WUWT readers may remember way back when…I posted this from Joe D’Aleo:
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2
Joe wrote then:
Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.
There’s a new paper by Paulo Cesar Soares in the International Journal of Geosciences supporting Joe’s idea, and it is full and open access. See link below.
Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes
Author: Paulo Cesar Soares
ABSTRACT
The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature.
Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase.
The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.
…
From the conclusion:
The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing effect is already realized with its historical values. So, the reduction of the outcoming long wave radiation window is not a consequence of current enrichment or even of a possible double ratio of CO2. The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is explained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known increase insolation and vapor content in atmosphere.
The role of vapor is reinforced when it is observed that the regions with a great difference between potential and actual specific humidity are the ones with high temperature increase, like continental areas in mid to high latitudes. The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable.
If the warmer power of solar irradiation is the independent driver for decadal and multidecadal cycles, the expected changes in insolation and no increase in green- house power may imply the recurrence of multidecadal cool phase, recalling the years of the third quarter of past century, before a new warming wave. The last decade stable temperature seems to be the turning point.
Full Text (PDF, 1794KB) PP.102-112 DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2010.13014
I think that this sentence from the abstract is important:
“Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. ”
The atmosphere has such low thermal mass that changes in heating from seasonal CO2 level, should be detectable. I haven’t read the paper and don’t have time but if that is the point of it, it should be pretty interesting.
Denier! Quick, call the editors of the “reputable” journals and threaten them if they don’t pull this article!
For Science!
Don’t ya just hate it when that sort of anti-correlation thing happens ? Must be all that climate disruption warmth causing cold this winter.
But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2
If you extend back to 1958, the co-efficient of correlation between CO2 and HadCRUt global temperatures is 0.907.
How significant is that?
Well put it this way : The co-efficient of correlation between the number of Home Runs hit in MLB and HadCRUt global temperatures over the same time period is 0.885.
Make of that what you will!
Nice to see a scientific paper come to a conclusion that ISN’T “counter-intuitive.” (:-
Hope this guy is ready for the revenge that will be inflicted upon him.
The first sentence of the paper’s conclusion is a stunning refutation of the AGW “theory”:
“The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed.”
In hindsight, it should have been obvious from observation of the atmosphere of Mars, almost pure CO2, about 30 times more abundant (per unit surface area) than on Earth, and yet Mars’ black-body temp and mean surface temp are virtually the same: 210K. The atmospheric warming effect of CO2 is thus shown to be neglible.
It is water, in all its physical states, that warms and regulates our climate, sustaining life as we know it on Earth.
The rapid response team or whatever that new body is has been working on this ever since Trenbreth declared that it was a travesty that there had been no warming for a decade (or whatever the time period was). Skeptics provided an avenue for escape in showing that we were likely going into a 30 yr cooling period. The new, revised CAGW theory was that yes, GW has being temporarily interrupted by a natural cycle, but when it come back!! Oh my oh my. This gave the zealot fringe of the movement time to adjust themselves out of the ever increasingly uncomfortable divergences or to transition into lukewarmers or to simply die.
In researching Earth’s Atmospheric and Oceanic Oscillations and I came across an abstract to a presentation by Y. Wang and T. Yao at the American Geophysical Union’s 2010 Fall Meeting. Their presentation was on the influence of the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere-ocean couple systems on the 20th century warming on the Tibetan Plateau.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMGC41A0875W
I am intrigued that their “REOF analysis suggests that the 20th century warming revealed by the Malan ice core was remarkably influenced by the summer NAO and AO indices, and winter AO and PDO indices. A multivariate linear regression shows when combined, the summer NAO and winter PDO and AO account for 63.2% variations of the total variance in δ18O over the past century. ”
Does anyone have access to Wang and Yao’s presentation? Does anyone know if their research has been or is being published?
This paper raises red flags for me. Figure 1 seems to prove a positive relationship between global warming and CO2. Many of the graph captions do not reference all the traces. Most of the sentences are less than 10 words long. Some sentences seem to be missing words. Was this peer reviewed by Homer Simpson? I see a beer cup ring on the lower left of Page 2.
Piers Corbyn rips ’em a new one – CO2 hocus pocus…
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6947#comments_top
Re: chemman, yes I’m sure all the politicians, bureaucrats, careerist scientists, and “environmental journalists” will all throw in the towel. This thing has a life and momentum of it’s own, if three straight winter forecasts of higher than average temperatures in the U.K. by the Met Office is completely wrong and there isn’t even so much as ” I wonder why ” by the The Powers That Be, what makes you think one climatologist is going to stop this gravy train?
