The above is an exmaple of misinformation 101 on this subject

1. Read how the global temperature is in reality established:

NOT as an ABSOLUTE value but as an anomaly which is very precise becase it is based on differences in temperature over the years

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

2. CO2 is a strong absorber of IR-radiation and thereby a substantial greenhouse gas

for instance here and rest of the series of lectures on CO2:

The CO2 GHE demystified (GHE=Green House Effect)

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597

1-st of all, the concept of the global mean Earth air temperature does not have a physical meaning and it is ill-defined. It is produced entirely by how it is calculated from the sets of individual local temperature measurements. The global average is the result of the calculation based on the spacial averaging using cells, and interpolations for cells with little or no data. One can always calculate an arithmetic average of values representing the temperatures but the result of calculation does not have a meaning of temperature as a physical (thermodynamic) variable. Therefore no conclusion regarding any actual physical phenomenon can be made from the so-called average temperature alone. Say, for example, the measured temperature in the room is 20 deg C and the measured temperature outside is -10 deg C with a lot of ice and snow. The formal arithmetic average of these two values is 5. If you assume that the average 5 has the meaning of physical temperature representing both actual temperatures , then you should conclude that the ice and snow should have melted and you are shivering sitting in your room at 5 deg C. Obviously, it does not make any sense. So, temperature as a physical variable can change in a physical process and can be calculated based on laws of physics (say, mixing two volumes of air of different initial temperatures will result in some intermediate temperature of the mix depending on physical process of mixing with producing work or not). However, any mathematical averaging of temperatures of two isolated bodies (or any number of bodies) will not produce a value that has a meaning of physical temperature.

Please see the fundamental paper by Essex et al "Does a Global Temperature Exist?"

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-a-Global-Temperature-Exist-Essex-McKitrick/ffb072fc01d2f2ae906e4bb31c3b3a5361ca3e18

published in 2007 in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

2-nd, about the role of CO2 in global warming...

It was demonstrated many times that the CO2 role is minimal because it absorbs infrared radiation in a relatively narrow wavelength band compared to water vapor which is a much more potent absorber of the IR radiation. But it is another topic that was widely discussed in other RG threads....

Dear Suresh,

I recomended previous answer and I add 2 new info:

1) The CO2 concentration is only about the feedback, but the TSI is the parameter, which plays the prime role in the climate. +-2 W/m2 variations is enough to warm or cold the whole Earth. The solar activity since Little Ice Age was the biggest during last 1000 years at least (see for instance Usoskin 2013 or Solanki 2004).

2) The connection between TSI and climate is not direct, but temperature development is similar to the integral of TSI (or Wolf´s numbers), because of the transport of the energy via the Earth´s crust with several transformations. See presentations and papers here:

Article Calculation of solar energy, accumulated in the continental rocks

Regards

Pavel

The above is an exmaple of misinformation 101 on this subject

1. Read how the global temperature is in reality established:

NOT as an ABSOLUTE value but as an anomaly which is very precise becase it is based on differences in temperature over the years

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

2. CO2 is a strong absorber of IR-radiation and thereby a substantial greenhouse gas

for instance here and rest of the series of lectures on CO2:

The CO2 GHE demystified (GHE=Green House Effect)

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597

Harry ten Brink Yes, the global mean surface air temperature is calculated as a temperature change (or anomaly) over the entire globe at time t , by deviations from a sliding average of the past (typically 30 years). But that sliding average of the past is calculated first as an absolute average value that is then subtracted from the local current temperature and the result is then averaged again over the globe. The averaging is being performed over estimates a spatial integration of the temperature field over the surface of the Earth, with the T(r , t) is the air temperature at location r and time t.

Thus, the global temperature anomaly at the particular location r, also depends explicitly on states at all remote locations used in establishing the frame temperature field of the past 30 or so years. However, chemical, physical or biological processes governed by temperature at local location must not be functions of temperatures other than at this local location. So if one insists on the temperature anomaly defining processes like the melting of glaciers at some location, then it means that the melting is a function of temperatures elsewhere on the planet too, which is physically meaningless. Claiming otherwise is equivalent to the use of temperature at a distance! While forces at a distance are an acceptable concept for classical gravity and electromagnetism, they are not suitable for thermodynamic processes that are defined only locally. Moreover, the picture implied by the global temperature anomaly concept means that the fate of glaciers today explicitly dependent not only on temperatures in a remote desert, but also on temperatures in that desert that were 20-30 years ago (from the past temperature base frame).

These and other arguments on the validity of the simple arithmetic averaging technique itself demonstrate a fundamental flaw of the concept of the global mean temperature anomaly.

Once again, I believe that the fundamental paper by Essex et al

"Does a Global Temperature Exist?" is a MUST READ for everybody involved in global mean average temperature discussion.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-a-Global-Temperature-Exist-Essex-McKitrick/ffb072fc01d2f2ae906e4bb31c3b3a5361ca3e18

published in 2007 in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics

Alexander

The difference in temperature at stations is very well correlated over long distances and thus a good measure for integration of the difference over the globe to obtain the CHANGE in temperature, as shown in https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature .

Remember, the question was:

How does CO2 influence the Mean Global Temperature

I provided pertinent information for that

I agree with you that a "Global mean temperature" is not a working parameter

but I do not need the over-the-top math of your link for that

I have answered this question in my papers as I have shown that the solar irradiance AND solar wind variations are responsible for temperature variations. Now if you also add the AMO index oscillation to the equation, that counts for internal system variability, you get an extremely accurate projection of temperature variations. CO2 effect on temperatures seems to be minimal.

Harry ten Brink You did not address any of my points regarding the flaws of global temperature anomaly concept. Using only correlation without any additional physics-based support usually becomes a meaningless spurious correlation.

