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.
@ 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.
Pity the article is written like Yoda speaks…When they go through the review & editorial process, is no effort made to improve the use of English in submitted articles? (And to be fair, my Portuguese is non-existent, so I wouldn’t want to be writing for a Brazilian-based journal either…but still – it means the arguments are less clear than they ideally would be and permits easy sniping on side issues. It would probably only take a couple of hours for a competent editor to clean up the language.)
chemman says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
Actually, it shows the politicians, regulators, and climsci people just don’t want to work hard enough to wrap their brains around anything more difficult than CO2 as the culprit. They don’t want to target water (the real scoundrel) because in their totalitarian mindset, it would mean West Coast inhabitants would have to drain their swimming pools and let their grass die (albeit in full view of the Pacific)! Of course, such actions would have the same negligible impact as curtailing CO2 emissions, but the thought of swimming in empty pools or playing golf on dead fairways was just too personal–they had to target something that was a no-brainer, taxable, and in line with their Fabian Socialist doctrine of curtailing capitalism and revoking individual freedoms.
In other words, being stupid is easy and popular.
“. The last decade stable temperature seems to be the turning point.”
================================================
I don’t like the sound of that…..
But it would have been a lot colder if it wasn’t for CO2…….
Sounds like our president……….
JD;
Not sure if I saw it right, but the comparison for Mars showed the BB temp actually 0.1° WARMER than the measured: 10.1 vs 10.0.
Wouldn’t that be a kicker: CO2 causes cooling when nothing interferes with it!
I’m just happy to see journals now accepting papers that deviate from the “consensus”. Maybe we will get a little sanity back in the study of climate.
chemman says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2
These are not the culprits. The ones who are really stuck on stupid are the Royal Society, The American Physical Society, The American Chemical Society, the National Academies of Sciences from the USA, France and The Netherlands. Here in Canada senior members of our National Reserach Council. And the list goes on and on.
It is particularly tough for politicians to go against the advice of all these august bodies. Until we get one of these organizations to break ranks, and look at the science, it will be tough for politicians to change. How we knock sense into an organization like the Royla Society, I have no idea. They have nailed their colors to the mast on CAGW. Sir Alan Runge tried, and failed miserably.
Ian;
Of ESL scientific papers the grammar learn to decipher we must. Unavoidable is it.
Agree with Gates, above. Any significant rebuttal from peers to date? Significant, that is, in that it’s respectable?
I wanted to make another comment but it may raise the ire of the local climate modelers who hold their model outputs in such high esteem. For years we’ve been saying the models are crap when, in all fairness, the computers calculate what they’re told to calculate. The models themselves are amazing. Works of art. Lines and lines of code. Years and years of tweeking. Amazing they calculate anything at all. However, to quote the conclusion of the paper: The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable.
The broader implication: The United States of America should NOT have under any circumstances used the results from the models for policy decisions. It doesn’t matter if 10 runs out of 10 runs or 1000 runs out of a 1000 runs suggest the earth will warm 2C over 100 years. Garbage programmed, garbage out. The sad truth is, it’s pretty much over. The EPA has run amok. We can only hope that common sense prevails and the House of Representatives sneaks in back room deal legislation to defund stupidity.
So I have been researching Earth’s Atmospheric and Oceanic Oscillations and thus far I have identified 4 Major/Primary Oceanic Oscillations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) and El Nino/La Nina, as well as 7 Major/Primary Atmospheric Oscillations, the Arctic Oscillation (AO), Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), North Pacific Oscillation (NPO), the Madden / Julian Oscillation (MJO), Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) and Southern Oscillation (SO).
Here is some background on each of the Major/Primary Oceanic Oscillations I’ve identified and their roles within Earth’s Climate System:
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
The Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO):
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AMO.htm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
The Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO), which is closely associated with the Atmospheric Oscillation the Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) and is the Oceanic component of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD). The Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) is also closely connected to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO): (Note, took some liberty in naming the Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) as it does not appear to have a well established name within the literature. It might be better as the Indian Ocean Interannual/Decadal Oscillation (IOIDO), but time will sort that out.)
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/28816.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/51n8664436045952/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-10/04/c_13542305.htm
El Nino/La Nina, which are closely associated with the Atmospheric Oscillation the Southern Oscillation (SO), is the Oceanic component of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO);
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ENSO.htm
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/26/enso-update/
Here is some background on each of the Major/Primary Atmospheric Oscillations and their roles within Earth’s Climate System:
The Arctic Oscillation (AO):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao
(The following is a good animation of the Northern polar circulation and Arctic Oscillation over the last 30 days);
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml
the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO);
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-oscillation-aao
(The following is a good animation of the Southern polar circulation and Antarctic Oscillation over the last 30 days):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/north-atlantic-oscillation-nao
The North Pacific Oscillation (NPO), which is closely associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Oscillation
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/Linkin-Nigam.JCLIM.May.2008.pdf
The Madden / Julian Oscillation (MJO):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/mjo.shtml
http://wwa.colorado.edu/IWCS/archive/IWCS_2008_May_focus.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/22/the-madden-julian-oscillation/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden%E2%80%93Julian_oscillation
The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO), which is closely associated with the Oceanic Oscillation the Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO), and is the Atmospheric component of Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD). The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) is also closely connected to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO):
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.74.9668%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=%22EQUINOO%22%20atmospheric&ei=7WIfTcPBOcL78AbX8YDhDQ&usg=AFQjCNFiWHVPF-KYx7ifdVbB3HKEcdcCBg&sig2=KPCUfkXR89b-GN1vTVp9ZQ&cad=rja
http://www.springerlink.com/content/51n8664436045952/
ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/28816.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-10/04/c_13542305.htm
and the Southern Oscillation (SO), which is closely associated with the Oceanic Oscillation El Nino/La Nina and collectively referred to as (ENSO)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/southern-oscillation-soi
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso
In addition to the Major/Primary Oceanic and Atmospheric Oscillations, there are an array of Minor/Secondary Oceanic and Atmospheric Oscillations and Patterns including:
The Monsoon Intra-Seasonal Oscillation (MISO)
https://sites.google.com/site/metscience/AtmosphericScience/metbranches/general-circulation/intraseasonal-low-frequency-variations/monsoon-intra-seasonal-oscillation
http://www.wcrp-amy.org/Admin-2008wcrp2010-amy/edit/UploadFile/200912311125103.pdf
http://www.appmath.columbia.edu/users/sobel/Papers/bellon_et_al_08.pdf
Tropical Intra-Seasonal Oscillation (TISO):
ftp://www.iges.org/pub/ctr/ctr_247.pdf
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/xfu/Fu_MWR2172.pdf
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/…/Fu_CPC_Oct7.ppt
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/JAS-Chao-9404.pdf
The Pacific / North American Pattern (PNA):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/pna.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/pacific-north-american-pattern-pna
This page offers a summary of all of the Monthly Atmospheric and Oceanic Climate Indices offered by the NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/climateindices/list/index.html
This page offers a summary of the Northern Hemisphere Teleconnection Patterns offered by NOAA’s National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/telecontents.shtml
If you know of any additional Oscillations or Patterns, or additional reference materials on the Oscillations and Patterns I noted above, please add your links below.
