New paper on climate sensitivity estimates 1.1 ± 0.4 °C for a doubling of CO2

This new paper (in review at the discussions section) at Climate of the Past has some interesting approaches  using
Oxygen 18 isotope records from benthic foraminiferas acquired in Deep Sea Drilling project (DSDP) on the Kerguelen Plateau off the coast of Antarctica and in the Cape Basin off the coast of Namibia. These drill holes provide
18O records with a resolution of order 10 000 yr across the Eocene-Oligocene boundary thus providing an excellent proxy for deep-ocean temperature.

Tbale 2 from the paper. Some estimates of climate sensitivity published 2004–2012. Values are in units
C, for a doubling of pCO2. Where published values are in units
C/(Wm−2), the published value is multiplied by 3.7 for the purpose of this comparison. Note that Asten’s median value of 1.1 agrees with Douglas and Christy.

Estimate of climate sensitivity from carbonate microfossils dated near the Eocene-Oligocene global cooling

M. W. Asten
School of Geosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia

Abstract.

Climate sensitivity is a crucial parameter in global temperature modelling. An estimate is made at the time 33.4 Ma using published high-resolution deep-sea temperature proxy obtained from foraminiferal δ18O records from DSDP site 744, combined with published data for atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) from carbonate microfossils, where δ11B provides a proxy for pCO2. The pCO2 data shows a pCO2 decrease accompanying the major cooling event of about 4 °C from greenhouse conditions to icecap conditions following the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (33.7 My). 

During the cooling pCO2 fell from 1150 to 770 ppmv. The cooling event was followed by a rapid and huge increase in pCO2 back to 1130 ppmv in the space of 50 000 yr. The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59 ± 0.063 °C.

Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter is 1.1 ± 0.4 °C (66% confidence) compared with the IPCC central value of 3 °C. The post Eocene-Oligocene transition (33.4 Ma) value of 1.1 °C obtained here is lower than those published from Holocene and Pleistocene glaciation-related temperature data (800 Kya to present) but is of similar order to sensitivity estimates published from satellite observations of tropospheric and sea-surface temperature variations.

The value of 1.1 °C is grossly different from estimates up to 9 °C published from paleo-temperature studies of Pliocene (3 to 4 Mya) age sediments. The range of apparent climate sensitivity values available from paleo-temperature data suggests that either feedback mechanisms vary widely for the different measurement conditions, or additional factors beyond currently used feedbacks are affecting global temperature-CO2 relationships.

Discussion Paper (PDF, 1101 KB)   Interactive Discussion (Open)

Readers that have access to Climate of the Past can leave a short comment until 30 Nov 2012. You can also watch the open review process as editors and reviewers leave comments. Constructive comments are welcome.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate sensitivity and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to New paper on climate sensitivity estimates 1.1 ± 0.4 °C for a doubling of CO2

  1. Allan MacRae says:

    I may have read this abstract too quickly, but to me the term “climate sensitivity” assumes atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature, whereas the data I am familiar with clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature and is driven at least in part by temperature.

  2. Skiphil says:

    ooh, 1.1C (+/) will put quite a damper on Alarmist frenzies…..not much of a pretext for panic there…. they will need to find ways to discredit or ignore this paper!

    p.s. typo alert for “Table 2″ which reads “Tbale 2 from the paper”

  3. DanJ says:

    When the climate cooled, more CO2 dissolved in the world’s oceans. When warmth returned so did the CO2.

  4. nvw says:

    Based on the well established metric that the small the number of authors, the more important the paper, this result is significant.

  5. Steve from Rockwood says:

    I have a problem with this “doubling” thing. CO2 levels haven’t doubled for tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of years so why do we discuss the impossible?

  6. OssQss says:

    I found this relevant to the post, so here ya go!

    If you have the time, you will find it quite interesting, let alone the series…….

  7. Sparks says:

    I think the earth will warm by a qua-jillion degrees Centigrade.

  8. Dr Burns says:

    Haven’t they heard that it has been shown that CO2 changes follow temperature over these periods ?

  9. D Böehm says:

    Dr Burns,

    Correct. Which completely deconstructs the CO2=CAGW nonsense. ΔT causes ΔCO2, not vice versa — at least not that we can measure.

  10. Justthinkin says:

    Dr Burns says:

    October 5, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    Haven’t they heard that it has been shown that CO2 changes follow temperature over these periods ?

    Of course they have,but why let proven facts get in the way of a good crisis?

  11. Steve Short says:

    One thing is very interesting. This is very, very close to the best estimate of the date of inception of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (opening/deepening of Drake Channel) at 33.6 My.

    http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Bijl_etal_09.pdf

    One could assume this produced a massive increase in Southern Ocean cyanobacterial productivity as, for the first time, it allowed for the mixing of volcanic dust (Southern Andes), glacial particulate material (Antarctica, Patagonia) and desert dust (Australia, Southern Africa) to blow and fallout onto and circulate through, the entire Southern Ocean.

    This in turn would have pumped a whole lot more DMS (dimethyl sulfide) and other cloud nuclei into the air over the entire Southern Ocean thereby producing a marked dampening of global climate sensitivity (which persists to this day).

    Personally, I’m getting real old just waiting for Barack Obama to put his jive mouth where our money is, bring one or two of those 100s of B-57 left over from the Cold War out of mothballs and top dress a big swathe of ocean with cheap (now the Chinese don’t want it) Aussie iron ore to show he really is the miracle man with the answer to Life, the Universe and damn well everything, (and the good ol’ US of A really does know how to lick that pesky CAGW).

  12. Brian H says:

    Since it’s both negative and imaginary, would that mean all CO2 sensitivity numbers should be multiplied by -1, or by its square root? Or both?

  13. SamG says:

    Why is there a semi-quaver preceding Oxygen 18?

    [Reply: The HTML for Δ is "&+Delta+;". But if you forget to capitalize Delta, you get: δ. — mod.]

  14. GlynnMhor says:

    Gee, that’s awfully close to the calculable and measurable Planck response of the climate to CO2.

    1.23 degrees per doubling.

  15. Steve Short says:

    Sorry – typo in my post. I really meant B-52s not B-57. And the more I think about it , that would be a truly spectacular way for Barack Obama to demonstrate he isn’t just a One Trick Pony.

  16. F. Ross says:

    SamG says:
    October 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Why is there a semi-quaver preceding Oxygen 18?

    I believe this symbol is used to indicate a particular isotope of oxygen [or any other element]

  17. RockyRoad says:

    The way the world’s economies are stagnating, we’ll be lucky to keep the plant-benefiting, biosphere-enriching increase in CO2 we’ve already got. Getting anywhere near a “doubling” will be next to impossible.

  18. Jeff L says:

    My recollection is that 1.1 ° C/ doubling sensitivity is actually close to John Christie’s estimate based on modern data & actually fits the current observed warming fairly well. Can anyone confirm that? Potentially another body blow to the scientific arguments of the alarmists, not that it will stop them from their alarming claims.

  19. atheok says:

    From the paper linked to above:

    “…That separation is easier when a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration
    can be shown to occur in a (geologically) short period of time since this gives opportunity
    to observe the impulse response of temperature change associated with a rapid
    atmospheric CO2 change. A coincidence of paleo-temperature and CO2 variations in
    the geological record does not necessarily prove cause and effect, and unquestionably
    10 the relationship will be multifactorial, however any observed relationship does provide
    some bounds on possible models for the relationship
    …”

    Some thoughts:
    Better structured and organized than some of the other papers we’ve tried to look over.

