Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
(Note from Anthony – English is not Frank’s primary language, I have made some small adjustments for readability, however they may be a few passages that need clarification. Frank will be happy to clarify in comments)
It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Click for larger image Fig 1. Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
But this is the climate debate, so massive rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows:
First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it’s the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down. Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.
Very unlike solar theory and all other theories, when it comes to CO2-theory one has to PROVE that it is wrong. So let’s do some digging. The 4-5 major temperature peaks seen on Fig 1. have common properties: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall. To avoid too much noise in data, I summed up all these major temperature peaks into one graph:
Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostokdata confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.
The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:
Fig 3.
Below is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:
Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.
I write “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect “…
The whole point with CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up, see for example around -6 thousand years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If no such CO2 effect already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises.
So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect”.
The problems can also be illustrated by comparing situations of equal CO2 concentrations:
Fig 5.
So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:
Fig 6.
How come a CO2 level of 253 ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253 ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level?
One thing is for sure:
“Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures.”
This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2”.
But simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures.
– Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, I should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)
Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all?
No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?
This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.
Fig 7.
Well, if CO2 should be reason to such “temperature-fall-slowing-effect”, how big could this effect be? The temperatures falls 1 K / 1000 years slower than they rise.
However, this CO2 explanation of slow falling temperature seems is not supported by the differences in cooling periods, see fig 8.
When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.
It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and more:
Fig 8.
Again, this fits very well with Vostok data: Longer periods of warmth seems to be accompanied by longer time needed for cooling of earth. The differences in cooling periods does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more.
Note: In this writing I have used Vostok data as valid data. I believe that Vostok data can be used for qualitative studies of CO2 rising and falling. However, the levels and variability of CO2 in the Vostok data I find to be faulty as explained here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass PMI-001 exam fast using self study 70-290 guide and 350-029 tutorial.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paul Shanahan (08:14:08) :
ccpo (21:32:18) :
The ignorance of the above statement is astounding. That it comes from a non-climate scientist – as so much anti-AGW “science” does – just reinforces the doubt that sentence alone engenders.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. To believe climate science can only be done by climate scientists is just plain ignorance beyond belief.
This is what the philosopher or sociologist of knowledge would call the cult of the expert. Only people with credentials are allowed to discuss the topic, and when the pronouncements of these experts are questioned, the answer is that the questioner does not understand because he or she is not qualified. Thus, what began as science ends as little more than religion in a white lab coat.
One of the remarkable and hopeful things about the internet is the tools is provides for ordinary people participate and insist that so-called experts justify their conclusions in terms that ordinary educated people can understand. If they cannot do that, ordinary people are justified in questioning the legitimacy of the paradigm. It is evident to me that such a process is developing, here and elsewhere. The insular nature of much so-called “climate science” has not escaped public notice, thanks to people like Anthony and the discussants here.
Several years ago, when a major defense contractor left Huntsville Alabama, I was able to purchase their library from a surplus sale. Since this company built rocket engines their library had a lot of theoretical books on radiative transfer theory, especially in the infrared.
In the book “Quantum Theory of Light” by Loudon there are two major and one minor method whereby CO2 absorption bands widen (which if you read the explanation on http://www.realclimate.org) is what is happening.
Both Doppler Broadening and Pressure broadening, the two major means whereby CO2 absorption wavelengths broaden, have a temperature dependent term in the equation. Furthermore, the equation for collision (pressure) broadening, has to be taken with regard to the entire atmosphere, not just CO2 molecules. There is even experimental evidence along with a nice graph that illustrates this relationship.
I simply don’t understand why we don’t just lay this argument out and drive a stake in the vampire of CO2 based global warming for all time. Steve McIntyre talks about an engineering quality exposition on the subject and the theoretical underpinnings for that exposition exists.
It will take some time to do the step by step but it is possible.
Jim Steele (08:23:14) :
“Well first you didn’t answer my question, so I am not expecting much more.”
No need to get snarky. I thought I did answer your question. As I said, yes, there are other climate drivers. Also, yes, there is a few thousand-year window where, after initial deglaciations, temps appear to drop before recovering (e.g., OIS Stage 5b). Who knows, maybe this is a precursor to a younger Dryas event caused by a change in the thermohaline current. Also, both methane concentration drops and albedo rises during this few thousand-year event explaining at least part of it. Why do you insist that the few thousand-year event has to be explained by CO2 only?
