#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Temperature vs GHG concentrations

2»

• Options
51.

About the art, I think it would perhaps be cool for artists to incorporate scientific themes in their work, but rather like this then the other way round.

Depends on the purpose I would say. If you don't care about mediating scientific content and if you just want to display glizzy science images for example I agree. That is artists may completely distort and discard the scientific content, sometimes even without noticing. There are though some artists who try to do not so. So on average if you would mediate scientific content the other way around is probably more appropriate, although there are scientists who know not enough about visual languages, so the mediated content might arrive at the respective audience in a heavily distorted way as well.

I think that there is simply a different public, and that such efforts are in vain. People interested in the latter will not become interested in science just because it would be accompanied by women. They may be interested in the women but then not more than that. (And this holds as well for women as for men)

Well subconsciously something scientific might still trickle into an ignorants brain and for those who are slightly interested in science it could be that viewing scientific content at least partially in this playful way, may eventually help to overcome the "dryness" of science.

With the "art scandal exhibition" I was however more thinking of stirring up discussions, in particular about funding and science.

But what about my last remark? Are there any comments about the methane findings? Have you seen the

CO2,CH4 and temperature anomalies page?

Comment Source:>About the art, I think it would perhaps be cool for artists to incorporate scientific themes in their work, but rather like this then the other way round. Depends on the purpose I would say. If you don't care about mediating scientific content and if you just want to display glizzy science images for example I agree. That is artists may completely distort and discard the scientific content, sometimes even without noticing. There are though some artists who try to do not so. So on average if you would mediate scientific content the other way around is probably more appropriate, although there are scientists who know not enough about visual languages, so the mediated content might arrive at the respective audience in a heavily distorted way as well. >I think that there is simply a different public, and that such efforts are in vain. People interested in the latter will not become interested in science just because it would be accompanied by women. They may be interested in the women but then not more than that. (And this holds as well for women as for men) Well subconsciously something scientific might still trickle into an ignorants brain and for those who are slightly interested in science it could be that viewing scientific content at least partially in this playful way, may eventually help to overcome the "dryness" of science. With the "art scandal exhibition" I was however more thinking of stirring up discussions, in particular about funding and science. But what about my last remark? Are there any comments about the methane findings? Have you seen the <a href="http://www.daytar.de/art/co2ch4TempViz/index.html">CO2,CH4 and temperature anomalies page?</a>
• Options
52.

Post #50 cites this link http://www.daytar.de/art/co2ch4TempViz/index.html2 but I get a 404. (there's a 2 at the end). Cheers

Comment Source:Post #50 cites this link http://www.daytar.de/art/co2ch4TempViz/index.html2 but I get a 404. (there's a 2 at the end). Cheers
• Options
53.

thanks Jim, fixed. On my german keyboard the " (for closing the href) is above the 2.

Comment Source:thanks Jim, fixed. On my german keyboard the " (for closing the href) is above the 2.
• Options
54.
edited March 2013

But what about my last remark? Are there any comments about the methane findings? Have you seen the

CO2,CH4 and temperature anomalies page?

It's interesting. My eyes see a close correlation to the DIFF12 of CO2 and that of temperature. The correlation between either of these and the DIFF12 of methane looks much weaker to me. I can imagine various ways of matching peaks and valleys in that graph with the other two. In some of these ways it looks like it's leading, in others it looks like it's lagging. Humlum et al. try to quantify this kind of thing (for CO2 and temperature) using some statistics. (Of course most climate scientists think Humlum et al.'s analysis is flawed in several ways, so I am not suggesting them as a role model, at least not if you want climate scientists to become interested!)

My main conclusion is that the correlation between short-term methane fluctuations to either CO2 or temperature is much weaker than the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Comment Source:Nad wrote: > But what about my last remark? Are there any comments about the methane findings? Have you seen the > <a href="http://www.daytar.de/art/co2ch4TempViz/index.html">CO2,CH4 and temperature anomalies page?</a> It's interesting. My eyes see a close correlation to the DIFF12 of CO2 and that of temperature. The correlation between either of these and the DIFF12 of methane looks much weaker to me. I can imagine various ways of matching peaks and valleys in that graph with the other two. In some of these ways it looks like it's leading, in others it looks like it's lagging. Humlum _et al._ try to quantify this kind of thing (for CO2 and temperature) using some statistics. (Of course most climate scientists think Humlum _et al._'s analysis is flawed in several ways, so I am not suggesting them as a role model, at least not if you want climate scientists to become interested!) My main conclusion is that the correlation between short-term methane fluctuations to either CO2 or temperature is much weaker than the correlation between CO2 and temperature.
• Options
55.

Humlum et al. try to quantify this kind of thing (for CO2 and temperature) using some statistics. (Of course most climate scientists think Humlum et al.’s analysis is flawed in several ways, so I am not suggesting them as a role model, at least not if you want climate scientists to become interested!)

If I remember correctly they analysed a shorter time span and as I wrote in the link:

one can observe that a lot of the CO2 peaks of the diff12 curve seam to appear as lagging behind the corresponding ("corresponding" means here "approximately similar in size and form") temperature anomaly diff12 peaks, where it seems that this holds in particular for the peaks after time = 34, i.e. the year 1992.

So the analysis would probably depend on the chosen time span. A fact which I find by the way already enough disturbing by itself. That is if such important oscillations should get out of phase then this may indicate that a major system change may be ahead.

