps you are given to name calling because you’ve locked yourself in a room full of CO2.

PS: Every time the earth’s (except once, millions upon millions of years ago) that the earth’s temperature has risen to a noticeable degree there was a mass extinction event. You really want to put your completely unfounded “There is little doubt that an increase would be good for the bioshere” theory to the test?

–

Stan, the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.

Every scientist agrees global climate change does exist – what is in “debate” are the causes (if you can even call a very few paid-by-oil-cos scientists arguing against the rest of the world’s scientific community a “debate”).

We know for a fact that greenhouse gasses trap solar radiation. Some, including apparently most folks on this blog, question whether or not that effect is enough to cause the temperature and climate shifts we’re seeing.

Some scientists studying the sun also think solar radiation may be increasing and they theorize that may also be a cause for global climate change. They admit their own studies are incomplete and inconclusive (though that apparently doesn’t stop some pro-business political conservatives from touting their work as definitive).

Ergo, if the sun is the cause, pollution in the form of greenhouse gasses would exacerbate the problem.

Alternatively, if the sun is not the cause, pollution in the form of greenhouse gasses is still a factor — perhaps the main factor, perhaps one among several.

Even in the time of Galileo, Copernicus and Newton there were doubters and they probably had snappy comebacks too, maybe even about tooth fairies. Don’t hear much about those detractors these days.

The Southern polar Icecap is most assuredly not melting. Earlier this month it set a record for all time greatest extent and the continental interior has shown a noticeable cooling trend over recent years.

As to your other comments, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant,to plants it is the essential life giving gas. To animals it is harmless even at much higher concentrations than are likely in the future. Compared to most of earths geologic history carbon dioxide levels are near all time lows, not highs. There is little doubt that an increase would be good for the bioshere.

“I don’t think anyone is claiming that urbanization itself DOES NOT create heat sinks that do have a warming effect. That much is obvious.”

A liberal layman’s take:

I don’t think anyone is claiming that urbanization itself creates heat sinks that do have a warming effect. That much is obvious.

The problem arises because the surface stations are overtaken by urban and exurban creep at a rate higher than the “creep” is overtaking the planet as a whole. This not only created a higher reading than is accurate, but, more important, artificially increases the RATE of temperature change. This, in turn, creates a steeper curve in the projections for the future.

Bear in mind that this is a base data issue. NONE of those existing curves are valid if the data is invalid. Including the curves purporting to match solar irradiance with temp. increase–if the temp data itself is wrong, then nothing can be concluded from it.

It’s not that we should ignore the issue. But we need better data, we can easily get better data, and we have the time to do so. Meanwhile, EVERY billion we spend on GW–or fail to create–means that somewhere (not to put too fine a point on it) babies starve. So I say let’s make very damn sure before we trash our precious wealth that we work so hard to create.

Robnesvacil, Is that sort of like pissing off the Tooth Fairy?

The polar ice caps are suddenly not melting just because a thermometer is near pavement?

I agree with the premise that if you put a thermometer next to a light bulb you’ll get a different reading than if the thermometer were a yard away — but the lit bulb still positively affects the heat in the room.

Whether or not the sun is “causing” global warming through increased activity (and the scientists theorizing this say the evidence is inconclusive, and that it may be just one factor among many anyway), shouldn’t we be attempting to not exacerbate this theorized phenonemon through additional greenhouse gasses?

However, there is trust (trust that data and theories will be accurately presented and discussed), and it’s a commodity I find sadly lacking in even the good pro-AGW sources.

Those arguments leave me even colder than the notion that “God will handle it”.

There is no “faith” in science. In Science, everyone comes from Missouri. So, show me!