But most important, if you look at the entire record (sorry, you’ll have to go back to the Hansen et al. paper), CO2, methane, and albedo explain the temperature exceedingly well except for this event. In fact, it’s really hard to explain the Pleistocene swings without CO2 as an important climate forcing agent.
What are you proposing? That CO2 has no effect on climate and that there’s some mysterious forcing agent causing warming over the past half century that modern instruments can’t detect? Do you really think THAT makes sense, especially given the fact that the entire set of Pleistocene swings can’t be explained without CO2 using the same sensitivity demanded by radiation physics? For that to be true you have to engage in a lot of open field running, tap dancing.
Maybe there is another climate driver you have failed to recognize?
Might be that the Sun uses up fuel faster than convection currents can replace it. If the latter reminds you of CO2 getting into the lower layers of the oceans over time, it should.
Suffice to say it that I agree that there are climate drivers not yet recognized by concensus or even discovered that defy proprietary AGW C02 forced modeling.
The Sun won’t be ordered around by computer models, and it most definately won’t be refueled by anybody. You can’t send up a mechanic for repairs or a Doctor with smelling salts.
Maybe we can talk Oral Roberts into saying a prayer for the Prodigal Sun.
DB Stealey-moderatror
Thanks for taking the time to reply. It was just that normally the message appears on screen with the words’Waiting for moderation’ As nothing at all appeared I thought it might have been over your limit or something. You do a great job-thanks for your time.
TonyB.
Raises head above parapet waiting for sniper fire.
A possible reason for heating being faster than cooling.
Heating is by EM radiation from the Sun to a depth 50 to 100 metres.
Cooling on the other hand is from the surface to a depth of millimetres.
Ducks back behind parapet waiting for return of fire 😉
DaveE.
Frank, thanks for this, another poke at attmepting to understand our climate system.
The utter certainty with which some you post is staggering. To state some of what you do, when we understand so little is simply breathtaking. This is what lays at the heart of my skepticism. I KNOW just how little we understand what is happening, but some of you pronounce in a way that allows no room for questioning. That is what lays at the heart of too many of an AGW proponents position.
I see lots of talk about a trace gas, but in all my oceanography courses and some practical applications, I also know the effect and capacity of our ocean system in it’s impact, locally and globally, has been vastly understated. Paradoxically, I can say this with certainty because WE KNOW so little about that subject as well.
Anthony and moderating team – my apologies. This is frustrating.
Just a brief thought here, my understanding is that the mainstream pro-AGW view is that heating the atmosphere by 1C will cause somewhere around 2C in feedback heating. (A doubling of CO2 will lead to about a 1C in direct heating and 2C from things like changes in ice albedo, water vapor). It seems to me that the lack of symmetry in the response to heating and cooling is germane here too.
The above changes should happen(if they do happen) much more quickly than changes in the CO2 level, and they should also cause a symmetrical response.
At least that’s how it lloks to me on first glance.
Cheers, 🙂
FWIW, what Milankovich says is that the melting of the ice and snow at the North Pole is the critical factor in creating an interglacial, like now. This only happens when the earth is tipped sideways more than ‘usual’ and the North pole is pointed at the sun at closest approach to the sun.
This also means that summers will be warmer in the Southern hemisphere, just not to the extent that the Northern hemisphere warms. This also means that winters will be ‘worse’ (i.e. more of pole in darkness longer) especially at the South pole, so trying to sort out the CO2 processes will be interesting, but they are not causal in creating an ice age, nor in removing one.
Hello,
I have found that when drawing corelations of any kind, or examining the corelations drawn by others, to first examine the agendas of those drawing the corelations, or, as for instance, in the case of students studying poverty alleviation in MIT’s poverty alleviation labs, to understand the overarching agenda of the institution under which such work is carried out that might lead to creating/focussing on specific corelations and not on others.