Thanks to ES and R. Gates for their contributions to this piece and Julienne Strove for starting me on a wander through Earth’s Oscillations.
An interesting paper. Using CO2 differences between the northern and southern hemispheres to isolate trends that would otherwise not be found by studying only NH data.
The conclusion, CO2 follows temperature. The models have it backwards. They are trying to model the cause from the effect, which actually works when training the model using historical data, but has zero predictive value going forward.
Which pretty much sums of the results of the models. They are no better than chance. Like a stopped clock, they are right twice a day. Even the IPCC calls them projections, not predictions.
Here is the meat of the paper
“The close correlation between temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 increase, including a small delay is indicative of temperature drive mechanism of CO2 lib- eration. The temperature changes correlate better with CO2 changes for a delay of half to one year, in this series; the inverse order did not verify, which is meaningful for temperature driver and not CO2 driver mechanism. The delay is expected in order to heat ocean water thermo- cline lamina, to liberate CO2 and to transfer it to the at- mosphere.
The absence of correlation for temperature decrease and CO2 decrease means that the process is not reversible as it would be, if associated to less radiation absorption by CO2. The process of ocean uptake of CO2 involves complex and multiple mechanisms of the whole carbon cycle, differing from simple degassing.
The independence of on time and month temperature changes in relation to CO2 and vice versa is consistent and indicates that more CO2 in the atmosphere did not imply warming. And that only after some warming months CO2 enrichment becomes notable.
The absence of correlation with huge volume of in- dustrial emission to the atmosphere seems a very robust indicator of the independence of temperature variable relative to CO2”
Just what we thought was happening. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way.
I would appreciate an answer on this sentence.
“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.”
What route please? Any ideas?
Regards,
Perry
I found a paper that bolsters this research, from the Antarctic
http://www.epi-us.com/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
Bertler, et al (2004) studied isotope records from snow samples in the McMurdo Dry
Valleys and concluded that warming in areas such as the Antarctic Peninsula and cooling of
the terrestrial Ross Sea region are linked to ENSO changes, not to greenhouse gas effects.
R Gates is correct when he says “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.”
It’s not just the models. A simple examination of the seasonal change will reveal that seasonal CO2 to temperature attribution (or non-attribution) is impossible. At perihelion in early January the solar input increase is far higher than the slight increase in CO2 forcing due to dead vegetation in the NH. Nonetheless, the global average temperature is lower because the SH oceans absorb the extra solar energy. In that dynamic, the seasonal CO2 change simply doesn’t matter.
aaron says: “Ahh, yes. But how much of the PDO change is due to co2.”
The PDO is a statistically manufactured dataset that basically represents the pattern of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N. The PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, and, therefore, has no impact on global temperatures. If fact, the PDO and the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific (north of 20N) are inversely related.
Kevin Kilty says: “Indeed, the integrated PDO series produces a trend line that parallels the global temperature trends nicely.”
Wish to expand on this? The PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N.
R. Gates says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
Of course he makes throughout the paper that it is a warming earth that is causing the increase in water vapor,
=======================================================
I understood that he’s saying a warming earth causes a rise in CO2 levels.
=======================================================
Gates says: 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.
========================================================
That wasn’t the point of his paper, so he didn’t go there. He’s just saying the correlation between CO2 driving warming is weak, very weak. That CO2 levels are following warming faster than they are following cooling.
==========================================================
Gates says: Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2,
========================================================
I understood that he’s looking for monthly or seasonal CO2 levels from the fluctuations in temperature.
========================================================
Gates says: 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
=========================================================
He’s saying that warming oceans not only release water vapor but also CO2, and the release of CO2 is fast. That it takes a lot longer for cooling oceans to lower CO2 levels back down again.
But that CO2 is obviously not the primary driver, because it can’t be explained by cooling oceans.
Gates in the pdf 3.3……. He disagrees with you…
Now we await the inevitable debunking by the ‘team’ duly authored not by one, but 6,7 or even 8 of them to lend weight to their rebuttal paper.
Any takers of bets as to how many authors in the rebuttal paper?
Benjamin Franz says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:53 am
“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.”
Thanks for pointing that out. One has to be careful regarding confirmation bias.
Fossil fuel oxidation produces both carbon dioxide and an almost equal amount of dihydrogen monoxide. Typical gasoline is C8H18 when fully oxidized results in eight CO2 and nine dihydrogen monoxide. There were petitioners gathering signatures during the recent IPPC convention to ban the release of dihydrogen monoxide due to environmental concerns.
Based on this paper, if there is no correlation of CO2 to climate anything, then possibly dihydrogen monoxide as pointed out by those petitioners? There appeared to be great concern and enthusiasm to quickly ban the substance.
More Cueve Clicquot? Yes?
Joe’s graph is not convincing since the temperature change attributed to CO2 is small over a long time scale.
Comparing that to the large cyclical short time scale changes dies not makes sense.
aND I have always thought the climate skeptic habit of plotting graphs with the 98 El Niño on the far left edge is very tricky. Probably fools a lot of people with 6 th grader reading comprehension skills.
The Yoda-speak is not the fault of the author but of the journal. The AGW papers are by and large very professional looking and well written. At first you may think they know something.
This paper seems to me to be one of those “baby got thrown out with the bath-water” papers.
This is a bit worrisome [square brackets added by me]:
“The first [point to be considered] is that if a causal relation exists, then removing external trends, increase of residuals in CO2 must imply an increase of residuals in T”
I think AGWers would point out that the trend (in rising temperatures) is due to a rise in CO2 levels. So removing external trends (or looking at residuals, or flux changes) would seem to be the wrong thing to do. Estimating trends has been what this whole mess is all about. I don’t think anyone believes correlation in the short term variations in CO2 and temperature mean anything with respect to climate change.