    Wording is still typical loose climatespeak with personal affections expressed that, in this case, muddy otherwise reasonably clear statements.

    An apparent huge dependence on previous work casually aligning CO2 and Temperature lines and using their derived ratios to drive results in this paper. I didn’t see any attempts to verify pre-existing derived ratios prior to use.

    As shown above, they admit coincidence. Then after admitting coincidence, they proceed to use the derived ratios to build their own graphs of coincidences.

    Three separate data segments are defined on the charts (a,b, c). Each data segment appears to cover somewhat less than 90,000 years. Data segment ‘a’ provides; hole 744 – 12 points, hole 522 – Cibicidoides 4 points, Gyroidinoides 2 points. I assume this means 18 sections/slices of the core were tested. Furthermore, these specific slices were only tested for oxygen isotopes with only 18O isotope identified for us.

    18 data points may make for a rough idea where the values are at points over 90,000 years. But I have difficulty accepting these data points in a discussion about temperature and CO2. It’s a shotgun pattern and they’re stating ‘error (1-sigma)’ results less than .023 average. ‘error (1-sigma)’ resullts for derived ‘change in temperature (deltaT)’ is .063. Which leaves me with the questions; OK, this is an accurate math result for change in temperature for a point in time, how is 90,000 years a point in time? And how does this make a reasonable coincidence with CO2?

    CO2, according to the paper is an accepted pCO2 baseline from a Kilwa Formation coring… But I did not see any cross validation of holes 744, 522 to the Kilwa Formation core, especially for all points tested for this paper. How do I know they’re not comparing data points thousands of years apart?

    While I think their conclusion sounds sensible; that does not make me feel comfortable that they’ve really done more than test two cores for oxygen isotopes. Calling it an “Estimate of climate sensitivity…” makes this paper another climate research coincidence, long on maybe, short on definitely.

  20. dp says:

    CO2 following temperature is a positive feedback. Not a very strong one, but there, none the less. Because of it the temperature will be higher no matter the driving force that causes CO2 to increase. But what really matters is what happens next, and there is no evidence in history that what happens next is runaway heating or cooling. The temperature cycles up and down for varying periods but has never run off the dial at either end.

    So what does happen next, or at least has always happened next so far? Temperature increases or decreases stop growing in the direction they were and begin to retreat. This has been going on for billions of years. Nobody can claim to know why.

  21. Neville. says:

    Prof Murry Salby’s talk to the Sydney institute covers this topic very well.

  22. Garry says:

    Why is a seismologist writing a paper on CO2 and climate sensitivity?

  23. David Ball says:

    dp says:
    October 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    “CO2 following temperature is a positive feedback. Not a very strong one, but there, none the less. Because of it the temperature will be higher no matter the driving force that causes CO2 to increase.”

    Perhaps I am unclear, but could you explain what these three sentences mean. Thank you in advance.

  24. Sparks says:

    Garry says:
    October 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Why is a seismologist writing a paper on CO2 and climate sensitivity?

    It’s ground breaking research. get it?

  25. Edohiguma says:

    What I find interesting is the “confidence” part in this one table. What the heck? That’s not science. That’s rolling dice. Seems like a way out for them. If it doesn’t happen they can always say “look, we weren’t 100% confident about it anyway.” More proof that science has been corrupted.

  26. Alec Rawls says:

    To determine the sensitivity they first have to know the forcing. The only forcing they seem to have data on is CO2. What was happening with the sun, with volcanics? CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature. What was driving the temperature change? It seems to me that the abstract should be talking at least as much about what they can’t say about sensitivity as what they can say.

  27. snikdad says:

    A climate sensitivity of ~1degC is about what Knut Angstrom predicted in 1900, isn’t it?

  28. Brad says:

    Would love it to be 1.1 and think it is, but the average from all the papers in that table is 2.675. Isnt that the best number from this article?

  29. son of mulder says:

    “Garry says:
    October 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Why is a seismologist writing a paper on CO2 and climate sensitivity?”

    Because not all scientists live in bunkers.

  30. Nick says:

    Asten claims that Antarctica and South America were separated substantially enough for a circumpolar current to have been established by the time of his study period. While he is not very specific,it seems implicit that this was a deep separation. From a leaf through the many papers on the timing and effect of the opening of the Drake Passage and a current favoring of a later date for full functional opening of the DP,I can’t see how Asten can be so definitive.

  31. Ron Manley says:

    Using annual values, the increase in global temperaute from 1850 to 2011 was 0.783 °C (HadCRU3T) and the increase in CO2equivalent was from 289.0 to 464.1 ppm (GISS). If all that increase was caused by CO2e this implies a sensitivity of:
    Sensitivity = 0.783 * log(2)/log(464.1/289.0 )= 1.145 °C per doubling of CO2e.

    This is close the estimates of other climate realists.

    For more details see:

    http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php?id=5505161221680733484

  32. Charles says:

    How can CO2 make anything like this difference? There is not enough in the atmosphere to trap the radiation. If they can think that one CO2 molecule among 2500 odd others can reflect any significant radiation back to the surface, then they obviously have not done the mathematics. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not enough to affect the properties of all the others around it, it cannot do anything because there is just not enough of it.

    This is as stupid as pretending that CO2 in seawater can make it more acidic, especially when it is only at concentrations of 109 ppm. This is only one molecule per 9174, and that cannot exert any sort of pH effect on its own, and even if you doubled it, tripled it, or multiplied it by 10, it would still not be enough to exert any effect..

    The theory that CO2 can trap radiation, or acidify sea water in the concentrations it is present in our atmosphere and oceans is physically impossible, and no amount of Mickey Mouse conclusions will change that

  33. Agnostic says:

    @Allan McRae

    Climate sensitivity to CO2 is independent of how the CO2 got there. It’s based on radiative transfer properties and feedbacks. The reason for the great range of estimates of sensitivity is because the feedbacks are so uncertain. Doubling CO2 alone without accounting for feedbacks gives a warming effect of 1.1 C. So estimates close to that number assume feedbacks cancel out. The bigger issue is whether to regard CO2 as a forcing or a feedback.

    If warming from unknown forcings cause more CO2 to dissolve out of the oceans, for example, then CO2 itself would be a feedback to that warming event, causing even more warming. But because CO2s warming effect is logarithmic, whilst warming events tend to be quite linear, it’s effect as a feedback is not linear. You need more and more CO2 to get the same warming effect.

  34. Michael J says:

    SamG says:

    Why is there a semi-quaver preceding Oxygen 18?

    You might have the wrong character encoding. With the correct encoding (UTF-8) I see a delta sign, which you probably know means “change in ” 18O.

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    @DP:

    I can claim to know why! ( I can’t claim to know that I’m certainly correct, though ;-)

    At the hot end of things, evaporation and convection pick up faster and faster, winning the heating race and putting a lid on warming at about 100 F / 40 C (i.e. in the tropics you get lots of thunderstorms in the afternoon when it gets that hot).

    At the cold end, ice covers the water and cold suppresses the heat transport. The convection evaporation cycle shuts down.

    So it stops at one end, and “wins the race” at the other, as the evaporation / convection cycle varies faster with temperature than the actual heat change.

