Global Temperature Report: December 2013

Whatever happened to UAH version 6.0? Wasn’t there a warming bias identified compared to RSS?

There was someone who wanted to know what the climate would be like if CO2 were to be 0 ppm rather than 400 ppm. I have been told that if there were no CO2 that life as we know it would not exist. So who gives a fig what the temperature would be?
We are at 400 ppm and the question is, what will happen when we get to 500 ppm? Why nothing special, just as little happened from 300 to 400. Deal with it.

If we were experiencing AGW then there should be a warming of the Tropical Troposphere but as nothing has been found despite the best efforts of the Aqua satellite and millions of weather balloons this argument was dead in the water circa 2002. That Jones of the deleted emails says the heat must be there it is clearly an essential part of the AGW theory. But its not there yet the nonsense continues. It should also be remembered that CO2’s ability to create heat is logarithmic and this kicks in at 300ppm so you can stack it up at will as it cannot overheat the planet.
With the extinction rate for all life on the planet being 150ppm the very thought that 400ppm is in any way a problem shows compete ignorance. That commercial growers use CO2 as a plant food in dosages of 800-1200ppm clearly shows we need more CO2.
The reason why the play stations keep getting it wrong is that they are set up to factor in positive feedback and ignore negative feedback so that they get the predictable result. They do not allow for internally generated natural variability cancelling out temperature increases.
Last week Turney’s expedition to find no ice ends up an hilarious farce as their ship and the rescue ship get stuck in the largest a\mount of Antarctic Sea Ice ever recorded.
Reason given? Global Warming.
Please give these people a colouring book and crayons…better still let them freeze to death like the poor people who cannot afford to heat their homes properly. Finally Turney it is not “Carbon” it is “Carbon Dioxide” so please use the crayons we have provided you with to calculate the “Carbon Dioxide” footprint of you and your fellow travellers…road, rail and plane journeys. The emissions per hotel and last but not least the CO2 emitted from the ships involved in transporting you, rescuing you…and don’t forget the helicopter as well. Sanctimonious shysters.

davidmhoffer
How about stop dancing around the issue and answer the question.
You say ” 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.”
Thats a discussion about the non-linearity of response which is of course important. But its not an answer to the fundamental question of how important CO2 is to the Earth’s temperature.
As it does not look like I will get an answer:
Houghton describes how a model atmosphere with no greenhouse gases would be about 21C colder than now.
Halving the CO2 concentration in the real atmosphere takes us to levels that correspond with the deepest phases of the ice ages (below 200ppm) – when global mean temperature was 4C to 7C colder than now.
http://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html
By taking CO2 out alltogether the drop is larger still.
So the sceptic community wants the world to believe that going the other way, from pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280ppm to the nearly 400ppm now, and higher in the future, will have a “negligable”, “unimportant”, etc affect.
With a doubling of CO2 concentration above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC in its recent report states that
“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed
1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C
for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will
continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.”
The “negligable change” line just is not supported by the science. It is simply wishful thinking.

I see a graph above that says V5.6. how many versions were there?
Does this mean all the other versions were wrong?
Will V5.7 say V5.6 was wrong?
Is It all Clim-astrology?

This way of calculating temperature is all wrong. What happened is that the 1998 super El Nino brought so much warm water across the ocean that it created a step warming immediately following it. That step warming raised global temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius and then stopped. This 0.3 degrees rise looked like another El Nino at first but the temperature rise it created became a permanent addition to global temperature, starting with the year 2002. As a result, all 21st century temperatures sit on a high platform created by this step warming. It is a pretty level platform too, judging by the fact that global mean temperature has stayed the same throughout this century. Just comparing twenty-first to twentieth century temperatures will give the impression that some kind of warming is taking place which is wrong. Warming did happen but it was a step warming and is over. But it did leave a permanent imprint on global temperature whose consequences we must account for. It is not clear why the temperature rise it created stayed at that high level instead of going back to the pre-1998 period. Superimposed upon this platform are the 2008 La Nina and the 2010 El Nino that are part of the ENSO oscillation. That super El Nino of 1998 was itself preceded by eighteen years of temperature standstill, just like the one we have now. Hansen noticed the temperature increase and pointed out that the ten warmest years all happened in the twenty-first century. He was right of course but he did not understand the role of the step warming and jumped to the conclusion that CO2 was responsible. The super El Nino and its aftermath are a climate mystery that should have been intensely investigated. Nothing like this has happened for more than a century. Instead we see billions of dollars wasted on trying to prove greenhouse warming which does not exist. These “experts” controlling the money don’t have a clue about 1998 and its aftermath. Real climate science just does not interest them

Ed Barbar says:
January 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm
One thing that I wonder about is “What is Zero.” Is there an agreed to value for “Normal?”
—————————————————————————————————————–
Answer,NO.
Anomaly Graphs are In the eye of the beholder who keep the Zero value secret.
Declaring a value for Zero Is like painting a circle on your head and saying Hit me here.
The nearest you will get to finding out the value of Zero on a Clim-astrologist Graph Is to stare Into a Crystal Ball and try and guess the same number.
Good Luck.

James Abbot:
But its not an answer to the fundamental question of how important CO2 is to the Earth’s temperature.
As it does not look like I will get an answer:
Houghton describes how a model atmosphere with no greenhouse gases [including water] would be about 21C colder than now.
Halving the CO2 concentration in the real atmosphere takes us to levels that correspond with the deepest phases of the ice ages (below 200ppm) – when global mean temperature was 4C to 7C colder than now.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CO2 is more soluble in cold water, less soluble in warm water. That is why CO2 follows temperatures in the proxy records, and never leads.
Try growing some plants at < 200ppm – good luck.

The newspaper here in Houston is reporting that 2013 tied (with 2010, 1996, 1931, and 1918) as the 2nd coldest year recorded here. 2002 was the coldest. Yet the yearly anomaly above shows as ‘normal’

@James Baldwin Abbot.
Do you understand what a logarimithic curve actually is ?