My main conclusion is that the correlation between short-term methane fluctuations to either CO2 or temperature is much weaker than the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

I wouldn't say so necessarily. I mean the methane signal looks somewhat more jagged and not so regular, but the reasons for that could be local disturbancies.

Comment Source:>Humlum et al. try to quantify this kind of thing (for CO2 and temperature) using some statistics. (Of course most climate scientists think Humlum et al.’s analysis is flawed in several ways, so I am not suggesting them as a role model, at least not if you want climate scientists to become interested!) If I remember correctly they analysed a shorter time span and as I wrote in the link: >one can observe that a lot of the CO2 peaks of the diff12 curve seam to appear as lagging behind the corresponding ("corresponding" means here "approximately similar in size and form") temperature anomaly diff12 peaks, where it seems that this holds in particular for the peaks after time = 34, i.e. the year 1992. So the analysis would probably depend on the chosen time span. A fact which I find by the way already enough disturbing by itself. That is if such important oscillations should get out of phase then this may indicate that a major system change may be ahead. >My main conclusion is that the correlation between short-term methane fluctuations to either CO2 or temperature is much weaker than the correlation between CO2 and temperature. I wouldn't say so necessarily. I mean the methane signal looks somewhat more jagged and not so regular, but the reasons for that could be local disturbancies.
• Options
56.
edited May 2014

graphics with temperature anomalies.

The red spots in summer over eastern Siberia/Arctic starting in 2010 and the very dark spots starting also around 2010 but more in 2011 in winter at the Antarctic are giving me headaches.

Comment Source:John <a href="http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/warming-slowdown-2/#comment-46877">had linked </a> to a <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/Fig4.gif">graphics with temperature anomalies.</a> The red spots in summer over <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Permafrost">eastern Siberia</a>/<a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Arctic%20methane%20deposits">Arctic</a> starting in 2010 and the very dark spots starting also around 2010 but more in 2011 in winter at the <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120831-antarctica-methane-global-warming-science-environment/">Antarctic</a> are giving me headaches.
• Options
57.

the dark spots around the equator in the temperature anomalies starting in 2010 are also giving me headaches. Especially together with this image (mentioned in here) and the discussion in here.

Comment Source:the dark spots around the equator in the temperature anomalies starting in 2010 are also giving me headaches. Especially together with this <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/AtmosphericMethane.png">image</a> (mentioned in <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1178/temperature-vs-ghg-concentrations/?Focus=8870#Comment_8870">here</a>) and the discussion in <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1123/blog-doubling-co2-then-what/?Focus=10621#Comment_10621">here</a>.
• Options
58.
edited May 2014

It seems entirely possible that CO2 lagged temperature increases at times in the past. That it did says nothing about the significance of CO2 as climate's "biggest control knob", in the words of Professor Richard Alley. That CO2 increases deliver radiative forcing is a laboratory result, not one based upon statistical correlation. The largest contribution is the bending absorption line of the molecule, having a dominant absorption at 667 per reciprocal centimeter. That nearly coincides with the peak of Earth's Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) spectrum, due to blackbody temperature.

Even if the absorption line saturates, additional CO2 input to atmosphere broadens it. The effect operates even when the atmosphere is optically opaque.

The effect of CO2 absorption in atmosphere is to warm the atmosphere, delivering energy to other molecules, such as water vapor.

Comment Source:It seems entirely possible that CO2 lagged temperature increases at times in the past. That it did says nothing about the significance of CO2 as climate's "biggest control knob", in the words of Professor Richard Alley. That CO2 increases deliver radiative forcing is a *laboratory* *result*, not one based upon statistical correlation. The largest contribution is the bending absorption line of the molecule, having a dominant absorption at 667 per reciprocal centimeter. That nearly coincides with the peak of Earth's Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) spectrum, due to blackbody temperature. Even if the absorption line saturates, additional CO2 input to atmosphere broadens it. The effect operates even when the atmosphere is optically opaque. The effect of CO2 absorption in atmosphere is to warm the atmosphere, delivering energy to other molecules, such as water vapor.
• Options
59.

That it did says nothing about the significance of CO2 as climate’s “biggest control knob”, in the words of Professor Richard Alley.

Yes the radiative forcing of CO2 seems to be a driver of temperature increases, but there could be other too. I just have that feeling that methane has a bigger role in here. This is eventually a false intution, but I find that all those above indicators (please see links and also this comment) just point rather strongly into that direction.

Comment Source:>That it did says nothing about the significance of CO2 as climate’s “biggest control knob”, in the words of Professor Richard Alley. Yes the radiative forcing of CO2 seems to be a driver of temperature increases, but there could be other too. I just have that feeling that methane has a bigger role in here. This is eventually a false intution, but I find that all those above indicators (please see links and also <a href="http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/warming-slowdown-2/#comment-47134">this comment</a>) just point rather strongly into that direction.
• Options
60.

Yes, surely, other GHGs contribute, although, as someone mentioned in a nice aphorism, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. The thing about methane, as I understand it, is that it's final contribution is not as methane, but as the carbon dioxide it becomes after the 25 year lifetime. David Archer wrote a piece about this at RealClimate.

Comment Source:Yes, surely, other GHGs contribute, although, as someone mentioned in a nice aphorism, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. The thing about methane, as I understand it, is that it's final contribution is not as methane, but as the carbon dioxide it becomes after the 25 year lifetime. David Archer wrote a [piece about this at *RealClimate*](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/).