Confused about CO2? - then read this

[Red Raven]

I just looked back at my student research i did in the early 90's and found some figures that could be useful.

As I vaguely suggested in my earlier post that maybe the ozone hole isn't the cause but more to do with something connected to it, ie the CFC's. Unlike other GH gasses CFC's have no known natural sink and as a result linger in the atmosphere for up to 400 years and are 3000 to 13000 times more effective as a green house gas than CO2. I think it would be good to see that info graphed against the temperature changes.

To save typing I've attached a scan of the relevant pages from my masters (finshed in 92 - so be kind )

Sources_of_nitrous.pdf

[Stratos Ferric]

Could you explain this part of your post a little further please Stratos?

Yes.

A look at the historic record shows periods of warming and cooling (whichever series is used). As I keep saying, forcing is neither linear nor binary. it is quite possible that in the recent past we had warming and cooling events concurrent. The measured outcome is simply the net difference between aggregate effects. In cooling cycles cold either dominated, or was the only player in town. Vice versa for warming cycles.

At present the doubters (not sceptics) are assuming that pretty much all, if not ALL, warming is natural.

My point is - and always has been - that this is unprecedented in magnitude and duration. Re the present levelling my argument is that it is perfectly possible that ALL natural forcing is currently set to cold, and yet we aren't cooling - merely staying level. In that case the AGW effect would be equal to the present net cooling effect.

It's still irresolvable in absolute terms, because the natural background at present is still a NET effect, there might still be some warming going on but cold natural forcing is dominant. However, my point is that the current set up looks pretty good for cold, yet the climate is not cooling.

It's a very different argument to the one that suggests all the recent warming was natural and all that has now happened is the warm forcing has been turned off. That latter, given La Nina, also lacks face valaidity I'm afraid.

Hence I err towards the former hypothesis. At the present time the natural cooling is counteracting AGW, that however, will not last for ever, just as it has not when one examines the previous cycles in global temperatures.

[Hiya]

If there is enough interest in Ozone/Climate correlation's, then I would be happy to start a new thread but its pointless if I am the only one posting which is what happened before? Now that I have managed to create a crud Excel graph there are quite a few more I would like to do.

Go for it!

If and when you do can you post the whole excel document so I can have a look at the figures and play about with different graphs myself?

[wysiwyg]

Go for it!

Yes I would second that. CFC pollution and its well documented impact on ozone levels is fascinating. I personally think it has little bearing on the overall vector of AGW but maybe we could expand the new thread to discuss aerosols in general and their direct and indirect effect on the total contribution of AGW to climate change. The IPCC admits that it is a poorly understood aspect of the overall mix and hence it has a large 'uncertainty' attached to it 'suggesting' that in theory the cooling effect of aerosols could almost offset the warming caused by human produced greenhouse gases.

Edited February 11, 2008 by wysiwyg

[PersianPaladin]

I'm a bit confused by ClimateChallenge.gov.uk claiming that "Concentrations of greenhouse gases are now higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years."

:lol:

http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/understand/key_facts.html

[HighPressure]

Go for it!

If and when you do can you post the whole excel document so I can have a look at the figures and play about with different graphs myself?

I will cobble together a thread in the next day or so probably called 'Ozone and Climate' I am not a scientist struggled past 'O' level Physics so if you get too complex you will lose me

I see it as a search for a piece of missing puzzle to add to the existing AGW jigsaw rather than a conflicting argument.

[Bobby]

I'm a bit confused by ClimateChallenge.gov.uk claiming that "Concentrations of greenhouse gases are now higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years."

http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/understand/key_facts.html

I believe they use the ice cores from the Antarctica to determine that, and other proxy records.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Another interesting read, the idea that temperature increases are more inline with Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Solar outputs than Co2 can be found here.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Tempera..._since_1895.pdf

Or 'simplified' here

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...etter-than-co2/

Not sure if its been noted before on here, but 5 pages of squabbling isn't worth my time.

-Edit- I am merely adding more sources of different evidence, I am not stating which or what I believe.

[Red Raven]

You may find this very useful.

http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap.htm