    That’s how heat pipes work, and why they have prescribed ranges of operation.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/spherical-heat-pipe-earth/

    On the Alaska Pipeline, there are heat pipes that cool the ground in winter, but do not warm it in summer. One way heat transfer out of the ground to assure it stays frozen. When the air end is hotter, it shuts down, when the air end is colder, it runs… until the temperature drops below the coolant evaporation point, then it stops again…

  36. Michael J says:

    Garry says:

    Why is a seismologist writing a paper on CO2 and climate sensitivity?

    Prof Asten is a geophysicist, not a seismologist. See http://www.geosci.monash.edu.au/about/directory/asten/index.html.

    I met him in the early 1990s doing mining exploration, and I remember him as a very capable individual. He has had a bit of flack from the Aus media as an “evil denier”, but I believe that reflects on the media, more than on Prof Asten.

  37. cui bono says:

    SamG says: Why is there a semi-quaver preceding Oxygen 18?
    —–

    ’tis the Music of the Spheres….

  38. It is not temperature that is important but heat content which varies at a given temperature with water content. It is heat that drives weather/climate. Whilst 18O proxy data is good for temperature it does not relate to heat content.
    Go back and recalculate.

  39. Otter says:

    (sort of off-topic)
    Anthony~ While the bulk of your article is pretty much taken straight from the paper mentioned, this is still Your article. I’d like to repost it to the site I lay out my skeptic arguments at, if I may. (with a link back here, of course)

    May as well say it here, since many of the people I would like to ask, come by here:

    I am a Skeptic in a sea of True Believers, at an art site known as Deviantart (.com). I’ve written a number of articles on climate change there, and have hopes to do a great many more.
    It goes Much faster, if I can repost articles written by others, along with my own commentary / thoughts on the matter.

    Don’t know that I will get many responses here (or if this comment will even be published), but thought I would give it a try.

  40. This article is not a paper in Climate of the Past. It is in Climate of the Past Discussion. It is not peer reviewed. The EGU journals have a unique open peer review process, where submitted manuscripts that pass a quality control are placed immediately online for the community to read and comment on. Articles that pass peer review are then published in Climate of the Past. CoPD is more akin to a preprint server like arXiv.org than a standard journal.

    A huge advantage of submitting to CoPD is that the community can read your ideas almost immediately. The great disadvantage is that any embarrassing mistakes you make in your submission are preserved for the public in perpetuity rather than remaining a secret of the editor and reviewers.

    Asten’s article makes some heroic assumptions to calculate this low value of climate sensitivity. Lets just look at one. Asten (2012) scales the isotope-inferred temperature change in the deep ocean by 1.5 to get global mean temperature change. This scale factor comes from Hansen and Sato (2012) who calculated it by comparing a global compilation of deep ocean oxygen isotope records with estimated global temperature over the Pleistocene. There are three major problems here. First, Asten (2012) assumes that this scale factor is without any uncertainty. Allowing for the inherent uncertainty in the estimate from Hansen and Sato (2012) will increase the uncertainty in Asten’s (2012) result. Second, Asten (2012) assumes that a global average relationship between deep ocean temperature and surface temperatures is valid for any single location. This is extremely doubtful. Thirdly Asten (2012) assumes that a scaling factor that is valid for the Pleistocene is also valid for the Oligocene, with different ocean circulation.

    REPLY: Ah old ‘Buzzkill Telford’, who never has anything positive to say here.

    “It is not peer reviewed.” Perhaps you forgot to look at the end links and the note I left about leaving comments. But for the dour like yourself, I’ll make it clearer – Anthony

  41. DAV says:

    SamG says:
    October 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Why is there a semi-quaver preceding Oxygen 18?

    It’s supposed to be a lower case delta. The term is used to designate the 18O:16O ratio in a sample against the ratio in a standard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9418O

  42. commieBob says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    October 5, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    I have a problem with this “doubling” thing. CO2 levels haven’t doubled for tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of years so why do we discuss the impossible?

    Try thinking about it this way: If you want to increase the temperature 1.1 degrees, you have to double the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you want to increase the temperature 2.2 degrees, you have to quadruple the CO2 in the atmosphere. 3.3 degrees requires eight times the CO2 and so forth.

  43. DWR54 says:

    Just to clarify, this is a ‘paper under review’, right? It hasn’t been accepted for publication yet? If so, then obviously its conclusions need to be treated with a degree of caution.

    Re post 1, Allan MacRae: can you confirm that you still believe a sixth order is “the best fit polynomial” trend line to use for the UAH data, as you stated in this Sept. 2008 article at ‘ICECAP': http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

    Thanks.

  44. HenryP says:

    Do they or somebody also have a figure for how much cooling is caused (co2 has absorption in the uv and at 2 and 5 um.

  45. Bill Illis says:

    Technically, the data at this time period says the CO2 sensitivity is Null.

    Global temps fall 2.0C starting 33.6 million years over a few hunded thousand years to a level close to today. Antarctica glaciates over in under 100,000 years. CO2 stays high at 1200 ppm over the period.

    Temps stay more-or-less at this level for the next 7 million years. CO2 falls temporarily, 2 million years later, but then it goes back up again.

    The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is constricted again at 27 million years ago and the glaciers melt back and global temperatures rise 2.0C again. CO2 then goes down, just as the temperatures are going back up.

    Temperatures are still warm at 24 million years ago, the Antarctic glaciers are only at about half of today’s level. CO2 promptly falls below 280 ppm for the perhaps the very first time in history. Temperatures stay high and even go higher over the next 8 million years while CO2 stays in a range of 240 ppm to 400 ppm.

    There is no correlation. .

    All of the CO2 sensitivity studies in the table above did not use the actual temperature and CO2 estimates. They more-or-less just made-up the values based on some climate model simulation or some backwards math technique. You cannot get a paper published that says there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in X period (even though the data shows this).

  46. Suey says:

    ‘The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59 ± 0.063 °C….Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter’

    So he’s trying to redefine climate sensitivity? The deep-ocean temperature response to forcing changes?

    I don’t think you’re allowed to do that…

  47. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    David Ball:

    “CO2 following temperature is a positive feedback. Not a very strong one, but there, none the less. Because of it the temperature will be higher no matter the driving force that causes CO2 to increase.”

    I believe DP means that as the oceans warm (regardless of why) they release CO2. This additional CO2 will have a slight positive feedback which will cause atmospheric temperatures to rise even more.

  48. Doug Huffman says:

    Heat content varies with the specific heat integrated across the stuff.

    Like the move to simplified language standard English in the law, this abstract, particularly, is so full of jargon and acronym that it is nearly unreadable nonsense.

  49. I see no one read the paper. See the scaling factors in eq 4.

    REPLY: I see Mosh still can’t make complete comments. Steve when will you learn to be more effective by typing more than few crypto bits? It’s a chronic problem with you. I think of you like a brother in arms, but please if you want to make a point, make it with substance. Thanks – Anthony

  50. RobRoy says:

    “additional factors beyond currently used feedbacks are affecting global temperature-CO2 relationships.”
    Let’s get it out.
    WATER VAPOR IS A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. IT HAS A STABILIZING EFFECT ON OUR ATMOSPHERE.
    H2O vapor/clouds makes it cooler when other factors cause warmth. H2Ovapor/clouds makes it warmer when other factors cause cooling.
    This is my story and I’m sticking to it.

