Picking Carbonated Cherries In 1975

By Steve Goddard

My friend Tamino says that “the modern global warming era starts in 1975.”

He goes on : “It’s an estimate of the time at which the trend in global temperature took its modern value.”

As you can see in Phil Jones’ HadCRUT graph above, the 25 year period from about 1975 to 2000 did warm about half a degree C.

You can also see that the 30 year period from 1910 to 1940 similarly warmed about half a degree C. At that time, atmospheric CO2 averaged about 305 ppm, well below Dr. Hansen’s suggested “safe level” of 350 ppm. See the graph below for that period:

Global CO2 - click to enlarge

Here’s an annotated HadCRUT graph to help  you see the relevant periods and the changes of temperature versus changes in global CO2 concentration during the same period:

The video below superimposes the 1975 warming (blue line) on the 1910 warming (black line.) Note the similarity in slope, duration and patterns. It would be difficult to explain the 1910 warming as being due to CO2, because CO2 was barely above pre-industrial levels and rose only 10 ppm during that period.

Given the similarity between the 1975 warming and the 1910 warming, it is irrational to blame the 1975 warming entirely on CO2. The practice of good science tells us to look for a hypothesis which can explain both similar warming periods.

If there is an influence of CO2 in the recent warming, it appears small. And the warming stopped ten years ago, as shown in the HadCRUT graph, despite rapid increases in CO2.

Or perhaps one might conclude that climate sensitivity has decreased as CO2 levels have risen. In 1910, with CO2 at 300 ppm, it only took ten additional ppm to raise temperatures by 0.5°C. By contrast, in 1975 it took about fifty ppm more to produce the same 0.5°C warming by the year 2000.

There were also periods of time with rising CO2, and little or no rise in temperature. From 1940 to 1980, there was no net warming while CO2 rose by 30 ppm. Since 1998, there has been no warming – as CO2 levels have risen 30 ppm.

I feel a chill of La Niña coming on.

Share

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike G

Don’t know about the warming that ended in 1940 on the graph below (note how adjusted down it has been compared to what it was just ten years ago), but the post 1975 warming can be explained by the near simultaneous peaking of the AMO and PDO and UHI.

dp

If Cosquer Cave is any indication, it started nearly 30,000 years ago. And it is a very good indication.

rbateman

“I feel a chill of La Niña coming on. ”
Indeed. People are murmuring about the upcoming winter, and the feel of fall in the air.
They have not forgotten the late end of winter, and it’s on thier faces.
Nobody is listening to the global warming trumpets.
They are looking at the sky, the brightness of day, the plants & animals.
We may be at ground zero of La Nina.

David Gould

If the argument was that CO2 was the only driver of global temperature, the ups, downs and flatlines would show that argument to be false. But, given that that is not the argument …

It’s almost a perfect fit,
1880 to 1910 and 1940 t0 1970 all in the cooler mode!!!!
warm
1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 warmer
I can’t believe the slopes match even the wiggles are the same!
Wow!
good post Steve Goddard!
My friend Tamino says that “the modern global warming era starts in 1975.”
thank you Tamino! for getting Steve to put the graft together.
The interesting thing is how are we flat lining for 10 years? 2000 to 2010?
faulty data? uhi? momentum is higher? solar activity was higher? 6-10 year lag?
pass the popcorn Vince Causey, while the corn grows!

pat

The stupidity of this is beyond belief. How can the global average always be under the average until Warmists decide it is over? This is not science. It is not real. It is some sort of game.

Tamino…..1975…..
Huh, odd year to chose, because isn’t 1976 when the Great Pacific Climate Shift happened? I’m just askin’. Dang, must… have been…. an……um…. coincidence. How could Tamino have known?
(sarc off) (btw, do Carbonated Cherries have more flavor?)
2:32 video,
Chris de Freitas Ph.D, on El Nino and La Nina prevalence, which influences temperatures one way or the other:

MikeC

By getting you to focus on the increase from 1975 to 2000 they can hide the decline thereafter

Girma

Steve
I agree with your post, here are the trends for the graph.
Nearly identical global warming rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade for the periods from 1970 to 2000 and 1910 to 1940:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend
Zero global warming rate since 2000:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend

R. Gates

rbateman says:
August 22, 2010 at 9:48 pm
“I feel a chill of La Niña coming on. ”
Indeed. People are murmuring about the upcoming winter, and the feel of fall in the air.
They have not forgotten the late end of winter, and it’s on thier faces.
Nobody is listening to the global warming trumpets.
They are looking at the sky, the brightness of day, the plants & animals.
We may be at ground zero of La Nina.
______
Could we call this La Nina alarmism? Here in Denver, where we were just one degree shy of a record high for August 22, at 97F, the only thing I saw on people’s faces were some nice suntans, and smiling neighbor kids playing in their pool. La Nina will come and go, and no ice age will ensue.

R. Gates

David Gould says:
August 22, 2010 at 9:55 pm
If the argument was that CO2 was the only driver of global temperature, the ups, downs and flatlines would show that argument to be false. But, given that that is not the argument …
_____
Thank you David for a wee bit of….Perspective!

bobbyj0708

To be quite blunt, I don’t think we have a clue if temps are even up over the last 35 years. After pouring over the Surface Station project I have very serious doubts that the temperature record is anywhere close to accurate. With every possible error biased to the upside I’m amazed that temps are down over the past 10 years. Until we actually figure out how to record a temperature accurately I don’t think we can say much of anything about temperature trends.

Carrick

Other forcings play a role besides CO2, and prior to 1980 it’s generally agreed in the climate community that sulfates balanced CO2. Hence Tamino’s comment about the “modern warming period starting in 1975”. Also, don’t fall into a trap of expecting CO2 and temperature to rise in lock step in any case… it’s a slowly changing secular forcing, and there are other, natural sources of climactic variability that over any short period will tend to overwhelm this slowly changing secular forcing.
Steve says that “The practice of good science tells us to look for a hypothesis which can explain both similar warming periods.” Yes, the simplest reasonable hypothesis is that total forcings increased for both periods, causing net warming. With a complex system, it’s not reasonable to assume all but one forcing is constant over a both periods. Regarding the similar values… coincidence happens in science all of the time, it’s why we do more than two tests in experimental measurements before making our conclusions.

Dagfinn

Warren Meyer of climate-skeptic.com deserves some credit, since he has pointed this out repeatedly. (For example, http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/03/oh-maybe-ocean-occilations-are-important.html)
The IPCC says: “Modelling studies are also in moderately good agreement with observations during the first half of the 20th century…” “Moderately good agreement” means that climate models totally fail to reproduce the temperature peak around 1940. Actually, the diagram of models vs. temperature is quite revealing if you have an ounce or two of skepticism.
In other words, the IPCC has basically glossed over this problem.

David Gould
If you can’t tell me specifically what caused the 1910 warming, then you can’t claim to know what caused the nearly identical 1975 warming.

Tim L says:
August 22, 2010 at 10:06 pm
The interesting thing is how are we flat lining for 10 years? 2000 to 2010?
faulty data? uhi? momentum is higher? solar activity was higher? 6-10 year lag?

I wouldn’t know all the reasons but flat temps have happened before
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/1992/zzznature06982f12crop.jpg

Carrick
Same for you. Explain specifically what caused the 1910 warming, and why it was not also responsible for the nearly identical 1975 warming.

Steve Goddard, nice work proving Phil Jones wrong using his own graph data!

Athelstan

Or perhaps mid seventies was just about the time, ‘all the weather stations migrated south’ or the ‘pump up the volume’ really took off.
Reading Ross McKitrick demolition of GHCN records was an eye opener and I don’t think that what any of these guys say, argues over, or for that matter does – I ain’t going to believe it.
La Nina, coming (now here), ENSO fading….all reasons to kick this into where it belongs, file under – “nothing to see here.”
Its all about the ocean currents, stoopid – not forgetting, big yellow thing (fusion reactor) in the sky.

Michael Hauber

Giss model E forcings suggest that the warming between 1910 and 1940 was caused by roughly equal parts of increase in solar activity, increase in Co2, and reduction in aerosols (i.e. volcanos early in the period, and an increase to no volcanos late in the period).