Ahh, yes. But how much of the PDO change is due to co2.
Surely someone somewhere (realclimate?) is going to write “Absence of correlation is not absence of causation – this is a predicted characteristic unique to anthropogenic CO2”.
Hmmm, seems suspicious to me. You may not know it but all the current weather forecasting models for local weather now have an input for CO2 concentration. We’ve had particulate counts for some time and we now have CO2 counts. Warm humid air masses have little impact on local weather. ONLY the CO2 emmitted by the local power plant is important. Why just the other day I heard this weather forecast: “The CO2 concentration rose by a 1ppm last night in AZ due to all the coal being burned and massive heat waves are expected in the form of snow in Phoenix and record cold across the sunny southwest. CO2 concentrations across the Himalaya’s are up 2ppm, expect continued drought across Australia in the form of standing water. CO2 continues to cause little weather change across the Hawaiian Island chain as temperatures remain moderate.
It’s a travesty that the underlying warming resulting from fossil fuel burning is being hidden by all these things like water vapour and the sun! ☺
I notice that the first graph is USA temperatures instead of a more honest and relevant global temperature, which is rising even in the MSU record.
@ur momisugly Anything is possible 10:40 am,
Correlation and Causation are not the same. !!
db..
Indeed, the integrated PDO series produces a trend line that parallels the global temperature trends nicely. But correlation is not causation, and I wish that there were enough variation of all the potential factors of temperature change over short enough time period to allow us to build a table of contrasts–even better, a few dose-response curves for these factors. Then we’d be able to wheedle out causation and interactions. Otherwise, I fear my children will be arguing these same questions when they are adults.
Anything is possible says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:40 am
“Well put it this way : The co-efficient of correlation between the number of Home Runs hit in MLB and HadCRUt global temperatures over the same time period is 0.885.
Make of that what you will!”
MLB players did not use enough steroids to get as pumped as climategaters?
Anthony,
Now what is needed is for a study on “extreme events” correlation with CO2.
We now have a recent letter to the Australian newspaper (Weekend Aust 1-2 Jan 2011 page 17) ago saying that climatologists having been saying “for decades” that AGW is related to extreme events. ( we are having massive floods in Queensland at present).
Have “climatologists” been saying this ? Its news to me. It amazes me that an editor allows this sort of tough-in-cheek opinion into print when editors would seem so intent on relying on confirmation of source. I can only imagine that it was put up to create a suitable response.
Happy New Year
Then we get this:
“The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere… […]”
Who’s to say Gaia didn’t make sure we evolved so we could replenish the atmosphere with CO2? OTOH, maybe you need to throw in lines like that to keep funding coming for studies that produce contrary results.
What a strange journal.
This is in fact only the third volume ever published by the “International Journal of Geosciences” – which published it’s first volume in Nov. 2010 (just two months ago).
The publisher, “SciRP”, has an “interesting” history.
Interesting paper. certainly worthy of a second read, but a few thoughts off the top.
First, in the conclusion he remarks:
“However, a permanent in- crease in water vapor in the atmosphere due to an in- crease in insolation, evapotranspiration and mainly temperature change in ocean water…”
Of course he makes throughout the paper that it is a warming earth that is causing the increase in water vapor, and everyone of course knows that water vapor is a more potent GH gas than CO2, but his conclusion is quite empty in regards to what could be causing that longer term warming that is causing the increase in water vapor. Solar insolation has not increased during the period in question and temperature change in the oceans offers no long term answer either as that heat must ultimately come from an increase in solar insolation (or increased GH gas activity). In short, his reasoning seems a bit circular as he acknowledges the warming but finds no source other than water vapor, which his says is being increased from the warming. So what is the source of the warming?
Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2, yet no GCM has ever indicated that such signatures would be found but rather, it is the long-term increase in CO2 since around 1750 (up 40% since that time) that would eventually become the dominant signal upon which other natural cycles would ride. His insistence that various shorter term CO2 fluctuations should be seen in the temperature data is unsupported by any climate model.
Finally, it is interesting that he does acknowledge the general increase in water vapor and warming of the oceans over time, without even mentioning the fact that these have both long been cited as one of the effects of general AGW. The even stronger positive-feedback induced GH warming caused by increased water vapor was one of the effects cited many decades ago as stemming from the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1750’s. Why does the author choose not to reference this possibility?
All in all an interesting paper but suspicious in its circular reasoning, appeal to the lack of effects of CO2 that no GCM’s have ever predicted would exist, and lack of acknowledgment of basic feedback processes long predicted as existing between increased CO2 and increasing water vapor.