It is unfortunate that you call the link that I provided "the over-the-top math". This link provides a revealing physical and thermodynamic explanation of the fundamental flaw of the current concept of the global mean temperature including global temperature anomaly (or change). Many far-reaching conclusions based on this concept resulted in global warming alarmism. I think it is a real problem that so many people are illiterate in physics and thermodynamics, they do not want to use math to support their arguments, and do not think critically on what they are talking about. I wish that you reconsider, and spend some time reading this link and thinking independently and critically about its arguments.

Harry ten Brink I just took a look at the graph that you provided https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature .

This graph causes a lot of questions.

1. In the left-hand box average annual temperatures are presented as a time series from 2002 to 2008 for the various places. Temperatures change every day of the each year every minute. How was the average for each year calculated? As a simple arithmetic average??!! But why arithmetic average?? There are numerous averages exist. They could use, say, a geometric average, which is always less than the arithmetic one. Or they could use a harmonic average, or the most likely one, or, say, the 4-th degree root of the sum of 4-th powers of temps (in connection to black body radiation), and so on and on... What was the physical basis for choosing a simple arithmetic average?

Further, why not averaging just max temp of each day of the year, or a min temps, or any other function of the daily temps?? Once again, averaging of physical variables as temp does not have a meaning of thermodynamic temperature.

2. Next, in the right-hand side box an anomaly is presented as deviation from the average (whatever it is). I assume that they have taken an arithmetic average of the annual averages for 2002 to 2008, and then subtracted it from each annual average. But if instead of simple arithmetic average baseframe they used any other possible baseframe average, the difference (anomaly) would be numerically different up to inversion of its sign!!

3. Thus, without any guidance from physics such an exercise in arithmetic could be endless resulting in contradictory conclusions whether the anomaly is negative (cooling) or positive (warming) at the same time.

4. Temperature values are usually correlated to each other, they cannot change abruptly. The next minute (or hour) temperature reading will be related to some degree to the previous reading. Averaging of correlated values requires a more sophisticated technique that simple adding values and dividing the sum by their number, because doing so assumes independent readings. Analysis of an autocorrelation function of the temperature time series is needed.

5. If the anomalies are negative (like in the right-hand box) can you conclude from these anomalies data alone whether it will result in melting or forming of ice and snow? You cannot make any conclusion for any physical process state based only on temp anomaly, you will also need some absolute temperature value.

And we come back to the simplified example that I presented in my first post that you called "misinformation 101 on this subject".

If the temperature was, say, 20 F, but only the average warming (anomaly) was reported, say, 5 F, does it result in snow melting because of warming of 5 F?? Of course not, the sustained long term temperature above the freezing point (32 F) is needed, not the temperature anomaly alone.

There are quite a few other issues with this graph but enough is enough......

So, to summarize, I strongly advise again to spend some of your time by reading carefully the link that I provided above.

dr Kolker

You lecture as if in meteorology those issues have not been addressed at length and still are and by highly qualified physicists like the experts I cooperated with for decades at our met office (KNMI)

I just provided the NOAA page as a first introduction on the issue of anomaly/difference as a reliable tool to get insight in the difference over the years of all aggregated MEASURED validated temperature values.

Please, explain what thermodynamics has to do with this?

or autocorrelation of hours/days when the issue is the change over climate periods (of decades)?

Also your example of thawing of glaciers is your own inference of "global temperature"

As said before global temperature change is GLOBAL temperature change not local temperature and therefore your examples and questions are just not related to that

Solar Maxima happen every 11 years and only have a small effect on global climate. The effect of increases in CO2 can last upto two hundred thousand years, e.g.. The Paleo-Eocene thermal Maximum. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Harry ten Brink Your highly condescending reply only confirms that in my experience many so-called "climate experts" tend to avoid answering concrete specific questions that make them feel uncomfortable.

If you need explanation on what thermodynamics has to do with temperature values (global or not), and what an autocorrelation analysis is and what it is for over climate periods, then I simply terminate any further discussion. It has become totally useless waste of time.Thank you for your empty posts and for making a lot of information noise.

Alastair Bain McDonald solar maxima have big effect on climate, not a small one. It just doesn't directly show to temperatures as the internal earth system mechanisms absorb and slowly emit in decades the extra heat. The AMO index oscillation is this internal system mechanism. As I have shown in my papers the solar maxima AND solar wind are responsible for climate variability.

@Dimitris,

Climate is defined as the average weather over 30 years. The effect of solar maxima are much shorter than that.

Dear Alastair,

the solar activity was the extraordinary big since Little Ice Age (for more than 1000 years). The temperature (climate) is integral of solar activity (TSI) with the half-time of accumulation/release approx 270 years. Then, we can´t compare actual TSI with actual temperature:

Article Calculation of solar energy, accumulated in the continental rocks

Dear Pavel.

The main solar activity, known as the Mauder Minimum, which occurred during the Little Ice Age, only lasted from 1645 until 1714, hardly 1000 years. The LIA " has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850.[7][8][9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Even the longer of those periods is only about 500,t not the the 1000 years you are claiming. Moreover, the causes during the extended period was draw-down of atmospheric CO2 and volcanic eruptions.

Of course, we are almost entirely heated by solar radiation but variations in solar output are exceedingly small.

Dear Alastair,

probably you did not unredstand me correctly. I want to say that the solar activity from LIA (last 250 years) was the biggest in the comparison with the activity from Medieval Warm Period to nowadays (last 1000 years). See the TSI integral by Stainhilber (2012):

Therefore, Maunder Minimum preceded the LIA and LIA extended MM for almost 200 years because of accumulated "cold" in the Earth´s crust:

Article Calculation of solar energy, accumulated in the continental rocks