Won’t a cross-plot of the data from Fig.1 show a strong correlation between CO2 and T, unless I am missing something. Help?
Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence.
———-
Errr no. It’s not taken as a premise.
I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.
Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.
In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.
As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.
No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.
Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.
The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.
AGW is baloney anyway!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Why do people still forget that CO2 as the agent was chosen not for its inherent capabilities of re-emitting certain ranges of the IR spectrum but because of its political PR value to make policy change in a certain political direction.
The likes of soot, particulates, mono oxide, sulfur oxide, sulfur dioxide, et al, was actually used as drivers in the 70’s, 80’s. This all changed dramatically due to the fact that policy change to remove such “evil” went fast as hell. Before ’95 the reduction in industry and cargo traffic was pretty astounding. There was F All waste left even from the emissions from diesel combustion at the turn of the century even, and in some countries in EU that previously didn’t have the stringent regulations on diesel fuel it took less ‘an ten years.
CO2 was, and is, the only “evil” emission left that is emitted by our human industry that is still emitted in what can, in relation to all the other substances, be said to be emitted in large quantities. However, the emissions per emitting engine/object, is just a fraction of what the same type of engine/object emitted just some 25 years ago. This is why, apparently, the crazy hippies perceive the amount of people on this planet to be the problem, because per capita we emit less, but as a whole, OMG who’s to say? Of course rational people say proper statistics that show people adapting to reality, but the crazed climate hippies shrieks “Doomsday!”
HEY guys! the hockystick is backwards.
Brian H
Grammer/Bingo – at first i thought it was just me.
“Jim Cripwell says:
January 1, 2011 at 12:09 pm
The ones who are really stuck on stupid are the Royal Society, The American Physical Society,….”
The following may be on interest to you by the Institute of Physics:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Below is the first of 13 points.
“What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”
Wait a minute…why should U.S. temperatures correlate best with CO2 in the first place? And what allows the assumption that the U.S. land mass is a significant or representative part of the globe?
It intuitively makes perfect sense that the U.S. temperatures should correlate very well with the AMO and PDO given that it is flanked by two of the world’s largest oceans. Thus, there’s no news here if you think about it. But why should the lack of a strong relationship between CO2 and temperature in the U.S. invalidate the relationship between the two worldwide?
Paulo says.
———–
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
———–
The English is so bad this paper is inconoeehebsible.
But this claim looks just plain wrong. If the oceans give up CO2 on warming then they must do the opposite on cooling.
R. Gates says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
“….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)……”
You must have missed the article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/22/sorces-solar-spectral-surprise-uv-declined-tsi-constant/
It would appear that although TSI is constant the constituent frequencies can vary considerably. This could explain the lack of warming in the oceans due to the shorter wavelengths dropping considerably while the longer wavelengths that do not penetrate the ocean more than a a few millimeters may increase. So simplistic reasoning based on the repeated mantra that ‘the TSI and insolation haven’t changed’ are based on shaky foundations.
@highflight56433
I think the greater problem is the simpler element hydrogen monoxide which has not really been given much scrutiny in the popular press.
It is known to be in high concentrations particularly near the end of the year in December reaching a peak just after the winter solstice (at least in the Northern Hemisphere). It is known to have very impressive warming properties.
It is especially bad when grouped together in chains of long molecules.
Natural cycles modulate the gradual GHG warming so of course they stand out over short time periods. The journal this paper appeared in brand new and has no track record and so no credibility.
Too bad this paper is published in such a low tier journal. Also a shame it is written in such stilted English (obviously not written by someone with good English skills).
Aside from that, it presents some interesting interpretations of the correlations between temperatures and CO2.
I wish Mr. Soares luck in getting his ideas greater distribution and hope that he is able to tighten up some of his correlations with more, and hopefully, better data (GISS and, to a lesser extent, NOAA temp data are hardly the best set to use).
Steve, Happy New Year, we just had a HUGE Co2 increase the the last 3-4 days here in upstate NY!! the 70 inches of snow has all but MELTED, THANK GOD. But getting ready for the next round of CO2 dropping in the next couple days GEEZ, Latitude, I just saw R Gates comment on the freerepublic site, well they want population control, they’re going to get it?
I am becoming a big fan of Brasil 🙂
LazyTeenager says:
January 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“Joe’s graph is not convincing since the temperature change attributed to CO2 is small over a long time scale.
Comparing that to the large cyclical short time scale changes dies not makes sense.”
So you acknowledge that there is no correlation in the time scale of that graph. In other words, you agree with Joe D’Aleo. Correct?
Sorry, that should of been Happy New Year to Anthony
CO2 has virtually nothing to do with the climate of the planet. Man-made global warming is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of the world.
I guess we will need a few more thousand dead bodies this winter to prove this point.
Britain’s cold weather: Deaths Soar as Winter Takes its Toll
“Deaths leapt by up to a fifth amid the longest spell of bitter weather in recent years, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Undertakers have reported the busiest winter for several years, with some even forced to take on extra staff to cope.
It comes in the wake of an outcry over the deaths of an elderly couple from Northampton, whose bodies lay in their freezing home, unnoticed for several days.
Opposition parties described the picture painted by the figures as a “national disgrace”, warning that many elderly people are suffering in silence, afraid to turn up the heating in a winter, often missing out on extra winter payments.
Preliminary figures show that 1,506 deaths were registered in Scotland in the first week of January, 21 per cent above the average for the corresponding week over last five years.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6997427/Britains-cold-weather-deaths-soar-as-winter-takes-its-toll.html
rogerthesurf,
Yes the enormity of the hoax and scam is breathtaking. But let’s be clear, it’s purpose is, according to the evil Canadian Maurice Strong,
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
and he should know because he set up UNEP, the Rio conference (apologies to Brasil) and the IPCC. It his intent to destroy industrial society, for his personal benefit and [self-snip].
Regarding faster release of CO2 by a warmer global surface and slower absorption by a cooler global surface, it might be helpful to think about the relative densities of CO2 and the surface, and that the earth has a gravitational field.
Some climate scientists and our government are making us less safe by lying to us about global warming. More people are dieing from cold than from terrorists. They are putting our lives in danger. This isn’t funny anymore. Someone should be sued for involuntary manslaughter or at least fired for incompetence.
A newborn baby child died in Brooklyn because we were made less prepared for colder snowier winters due to the solar minimum and global cooling. No one on TV is warning us of the real reasons for the successively brutal winters and helping us prepare for them.
“JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A record number of manatee died in Florida this year, and those who track the threatened species are concerned.
According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 699 manatees were found dead between Jan. 1 and Dec. 5 — the most deaths recorded in a single year. State officials said it’s likely the cold temperatures contributed nearly 250 of the deaths, and may have contributed to hundreds more.”
http://www.news4jax.com/news/26325206/detail.html
Environmentalists love wildlife so much, I just thought I’d point this out for them. Nearly 700 dead manatees in 2010 from cold.
It’s good in a way. They are always pestering us about making too much wake with our boats in Manatee zones down here in SW Florida. So I guess the more dead Manatee deaths from cold climate conditions the better. Many of us boaters down here could care less if all the manatees went extinct due to natural cold conditions.
In an ironic twist, The Coal fired power plants, even the ones down for maintenance, are mandated to provide warm waters to keep the manatees from dieing.
Another paper which neatly falsifies that ‘CO2 drives temperature’ conjecture. As the CO2 absorption is almost filled, no surprise that extra CO2 has little effect.
Came across another interesting paper on the same site which attempts to show that Trenbarth’s ‘energy gap’ is a myth – it’s a travesty that he couldn’t see it!
Recent Energy Balance of Earth Open Access
Author(s) – Robert S. Knox, David H. Douglass
ABSTRACT
“A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993-2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003-2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001-2002.
Using only 2003-2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.161 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.”
Full paper available here:-
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=IJG20100300001_98861471.pdf&paperID=3446
Obviously!: There is no correlations between politics and climate! LOL!!!!
New Years Resolution.
Donate to support this wonderful web site which has provided a coordinated forum to try to save the world from destroying hope for the masses.
Although some of the article makes sense (a positive NAO increased temperatures in NE Europe, mainly by sending more water vapour over the continent), some caution is warranted: the monthly to seasonal changes in CO2 levels are not more than +/- 8 ppmv even over the areas with the largest changes in vegetation growth/decay. The direct absorbing effect of a 16 ppmv change (full column) is about 0.05°C, completely undetectable in the noise of everything that influences the temperature record locally and globally. Thus it is no wonder that the researchers didn’t find a correlation on short term changes.
If there is more influence of CO2 on temperature for longer term and huger changes in CO2, remains an open question, but it doesn’t look bright for a huge influence…
Roger the surf says
Right Roger. And, while the U.S. sits here with no drilling and no new refineries and no nukes, other countries like Brazil and Venezuela are drilling to beat heck. China, they’re going everywhere for oil and gold and rare earth minerals. Meanwhile our “one” plays golf. He may take up a fiddle next.
Bob Tisdale @ 1:04 & 1:08
The PDO is a statistically manufactured dataset that basically represents the pattern . . .
Over the past couple of years I have posted many times the explanation for the 30 year climate “normal” as defined by national agreements. The 30 year span always ends in a zero. Now 2010 is gone and at some near point in time our “normals” will be updated. Hurray! That issue will recede.
Unfortunately for you, comments such as you have made today have no fixed date or other aspect which will lay them to rest. You will have to repeat this material until everyone everywhere learns the meaning of pattern.
Not likely, but we can hope.
“Any takers of bets as to how many authors in the rebuttal paper?”
My guess: zero. There won’t be one. Out of mercy.
Werner Brozek says:
January 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm
The following may be on interest to you by the Institute of Physics:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Werner, you only have half the story. The IoPs submission was so controversial, that it was forced to make a subsequent statement. A discussion of this is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/13/iop-fires-back-over-criticism-of-their-submission-to-parliament/
In this we find
“The Institute adds that it has long had a “clear” position on global warming, namely that “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.”
I remember following this discussion at the time it occurred. It appeared that someone twisted the IoP’s arm, and forced it to make the second statement. Which completely supports my position on learned societies and CAGW.
Quack scientists don’t know when they are wrong and lying becomes a way of life to them. We need more funding for homes for deranged scientists, not for climate change.
Perry says:
January 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm
I would appreciate an answer on this sentence.
“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.”
What route please? Any ideas?
==========================================================
Perry in the most simple description:
CO2 – carbon – plants/animals – CO2 as a waste product
That’s a longer process than just off gassing CO2
That would explain why it’s easy for CO2 to off gas, but slower to get it back into the ocean.
There’s something else going on though.
I have a working relationship with CO2, use it jiggle pH.
I know it’s a lot harder to get CO2 into water, than it is to get CO2 out of water.
Don’t know why, it just is what it is, and never really questioned it until now.
Anyone got an idea of why that is?
Well, since Mauna Loa is in the USA, it makes sense to try to find correlations between USA temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels in the USA.
😛
Happy New Year.
I smell a rat!
From this “journal’s” website;
“Scientific Research Publishing (SRP: http://www.scirp.org) is engaged in the service of academic conferences and publications. It also devotes to the promotion of professional journals. The company has an outstanding work team as well as the widespread third party relations, enables our customers to obtain great satisfactions and convenience in their publications.
Name: Scientific Research Publishing, Inc. USA
Mailing address: P. O. BOX 54821 Irvine CA 92619-4821, USA
Email: service@scirp.org
Phone: 408-329-4591″
So proportedly based in the USA, but obviously both the “journal” paper and the website don’t speak or write or edit the English language all that well, if you were ask me.
Also a first volume-first year journal to boot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
“Scientific Research Publishing is an academic publisher of open access electronic journals. The company created a controversy when it was found that its journals duplicated papers which had already been published elsewhere, without notification of or permission from the original author. In addition, some of these journals had listed academics on their editorial boards without their permission or even knowledge, sometimes in fields very different from their own. A spokesperson for the company commented that these issues had been “information-technology mistakes”, which would be corrected.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html
Two new journals copy the old.
It would appear that the Chinese are also good at pirating, err copying, many other things as well, as has been well known for quite some time.
As I read this blog entry, I was dumbfounded an the apparent lack of writing skills displayed in the body of the text. Given that these words were taken directly from the “journal’s” text, it is now apparent as to why this blog entry was so poorly written.
Finally, a single author from Brazil no less (English is obviously NOT their native/first language), sure to set the world on fire in the very near future, or at least the Amazon Rain Forest. 🙂
R. Gates says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
“All in all an interesting paper but suspicious in its circular reasoning.”
===================================
R, since you wrote the book on “circular reasoning”, you might know.
