Steve_M.

quote:

Well I can see that. But you said warming during the wars, not between them. Warming between them cannot be related to the impacts of the second world war which happened after the warming had stopped. I suspect that the emissions of WW2 were vastly more than those of WW1

Steve, the duration and potential is of little consequence in science terms. The importance is the truth of the argument.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Steve, the duration and potential is of little consequence in science terms. The importance is the truth of the argument.

You need to clarify. You claimed to identify a correlation, but warming followed WW1 and cooling followed WW2. A first guess would be that war's impacts on the climate are smaller than other impacts.

Steve_M.

quote:

You need to clarify.

Well I think that most people could associate the time period quite well to find the area of the graph that I was describing.

quote:

You claimed to identify a correlation,

I've already dealt with this one on this very subject. I've made no such claim! I've said that these are coincidental! However, I now, better, understand how NOx affects ozone and to me this is a strong coincidence that I'd like to know more about. Whether anything more can be found out about it is another thing!

quote:

but warming followed WW1 and cooling followed WW2.

WW1 explosive ordenance didn't involve RDX. Did it? Thus, more nitrous aerosols (coincidence?). In fact the explosive chemicals that are used changes with time, so this complicates things.

Steve, this may be 'nothing more than a walk up the garden path', but I'm intrigued by these coincidences. Remember that if all impacts cancel each other to equilibrium, it doesn't mater how small a new impact is because it will 'tip the balance' to its degree of forcing.

BTW. If you want to be really pedantic about the graph, the 'smoothed curve' begins its rise in 1910, but it goes on and on for about 30 years and ½ a degree C. Curious?

I suppose your retort would be for me to look at the rise on the graph since 1970(ish) with its ½ degree C rise over about a 30 year period, and you'd be right to draw my attention to it. However, I'll provide you with the 'coincidence' of the rise in popularity with the internal combustion engine, its CO2 and water vapour production and, most strikingly 'coincidental', its NOx production.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

Sorry about the digression. I suppose this is another aspect of the legacy of TGGWS. You make a small error in phrasing and someone 'jumps on you like a ton o' bricks'. It's worse than making a 'Request for the grant of a patent' here sometimes.

Where were we?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Sorry about the digression. I suppose this is another aspect of the legacy of TGGWS. You make a small error in phrasing and someone 'jumps on you like a ton o' bricks'. It's worse than making a 'Request for the grant of a patent' here sometimes.

Where were we?

LOL, I know what you mean!
I am sorry I haven't made any posts on the subject over the past couple of days but I keep getting the server error message and I'm finding it quite disconcerting. Its late now so I have printed all the relevant off and hopefully I'll be able to give you a progress report tomorrow
Muf
Science is a long road with many forks

relevant "posts" off (printed)(y' know what I mean)

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

True Sceptic.



As sceptic to sceptic, do you accept the 'Global Average Near-Surface Temperatures 1850-Jun 2007' as was generated by the 'Hadley Centre for Climate Change' on 25/7/2007? If not, tell me of a graph you accept and we'll go on from there!



This has little to do with 'sunspots'.



TS. When I read a graph I look at the things that interest 'me', not necessarily what the graph 'wants to say'. Though in many ways this could be a 'vice' and not a 'virtue'. Please tell me how I am wrong.



Best regards, suricat.

You said

quote:

CFCs are only part of the story. Have you noticed the 'unmissable' increase in near surface temperatures during the two 'world wars'? To my understanding this was due mostly to the release of nitrogenous compounds into the atmosphere by explosive ordinance. Thus, NOx in the atmosphere seems to be a thermal forcing. Why?

This was stated in a "begging the question" way. You made a claim about what the graph shows during the 2 World Wars and then claimed some link to compounds produced by explosives. Firstly the graph shows nothing special during the wars, secondly it fails to support your claim because of the shape of the graph during those wars, and thirdly your causal link is pure speculation.



Sunspots are irrelevant here, and only mentioned because they were introduced by you in another thread in which we used the same Hadley temperature data.



You have demonstrated several times that you see in graphs only what "interests" you, i.e. you see what supports an idea and ignore what doesn't! Sadly, you fail correctly to read even the parts of the graph that you claim suppport your case!



Just so that there can be no doubt, I am using the data from Hadley CRU and I downloaded the monthly figures from here.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Steve, the duration and potential is of little consequence in science terms. The importance is the truth of the argument.

Best regards, suricat.

Timing and duration are everything if you claim to see a correlation or "coincidence" between 2 events.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Well I think that most people could associate the time period quite well to find the area of the graph that I was describing.

Not if they read the graph properly!

quote:

I've already dealt with this one on this very subject. I've made no such claim! I've said that these are coincidental! However, I now, better, understand how NOx affects ozone and to me this is a strong coincidence that I'd like to know more about. Whether anything more can be found out about it is another thing!

You can't have it both ways. Either you claim cause and effect, through (mis)reading graphs, or not. If you now say it is just coincidental, why mention it at all? (You tried the same trick with sunspots.)