MikeA

Warmists are in trap, concerning the 1910-1940 warming. It can not be caused by CO2, so they have to admit natural causes, like ramp up in the sun activity from 1910 minimum. But at the same time, they claim the sun has very low effect on temperatures, where mechanically applying the 0.1% fluctuation in TSI. Cooling period 1940-1975 is a problem as well, though they managed to erase it from global datasets, but it appears pronounced in NH record.
“Global” datasets stink. We do not know much about southern half of the globe – prior 1950 – and by data infilling, “decreasing the 1940 blob by 0.15 deg C”, statistical plays with buckets, station cherry-picking, manufacturing trends without much data in tropics and central Asia they almost managed to erase the cooling period and inflated the post-1975 warming trend. For HadSST2 dataset alone, there is an inexplicable step increase of global SST by 0.1 deg C since 1998, which makes another +0.07 deg C for global HadCRUT.
Northern extratropics have the best coverage history and Atlantic has the most data since 1900. I take this as UHI-free NH temperature proxy any day.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadsst2_280-360E_0-90N_na.png

Bob_FJ

The HADCRUT graph shown in the lead article is rather misleading. They use a 21-year moving simplified Gaussian smoothing average, (10 years each side of the target year), which means that there is no actual data available for determining it over the final 10 years, and the algorithm should thus stop short at 1999. However, someone has extended the black line in a way presumably that they would like to see it go. On the other hand, the following modified image seems to be a better averaging to me, as an eyeball job, and it then looks somewhat similar to the plateau around 1940! Oh dear!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26175880@N05/4919342326/

JC

PDO, PDO, PDO
Otherwise called the Elephant in the AGW Looney Tunes story.
JC

Bob_FJ

Michael Hauber, Reur August 22, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Would you care to quantifiably elaborate on your claims please, with adequate references?

Robert

Okay Goddard, Stop saying 1998 was the warming globally. We both know that the analysis by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) found warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. So did you choose the dataset which fit your answer Goddard? Why didn’t you put up GISS or NOAA?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html
Also lets consider some things. There was a rapidly increasing solar activity during the early century warming yet there is not now? Also remember that volcanic activity was lower during the early century but volcanic activity has been relatively high even into the 21st century. Lets also consider some things. When Mosher and them put together all their global temperature analyses, the majority of them found 1998 to not be the warmest:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/
You are also completely ignoring the inertia and time-lag of CO2 induced warming.

simpleseekeraftertruth

A proposal: Heat output from the sun has been increasing since around 1700 to which we have added significantly and increasingly in the latter third or so, by our production of energy. Both increases have lead to a general warming of the planet (the Maunder Minimum was not local to Europe) and the conditions we enjoy today.
From figures for worldwide consumption of all energy sources other than kinetic & solar, 14 Terajoules per second are added to the heat input of our planet, at or around surface level: all energy produced eventually and quickly decays to heat.
This man-made production of energy equates to 0.03 W/m2 for every m2 of surface or a 0.03% increase over the input of the sun. A 1% increase in solar irradiative change produces a climate forcing of 0.24 W/m2. From that we can calculate that a forcing of 0.03 W/m2 is a solar irradiative increase equivalent of 0.125%.
From the Maunder Minimum to now, a 0.25% increase in solar output has occurred. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age and since which time temperatures have been generally meandering upwards with a coincident 0.25% increase in solar output. Mankind’s current addition to forcing of 0.125% is half of that difference and has been added in annual increasing amounts, mostly during the latter third of the period since 1715. Inaccurate temperature analysis & unproven theories on atmospheric CO2 can be set aside.

Robert

Anyways, tamino already caught you cherry picking and i’m sure he will be dealing with this soon enough. Too bad your loyal viewers didn’t see you get completely proven wrong at taminos twice now in the last two weeks… He proved you wrong and your response was something about the hockey stick being wrong. Nothing to do with the topic of conversation but hey, you had to say something right?

jorgekafkazar

Michael Hauber says: “Giss model E forcings suggest that the warming between 1910 and 1940 was caused by roughly equal parts of increase in solar activity, increase in Co2, and reduction in aerosols (i.e. volcanos early in the period, and an increase to no volcanos late in the period).”
Model forcings are not data and thus can’t ‘suggest’ anything. They can only assume.