But this paper is definitely not a case of that. It was excellent.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
So let’s see – this paper shows ~10 years of data, which appears to be from the US only. It starts in 1998, the strongest El Niño (cherry-picking, anyone?) in at least the last 100 years.
– 30 years is the time period generally accepted to show statistical significance of warming, based on the variability of weather and climate.
– The global HadCRUT3 record (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/simple_average/) shows considerable warming for the past 60 years. There are some variations in the trend (it’s certainly not monotonic), and the last ~10 years _might_ indicate something interesting in another 10 years or so.
Short term variations – and in global surface temperatures, that’s <30 years – tell you very little about what's going on.
If there HAD been a correlation, you can bet we would have heard about it in the MSM every day. Now, its total silence……
There was a short video-clip from the floods in Australia in todays news here in Norway. Not one word about AGW proponents forecasting droughts.
If it had been opposite, you can be damned sure it would have been mentioned…..
The AGW troika at work. Politicians Scientists for grants MSM
“latitude says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I know it’s a lot harder to get CO2 into water, than it is to get CO2 out of water.
Don’t know why, it just is what it is, and never really questioned it until now.
Anyone got an idea of why that is?”
I had not thought of this either until now, but now that you mention it, it makes sense. When a pop can is opened, the CO2 comes from the whole bottle of pop and fizzes to the top. On the other hand, if you were to take a pop bottle with no CO2, but subject it to a high pressure of CO2, then just the surface area exposed to the CO2 would determine how much dissolves. Make sense?
R Gates
Your post kept commenting on model predictions.
What we all should concentrate on is actual data.
It does not matter that a new theory does not coincide with certain models.
The question is does it explain the data?
Lazyteenager
You say critics of AGW always start the graphs post 1998 (if I remember the date you used correctly). I for one prefer to use all the data available whenever possible. In most cases I use data from about 1850 or there abouts, or at least from 1880. For most of the locations I have looked at temperature, adjusted for UHI, corresponds quite well over lengthy periods,with negative rainfall anomalies, rather than CO2.
Lazyteenager
you said QUOTE But this claim looks just plain wrong. If the oceans give up CO2 on warming then they must do the opposite on cooling UNQUOTE
You are not correct.
Think about opening a bottle of Coke and heating it gently on the stove.
The CO2 will be driven off into the atmosphere.
Then allow it to cool.
The CO2 will not go back in the Coke.
I take what the author is trying to say is that CO2 gets into the oceans by a slow, complicated route.
But that it can be driven out again quite easily if the temperature of the oceans rise.
Steve from Rockwood says: “This paper raises red flags for me. [7 words] Figure 1 seems to prove a positive relationship between global warming and CO2. [12 words] Many of the graph captions do not reference all the traces. [11 words] Most of the sentences are less than 10 words long. [10 words] Some sentences seem to be missing words. [7 words] Was this peer reviewed by Homer Simpson? [7 words] I see a beer cup ring on the lower left of Page 2.[12 words] “
Figure 1 shows no significant relationship. The temperature traces are both flatlined as CO2 continues up and up. Where did you study science?
Knee-jerk, ad hominem attacks on the journal are typical of the intellectual bankruptcy of the AGW movement.
The paper was interesting, but it was difficult to read. Apparently Dr, Soares is a geologist in Brazil, so presumably his native language is Portuguese. While his English is much better than my non-existent Portuguese, it would have helped to have had the paper edited by a native English speaker.
I didn’t understand the abrupt shift from talking about temperature and CO2 correlations, to looking at wavelength versus spectral energy in the discussion. I think his point was that water vapor overwhelms CO2, but then I have never understood spectral density plots (which is what his figure 20 looks like to me).
Is there anyone out there that can explain what his figure 20 means? For instance, at one wavelength the spectral energy is 100%. What does that mean? Does it mean that 100% of the energy at that wavelength is radiated into space? Or what?
At first glance this paper seems to make intuitive sense.
But we should be cautious until we learn more of the author, whether his work is statistically sound and if can be replicated.
I meant to say IF it can be replicated.
I note the full paper is openly available.
That at least is a good start.
I will download it and read it, but I would like one of the professional statisticans at this site to give it a good going over.
latitude says: “…I know it’s a lot harder to get CO2 into water, than it is to get CO2 out of water. Don’t know why, it just is what it is, and never really questioned it until now. Anyone got an idea of why that is?”
You’ll note if you uncap a clear bottle of warm club soda that CO2 bubbles are evolved not just from the top surface, but all the way to the bottom of the bottle. So it is with the ocean as it heats up: CO2 is given off within a thick layer of ocean. Readsorption, on the other hand, is limited by the surface area. Rain may be the fastest route for CO2 back to the oceans, since there’s a lot more surface area available.
Werner Brozek says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Make sense?
==============================
Yep
Now I’ve got to find out why it’s easier to get CO2 out of water, than into water.
Never really gave it much thought before. It’s just one of those things that you know is true, so you work with it, and don’t question it.
Yet I also know that even though it’s hard to get CO2 into water, water can hold a lot of CO2 once you get it in there.
Off to get my pH pen and play around some……….
jorgekafkazar says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Readsorption, on the other hand, is limited by the surface area
===============================================
Jorge, we were posting at the same time.
You’re right, atmospheric CO2 would be limited by surface area.
Where in the ocean, you have things that are producing CO2.
Problem is, it’s more biology than chemistry.
As much as the ocean is dependent on CO2 for carbon, CO2 is not the only source for carbon. But all sources of carbon can end up as CO2.
Just the way it is…
I need to sit down and read this paper.
John
If correlation does not equal causation, does dis-correlation equal causation?(sarc off)
Happy New Year Anthony (keeping hope alive in this freezing cold -8 (-22c)world) *Hot* Watt.
“Jim Cripwell says:
January 1, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Werner, you only have half the story.”
Thank you for your reply. I did ask a “warmist” the question below. See the question and his answer.
3) Do you consider the Institute of Physics a denialist organization?
No, but the Energy sub-group of the IOP has been infiltrated by denialists, and a denialist drafted their report which was submitted to parliament. That said, IOP does support theory of AGW.
R. Gates says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
“….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)……”
Very carefully worded there I see, as ever.
Let’s put to one side the solar effects beyond TSI. Let’s put to another side the improbability of a gas heating a liquid based on the real-world numbers we see.
Let’s play the TSI game.
TSI hasn’t increased over the past 50-odd years, true. However, it has stabilised at a level not seen in AT LEAST 400 years, probably a thousand years, possibly much longer. So a few questions:
1) How long would this sustained, heightened level of TSI be expected to take to feed into raising ocean temperatures, as (ceteris paribus) it surely must?
