Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

I notice you have ignored my post.  Let me be precise.  How does it help to find (max+min)/2 for a month?  If the 1st day of April is hot, at 22 degs, then rest of April is cold at 2 degs, then the (max+min)/2 is 12 degs.  How does that fact tell you anything?

Sorry, got sidetracked.

You misunderstand how they calculate the monthly mean.

It's calculated from the mean of each daily mean.

So in your hypothetical example, the monthly mean would be 2.66C (not 12C) Vs the 2C if the very hot day hadn't happened.

[Scott777]

If you could point to a model that does that, it would be very strong evidence for your case.

Rubbish.  Models are not strong evidence of climate.

[Scott777]

Please do so.  You can dig into the met office database and extract the data, then graph it on excel or similar. I'm currently working on my phone so I'm not going to massacre my thumbs trying to use "mobile" excel.

That is how the "daily mean air temperature" is calculated in the UK. For a long time the only reading available for a given day were the max and min due to the technology available so the only means available was max+min/2  Even though hourly and by the minute readings are now available the old method is still used for consistency and consistency is important if you are looking at long term trends.

It doesn't affect the impact of the results we are discussing as those were driven by warmer night temperatures and the fact we are only looking at the minimum would actually tend to make the nights look cooler than they actually are. Ie a night where it was mostly 8C but dipped briefly 7C  for a few minutes would be recorded as 7C.

You could look at the Max or the Min, and there is still an anomaly.

I notice you have ignored my post.  Let me be precise.  How does it help to find (max+min)/2 for a month?  If the 1st day of April is hot, at 22 degs, then rest of April is cold at 2 degs, then the (max+min)/2 is 12 degs.  How does that fact tell you anything?

[BeElBeeBub]

These are all the bits of the equation that models don't get right, yet without any solid evidence you 100% put warming down to human activity, despite 600 million years of data showing that this is just part of the natural thermal cycle of the Earth 🌍.

Are you ever going to point to an actual anomaly? Something that sits outside the known data? All you've got is CO2 has risen, temperature has risen, humans MUST be to blame.

Ok, so having got to the point in the previous post where we agree humans could affect the climate if out enough of certain gasses into the atmosphere and that the climate is changing the big question is are we?

There is strong observed evidence for the case we are which relies partly on models which show that the observed warming is more than can be accounted for if we remove the affect of co2.

So the question now pivots on, do you have a model that can successfully model past warming/cooling events and shows the current warming is not driven by human co2(etc) output IE a model that is insensitive to the human co2 input parameter?

If you could point to a model that does that, it would be very strong evidence for your case.

[BeElBeeBub]

In the Troposphere the Earth would cool, as it blocks Solar radiation: hence the big uproar about the hole in the Ozone layer.

Ok, so you think an increase in O3 in the troposphere would cool the earth¹. 

Great.  From this we can now agree that trace gasses with concentrations measured in parts per billion can have an affect on the earth's temperature and hence climate.

CO2 has a concentration several orders of magnitude higher (parts per million)

This means the argument "co2 is just a tiny % of the atmosphere so how can it have an effect"  can be put away.

Which also means the argument "it's arrogant to assume humans can't affect the climate" can be put aside as we can show our CO2 output is high enough (30 Gtn per year) to affect the total level (currently 3,000 Gtn).

So we have a situation where we both agree increasing the concentration of a trace gas (O3 or CO2) could affect the climate (cool or heat) and that humans are capable of affecting those concentrations.

¹I think you're made a slight mistake, an increase in the troposphere (the bit nearest the earth) would probably warm the earth, whilst an increase in the stratosphere (high up) would cool. I'm going to put it down to a mix up and that you actually meant stratosphere as you mention the ozone layer which is in the stratosphere (but we were primarily worried about UV not warming/cooling with that)

[Nick]

For arguments sake, say we double the concentration (relative to today's levels) in the troposphere.  Does the earth warm or cool (or do nothing)?

(Then the same for the Stratosphere for completeness)

In the Troposphere the Earth would cool, as it blocks Solar radiation: hence the big uproar about the hole in the Ozone layer.

These are all the bits of the equation that models don't get right, yet without any solid evidence you 100% put warming down to human activity, despite 600 million years of data showing that this is just part of the natural thermal cycle of the Earth 🌍.

Are you ever going to point to an actual anomaly? Something that sits outside the known data? All you've got is CO2 has risen, temperature has risen, humans MUST be to blame. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Ozone exists in two separate layers, the Troposphere and the Stratosphere, they both do different jobs. I would have thought you'd have recognised that.

For arguments sake, say we double the concentration (relative to today's levels) in the troposphere.  Does the earth warm or cool (or do nothing)?

(Then the same for the Stratosphere for completeness)

[Nick]

I see, and that is?...

Ozone exists in two separate layers, the Troposphere and the Stratosphere, they both do different jobs. I would have thought you'd have recognised that.

[BeElBeeBub]

Can't answer that question as you're missing out a massive piece of information.

I see, and that is?...

[Nick]

What do you think would happen if (let's forget about how) the atmospheric ozone levels were to double? Warmer? Cooler? No difference?

Can't answer that question as you're missing out a massive piece of information. 

[BeElBeeBub]

It is a fact that Ozone is one of the gasses that block solar radiation.

What do you think would happen if (let's forget about how) the atmospheric ozone levels were to double? Warmer? Cooler? No difference?

[Scott777]

For a long time the only reading available for a given day were the max and min due to the technology available so the only means available was max+min/2  Even though hourly and by the minute readings are now available the old method is still used for consistency and consistency is important if you are looking at long term trends.

You could look at the Max or the Min, and there is still an anomaly.

What kind of climate anomaly could possibly be found by looking at the max and min?  If one day of the month is very hot, and all the other days are average for the month, does the hot day mean the climate is unusual?

[Nick]

Is it your contention that ozone has a significant effect on the heating/cooling if the earth?

It is a fact that Ozone is one of the gasses that block solar radiation. 

[BeElBeeBub]

 Ozone.

Is it your contention that ozone has a significant effect on the heating/cooling if the earth?

[BeElBeeBub]

So you dispute the 23% solar radiation that the atmosphere blocks? Ozone.

No.  I've repeatedly said about 1000w of the 1300w per m² make it to the surface. That implies 300w (23%) is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere.

Now I have given a direct answer can you do the same?

Do you dispute that the incoming energy from the sun is at different wavelengths from the outgoing energy?

Do you dispute that many atmospheric gasses like ozone, co2, methane, water vapour etc are transparent to the shorter incoming wavelengths whilst being opaque to the longer outgoing wavelengths?