Martin Brumby

@Carrick says: August 22, 2010 at 10:44 pm
“Other forcings play a role besides CO2, and prior to 1980 it’s generally agreed in the climate community that sulfates balanced CO2.”
Hmmmm.
I think you’ll find that it is “generally agreed in the climate community” that they need to dream up much better excuses and “adjustments”.
Otherwise the whole BigSnakeOil cAGW scam will go down the drain and they’ll have to start looking for another job.

Dave F

I think my position that the trends are not unexplainable by weather variations is still sound. Averaging is supposed to remove the variation. I remain unconvinced. I think selective averaging may remove some variations. I think that averaging techniques are not representative of the energy in the system. If you have a 24 hour period, and 23 of 24 hours are 30, and one is 50 you have an average of 40 the way that average is currently derived. This is a problem because the average should have been 30.833_.
Not to mention that the temperatures derived before the modern era may not have registered temperatures caught by today’s thermometers because of the ability of today’s thermos to catch temperatures more quickly than older temperatures. The highs may have been higher, the lows may have been lower. That data, imho, can’t be compared.

Christopher Hanley

David Gould 9:55 pm,
“…..If the argument was that CO2 was the only driver of global temperature, the ups, downs and flatlines would show that argument to be false. But, given that that is not the argument …”
The behavior of the hopelessly credulous catastrophic AGW zealots suggests to me that they do indeed believe that CO2 is the only driver of, not only the global temperature, but the global climate, droughts, hurricanes, floods, disease, earthquakes, tsunamis…..
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
…..and who can blame them.
The ‘The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, the IPCC, has unequivocally stated: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (over 90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
If over 50% of the alleged warming since 1950 is due to human GHGs, it doesn’t leave room for much else.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg

I performed a similar comparison of the two warming periods in an earlier post. I used global SST anomalies (but excluded the comparison of CO2 data). The linear trends of the two periods are basically identical. Here’s a graph of the early period:
http://s5.tinypic.com/119qzk6.jpg
And the later period:
http://s5.tinypic.com/2vuk978.jpg
I then removed the impacts of the AMO, solar, and volcanic aerosols and ran the trends again. Here’s a link to the post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/has-global-warming-accelerated.html

Alan the Brit

Dagfinn says:
August 22, 2010 at 10:58 pm
It’s all in the language. IPCC remarks that discrepancies between satellite data & surface based observations have largely been resolved. This is such wishy-washy guff & Meta speak meaning that they cannot resolve such discrepancies (admitting there are more than one such difference at least) so they just say they have, easy peasy!

Robert: August 23, 2010 at 12:16 am
You are also completely ignoring the inertia and time-lag of CO2 induced warming.
Is this the new theory for why CO2 lags temperature?

Stevengoddard,
So you are saying that unless I know who killed person A, I cannot possibly know who killed person B? I think that there might be something in error about that logic …

cohenite

Tamino banned me for insisting there was a 1976 climate shift; I now see why; he believes it happened in 1975; fair enough; the devil is always in the detail.

Tamino was kind enough to calculate the different CO2 forcings for the two periods. His boundary dates are slightly different, but not so much that they would change the essentials: for the first period .25 w/m^2, for the second 2 w/m^2.
The extra 1.75 w/m^2 has had to go somewhere, or come from somewhere. Aerosols are mentioned,but I have asked on Open Mind if there are any measured aerosol levels which cover the preiods concerned without a taker.
It can’t be sun variations as the received wisdom is that the sun’s variation is insufficient. This leaves cloud and or aerosols from industry and volcanoes. Or albedo change I suppose.
Is there data (yes, yes, I know, it’s a collective noun in layman speech) about variation in aerosols? Not modelled ‘data’, real data. TIA.
JF