2) For how long would this sustained, heightened level of TSI be expected to have a continued positive impact on ocean temperatures, as (ceteris paribus) it surely must?
3) At what point would this sustained, heightened level of TSI have had all the impact on temperatures it was going to, by when temperatures would stabilise, as (ceteris paribus) they surely must?
4) Can the temperature record of a rise in the mid-70s through to the past decade, followed by a period of stability, be better explained by a TSI control knob or by a pretty monotonous rise in atmospheric CO2 levels across the period?
EFS_Junior says: “I smell a rat…”, January 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm
EFS:
This publisher has good and not so good magazines, you are right. Many in their editorial boards are high class scientists, probably much better than many of the mainstream pseudiscientist editors of peer reviewed journals that close doors to everything not matching their political agenda (peer rejection of truth-seekers, pal review of friends’ mediocre articles, intimidation of editorial boards, etc.), all well known practices in the current science filtering process. Others are possibly not so good (or less well known): Maybe because of the many foreighners? (I spottet some citizens of Pachauir’s country).
Let’s go into some logic:
Assume this article was all true and sound: Do you think that Nature or Science and all the other mainstream journals would let it go thru? It would certainly be destroyed by the mafia’s pal review or delayed until the author gives up.
(Meanwhile I rank these to formerly highly respected Magazines at the bottom of the scale, because they are more servants of politics than of science).
I admire editors and scientists that have the guts to go forward with such publications; they must be confident having a ‘well defendable’ quality in view of the avalanche of ad hominem attacks certainly approaching. How dare Brasilians touch the holy grail of ‘Climate Science’ if they only have soccer, Caipirinha and Copacabana (at least, that is was the huge crowd appreciate them for). They cannot be scientists!
BTW, can you tell me what a ‘scientist’ is? Are you one?
What about reading the article and judging it on the basis of its scientific substance? This would be a sound approach, giving an example to all those Nature-Gatekeepers who lost their capacity for rational debate.
As a neighbor of this beautiful country, I love Brasil first and foremost for the quality of his people. I speak Spanish with them, they reply in Portuguese and nobody cares about hearing on ocassion something that sounds a bit strange.
fegerico, that was one of the nicest posts I’ve read in a long time, thank you.
“”BTW, can you tell me what a ‘scientist’ is? Are you one?””
Scientist; someone that does not have the slightest clue, and is trying to get one………
EFS_Junior says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I smell a rat!
=======================
The only thing that stinks of a rat here…is your vicious and prejudiced “from Brasil” comment.
Folks the more the current entrenched alarmist Establishment gets challenged, the more vicious, non-cerebral, and frankly insulting….their tactics become.
Expect it, unfortunately.
Reading an interesting book called “The Deniers” right now on the subject….about the scientists who dare to scientifically challenge the sacred tenets of the Church of the CAGW…and end up getting ostracized and/or defamed, for it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The lack of correlation between CO2 as a causal factor and consequential temperature rise has been increasingly obvious since 1998 when the temperature apparently started to level off with a continuing rise in CO2 level. What is baffling is why a vastly complex set of interrelated factors should have ever come to be portrayed as an oversimplified single cause /effect relationship which even got as far as a United Nations supported international seal of approval. For anyone interested in some of the complexities can I be so bold as to suggest glancing at my paper on the Science of Global Warming posted on http://billpeddie.wordpress.com
peddiebill says:
January 1, 2011 at 8:03 pm
“What is baffling is why a vastly complex set of interrelated factors should have ever come to be portrayed as an oversimplified single cause /effect relationship which even got as far as a United Nations supported international seal of approval. ”
=================================
Exactly! Well said.
Then again, we are talking about the United Nations here, a failed, money-grubbing, international, bureaucratic disaster of epic proportions. Not exactly the gold standard.
No wonder they are so easily duped!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
CAGW enthusiasts make much of the apparent disparity between GISTEMP (the alarmists’ preferred series) and the solar irradiance trend over the past 30 years or so:
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/tsi_temp_anom_chart_1880_20092.png
Solar irradiance and temperature seem to correlate well over three centuries but from circa 1980, GISTEMP has been increasing while the TSI has been declining from a peak around 1960:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif
‘Global dimming’ is the offsetting effect that the CAGW crowd use to explain the lack of warming due to the dramatic increase in post-war CO2 emissions c.1945 – c. 1980, but that can, of course, also explain the TSI / temperature discrepancy:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/graphics/diminggraphic.gif/image
There has been “brightening since 1990” (Wiki) and the TSI, while declining, is still at a relatively high level and it is worth noting that while GISTEMP increased 1980 – 1990, UAH declined:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1990/trend/offset:-0.18/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1990/trend
So the temperature rise in the last 20 or so years could be the result of ‘catchup’, i.e. the temperature that would have been reached due to ‘undiluted’ TSI (with some help from CO2 no doubt) around the peak in the early sixties.
The temperature stasis or slight decline in the last ~10 years is more consistent with the TSI trend than CO2.
Let’s see now. CO2 is 385 parts per million in the atmosphere.
385/1,ooo,ooo times 25,000 is: 9.625. Equivalent to less than 10 gallons in a 25,000 gallon swiming pool.
Hmmmmm. Lots of swiming pools have 4 or 5 incadescent 4o watt light bulbs, say 200 watts of heating power. Of course they “heat” the water in the swimming pool . . . but nowhere near enough to be measured. Put 10 gallons of boiling water into that 25,000 gallons when the water is frigid, mix well. Yell out, “Hey gals and guys, I just warmed up the frigid pool, jump right in!” Then, better hide a good long bit. Calcs are calcs. “But I just warmed it up with 10 gallons of boiling water” just isn’t going to cut it.
Warmists are one-note Johnnies, pretending they have written a beautiful musical opus.
Perhaps some climate “scientists” best be looking for a place to hide, about now.
I smell a very big rat with “Scientific Research Publishing”.
It is run by Chinese. It has the highest page rank in Iran. Anything can be published in their journals.
The above article is mostly just junk, unfortunately.
Jari says:
January 2, 2011 at 1:44 am
Your proof ? Just because it’s in a journal of which you don’t approve doecn’t mean it’s “junk”. You are just adopting the usual AGW follower’s mantra. Show us your reasoning.
Oh, c’mon, guys – how can you possibly say that water vapour is the main driver of climate..?