Just FYI: The NB “On Global Warming” in this “Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman’s ‘And now for a world government'”
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/responseto-ft-gideon-rachman-worldgov.html
examines why “global warming” is actually a necessity, and this might rationally explain the pursuit of eveny plausibly justifying corelations such as this CO2:
begin excerpt:
Applying that prioritizing, or weightage if you will, principle to this topic of “Global Warming”, one observes that the coefficient, or the bit position, or weightage occupied by the planetary level changes in the solar system due to sun’s activity is actually a higher order bit position, than the contribution to the measurements from human activity.
And as is entirely obvious from Mr. Gideon Rachman’s article why this is politically motivated, the reasons become clear why this confusion is deliberately being created. If you accept the Capitalist conspiracy for world government, as I have described it, and if you accept the NSSM-200 agenda for population reduction as I have also described it, tying in the hand of Rockefeller to the UN and their agenda for population reduction (citations for these statements are in my various essays), then you must realize why the ruling elite wants to control ‘life activity’, and carbon-credit is their architecture of control!
It is somewhat akin to acquiring control of a nation’s money supply in the guise of managing the economy better. Few in the public understand why such a control is bad anyway, but those who do try to understand it are thrown layers upon layers of obfuscation. Something similar is happening here. Think of acquiring control of ‘carbon-credits’ almost equivalent to acquiring control of a nation’s money supply! This will control every aspect of sustaining life, just as control of money determines every aspect of sustaining the economy. You name it, between the two of them, it will control it in a world-government. And the first recipient of these controls, the carbon-credit specifically, is the developing world, the Global South, because that is where development must be arrested, and populations thinned out! Just as control of money was first exercised where there was a superfluity of industry and commerce, control of ‘carbon-credit’ is intended to be exercised where there is a superfluity of populations aspiring to grow their nascent economies!
end excerpt
I fear that many well meaning scientists and those with great scientific acumen are getting bogged down by rebutting the global warming mantra without realizing that “it takes a sentence to construct a lie, considerably more space to unravel it”.
Since an infinite numbers of lies are always possible, and more to the point, believable by an indoctrinated public, one can spend one’s lifetime refuting them and still not be done with them. That conveniently neutralizes doing anything useful in disturbing the agenda, when one can hardly see the agenda.
Therefore, it would seem logical, to attack the motivation which seeds the lie, and repeatedly exposing that motivation alongside each lie, which might have a bit more efficacy.
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Finally, an on-topic post (by me, repeated from previous WUWT):
It is interesting to note that the detailed signals we derive from the data show that CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, from the 9 month delay for ~ENSO cycles to the ~600 year delay inferred in the ice core data for much longer cycles.
My paper on the 9-month delay was posted Jan.31/08 with a spreadsheet at http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
In my Figure 1 and 2, global dCO2/dt closely coincides with global Lower Tropospheric Temperature LT and Surface Temperature ST. I believe that the temperature and CO2 datasets are collected completely independently, and yet there is this clear correlation.
After publishing this paper, I also demonstrated the same correlation with different datasets – using Mauna Loa CO2 and Hadcrut3 ST going back to 1958. More recently I examined the close correlation of LT measurements taken by satellite and those taken by radiosonde.
Further, there are papers by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) that discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature. This correlation is noted in my Figures 3 and 4.
This subject has generated discussion among serious scientists. Almost no one doubts the dCO2/dt versus LT (and ST) correlation. Some go so far as to say that humankind is not even the primary cause of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 – that it is natural. Others rely on a “material balance argument” to refute this claim – I think these would be in the majority. I am officially an agnostic on this question, to date.
The warmist side also has also noted this ~9 month delay, but try to explain it as a “feedback effect” – this argument seems more consistent with AGW religious dogma than with science (“ASSUMING AGW is true, then it MUST be feedback”). 🙂
It is interesting to note, however, that the natural seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 ranges up to ~16ppm in the far North, whereas the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is only ~2ppm. This reality tends to weaken the “material balance argument”. This seasonal ‘sawtooth” of CO2 is primarily driven by the Northern Hemisphere landmass, which is much greater in area than that of the Southern Hemisphere. CO2 falls during the NH summer due primarily to land-based photosynthesis, and rises in the late fall, winter and early spring as biomass degrades.
There is also likely to be significant CO2 solution and exsolution from the oceans.
See the excellent animation at http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
For more on this subject, see
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural?