Harold Pierce Jr

ATTN: All
RE: Climate Cycles: What the Russians say.
The English translation of the monograph “Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity” by L.B. Klayashtorin and A. Lyubushin can be dowloaded for free from:
http://alexeylybushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
This book is 224 pages and the Russian addition was published 2005. The English edition was published in 2007. The literature is covered through 2004 with a few references in 2005.
In the first two chapters, they show the results of their analyses of numerous time series of data related to climate such as air temperature, ocean oscillation indices, tree ring and sediment proxies, fish catches, etc.. They found that the earth has a climate cycle of warm and cool phases with periodicity of 50-70 years with an average of 60 years which has a 30 year cool phase and 3o year warm phase.
Since the begining of the instumental record of reliable temperature data in 1880, the cool phases were 1880=1910 and 194o-1970 , and the warm phases were 1910=1940 and 1970-2000. They predict that 2000-2030 will be a cool phase.
In Fig 2.22 (p 52) and Table 2 (p 53), they show that increasing world fuel consumption has no effect on fluctulating gobal temperature anomalies.
In Chapters 3-6 have detailed analyses of the influence of various aspects of climate cylcles on fish populations and catches in the world’s major fisheries.

Steve Goddard, nice work proving Phil Jones wrong using his own graph data!
It’s even worse than Girma Orssengo pointed out with his two articles in the past year. Your article is a nice addition to Girma’s articles. I’d love to see the three articles integrated and published in a peer review journal.
Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections
By Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/
A primer for disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data
By Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/a-primer-for-disproving-ipcc%E2%80%99s-theory-of-man-made-global-warming-using-observed-temperature-data/
Picking Carbonated Cherries In 1975
By Steve Goddard
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/22/picking-carbonated-cherries-in-1975/

John Finn

Carrick says:
August 22, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Other forcings play a role besides CO2, and prior to 1980 it’s generally agreed in the climate community that sulfates balanced CO2.

I’m not sure that this is “generally agreed” since the evidence suggests that the “sulfate” effect was not a factor in the 1945-1975 cooling (or non-warming). The effect of sulfate (or sulphate) aerosols is regionally specific, i.e. the majority of them are washed out of the atmosphere within a few weeks. Productions of aerosols was predominantly limited to the mid latitude bands in the NH.
However, the GISS temperature record for the 1945-75 period is characterised by sharp cooling (~1 deg) in the arctic – well away from the industrialised regions. Fuurthermore any aerosols that did make it to the arctic would have caused warming not cooling via the effect of Arctic Haze . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze which cites a numbe rof studies which detail the warming effect of aerosols in the arctic including this
“According to Tim Garrett, an assistant professor of meteorology at the University of Utah, mid-latitude cities contribute pollution to the Arctic, and it mixes with thin clouds, allowing them to trap heat more easily. Garrett was involved in the study of Arctic haze at the university. The study found that during the dark Arctic winter, when there is no precipitation to wash out pollution, the effects are strongest, because pollutants can warm the environment up to three degrees Fahrenheit
While, between 1945 and 1975, the arctic was cooling dramatically the NH mid latitude regions were experiencign a very modest cooling. There was little or no difference between heavily industrialised regions and rural regions.
It does seem likely that cyclical factors (e.g. ocean oscillations) have influenced 20th century climate and probably the 19th century climate as well, but there is also an underlying warming trend not connected with the ‘cycles’, e.g. 1995-2005 is ~0.4 deg warmer than 1935-45. If we assume that the residual (non-cyclical) increase is due to ~1 w/m2 forcing from enhanced ghgs over that period it implies a temperature increase of 1-1.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2.

roger

Robert says:
August 23, 2010 at 12:16 am
“Okay Goddard,”
That’s Mr.Goddard to you. You impress no one and diminish your argument by your rudeness. Did your mother not teach you the most basic of manners?

NS

Carrick says:
August 22, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Other forcings play a role besides CO2, and prior to 1980 it’s generally agreed in the climate community that sulfates balanced CO2. Hence Tamino’s comment about the “modern warming period starting in 1975″.
Little questionairre:
Sulphates hid the warming prior to 1975, 1980.
CO2 is not a unique drover but adds to the total forcings leading to eventual tipping point(s).
Post 1980 warming was caused by ______________________________ ?
Post 1998 cooling was caused by ______________________________ ?
Bonus: 1910-1940 warming was caused by _________________________ ?