Its GOT to be CO2 – obviously – because how could the politicians tax clouds..??
It’s a travesty we’re letting all that heat escape. We could be using it to frighten the populace into enslavement.
=========
There is crap in good journals and good stuff in bad journals, and vice versa. You have have to look at the individual article and evaluate it. Judging by publisher prestige is too inaccurate.
When I first read the paper I was also struck by the finding that CO2 was released faster than it was absorbed. It makes sense that CO2 is released as a function of the volume of water heated, but absorbed as a function of the area of the water cooled. The warming of the top layers of the ocean would thus release vast quantities of CO2 in the spring and summer in each hemisphere, matching the observations. The lack of rainfall towards the poles would limit the rate this would be absorbed.
I did a search on Google scholar and found that the author of this paper has two previous publications in English, including an article in 1978 in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America. He also has quite a few publications in Portuguese about geography and geology, but none that I noticed about about climate change.
Every week I get one or two emails inviting me to publish in scientific journals that I have never heard of, mostly with titles not related to my area of expertise. This seems to be a new phenomenon in the last year or two. The publisher of this journal has a reputation for “bogus journals.” I don’t know how such journals would make money–research libraries are hard put to subscribe to mainline journals and I doubt that many individuals would be willing to put on the money. In anycase, if this really is a “peer-reviewed” journal it’s at the lowest of the low.
latitude says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Excuse me, I was away for a bit, just got back, haven’t had a chance to the paper.
Another path for CO2 to enter the ocean (and lakes, ponds, etc.) is rain. It doesn’t take much of a rain storm for the rain drops to have a much greater surface area then the surface they’re landing on. (A rainfall with a measured depth equal to the raindrop size likely has a greater surface area than the rained upon surface. Need to think a bit about spherical packing and all that.) Raindrops may even be supersaturated for CO2 unless they fall on water that’s close to the freezing point.
—–
BTW, Ernest Hemingway wrote with short declarative sentences. Strunk & White like that style too.
So the science is not settled?? I have to call my broker and tell him to wait on investing in the carbon exchange.
latitude says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Hmm. I always thought it was easy. When I was a kid I was fascinated by Dad’s seltzer bottle. Why was it so heavy? Why was there a mesh made out of steel wire ribbons around it? Dad put a CO2 cartridge in a sleeve that screwed on to the top. He’d tighten it down – there’d be a muffled whoosh and bubbles came out a tube that went to the bottom of the bottle. Then he’d remove the cartridge and give it to me. It’s cold! How can it be cold? All the others in the box are at room temperature. That would take my mind off the bubbles in the bottom. If the idea was to make water you could spray, getting the CO2 to the bottom seemed like a pointless step.
No matter, those cold spent cartridges were way cool. 🙂
Thanks Anthony, may the Force be with you!
Very interesting paper by Soares. The best explanation I have read for the annual variation of CO2 level at Mauna Loa. [And it is not hidden behind a toll.]
In my opinion, Soares is not only right, he is a brave man, to write this from Brazil, a leftist-dominated country.
That his English is a little odd does not bother me, having read The Little Prince:
“I have serious reason to believe that the planet from which the little prince came is the asteroid known as B-612.
This asteroid has only once been seen through the telescope. That was by a Turkish astronomer, in 1909.
On making his discovery, the astronomer had presented it to the International Astronomical Congress, in a great demonstration. But he was in Turkish costume, and so nobody would believe what he said.
Grown-ups are like that…”
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, 1961, not peer-reviewed.
See http://home.pacific.net.hk/~rebylee/text/prince/4.html
I have linked to this paper from my “Observatorio ARVAL – Climate Change; The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm (in Spanish at http://www.oarval.org/CambioClima.htm)
A much better New Year for all of good will!
Marie Antoinette …… Let them eat cake !
Nicolae Ceauşescu …….Comrades – Comrades !
The über-rich ?
The emporers new clothes …… teee heeee !
For all the global warming thumpers out there let me simplify what this article says. I know you all hypnotically repeat what you are told though you don’t understand it so perhaps it’s futile but… When the oceans are warmer they can’t hold as much CO2.(You do realize warm sodas go flat faster right, same principle). So increasing temperatures cause the level of CO2 to rise. The temperature increases because the sun heats the earth more at some times than at others. Increases in CO2 are not going to change the amount of heat that radiates back to space. The evidence shows it is very ineffective at doing so. Water vapor is much more effective. ( A dry area like deserts have a rapid temperature drop at night whereas humid areas do not-same principle). The readings show that the change in Earths temperature correlate to the change in the suns activity and there is absolutely NO correlation to man made CO2 levels. Now, those that belong to the cult of global warming can go drink your cool aid and die because your god has just been shown to be a phony.You do not have the power to save the world, because men do not have the power to destroy it. Everything you warmists have based your life on is false and you are meaningless fools that don’t matter, although you desperately want to feel like your lives do by judging others for driving cars and using electricity.
I understand nothing in this article, beyond me. But I do know the earth has gone through more than one Ice Age, and we are not in an Ice Age now. So what happen? Didn’t the earth have to warm to bring and end to them?
Prior to the little Ice Age the earth had significant warming, which greatly benefited mankind. Then the Little Ice Age set in for decades, followed by warming again.
Guess them old cats was running around in their SUVs pumping out CO2.
AusieDan says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:25 pm
R Gates
Your post kept commenting on model predictions.
What we all should concentrate on is actual data.
It does not matter that a new theory does not coincide with certain models.
The question is does it explain the data?
_____
No it does not. It describes the data but offers no viable explanation for the source of LONG TERM warming of the oceans. There are only three possible sources for long term ocean warming:
1) Increased Solar Insolation
2) Increased GH effect from greater amounts of both CO2 and water vapor
3) Internal heat from the core of the earth (underwater volcanic activity)
#1 is not indicated by the data during the period in question
#2 is THE ISSUE skeptics and warmists love to battle about
#3 is possible, but it there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity during the period in question.
R. Gates says:
There are only three possible sources for long term ocean warming:
1) Increased Solar Insolation
2) Increased GH effect from greater amounts of both CO2 and water vapor
3) Internal heat from the core of the earth (underwater volcanic activity)
#1 is not indicated by the data during the period in question
#2 is THE ISSUE skeptics and warmists love to battle about
#3 is possible, but it there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity during the period in question.
==================================
As usual, R Gates is talking out of his rear end.
He needs to cite the evidence for #2 that increased CO2 and GHG produces long term ocean warming.