January 21st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%e2%80%a6or-natural/
Also Veizer (2005) and the classic Veizer and Shaviv (2003), if you can find them online. Veizer used to be at http://www.gac.ca/publications/geoscience/TOC/GACgcV32No1Web.pdf
Many scientists who believe that the theory of catastrophic humanmade global warming is invalid still do believe that humankind is driving increased atmospheric CO2 through combustion of fossil fuels.
I used to be accept without question the role of fossil fuels in driving increased atmospheric CO2 – now I am leaning towards being an agnostic on this very interesting scientific question.
The really important question is whether the world is undergoing catastrophic global warming or NOT.
It is apparent to me that there has been no significant warming for many years, and sharp cooling since January 2007.
The shift in the PDO from warm to cool mode suggests we can expect, on average, 20-30 years of global cooling (with upward and downward natural variation).
In summary, I think the alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming crisis does not exist in reality.
Regards, Allan
Psi: from your link http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/
‘So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?’
If it ain’t the Sun, it’s sure as heck not manmade on other planets.
And for the the cult of the expert.
I have a different name for this: Minimalism. Your concerns do not justify a response, therefore these present conditions are “normal”, and that’s about as political as it gets.
Leif: I know I am hard on you, and I know you have not predicted a big SC like the rest of the normalizers.
I checked the Moscow Neutron Monitor. I see no sign of the neutron count going down at this point, the same as the other monitors. I chose 6 mos because it was in your graph. Apples to apples, fair is fair.
Are there any other monitors that have generated graphs on the net?
I hope you are right in your upcoming predicted ramp, because if you are not, next winter is going to be something awful. And that is when it really hits the fan for Hansen/Hathaway/IPCC.
Frank, Great work.
I do not read any comments above…… (Avoiding influences)
Time is not thermodynamic variable.
Then the quasi-thermodynamic equilibrium of the atmosphere is delayed (or advanced) in time.
Anthony, being an electrical Engineer I would like to have your comment on how the signals are aligned to determine the time delay. I am sure as you know most good electrical engineers align two signals on an oscilloscope so their peak-to-peak maximums are laying on top of the other signal. Then the time delay, lag or lead is measured. I am puzzled how many of the papers and analysis I have seen do not align the peak-to-peak amplitudes. I would like you to comment if you get a chance on what you think the proper way to align the CO2 and temp data from the Vostok Ice cores?
Addendum to above:
There has been much discussion about diffusion of gases in ice over time – some say the results are not at all reliable – I would suggest they are directionally correct, but not absolutely correct – probably the peaks have declined – thus modern atmospheric CO2 levels may not be any higher than the historic maxima.
Mr. Lansner, thank you very much for a lucid and informative presentation.
Other than some problems interpreting figure 3, I think I understand your work.
One assumes that you meant ” …reinterpreting it (is) no(t) “doing” science. …”
If that was your intent, it follows then that one would have to say that the explanation of the photoelectric effect by reinterpreting the data [from earlier researchers] was not doing science?
Actually, much good science ISdone by giving a new and different interpretation to data gathered by others.
A little bit off subject, I was on the Shell Brent Delta in the North Sea when it was towed out from Norway and spent 2 years on it, It was in 460ft of water, a 3 leg concrete fixed platform with a 80ft air gap. Shell Petroleum Co. not known for taking chances, had placed buoys and survey ships on the site for years to collect information on the weather, tide drift etc., the results were incorporated into the platform design.
It was calculated that the 60ft air gap was for the hundred year wave, ( once in one hundred years.) the first winter on site we were shaken by the hundred year wave so many times that it became, a oh, hum, the point being even Shells trillions and experts could not predict the weather
To correct your memory…I actually said that the highest probability was for ENSO to stay neutral with a small chance of La Nina and also a very small chance of El Nino.
You were the one that insisted quite forcibly that because of high SOI a La Nina was inevitable.
Your article above is based on the tenous link between sunspot numbers and temperature. Time and time again there has been shown to be no link yet you persist in repeating this nonsense. Also you delight in misquoting (dodgy memory again?). For instance “Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.” becomes only a couple of paragraphs later “This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2″.
This gives a totally distorted view.
Thankfully we have peer review for real science, as for this…well, as I said before it was a brave attempt.