  51. Bill says:

    The temperature change also happened over 50,000 years is the way I read it. Of course that was the pace of the CO2 doubling based on their data/argument.

    Science will figure it out eventually with a little help from nature. Next 10-15 years will be interesting.

  52. HenryP says:

    DWR54 says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%c2%b1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/#comment-1102668

    Henry says

    I checked that UAH data once and could not find any decent correlation, whatsoever.
    Namely, earth has so many, many places where it stores energy, like in water, in chemicals, in vegetation etc. so that what is bound to come out (energy-out) looks strange and unrecognizable in terms of patterns.
    However, in my case I Iooked at maximum temperatures, which is like an evaluation of energy-in. Looking at the deceleration of warming on the maxima, I was stunned to find that it seemed to follow on a bi-nominal curve and the correlation I got for that was 0.998. Eventually I realized that it must be like an a-c-wave and of course that is symmetrical.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/new-paper-predicts-sst-temperature-based-on-pacific-centennial-oscillation/#comment-1100779

    I have already figured out what mechanism causes this wave, more or less.

  53. Steve from Rockwood says:

    commieBob says:
    October 6, 2012 at 5:27 am
    ————————————————–
    I can’t see this doubling being linear for a single doubling let alone several doublings. Let’s go the other way. Assuming 512 ppm CO2 and cut it in half. Soon you’re down to 1 ppm and -9.9 degrees cooling. Using the IPCC 4.0 deg/doubling you’re at -36 deg cooling and still CO2 in the atmosphere. So at some point this simple equation must break down otherwise you would get to near absolute zero for ppb levels of CO2. Then go the other way. What has been the maximum CO2 level during the past 250 million years and what has been the average maximum temperature for the earth? I suspect the CO2 levels would be much higher than the extrapolated temperature (based on this formula) would suggest. Various graphs of CO2 and temperature show temperature peaking at about 10 deg warmer than today despite CO2 concentrations over 5,000 ppm. Are these graphs wrong or does the Earth have a natural thermostat?

  54. Steve from Rockwood says:

    In my previous post I got it wrong. Using the 1.1 deg/doubling of CO2 gives outrageous CO2 concentrations for a 10 deg increase of the planet. Over 200,000 ppm. This doubling formula doesn’t make sense to me unless you only double once (say from 250 to 500).

  55. michael hart says:

    Allan MacCrae got it right in the first comment. The concept of a “climate sensitivity” number presupposes many things. In politics this trick is termed “framing”, such that the unwary reader may be lead to assume the veracity of the underlying assumptions which may not even be stated. The concept of a single earth temperature is simply not valid. There is no definition of climate in a useful physical or mathematical sense. Climate sensitivity is a product of the computer models, not a measured physical observation.

    Even if there was such a number, it could be close to zero, or could vary so wildly with changing temperatures and CO2 concentrations that it would have no useful purpose. It could be negative in certain circumstances, since if CO2 is able to thermalise IR radiation then the reverse must also be the case.

    In the recent post at Bishop Hill on the subject and the Stern Report,

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/10/1/climate-sensitivity-and-the-stern-report.html

    The first graph [linked below] is a re-plot of an IPCC figure of “climate sensitivity”. [With unlabelled axis, it is actually the numbers which should be removed.] Look at the shapes of the lines. The smooth flowing curves could just as easily look like a picket fence, or the Dow Jones Index, or could go up and down like the Assyrian Empire. It is not data, it is speculation in model land. They look the way they do because humans wrote computer programs to make them look that way.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/AR4%20full%20col.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1348947304566

    By all means we can talk about the sensitivity of climate to CO2, but assigning the concept a number [or a constant] lends it a credibility that has not been demonstrated. If once spurious numbers become accepted as a meaningful representation of the real world, they take on a life of their own and have a habit of becoming targets.

    [Check those links again please. Mod]

  56. pochas says:

    The paper makes the tacit assumption that CO2 was the cause of the decrease and also the following increase in temperature, which allows one to calculate a “sensitivity”, thereby adding to the overwhelming “evidence” that underlies the settled science of CAGW. And, its a lower more believable value that the stupid skeptics might accept.

  57. Allan MacRae says:

    Regarding dCO2/dt versus Temperature, CO2 Lags Temperature, Temperature drives CO2, and “Feedback Effects”

    I discovered the close relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature in late 2007 and published the paper below on icecap in January 2008. This dCO2/dt relationship is the source of the 9 month lag in CO2 after temperature, also demonstrated in my paper ( although the latter fact was previously noted by Kuo et al in 1990, Keeling et al in 1995, and Veizer in 2005 ).

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

    Then there is the much longer ~~800 year lag of CO2 after T (as measured in ice cores). Note that ~800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period.

    It appears that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

    Each temperature cycle has its own CO2 delay, and its own approximate period (cycle time length).

    There may also be one or more intermediate cycles between the above two (the late Ernst Beck believed there was), and other shorter cycles.

    There is ample evidence of a daily localized cycle, driven by photosynthesis.

    http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30

    The evidence suggests that varying atmospheric CO2 is not a cause of climate change, it is an effect.

    I further hypothesize that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are relatively small compared to natural daily, weekly, seasonal and millennial CO2 flux, and are probably insignificant in this huge dynamic system. Deforestation may have a greater impact on atmospheric CO2 than the combustion of fossil fuels.

    No small irony here – if I am correct, both sides of the rancorous “mainstream” global warming debate are wrong. Both sides assume that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are the primary driver of temperature, and are only arguing about the amount of warming (climate sensitivity to CO2, H2O feedbacks positive or negative, etc.). If I am correct, both sides of the mainstream debate have “put the cart before the horse”.

    When I wrote my 2008 paper, the ~9-month lag of CO2 after temperature was dismissed as a “feedback effect”. I think this was a cargo-cult response to my sacrilegious hypo that temperature could drive CO2, rather than the generally-accepted opposite. While such “feedback effects” may exist, I believe they are so small as to be insignificant and they may not exist at all. To be specific, I believe that the sensitivity of temperature to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is much less than 1 degree C, which is an upper limit of its magnitude.

    We confidently wrote in 2002 at

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    Since then there has been no net global warming, and perhaps some modest cooling.

    We also predicted the debacle in green energy, where a trillion dollars of scarce global resources have since been squandered on alternative energy nonsense.

    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    In comparison, every dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmist movement has failed to materialize. There has been no runaway global warming. Corn ethanol and other food-to-fuel programs are humanitarian, economic and environmental disasters. Grid-connected wind and solar power schemes have driven up energy costs, failed to provide useful additional energy, and have destabilized electricity grids.

    The environmental movement lost its way in the 1970’s and since then has done much more harm than good to humanity AND the environment.

  58. Maus says:

    Agnostic, a few notes. Just notes, nothing personal:

    “The reason for the great range of estimates of sensitivity is because the feedbacks are so uncertain. ”

    eg. The climatologists are in the same ceteris paribus boat as the economists. We can look at simple tautological first principle notions and derive such things as a 1.1 C feedback on the notion that *nothing else has any effect*. With CO2 alone there would be nothing further to say. But if we state anything about the sensitivity of the climate due CO2 is a large box of nonsense. There is nothing peculiar here to the climate as these are standard notions of dealing with any complex systems.