And he needs to cite the evidence for his claim in #3 “there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity.”
And he needs to realize, that, in #1 , just like his previous ill-informed description of the “AGW models” which he eventually had to correct himself and start calling them “GCMs”, that “increased solar insolation” is REDUNDANT.
There is no other “insolation” than solar.
Duh! Busted again….and again….and again.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
January 2, 2011 at 3:47 pm
#3 is possible, but it there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity during the period in question.
This study suggests that geothermal heating of the oceans has been seriously underestimated all along
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
allready knew this al gore a bullshiter ,it’s about the sunspots .but libs think there gods and can controll life here on earth
A wonderful scientific paper that fits right in on WUWT. Well done, Anthony!
Clearly anti-correlation is a sign of correlation, knuckle draggers.
Anything is possible said:
January 1, 2011 at 10:40 am
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!
What I make of it is that there is an excellent correlation (assuming n is large) between HadCRUt global temperatures & the use of performance enhancing drugs in MLB. My hypothesis is that the drugs cause increased sweating to compensate for the higher temperatures. 8<)
RACullen;
Nah. It’s much easier to hit HRs in warm weather/air. I’m serious. Ask any pro ball player.
Speaking of correlation, remember the cell phone scare?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/dec/20/mobile-phone-radiation-correlation
And remember Erin Brockovich?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1343559/She-single-mother-claimed-town-poisoned-water-supply–Erin-Brockovich-wrong.html
I posted a big comment on this from another location and hadn’t entered my e-mail , so it blew my post away. That’s a software bug. If you make an error like that so you click on “back” to return to the pre-post view so you can add the e-mail; why does it blow your whole post away. I couldn’t be bothered re-entering all that I wrote.
So here’s the short version.
1/ Linearly scale (magnify) the magenta.
2/ Down shift the magenta origin.
3/ Voilla !! the correlation is very much better than is shown in the plot above.
4/ And the correlation of green with magenta or blueblack isn’t improved one iota.
5/ And that software bug is still there.
John F. Hultquist: It took me years to realize what the word “pattern” meant in a discussion of PDO. Maybe I need to explain the word pattern, like paisley or plaid or checkerboard. A map of a checkerboard pattern in the North Pacific might get the point across. That sounds like a quick and fun little post when I’m done with the one I’m working on. Thanks for the idea. Or I simply make the following clarification:
The PDO is a statistically manufactured dataset that basically represents the pattern of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N, and I’m using the word pattern in the same way that checkboards and plaids are patterns.
@EFS_Junior says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I smell a rat!
——————————————————————-
Forget the spoon – do not try to bend the spoon — that’s impossible
just taste the soup 😉
Oooooooooh, what a shame. And the ‘global warmers’ dressed so nice.
“latitude says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I know it’s a lot harder to get CO2 into water, than it is to get CO2 out of water.
Don’t know why, it just is what it is, and never really questioned it until now.
Anyone got an idea of why that is? ”
The process is more complicated than it first appears, depending on many things, including the amounts involved, temperature, pressure, acidity. The reversible conversion of the CO2 to carbonic acid/bicarbonate (and vice-versa) is a (relatively slow) reaction that has the effect of “removing” some of the CO2 to bicarbonate, so allowing more CO2 to dissolve (and the amount converted varies with pH). When CO2 is released to the atmosphere from solution in water the reverse happens. This is one of the most important, yet rather slow, reactions for living organisms and they have evolved a “perfect” enzyme to do it: carbonic anhydrase.
So what they are saying is that the 91 ( !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) Norwegian representatives in Cancun waste airplane tickets and tax-payers money. What a surprise.
Lack of a causal relationship for CO2 driving global warming is a drum I’ve been beating for years now. Even the data Al Gore presents illustrates this point to the naked eye, i.e without crosscorreletion time series analysis. To be causal, the stimulus must always occur before the response. Hence events can be strongly correlated without either one being causal of the other. Ordinary correlation analysis does not take relative timing of events into account.
The problem is that strong correlation is often misunderstood to imply causality. This misunderstanding is not only in the layman’s mind, but also in many scientists’ minds. For example, the headline author for the article above obviously does not understand this distinction – the article body speaks to causality; the headline speaks to correlation!
A proper way to illustrate a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for confirming causality is to compute the crosscorrelation function for the CO2 concentration and global temperature time series. If the correlation time at which this crosscorreleation function peaks places CO2 concentration ahead of global temperature, then this necessary condition is met, and causality remains a possibility. If this necessary condition is not met, then the causality premise is false.
Sometimes whether or not the causality premise false is apparent without crosscorrelation analysis by viewing the (time series) data itself. Such is the case for data that Al Gore presents. The plot of CO2 concentration and global temperature data over time, scaled such that the peaks for each appear approximately the same size on the plot, shows CO2 concentration change almost always following, in distincting to leading, global temperature change. Thus the premise of CO2 concentration being the cause of global temperature is clearly false.
Of course, the statistical explanation above is overly simplified in that uncertainty of the CO2 concentration and global temperature measurement data, and the many assumptions of such an analysis must be taken into account. However, the above explanation covers the essence of the matter.
Hi All,
I just downloaded the Hadcrut3v dataset and plotted the annual averages in a spreadsheet. If you use the full dataset there is a clear upward trend. The graph used at the top of this post only covers 1996 till 2008–only 12 years. Climate normals are generally considered to be 30 years. Also, the graph I have does not match the temperature plot on that first chart. Does anyone have any ideas about this?
please write in 5th grade englinsh, otherwise you efforts are wasted forever, no matter how important your points.
Dear MRB,
If by chance your comment applies to my submission, please be assured that I tried my darnedest to give both the fifth grade English explanation as well as the graduate level introductory explanation from a time series analysis/stochastic analysis/ statistics course. I appreciate your making me reconsider the communication issue here.
It is unfortunate that more than fifth grade math is sometimes required to resolve subtle issues. However, the core concept – “To be causal, the stimulus must always occur before the response.” – should be easily within the intellectual capacity of a competent fifth grader.
Maybe a more simple paraphrase of this core concept would be – “For event A to to be the possible cause of another event, B; event A must take place before event B.”
If you can formulate a still more elementary explanation, I would welcome the collaboration. I’m sure the readers would benefit.
As a statistician, how am I supposed to believe the results in such an article? The first moment of the series analyzed is not specified/quantified, yet there are statements about the second moment (correlation). These depend on how the first moment (mean/trend) is computed. Please let the math/stats people do the math/stats analysis.