It’s all about the money and a way of generating an industry. I have been an amateur astronomer for many years and I am always interested in these sort of reports. I have never believed the whole CO2 argument and I based that on data previously accumulated but this new data provides a more consolidated argument against CO2 being a cause of rising temperatures.
Rob (09:42:09) :
“albedo rises during this few thousand-year event explaining at least part of it.”
Your response is an example of the circular reasoning that abounds in Hansen’s paper.
How does the albedo increase? What is the driver of this increase? You throw that out without explanation and then go on “tap dancing.”
When you ask “Do you really think THAT makes sense, especially given the fact that the entire set of Pleistocene swings can’t be explained without CO2 using the same sensitivity demanded by radiation physics?” If you assume a solar constant, if you assume we understand everything and there are no mechanisms yet to be understood in which variation in solar output can be amplified, then you demand CO2 explains the Pleistocene swings.
But again, the ice core records show that the 2 main forcings of CO2 and albedo that you and Hansen hold dear, are in direct opposition to observable drops in temperatures. So it would be then be foolish to assume that there is not another forcing agent. And it is the height of vain conceit to think we already know everything. Almost every month NASA announces a new surprise such as magnetic ropes connecting the sun and earth, unexpected holes in the magnetosphere, they even have unexplained gravitational effects on their satellites.
If the drop in solar activity continues and the temperatures continue to drop as well, more attention will be given the more likely driver of climate.
Because warming by any other forcing can cause increased CO2 it is easy to confuse cause and effect. And is not I that claims CO2 is the dominant driver it is Hansen. I am claiming the evidence shows CO2 can not explain the drop in temperatures and there is nothing that Hansen ever said that explains that. I personally think climate changes is affected by combination of solar, ocean and landscape factors.Perhaps you should ask Hansen the same question you misapplied to me and oddly threw out here? “Why do you insist that the few thousand-year event has to be explained by CO2 only?”
Only I would re-word it to ask you and Hansen “why do you think only 3 decades of recent rising temperatures can be explained by CO2 only.” ONce again you can’t have it both ways, as much as you try.
George E. Smith (11:09:07) : At Vostok Temperatures, the atmosphere has to be essentially devoid of water vapor or water in any form, and quite often it can be devoid of CO2 as well, with CO2 ice on the ground.
Hmmmm… where’d the ice come from?
—
I think the problem with ice cores is that they are primarily indicators of precipitation with temperature a smaller variant. It’s similar to the problem with using tree ring data: multiple causes.
Bob B (11:54:27) : how the signals are aligned to determine the time delay
Autocorrelation. It’s a statistical method that works much like what you’d do manually using an oscilloscope and is likely more objective when the data do not correlate precisely. The scope method wouldn’t work very well if the separation of the two signals is subject to significant jitter.
Robert Bateman (11:46:10) :
I see no sign of the neutron count going down at this point, the same as the other monitors.
That is not the point. The point is that it will not go further up just like it didn’t at any and all of the previous minima. Lomnicky Stit is also good: http://neutronmonitor.ta3.sk/realtime.php3
They only show the last month, so you have to be patient. BTW, on that graph, 100% is the ‘normal’ background value [derived from previous maxima [solar minima].
I hope you are right in your upcoming predicted ramp, because if you are not, next winter is going to be something awful. And that is when it really hits the fan for Hansen/Hathaway/IPCC.
I don’t think there will be a significant up ramp. There will be a gentle climb [with the usual wiggles superposed] to R ~ 75 in several years time [unless Livingston is right].
I have a question or three:
Doppler broadening of the IR absorption of CO2:
1) Does the broadening increase the “width” of absorption, i.e. a wider frequency band or does it increase the “height” i.e. does it get “blacker”?
2) What is the approximate effect per degree at ‘normal” temperatures?
Saturation of the IR absorption of CO2.
1) At what percentage CO2 is the atmosphere essentially “black” to IR in the affected wavelengths?
2) How much effect does Doppler broadening have on the saturation of the IR absorption of CO2?
From an earlier life, I am aware of how Doppler broadening can affect the neutron absorption of U238. It’s the major negative temperature feedback in large nuclear power reactors. I just wondered if this was conceptually similar.
Thank you for your efforts