There was no global warming hiatus.

a reply to: Phage

That dip is now understood as being the result of two factors: a post-World War II surge in the emissions of aerosols from dirty fossil fuel burning and the cool phase of a Pacific Ocean cycle related to the strength of the trade winds. (That same Pacific cycle suppressed global surface temperatures a bit over the past two decades.) But at the time, the causes of the dip were far from clear.

I thought this dip was back to the method of data collection again, buckets vs engine room samples? Which is it?

www.newscientist.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck
Wrong Christmas Island. Wrong Ocean, actually. As I said, Kiribati.

That was my point. Location, location, location.

So, what accounts for the equivalent rise in CO2 levels at Kiribati?

a reply to: D8Tee

No. It was a dip in atmospheric temperatures.

a reply to: Phage
This paper is junk?
www.atmos.colostate.edu...

Hence, the sudden drop in SSTs in late 1945 is consistent with the
rapid but uncorrected change from engine room intake measurements
(US ships) to uninsulated bucket measurements (UK ships)
at the end of the Second World War. As the drop derives from the
composition of the ICOADS data set, it is present in all records of
twentieth-century climate variability that include SST data.
The Met Office Hadley Centre is currently assessing the adjustments
required to compensate for the step in 1945 and subsequent
changes in the SST observing network. The adjustments immediately
after 1945 are expected to be as large as those made to the pre-war
data (,0.3 uC; Fig. 4), and smaller adjustments are likely to be
required in SSTs through at least the mid-1960s, by which time the
observing fleetwasrelatively diverse and lesssusceptible to changesin
the data supply from a single country of origin9
. The new adjustments
are likely to have a substantial impact on the historical record of
global-mean surface temperatures through the middle part of the
twentieth century. T

a reply to: D8Tee

This paper is junk?

No. But it doesn't have much to do with the "cooling" of the 60s-70s.

The adjustments are unlikely to significantly affect estimates of century-long trends in global-mean temperatures, as the data before , 1940 and after the mid-1960s are not expected to require further corrections for changes from uninsulated bucket to engine room intake measurements.

www.atmos.colostate.edu...

And, as I said, the data on land temperatures (which does not include SST) shows that little bit of cooling we're talking about. The one that went away.

a reply to: Phage

Ah, OK. Wrong Christmas Island. Not a big point anyway. It's still a volcanic island.

I am not disputing the rise in carbon dioxide levels. I simply think only a total idiot would place a carbon dioxide monitor atop an active volcano like Mauna Loa. Or a scam artist... take your pick.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Ah, OK. Wrong Christmas Island. Not a big point anyway. It's still a volcanic island.

I am not disputing the rise in carbon dioxide levels. I simply think only a total idiot would place a carbon dioxide monitor atop an active volcano like Mauna Loa. Or a scam artist... take your pick.

TheRedneck

Oy Vey again.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Yes, they know the difference very well, and can discern volcanic from atmospheric signals. There are additionally measurements from balloons and aircraft.

And the same trend and overall level is observed all over the globe.

a reply to: mbkennel
C02 is increasing from burning fossils fuels, causing a slight warming of our earth. How has this been dangerous?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: mbkennel
C02 is increasing from burning fossils fuels, causing a slight warming of our earth. How has this been dangerous?

climate.nasa.gov...

The problem is that the effects will not be averaged. If it were just 2C warmer all over the planet all the time, all day and night and in every season, it would not be as bad.

The predicted average change is of course for the globe, most of which is water. For us living on land it will be larger, and intermittently very large.

The climate is remarkably sensitive to average temperature. The average temperature in the Ice Ages was only 5C down below current. During that time ice was one mile thick in New York. Agriculture was infeasible over most of the globe. Much of where people live was obviously very often way colder than 5C now.

So the amount of climate change which is likely to come is not insignificant. Canada will benefit.

a reply to: mbkennel

The predicted average change is of course for the globe, most of which is water. For us living on land it will be larger, and intermittently very large.

Show me the data. Where is the record high in the world, when and where was it recorded?

a reply to: mbkennel

Yes, they know the difference very well, and can discern volcanic from atmospheric signals.

Pray tell, if I bring you a molecule of carbon dioxide from a volcano and one from a car exhaust and sit them side by side, how will you tell the difference? Ask them?

No, you can't and they can't. They can guess, and do.

I accept that other measurements show an increase in carbon dioxide levels, but I still maintain only an idiot or a scam artist would measure levels next to an active volcano.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Some research indicates that volcanic C02 is under reported and will be revised upwards as more data comes in.

Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.

a reply to: D8Tee

Interesting. I'm not ready to say volcanoes are the only reason for the rise, but I have always believed volcanic carbon dioxide was not being given enough consideration.

Carbon dioxide is notoriously difficult to detect. It is colorless, odorless (except at very high concentrations), and electrically neutral. The only way I know of is via spectroscopy, since it does present very sharp spectral lines. Spectroscopy is not 100% effective, though, because the light source used must contain known quantities of the target spectrum, and mixed gasses can give overlapping and thus deceptive results. In addition, spectrum absorption is not a linear function of concentration. That is not to say the reported levels are not accurate, but rather that extreme care must be exercised when interpreting results.

TheRedneck

a reply to: D8Tee

Now, compare that to the amount of CO2 emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels.

Is there any evidence that CO2 emissions from vulcanism have increased in the past century?

Is there any indication in the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 which indicates that the observed increase is due to vulcanism?

a reply to: Phage

Is there any evidence that links co2 and temperature?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You mean aside from the physics of radiative forcing and the increase in global temperatures correlating to increasing CO2 levels?

a reply to: TheRedneck

www.google.com...

a reply to: Phage

No I mean why is there no drop in temperature, or drop in CO2 from the flat lining of human CO2 emissions over the last 2-3 years. Why does CO2 continue to rise?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Phage

What are the sensor mechanisms used?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why does CO2 continue to rise?

Because we are pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere each year.

Your question would seem to be the equivalent of "I'm not pouring water into the bucket any faster. Why isn't the bucket draining?"