    “The bigger issue is whether to regard CO2 as a forcing or a feedback. ”

    This is a pet peeve of mine. If we have a number of Fe atoms in a solid strata then they will interchange photons. Is that a forcing or feedback? The question itself is a nonsense in large part. If you pick a domain within the bulk then all inbound photons from elsewhere in the bulk are ‘forcing’. If you pick a domain within the bulk then all photon transfers within the bulk are feedback. But that last is rather strained itself as we’re only talking about variations in the heat equations. Nonetheless all photons begin and end within the bulk in this notion.

    The problem here is that if you’re looking at soil temperature alone, then CO2 is a forcing. If you’re speaking of atmospheric temperature alone then CO2 is a feedback. If you’re speaking of the H2O and CO2, each distinctly, within the atmosphere alone then both are feedbacks on the atmospheric temperature and forcings upon one another.

    In the large part the use of ‘forcing’ and ‘feedback’ are simply obfuscation to avoid dealing with ensemble differences in the heat equations. By trying to take a half-argument into spooky quantum domains. It is as unhelpful as it is unnecessary; and it is the first refuge of free-energy perpetuum mobile scoundrels

  59. wsbriggs says:

    Mosh’s comment on the scaling factors is interesting. They actually have the uncertainty factors shown in an equation, what a marked change from the usual crap that purports to be science. Not only that, but they state that the ice volume correction can vary by ~30%, and the deep ocean temp response could vary ~33%. So with that information, what is your comment Steven? Too high, too low?

    While I’m posting, an errant thought popped up, given that there appears to be abiological genesis of methane, there should be an equally interesting equation for CO2 generation. A subsequent migration of the fluid (high pressure – above the triple point of 22 bar) could result in massive increases of CO2. This would occur during significant world shaping geological events, over short geological times, but relatively long times compared to our life spans. Obviously this occurs through vulcanism, but I’m talking about non-volcanic activity through faults. Just an errant thought.

  60. Bill Illis says:

    If you want a better view of the data than is shown in the paper (like Mosher, it is quite cryptic), here are the temperature estimates and all of the CO2 estimates over the last 40 million years (the data used in the paper are in this chart but I am using all the reliable numbers that there are so rather than 8 data points, there is a total of 16,000 datapoints here between temps and CO2).

  61. Gary Pearse says:

    Hmm…if you plot the sensitivity changes in the literature with time, the figure seems to be declining to the 1.1 number. A long way from the heady AR4 days. Do we have AR5 datat to put onl the curve yet?

  62. Henry Clark says:

    Deep-ocean temperature increase can cause CO2 rise more than the other way around. This publication is more suggestive of an upper limit on the potential magnitude of temperature change from CO2 than of its exact value, as in either around a degree Celsius or less from a CO2 doubling (not demonstrating a lower limit). Aside from that correlation versus causation issue, it is good to see a relatively honest study, though.

    Slightly off-topic:

    Over a time period of thousands of years like that, the deep oceans can change substantially in temperature, as in a large fraction of a degree. Such, though, should cause no confusion about far shorter timescales. The temperature change they can have on short timescales like years and decades is almost zero. (For instance, the belief that global warming would quickly warm the ocean floor and release methane hydrates enmasse, aside from being disproven by past history, demonstrates the utter and complete mathematical illiteracy of typical environmental activists, the same as on other topics like radiation and nuclear power). There has been next to nil deep-ocean warming during current “global warming,” in terms of not a tenth of a degree, as is the only possible result due to the quantitative magnitude of the thermal inertia and effective insulation of water thousands of meters deep; the top several meters of ocean surface water change far more than water a thousand times their depth below.

    For the extreme lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature change when the latter is happening on timescales not long enough to change deep ocean temperature much, see:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

    especially, for the past 200 to 11000 years:

  63. fhhaynie says:

    As I understand it, this “sensitivity” is simply the regression b coefficient in the equation T=a+b*ln(CO2). Normal regression statistics assumes the values for CO2 are accurrately fixed(especially with time) and the relationship (b) and it’s confidence limits can be calculated using a least squares technique on the fixed data. The problem with using proxie data and normal statistics to test the validity of this simple model is that neither temperature nor CO2 are accurately fixed. This is easily demonstrated by transposing the equation to ln(CO2)= T/b-a/b and using normal regression techniques to calculate the coefficients. If the values were accurate, the calculated coefficients should be the same. Because neither is accurate, the coefficients will not be the same. Their differencies will depend on the relative accuracy of each. I don’t think using proxie data to test the validity of an oversimplified model of the temperature/CO2 relationship is going to do a good job. Trying to do it on a global scale is beyond my understanding.

  64. gymnosperm says:

    They have made a nice measurement of CO2 sensitivity to temperature.

    ===========================================================

    Steve Short says:

    October 5, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    Steve: One can imagine the Kelvin and Rossby waves that must have reflected back and forth prior to the opening of Drake’s Passage. At that latitude…

    Why bother with the iron and why the Southern Ocean and not the subtropical dead zones? The Southern Ocean is probably nearly at iron sufficiency from the upwelling and the CO2 from the deep water is actually one of the vaunted nutrients in this upwelling.

  65. Gary D. says:

    “During the cooling pCO2 fell from 1150 to 770 ppmv. The cooling event was followed by a rapid and huge increase in pCO2 back to 1130 ppmv in the space of 50 000 yr. The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59 ± 0.063 °C.”

    I have a few questions.

    Wouldn’t a CO2 range of 1150ppm to 770ppm make us Venus in today’s climate debate? (jk)

    Is this a study of deep ocean temperatures and the impact of CO2 on those temperatures? Or the impact of temperature on CO2 at the bottom of the ocean? If so considering the thermal layers of the ocean and the properties of gas at different pressures, does this have anything to do with the atmosphere?

    Do we know what impacts deep ocean temperatures?

  66. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Looks like confidence is waning since 2004!

  67. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Allan MacRae says:

    October 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    I may have read this abstract too quickly, but to me the term “climate sensitivity” assumes atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature, whereas the data I am familiar with clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature and is driven at least in part by temperature.

    A 1.1°C rise in temperature will double CO2. You heard it here first.

  68. Stephen Wilde says:

    It seems plausible to me that if the average global ocean surface temperature were to rise by 1.1C then that would result in a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content due to a change in the balance between oceanic absorption and oceanic release of CO2.

    All that would be necessary would be for the climate zones to shift latitudinally which would in turn shift the latitudinal point in each hemisphere where equatorial release of CO2 becomes overcome by polar absorption of CO2.

    For example, if the climate zones shift poleward as was observed then the dominance of emission over absorption would increase and if the climate zones shift equatorward then emission would decline relative to absorption.

    It has been observed that the climate zones did shift poleward whilst CO2 rose. Indeed that poleward shifting has been in progress since the Little Ice Age so the balance of absorption / release has been changing throughout that period.

    In fact there are many negative feedback processes such as evaporation rates and convection that serve to make it very difficult for ocean surface temperatures to rise significantly in the first place hence the long term stability of the global climate system.

    If we accept that the world has warmed by about 0.7C over the past 150 years then the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not far from what would be expected on that basis.

    However, the warming oceans are far more likely to have been caused by reduced cloudiness at a time of more active sun than by our puny emissions of CO2.