TrueSeptic.

TS, you seem upset. Then again, I suppose I would be if I'd gone to the trouble of downloading the data and making my own graph instead of just using the link provided. I'm sorry that you went to this trouble, but I can't understand why you did it! I can't 'see' your graph so how can I comment on it!

I've already linked to the graph twice, but as Steve says, it's been updated and moved to

www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

and changed slightly. The Hadplot_globe.gif doesn't show on a site search any more. The temperature null point is moved and there's a bit more data on the end. However, apart from a small change in the visual aspect ratio and those other points it's identical. I just hope the gods keep the link. Don't forget that it's the Global Average, the bottom one of the three graphs and I'm looking at their 'smoothed' line.

I trust the Hadley Centre (mostly). When you've studied the graph, perhaps we should post again.

TS. I'm an engineer. I use 'engineering diagnostic technique' in 'engineering science' as well as 'production engineering'. Why 'do' you have a 'problem' with this?

Best regards, suricat.

PS. I'm NO TRICKSTER!!!

Suricat

And look at this how it's cooled where industry has grown and warmed where industry has reduced.

I don't think anthropic CO2 can be so selective.

Son of Mulder.

I concur. I don't think CO2 can be so selective either. However, I sometimes find these 'graphic' representations more confusing than illuminating when it comes to 'climate change'. It's quite possible that changes in the upper troposphere are caused at different longitudes to the stated surface forcings due to temporal anomalies caused by differing vector velocities between altitudes.

I'll think more on this. Thanks for the input.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Son of Mulder.

I concur. I don't think CO2 can be so selective either. However, I sometimes find these 'graphic' representations more confusing than illuminating when it comes to 'climate change'. It's quite possible that changes in the upper troposphere are caused at different longitudes to the stated surface forcings due to temporal anomalies caused by differing vector velocities between altitudes.

I'll think more on this. Thanks for the input.

Best regards, suricat.

Is this just fluff or can you show us some maps/graphs/models supporting this astounding insight?

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Suricat

And look at this how it's cooled where industry has grown and warmed where industry has reduced.

I don't think anthropic CO2 can be so selective.

Your claim is what? That the Urban Heat Island Effect is negative? Or what?

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
TrueSeptic.

TS, you seem upset. Then again, I suppose I would be if I'd gone to the trouble of downloading the data and making my own graph instead of just using the link provided. I'm sorry that you went to this trouble, but I can't understand why you did it! I can't 'see' your graph so how can I comment on it!

I've already linked to the graph twice, but as Steve says, it's been updated and moved to

www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

and changed slightly. The Hadplot_globe.gif doesn't show on a site search any more. The temperature null point is moved and there's a bit more data on the end. However, apart from a small change in the visual aspect ratio and those other points it's identical. I just hope the gods keep the link. Don't forget that it's the Global Average, the bottom one of the three graphs and I'm looking at their 'smoothed' line.

I trust the Hadley Centre (mostly). When you've studied the graph, perhaps we should post again.

TS. I'm an engineer. I use 'engineering diagnostic technique' in 'engineering science' as well as 'production engineering'. Why 'do' you have a 'problem' with this?

Best regards, suricat.

PS. I'm NO TRICKSTER!!!

Oh, and how about answering the actual question and not spinning off into yet another non-sequitur?

TrueSceptic.

Please read my posts more carefully!

suricat.

TrueSceptic.

I'm not looking for your criticism on my person. I'm looking for the criticism that you have to offer on the graph and my suggestion of a coincidence.

suricat.

Leo Nithic.

It has become impossible to have a 'reasonable' debate on this site!

Best regards, suricat.

Truesceptic

quote:

Your claim is what? That the Urban Heat Island Effect is negative? Or what?

Industrial Aerosols - leading to climate change, leading to warming here and cooling in China. Experience here says it's warmer here, AGW's say it's caused by CO2. I suggest otherwise, please tell me why I'm wrong.

quote:

And look at this how it's cooled where industry has grown and warmed where industry has reduced.

The plot you link to is from August 2003, during the severe heatwave that killed 35000 people.

You can't draw conclusions from one graph.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
TrueSceptic.

Please read my posts more carefully!

suricat.

I take great trouble to read them and examine what they say. It's a shame that you ignore my comments.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Leo Nithic.

It has become impossible to have a 'reasonable' debate on this site!

Best regards, suricat.

Is Leo still here?

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
TrueSceptic.

I'm not looking for your criticism on my person. I'm looking for the criticism that you have to offer on the graph and my suggestion of a coincidence.

suricat.

I have given precisely that. You have failed to answer my objections.

Steve_M

quote:

The plot you link to is from August 2003, during the severe heatwave that killed 35000 people.

You can't draw conclusions from one graph.

Good point - it's the best I could find - is there a moving graphic that shows annual average temperature anomolies by region by year coming forward from 1980ish?