Global Temperature Report: December 2013

davidmhoffer says: “Well James, while I will allow that there are a small number of skeptics that would say such a thing, that isn’t true of the majority of us. Of course temperature would be different, probably a lot of other things as well.”
Oh yes. Like life on earth would be dead.
CO2 is the basis of life on Earth, if you take out the 400 ppm we have everything dies. So it does not matter a toss how warm or cold it would be.
Do you have any more good thought experiments James?
Since you clearly do not have the first idea what you are talking about, I don’t have the time to try to explain non linearity of absorption.

Reg Nelson says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Marcos says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm
why does Antarctica show all positive anomalies for Dec when it was recently reported that the lowest temperature ever recorded happened there last month?

—-
Marcos, the low temperature was reported last month but it was from a measurement taken a couple of years ago. It was discovered by analyzing the vast amount of historical data that is (was) generated.
==================================================================
Which, to this layman, means that if it takes years to discover the coldest temperature; how can anyone claim to know what the “global” temperature is now? How many other “cold” or “hot” temperatures were left out of past averages?
If we can’t even be sure of the temperature of the control group, how can we know what effect Man Living Life has had on it? Tree rings? A money-making (for some) hypothesis?
As much as we do or may think we know, we’re infants in understanding the world around us.
Some are exploiting our ignorance by pretending to know.

davidmhoffer says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm
James Abbott;
Rather than use descriptive words (or reference the discredited Monckton) what would be the change in mean global temperature if CO2 was removed from the atmosphere ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He pointed out that the IPCC scientists themselves are now estimating sensitivity below that of the models. He could be a bull frog on a lily pond for all I care, it doesn’t change what the IPCC scientists themselves said, a point which you assiduously choose to avoid discussing.
James Abbott;
You say that global temperatures have a low sensitivity to changes in CO2. So rather than a zero decrease in temperature you would presumably say a small decrease ? if so, how much ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
You display your ignorance of the relative physics by asking this question. Since CO2′s effects are logarithmic, the change from 400 ppm to 0 is not relevant to the current discussion. In brief, a change of +100 starting at 0 is a completely different change from +100 starting at 400. Since we are already at 400, and going up, sensitivity to additional CO2 from a starting point of 400 is relevant to the discussion. Your question is not.
+++++++++++
I meant to add in the logarithmic effect. But to add to that, the IPCC knows this and Mr. Abbott does not know that they know this. You see Mr. Abbott, the IPCC tweaks their models to use mostly water vapor as a secondary feedback to get their warming. They use methane too and aerosols (as another negative tweaker). There logic, which you do not seem to know, is that the initial warming due to CO2 will raise the temperature a little bit and then melt ice and put more water vapor into the air. Then, in their models, they assume that the water vapor will have varying degrees of POSITIVE feedback.
Some at the IPCC even admit, they do not know whether the feedback should be positive or negative. Further, many scientists including Lindzen have shown that water vapor can be and has been more negative than positive as far as its feedback on net heat flux. This is one of the major reasons skeptics claimed the models were bunk. And the models are the only proof of CAGW. The proof does not exist in observations.
Another thing, it is much more difficult to call H2O pollution (and no one could make money off that anyway), so they demonized CO2 instead, and you bought the demon story.

James Abbott says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:39 pm
So – what would happen if we modelled the atmosphere with CO2 taken out ?
Take out all of the current 400ppm. If CO2 is not important in defining temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change ?
I am yet to see a sceptic answer that question.
——————————————————————————————————-
If your yet to see a sceptic answer that question then you have never asked it before.
Have you having heard of straw-man argument, your case is a fine example.
“A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[3] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrate.”
I give you a straw-man answer and that is like, “what if you remove the sun, if it is not important in temperature, then presumably there will be no temperature change?”
Without the sun the temperature of the Earth would be absolute zero. Without any CO2 the planet will be cooler, but there is no correct answer as it is guess work and not known.
Noticed any link between Greenland ice cores and CO2 levels?
http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Notice any link with CO2 levels and recent global temperatures?
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/10/The_global_temperature_chart.jpg
Notice any link between CO2 and global temperatures over hundreds of millions of years?
http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif
To answer your question, what happens when you remove all CO2 the graph below shows you roughly how CO2 warms the atmosphere. Notice the more is added the less affect on temperatures it has.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image008_thumb1.jpg?w=576&h=433

James Abbott;
Getting back to what we are (hopefully) talking about, what would be the temperature change from MODELLING taking CO2 out of the atmosphere ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
I really don’t know. I suggest you ask the modelers. Of course since the IPCC and mainstream peer reviewed science are in agreement that the models are wrong, I’m not sure of the answer will be of any value to you.
But as I pointed out in my comment upthread, your fixation on this matter displays your lack of familiarity with the subject matter. It doesn’t matter what contribution CO2 makes to temperature from 0 to 400 ppm. What matters is contribution to temperature from a starting point of 400 ppm.