    I much prefer that simple diagnosis against the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

  69. HenryP says:

    Allan MacRae says
    The evidence suggests that varying atmospheric CO2 is not a cause of climate change, it is an effect.
    Henry says
    Actually it is a chemical reaction. Remember that there are giga tons and giga tons of carbonate dissolved in the oceans which is what makes the seas salty, mostly.
    So the reaction is
    heat + HCO3- ==> CO2 (g) + OH-
    (similar to boiling water to remove carbonate)
    This reaction has been gaining momentum from ca. 1927

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    that would be quite a bit before Al Gore climbed his Jacob’s ladder…..LOL
    an inconvenient truth, indeed…for him, that is.

  70. Kelvin Vaughan says:
    October 6, 2012 at 9:58 am

    A 1.1°C rise in temperature will double CO2. You heard it here first.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    October 6, 2012 at 10:25 am

    It seems plausible to me that if the average global ocean surface temperature were to rise by 1.1C then that would result in a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content

    That violates Henry’s Law: an increase of 1°C of seawater at the surface results in an increase of maximum 16 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere (~8 ppmv in reality, as vegetation reacts in opposite ways to temperature). That is the difference in solubility of CO2 in seawater, no matter if that is for the ocean’s surface or for the total ocean depth. It is the pCO2 pressure (difference) which counts, not the mass. That works as well as static as dynamic (with equatorial upwelling deep ocean waters continuously discharging CO2 and polar waters continuously removing CO2 into the depth).

    Thus a temperature increase of 1.1°C from the deep oceans, if that is also found at the surface, would give an increase of maximum ~18 ppmv in the atmosphere, that is by far not the increase from 770 to 1130 ppmv as estimated from the deep ocean sediment cores. In that case, CO2 may be the driver of the temperature increase of the deep oceans and one can estimate the climate sensivity.

    But rests to know where that extra CO2 was coming from and we still may have a spurious correlation where, except for the small influence of temperature on CO2 levels, CO2 and temperature were independently moving up, but maybe with a common cause.

    HenryP says:
    October 6, 2012 at 10:30 am

    So the reaction is
    heat + HCO3- ==> CO2 (g) + OH-

    The increase of temperature increases the pCO2 in water, compared to the atmosphere, leading to more release of CO2, a reduction of total dissolved inorganic carbon in seawater (DIC) and an increase in pH. As we currently observe an increase in DIC over time and a decrease in pH of the seawater surface layer, it may be clear that temperature is not the driving force for most of the increase over the past decades… See:

    http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/IntDecVar_OCC.html

  71. Craig Moore says:

    FWIT for WUWT readers here’s a site on Race Rocks in the Strait of Juan De Fuca that tracks water temperature and salinity: http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/data/seatemp/seatemp.htm It tracks temperature back to 1921 and salinity back to 1936.

  72. rdr200 says:

    I think the curious fact that the CO2 seems to come after the temperature rise is best explained by the Gore Space-Time Loop Effect (STLE).
    First the temperature goes up. Then some time later (perhaps several hundred years) the CO2 rises. This sudden rise triggers the STLE. The gas [here CO2] around the planet [here Earth] separates into two distinct layers—a Non-Precipitating Layer (NPL) and a Precipitating Layer (PL). The PL remains where it is and gives the impression in precipitation of the entire mass. The NPL on the other hand opens a rift in the Space-Time continuum and goes back to a time before the temperature rise. Here it remains and by the GHG effect raises the temperature—(but , since it is NP, never shows up in the snow and ice that time records). It remains there until it reaches its proper time and then loops back again, etc.
    Actual proof of the STLE will require new solutions to Einstein’s equations. However, it is the consensus view of climate scientists that it is empirically true—so the appropriate solutions will, no doubt, be found soon.

    rdr200

  73. Filipe says:

    1.1+- 0.4 is roughly a 3 sigma result, it suggests the sign of the forcing is positive but not much more than that.

  74. Two events, which will occur for certain in the not very distant future – practical electric cars and
    nuclear power – will virtually eliminate sizable carbon emissions from us humans, and thereby transform this issue into an academic one. So that’s the way I view it – a question that will be, at best, of historic interest to future generations of non-climatologists. Those hysterical souls who
    have acquired carbonophobia should be campaigning for cheap batteries and nuclear reactors
    (Generation 4 reactors, fast reactors, that is).

  75. Stephen Wilde says:

    Ferdinand,

    I said elsewhere why your Henry’s Law objection is not valid.

    Simply, If the balance between release and absorption changes then the atmospheric CO2 levels will change and Henry’s Law provides no constraint because it only works on a point by point basis locally or regionally and not globally.

    Furthermore, winds need to be taken into account whereby the air circulation can take CO2 away from one location allowing more to be released whilst it backs up elsewhere unable to be absorbed.

    And, in general, windflow is away from warm CO2 sources towards CO2 sinks so one can get a good deal of backing up in the atmosphere above the sinks before Henry’s Law causes any restraint on emissions from the sources.

    Bear in mind that warming equatorial oceans will first increase release in the equatorial oceans and then when that warmth circulates poleward it will reduce absorption in polar regions thus compounding the net effect.

    Your simplistic reliance on Henry’s Law bears little relation to reality.

  76. Steven Mosher says:

    wsbriggs says:
    October 6, 2012 at 7:15 am (Edit)
    Mosh’s comment on the scaling factors is interesting. They actually have the uncertainty factors shown in an equation, what a marked change from the usual crap that purports to be science. Not only that, but they state that the ice volume correction can vary by ~30%, and the deep ocean temp response could vary ~33%. So with that information, what is your comment Steven? Too high, too low?

    ###############################################
    Thanks for reading the paper

    ha I see the cryptic remark actually got somebody to read the science rather than just a knee jerk responses ( like.. models suck.. they are only in it for the gold.. We are right, Warmer is better, blah blah blah blah… ) It pretty simple guys. Lots of people are fighting for open journals and no more paywall. You dont support that movement by reacting to a paper without reading it. And you are not a skeptic if you dont read CRITICALLY.

    The problem is they included the systematics in their analysis but not in their topline report.
    The systematics is a product of S1 which ranges from .7 to 1 and S2 which ranges from 1 to 1.5. I would think they should report the full uncertainty which will result in a broader range that goes as high as 2 or close to it. The biggest uncertainty is the scaling factor of the deep ocean temp to the global temp ( Hansen suggests 1.5 .. from memory please check)

    There other problem (misleading thing ) is the table of sensitivity estimates. They should probably only compare deep paleo with other deep paleo. In the end, here I would agree with Hansen. Deep paleo gives you the best estimate of ECR.. basically you get the system response over a long period so all feedbacks get included.

    Too high or too low?

    Lukewarmer position is pretty clear. There is a better than 50% chance that the ECR falls below 3 and above 1C. including systematics they fall in the .lower half of Lukewarmer with a max of around 2C.

    This one reason why HS studies dont matter. HS studies cant constrain the estimate of ECR.
    Time span is too short and uncertainty is too high.. you get very broad PDFs.

    The evidence for ECR comes in three varieties

    1. Deep Paleo
    2. Short term observational
    3. Climate models.

    #1 is key. #2 is hotly debated ( Lindzen, etc ) #3 isnt evidence, per se.

