Also consider the industrial boom of the 1920s.

Why levels fell off afterward?

One: Mobilizing troops drew down some of the initial industrial surge

Two: A great deal of the European Industrial infrastructure was shattered.

Three: I imagine the sheer amount of explosive firepower constantly unleashed over the course of almost ten years of constant warfare probably lofted a significant amount of particulate matter into the air that may have acted like a volcanic eruption’s contribution to lacking air quality.

You think industry now isn’t green, consider what we were doing back then.

Answer CO2 doesn’t have any effect on temperature, and never has done.

>

Q.E.D.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Now, the question is, if CO2 is causing the warmng and the particulates are partially masking the warming, could we also say the particulates are causing cooling and the CO2 is masking the cooling?

Can we really remove one component from an interlocked system? Or to me an even more important question, can we really define global temperature as a single, quantifyable thing in the first place?

Regardless, it’s clear we create pollution.

“SUBROUTINE SURFCE 1,30
!@sum SURFCE calculates the surface fluxes which include
!@+ sensible heat, evaporation, thermal radiation, and momentum
!@+ drag. It also calculates instantaneous surface temperature,
!@+ surface specific humidity, and surface wind components.
!@auth Nobody will claim responsibilty

The last line is very telling!”

I think you may be misinterpreting this line under author. My first thought was that it says “Nobody will claim responsibilty” because multiple people wrote it. But then I thought why would they not just list all the authors. I think my first suspicion may have some merit. Look at some of the other subroutines.

For example:

SUBROUTINE sys_flush (unit) 5
!@sum system call to flush corresponding I/O unit
!@auth I. Aleinov

subroutine snow_fraction( 2
& dz, nl, prsnow, dt, fract_cover, fract_cover_new)
!@sum computes new snow fraction and returns it in fract_cover_new
!@auth I.Aleinov

SUBROUTINE YSTEP (M,NSTEPY) 1,5
!@sum YSTEP determines the number of Y timesteps for tracer dynamics
!@+ using Courant limits
!@auth J. Lerner and M. Kelley

FUNCTION QSAT (TM,LH,PR) 45,1
!@sum QSAT calculates saturation vapour mixing ratio
!@auth Gary Russell

and so on. I don’t think it’s as suspect as you suggest.

What’s worse, the butterfly knew what it had done, and died shortly thereafter, of a broken heart.

What is interesting, though, is that the cyclical patterns do vaguely match the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (http://www.iphc.washington.edu/staff/hare/html/decadal/post1977/pdo1.html) (though I certainly haven’t any values of correlation between the two, or even for the solar oscillations, other than anecdotal. I haven’t run any R^2 calculations or anything, so I’m more spouting off seeming correlated variables rather than implying any sort of actual scientific backing of my assertions. After all, for all we know, the temperatures anomalies recorded could, in fact, be the cause of the PDO, rather than an effect of it (if there is, in fact, a cause-effect relationship). Heck, it could be the case that they’re only correlated because of a third external variable, if at all!

Really, all we can say with any certainty is that all of these climactic variables are almost certainly not independent of each other, but the ultimate causation of changes in the variables are most likely a combination of chaotic processes (e.g. loose, potentially time-delayed, coupling between the variables) and external forces (e.g. solar output, anthropogenic greenhouse gases).

That and recent years ARE warmer on average than years in the 1960s.

*sigh*

How do you tell someone that a change of 0.03 isn’t significant if the error margin is 0.1?

I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one – or, at least an aspect. Sure, it makes sense for a researcher/scientist/etc to hang on to his methods, and perhaps his data, for a while, so he’s not scooped and loses his chance at the Nobel. *However*, if said individual makes a public proclamation concerning his *findings*, the door is open. If he’s not done and ready to provide full access, he should keep his mouth shut.

If somebody else in the organization “leaked” the information, his only public comment should be “we are still looking and have no comment on the potential outcomes” (then he should either fire the leak or shoot him, your choice). By addressing the data and the results, again, he opens the door to verification by outside scientists.

If (say) Don McLeroy came out and said “I have here a model that shows the earth IS only 6000 years old, using accepted scientific method (etc), but I’m still working on it, so you can’t see it yet.”, I dare say you’d be howling.

Sorry, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

So while the average clearly indicates that a pattern of increased warming has occurred in the 25 years since 1975, it is only a bit greater than the rate of warming in the 25 year period from 1910-1935 (+0.7 to +0.66 or so).

It’s also important to note that the American data is an anomaly from the 1951-1980 average, compared to the 1961-1990 average used for HadCRUT3.

What interests me is the fact that this US graph doesn’t really correlate with the HadCRUT3 data that most global warming advocates tout for global temperatures. The US graph seems to have a straight sinusoidal pattern with a nearly flat average slope, while the HadCRUT3 data has a vaguely sinusoidal pattern with the same peaks and troughs, but with a decidedly different strongly positive movement of +0.7 degrees over the entire period.

Personally though, I’d like to see both graphs as contrasted to solar activity measurements (5 and 11-year averages) and I’m curious to see from what locales the strongly positive incline came from in the global (as opposed to American) data (e.g. did it come from ocean, rather than land temperatures? Inland Asia compared to Europe or India? What about the density of stations? I assume that’s accounted for but…)

Unless we start making new dinosaurs. Of course the people at the Creation Museum told me all of the dinos on the ark were small, and vegetarian. They sure make good gas though.

Does anyone like sitting in traffic and breathing fumes? Oh wait, I can’t roll down the window because it’s 110 degrees outside, good thing my SUV has excellent air conditioning. The Mythbusters proved that running the AC full blast has an insignificant impact on my fuel economy, so that’s okay.

I’ll just sit here in traffic for an hour, not carpooling, drinking bottled water, keeping the commercially raised meat wrapped in cellophane in those disposable plastic grocery bags nice and cool. When I get home, I’ll water my chemically treated lawn in the middle of the day so it stays nice and green.

Ahh, the good life.