It is also interesting to overlay an historical comparision of the course of the Climate Science debate. With the new spectrum data on greenhouse gases in the 1920s and 30s, the CO2-forcing theory (mainly due to volcanism) for geological climate change collapsed.
Then along came Callendar in 1938 (and later papers) proposing that the observed warming from the late 19th cent through the 1940s was in a large part caused by fossil fuel emissions. The establishment climate scientists gave this outsider a hearing (even asked him to join their club!) but their rounded criticism of his theory is as familiar to us today and it remain valid.
Then came the cooling of the 60s and 70s and the Ice Age scare prompted by scientists (not just Schneider). And then the warming in the 1980s, and once again the AGW argument (lead by the powerful science-advocacy of Hansen and Schneider etc).
What is curious for the sceptic is the way the Alarmist attempt to deal with the problem of Callendar. On the one hand he is a hero for first making a proper case of AGW, but on the other hand giving attention to him causes problems. For, since 1995, the IPCC etc have held to the claim that AGW only kicked in after the 1970s cooling. If they gave an earlier date causes attention this would drawn to climate cycles, but also to Callendar’s response in the last cycle. On the post 1970s argument, they have to say that Callendar was wrong…and that his critics were right…and yet that today’s critics making the same points are wrong.
With the onset of the harsh winters of the early 1960s (especially 1963), Callendar himself was as aware as any that it was difficult to sustain a theory of warming when it felt like the warming had stops. The same thing is happening right now, but there is so much more momentum. What will happen this time is anybody’s guess — but it sure wont collapse as easily and quietly as it did last time.

son of mulder

I was there, I saw the butterfly flap it’s wings in 1975.

Robuk

The graph shows a spike at year 1998, yet no spike in the 1930`s which data appears to suggest are the hottest years on record globaly.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/crops-and-130-years-of-climate-records/

BBD

I thought the IPCC position that changes in TSI were responsible for the 1910 – 1940 warming had been discredited.
I’m sure Leif Svalgaard pointed out that the current understanding of TSI variation is that it changes much less than previously supposed (variously and separately demonstrated by Wang, Preminger, Kriv and Svalgaard).
The IPCC based its case on an obsolete paper by Hoyt and Schatten (1993). Reference may be made to more recent work by Lean, also erroneously showing increasing TSI from ~1900 to ~1940. I think this was the case in TAR at any rate, and AR4 seems to gloss over the whole thing with words to the effect that the role of TSI may not be as large as previously thought.
My understanding is that the cause of the 1910 – 1940 warming is NOT known.
Dominic

Robuk

All these temperature graphs are total crap, the weather stations measure the micro climate around them, if they are situated at airports they are measuring the temperature of the tarmac at the airport, in cities they measure the temperature of the buildings. There are hundreds of pristine rural stations with long records world wide that can be used to verify the accuracy of this suspect warming, ever wonder why the warmers dont want to go down that road. If you are trying to measure the temperature of the natural environment, you dont go to an airport or a city to do that.

steveta_uk

If 300-310 ppm caused a 0.5C increase, and 340-390 ppm caused a 0.5C increase, and the effect of CO2 concentration is known to be logarithmic, it shouldn’t be too hard (for someone cleverer than me) to fit a curve to these numbers, and so work out what additional increase is required for the IPCC’s worst-case 7C increase over the next century.
I suspect the required increase might be quite high.

Scott

R. Gates says:
August 22, 2010 at 10:28 pm

Could we call this La Nina alarmism? Here in Denver, where we were just one degree shy of a record high for August 22, at 97F, the only thing I saw on people’s faces were some nice suntans, and smiling neighbor kids playing in their pool. La Nina will come and go, and no ice age will ensue.

Please post to let us know how Tuesday goes. Yesterday’s high was 12 F above average, Tuesday is forecasted about -18 F above average.
If you don’t like the weather in Colorado, wait a few hours…it’ll change.
-Scott