  77. HenryP says:

    ferdinand engelbeen says
    as we currently observe an increase in DIC over time and a decrease in pH of the seawater surface layer, it may be clear that temperature is not the driving force for most of the increase over the past decades
    henry says
    I am so glad you agreed with me last time that Borsselen should be made flood proof.
    There have been several recent studies that showed a marked increase in bio activity both on land and on sea. So there is your explanation for the increase in DIC.
    I don’t regard two stations for measuring pH as representative of all of the earth’s waters and the decrease is so small as to fall mostly within the error of calibration.
    Either way, energy -in is going down from 1995 so the reaction now goes the other way:
    CO2 + 2H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+
    So there is you explanation for that observation.
    I saw there is a station in Alaska that reports CO2 flat now from around 2007. I suspect the others keep reporting that CO2 is not flat, because otherwise they might lose their reason for being…..and with that the loss of their salaries of course.

  78. HenryP says:

    Henry says
    either way, energy-in is going down from 1995
    see here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    in case you missed that…

  79. ntesdorf says:

    They have their cart in front of their horse. CO2 level changes are brought about by changes in temperature. In this case you cannot have it both ways.

  80. Steven Mosher says:

    Suey says:
    October 6, 2012 at 5:37 am (Edit)
    ‘The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59 ± 0.063 °C….Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter’

    So he’s trying to redefine climate sensitivity? The deep-ocean temperature response to forcing changes?

    #################################

    Lets clear up this confusion once and for all. First some in climate science are responsible for the confusion, but lets fix the problem and not the blame.

    CLIMATE sensitivity is a measure of the system response to a change in forcing.

    Change in temperature ( C) for change in Watts of forcing.

    So, a change of 1 Watt of forcing causes a change in temperature of “x’ C
    There are two measures here: TRANSIENT change or TCR and equillibrium change or ECR.

    If the sun increases 1 watt on average you would expect to see the temperature go up. The short term responsenis transient response. Over time the system will reach a new steady state. The temperature then will include feedbacks. ECR is greater than or equal to TCR.

    People also talk about a sensitivity to DOUBLING.. that confuses the conversation.

    lets say the sensitivity of the climate is .8. That means a 1 watt increase in forcing will create an increase of .8C. Thats the response IN C to a forcing in Watts. It says nothing about C02. If the sun increases output and the earth warms. that response would be the sensitivity to a change in forcing.

    Doubling C02 increases forcing by 3.7Watts. if the climate repsonds by increasing temps to 3C then the sensitivity to doubling is 3C.. 3C per 3.7Watts.

    If you think that doubling C02 (3.7Watts ) leads to 1 C warming.. Then a 1 watt change in the sun would lead to less than .3C warming.

    So two different numbers: sensitivity to change in forcing of 1 watt. and the change due to a change of 3.7Watts.

  81. pitthewelder says:

    There seems to be a significant amount of comment that purports to be from serious scientific sources, yet they have no links? Are you under the impression that your opinions have some sort of merit?

  82. wayne says:

    There it is again…. “Doubling C02 increases forcing by 3.7Watts.”, stated as fact by Mosher.

    Mosher, that’s an assumption, it’s never has been empirically proven that I have ever come across. If you merely state a small lab test-tube test, that just don’t cut it for myself and many others.

    However, you know what would be a very good test to see if an open ended test, with an established thermal gradient, would actually show that figure so many just assume of that hypothetic value in a planetary atmosphere?

    Take the SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Collider) some time when it is down for maintenance and use that two-mile tube for a more realistic ‘atmosphere’. One end capped with a dual plate with liquid nitrogen flowing between the plates (the space end), the other end using a warmed copper plate much a Tyndall original apparatus, at 288K, as the LW generator for the ‘surface’ end. Temperature loggers along the two mile tube.

    Now vary the CO2 concentration within at 1 STP, from 300 to 600 to 900 ppmv and then back down to 600 to 300 for a few cycles as the data was being logged of the temperature variances along that shortened ‘atmosphere’ (from the 11 km to about 4 km).

    I now you will never be able to also get the pressure and density gradient of a real atmosphere but it seems that would be the about the best we could ever approach. If such a test showed warming a quarter of the way from the ‘surface’ end I would no longer question this 3.7Wm-2/C figure as being actual in an real atmosphere’s environment.

    My suspicions are such a test would show a fraction of the 3.7, could even be zero, could even be very slightly negative due to the increased thermal conductivity via radiation between that infinite cold absorber end and the warm surface end.

  83. F. Ross says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    October 6, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    “…
    Lets clear up this confusion once and for all.
    …”

    [+emphasis]

    Without commenting on the validity or clarity of your post, do you REALLY think that it clears up the confusion “once and for all.”?
    ;>)

  84. Steven Mosher says:

    There it is again…. “Doubling C02 increases forcing by 3.7Watts.”, stated as fact by Mosher.

    Mosher, that’s an assumption, it’s never has been empirically proven that I have ever come across. If you merely state a small lab test-tube test, that just don’t cut it for myself and many others.

    #####################

    Wayne.

    1. Do IR sensors in missiles work according to theory?
    2. Do you trust the satellite imagery you’ve seen?
    3. Do you trust a weather satellite that measures the speed of winds using the doppler effect?
    4. Does you cell phone work and do you trust the physics used to design cell towers and antenna?

    Simply put. First we see if you trust various devices that are engineered using very precise physics.

    Then, I will show you the empirical tests.

    But first. Do you trust the physics of radiation transfer? and are youaware of all the testing that physics has under gone? have you ever worked with a LBL physics model. If the DoD accepts them and infact built them to defend this country do you accept them.

    Answer.

    Also, you dont test this in SLAC. If you understood the physics you would not suggest anything so stupid

  85. Steven Mosher says:
    October 6, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    If you think that doubling C02 (3.7Watts ) leads to 1 C warming.. Then a 1 watt change in the sun would lead to less than .3C warming.

    Steven, I usually agree with your point of view, but here I differ: What you say here is only true if solar forcing and CO2 forcing have exactly the same effect. That is one of the basics of current models (+/- 10% around unity, which is for CO2). But that is questionable: are you sure that 1 W/m2 change in solar income (mainly changing in the UV-range – ozone – stratospheric changes – jet stream position – weather patterns + deeper water warming + Svensmark effect) has the same effect as 1 W/m2 in GHG forcing (lower troposphere – upper fraction of a mm in water)? See:

    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

  86. Craig Moore says:

    R. de Haan says:
    October 6, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    NYT publishing BS again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/scientists-in-washington-state-adopt-tiny-island-as-climate-change-bellwether.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

    As I noted above there is a recording station at Race Rocks. It is about 40 miles east of Tatoosh. Look at RR’s records of salinity. http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/data/seatemp/seatemp.htm January 1937 it was at 31.6. January 2010 it was at 30.16. Seems like those readings debunk the rising salinity from CO2 conjecture in the NYT article.

  87. Stephen Wilde says:
    October 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Simply, If the balance between release and absorption changes then the atmospheric CO2 levels will change and Henry’s Law provides no constraint because it only works on a point by point basis locally or regionally and not globally.

    As said in the previous comment, Henry’s Law holds as well for static (point sources/sinks) as for dynamic changes: if the water temperature at the warm equatorial upwelling places increases with 1°C, the pCO2 of water may go up from 700 to 716 microatm, which gives that the pressure difference with the atmosphere goes up from 305 microatm to 321 microatm. For the same windspeed, that means that the release of CO2 from the (deep) oceans there increases with 5%. At the other side, when the seawater temperature at the sink places increases with 1°C, the pCO2 difference decreases and thus the sink flow decreases with some similar %.

