Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product

The main thing about the Mauna Loa C02 figures quoted:
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
is the correlation between warm years and higher C02. As usual, the AGW side has cause and effect reversed.
The correlation is clear to see on many years in the series, but the obvious pairing would be 1992 (the first complete year after Pinatubo) and 1998 (super El Nino). The cold Pinatubo year gives a .43 increase in C02. The warm El Nino year gives the largest increase in the series, 2.93.
When the ocean and atmosphere are cool, the ocean emits less C02. When the ocean and atmosphere are warm, the ocean emits more C02.
Don’t be surprised if we see some negative change in C02 in the next few decades.

I hope this isn’t too long, if it is snip it…
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant
Letter from retired chemist to the EPA
__________________________

Dear Marlo Lewis,
16 Nov 08 – Fred Singer, via his TWTW of 15 Nov 2008, suggested that we submit comments to the EPA over proposed carbon dioxide regulation.
As a retired analytical chemist and webmaster of http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com I would like to submit the following comments, which I hope will be taken into account and receive serious consideration.
By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever.
The one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth’s surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.
Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area).
If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.
Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air. Also, air (as in oxygen and nitrogen) does not react substantially to radiation (as you can test in your own microwave oven, where the food gets hot but not the air. Any heating of the air is due to convective heating off the food) and thus carbon dioxide can not possibly warm the air via re-radiating IR energy.
As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect.
No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it – if only!
All natural heating that takes place in a greenhouse (be it made with glass, plastic, cardboard or steel) is due to the restricted access of the heated air to the open atmosphere, where it would normally disperse its excess heat to the next available cooler molecule of any of the IR susceptible gases in our atmosphere in the cascading manner described above.
To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practised by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma – not science).
It is therefore that I rest my case, as expanded upon on my website (see links below).
Sincerely yours,
Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK

Smokey (21:01:20) said:
“The question is: have you figured it (the solar graph) out yet?”
Yes. The recent solar forcing on that graph has a maximum of less than 0.3 W/M2.
The current CO2 forcing is about 2 W/M2.
0.3 is a lot less than 2.

evanjones (22:19:58) : Besides that, an entire 1C shift in ocean temperatures produces a mere 10 ppmv difference in CO2. So ocean/CO2 solubility is not really an issue on the scale we’re dealing with it.
What’s the source for this claim? I once briefly looked into the question of how much atmospheric CO2 increases for a given increase in the ocean temperature and couldn’t find a clear answer.

Chris V. (22:28:05) :
You say that higher temps yield higher CO2 levels, with 1998 #1. But the #2, 3, 5, and 6 CO2 levels on that list are all after 2002.
I thought the last decade has been cooling?
I’m not terribly concerned about proving the cooling trend, which is self-evident to those with eyes to see. I am concerned with the hysteria surrounding C02.
C02 is our friend. It does not drive climate. Mankind doesn’t even drive C02, as this series:
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
again, makes clear.

Smokey (09:58:12) said:
“Prove it. ”
Go read the IPCC report. It won’t kill you.
Ignore the report itself if you like, and just look at the papers it references on this topic.

Ron de Haan says:

If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.

Perhaps those IR photons know when clouds are overhead and delay being emitted until the clouds are gone.

Chris V: Heck, let me comment on Smokey’s data, anyway.
Just a guess, with out actually crunching the numbers, but the energy transfer (0.3 watt/m2) and the time frame (2003 – present) are both too small, to measure any transfer, in such a large heat sink as the oceans.
Now, your number (2.0 watt/m2), on the other hand, is 7 times larger, and should be measurable; if it exists.

Chris V:
“Some skeptics claim that cosmic rays or solar activity are the big drivers of climate. Why not make some predictions? . . . .Then we wait and see what happens. Ultimately, the ability to make accurate predictions is the best test of a theory, right? At least that’s what you guys all seem to be saying.”
How long are you willing to wait? If I understand the term “forcing” correctly, it applies only to, e.g. variations in solar output, variations in atmospheric CO2, etc. The short term effects of these forcings, by all accounts, are dwarfed by the transient response of the climate system, basically meaning that the only way to discern a forecasted response to one of these forcings is to wait several decades. Even then, if the climate system behaves similarly to what was predicted, it could have been just chance, so you wait quite a bit longer to see if the climate system contonues to be have as predicted. My estimate is at least a century. This applies to forecasts by the IPCC climate models, as well, which is why I view them as being of little, if any, value.
As far as Hansen’s Scenario A, B, C forecasts back in the 80s, he could have just dusted off the model in 2005, plugged in the greenhouse emissions, volcanic eruptions, atmospheric component concentrations, etc. He did not do so when defending his forecasts from Michaels and Crichton, and the inference I draw from that is that he realized that the model wouldn’t look too rosy. Instead, he just compared the Scenario B forecast to the subsequently measured temperatures and declared a good fit, without first establishing that the assumptions underlying Scenario B actually occurred.

Smokey:
“CO2 has a negligible effect, smaller than almost any other climate forcing, all of which overwhelm the tiny effect from CO2. Otherwise, the steady increase in carbon dioxide would produce a steady increase in the planet’s temperature. That has not happened. In fact, the planet is cooling.”
At the outset, to avoid any confusion, I want to say that my opinion is that I agree with the conclusion that the forcing from CO2 emissions is small and unimportant. Having said that, I think that your reasoning here improperly assumes that the response of the climate system to a hypothetically steady solar influx settles rapidly to a near-constant value. I don’t think that is the case. My understanding is that the response of the climate system to even a constant solar influx is highly chaotic, even on decadal time scales. This means that even under no forcing, annual temperatures would still fluctuate wildly around a median for quite some time.
The response to your argument would be that the very slight cooling we have seen since 1998 is simply the result of greenhouse gas warming being offset by a particularly strong, unpredictable transient response of the climate system. In fact, many global warming advacates have made this precise argument. What this does show, however, is that it is far, far too soon to be drawing any conclusions about the amount of climate sensitivity to CO2. What’s good for the goose and all that. If the decade plus between 1998 and 2008 isn’t long enough to disprove a significant climate sensitivity, then how long do you think it would take to actually demonstrate or infer a value of climate sensitivity based on measured temperatures. It should take a lot longer than a decade.
The conclusion of your line of reasoning is not that a lack of a significant relationship between CO2 and temperature has been established, it is that a significant relationship has not been established.

An Inquirer (13:21:46) :
Chris V provided a link to RC in Chris V. (11:15:18) (yesterday)
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a detailed breakdown of the GHG forcings (gas-by-gas) on that thread.