    Both cause an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But when the increase reaches 16 ppmv, both the release and sink flows are again the same as before the temperature increase, be it at a higher level in the atmosphere, as dictated by Henry’s Law.

    Wind speed has its influence on the speed of exchanges, but not on the levels reached. Even huge hurricanes or active vs. less active hurricane seasons don’t show much influence on CO2 levels.

  88. Steven Mosher says:

    The physics which describes how radiation transfers through the atmosphere is fundamental to the design of radars, IR sensors, basically anything that sends a signal through earths atmosphere or interprets signals from the surface.

    So yes, those satellites we rely on actually use Models of radiative physics to figure out what they are looking at. The data presented at the sensor face ( like a CCD ) is passed through algorithms to create data products. Those algorithms rely on the physics of radiation moving through our atmosphere. These models come in two varieties; Band models ( like MODTRAN) and the more complete LBL models or Line By Line models.

    Both MODTRAN and the LBL models are used in everyday engineering. If you want to know how to size your attenna or size your sensor to detect signals you have to use one of these models.
    For example. Imagine you are building an aircraft that flies at 50K feet. Imagine you want to determine if that aircraft will be Viewable to an IR sensor on the ground. Say a stinger missile.
    Well, that IR signal has to pass through the atmosphere. What happens to it? how much of the signal gets scattered? how much get absorbed? how much makes it through to the sensor?
    Those questions are answered by radiative physics, by LBL models and band Models.

    Of course those models are tested against observation. And they work. They work so well that they used to be classified. They work so well that we defend our liberty with them.

    Some reading.

    First some proof that the models work

    Walden, V. P., S. G. Warren, and F. J. Murcray (1998), Measurements of the downward longwave radiation spectrum over the Antarctic Plateau and comparisons with a line-by-line radiative transfer model for clear skies, J. Geophys. Res., 103(D4), 3825–3846, doi:10.1029/97JD02433.

    Ellingson & Wiscombe (1996), Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 77, Issue 9, “The Spectral Radiance Experiment (SPECTRE): Project Description and Sample Results”,

    So the physical models are correct but then you all knew that. You knew it because our country is defended by this science. you cell phone and Wifi works because this science is correct.

    What we can then do is estimate what happens if we double C02 in our atmosphere. It goes without saying that we cannot do this experiment in a controlled fashion. That is, we can simply go out and double the C02 in the real atmosphere. So we take a model that we know works to predict the way the world works ( tested and verified ) and we double C02 holding everything else constant.

    That gives us this

    http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf

    here you see the famous log() relationship, however, that relationship was determined over a hundred years ago..

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

    and another good read to understand the basics

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

  89. Steven Mosher says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    October 6, 2012 at 3:42 pm (Edit)

    ################

    You are correct. I should have been a bit clearer on the 1 watt issue. My main point is that people should not confuse climate sensitivity with the sensitivity to doubling C02.

    The UV stuff is interesting. espec WRT methane

  90. HenryP says:
    October 6, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    There have been several recent studies that showed a marked increase in bio activity both on land and on sea. So there is your explanation for the increase in DIC.

    An increase in bio-activity gives a decrease of DIC, not an increase. Part of DIC is used in the shell of some plankton (coccoliths) and all organics. Part of the food chain drops out of the surface as organic and inorganic sediments at a net cost of DIC in the surface layer. Or why you think they tried to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere by fertilizing experiments (with iron) on the ocean surface?

    Many measurements were/are done with ships surveys over the decades. They all show the same trends: an increase of DIC and a decrease in pH (usually not measured, but calculated from the alkalinity, DIC and salt content, which is more accurate than direct measurements). But the stations have the longest continuous record.

    Either way, energy -in is going down from 1995 so the reaction now goes the other way:
    CO2 + 2H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+

    The energy or heat delivered to water is not of direct influence on the equilibrium reactions or pCO2, only temperature is. As far as I know, seawater temperatures in average haven’t dropped (yet), thus the drop in pH and increase in DIC can’t be explained from that.

  91. AJ says:

    John Marshall says:
    October 6, 2012 at 2:40 am
    “…Whilst 18O proxy data is good for temperature it does not relate to heat content. Go back and recalculate…”

    Wouldn’t the rate of change of 18O be a better proxy of temperature? To me, it seems that glacial volume is a proxy for heat content and that 18O closely correlates. I also wonder if heat content is the integral of surface air temperature? That is, there would be a 1/4 cycle lag of heat in relation to temperature. Roe found that the glacial melting rate correlates best with a zero lag of summer time solar insolation at high latitude. To me, this implies that the “temperature” proxies are actually “heat” proxies.

  92. Bill Illis says:

    Line by Line transfer code works for frequencies – it doesn’t mean it work as advertised for a whole atmosphere.

    Photons at 10 Um will get intercepted by CO2 at certain rates over certain distances. Then what happens. That whole part is missing. I want the rest of the story.

    The Earth emits to space 1,811,047,389,073,350,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 IR photons per year. Somebody has a guesstimate about how that works and we are supposed to just accept it.

  93. Allan MacRae says:

    DWR54 says: October 6, 2012 at 5:32 am
    Re post 1, Allan MacRae: can you confirm that you still believe a sixth order is “the best fit polynomial” trend line to use for the UAH data, as you stated in this Sept. 2008 article at ‘ICECAP’: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

    DWR, whether you realize it or not, you are asking a mathematical question. I ran the available polynomial fits against the UAH data, and the one with the best fit was used in the paper.

    A better questions would be:
    Does this 6th order polynomial have any predictive value? Perhaps you can answer that for yourself.

    However, in a 2002 paper we did say:
    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    Since then there has been NO net global warming, contrary to the IPCC’s dire predictions of catastrophic global warming.

    In another 2002 article I (we) predicted global cooling to begin by ~2020-2030.

    I really hope we’re wrong about imminent global cooling, but our predictive track record is infinitely better than that of the IPCC and the global warming alarmist movement.

    Ladies and Gentlemen: Faites vos jeux…

  94. Henry Clark says:

    Something I was carelessly neglecting myself is that this is a much different situation than the ice age graphs of temperature change causing CO2 release, much different than such as the first graph in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

    In the case of the ice age graphs of the past few hundred thousand years, temperature varies by 7K or more, while CO2 meanwhile ranges by around 100 ppm or less.

    In contrast, in this study’s era of focus, CO2 varies by several times more, while temperature varies by a number of times less.

    In fact, within what this study is looking at, the ratio of change in CO2 in ppm to the change in temperature in K is literally tens of times greater.

    The ratio of change in temperature, even at the surface, let alone deep ocean temperature, to the change in CO2 is far less than in the ice age graphs, not the same order of magnitude.

    In other words, while temperature change predominately causes the change in CO2 seen in the ice age graphs, this temperature change did not cause the 770 -> 1130 ppm CO2 change, not being the right order of magnitude.

    CO2 variation meanwhile occurred from other factors.

  95. Maus says:

    Steven Mosher:

    “Simply put. First we see if you trust various devices that are engineered using very precise physics.”

    Unless you’re claiming that the atmosphere is a manmade device engineered using very precise physics? Then this is a red herring and an argument beneath anyone exceeding a room temperature IQ.

    “Then, I will show you the empirical tests.”

    Burden shifting. What you mean is that you have no empirical evidence relevant to the issue of CO2 doubling. Nothing surprising about this as your math doesn’t work as presented.

    Hint: At 3.7 W/m^2 of radiation per doubling — what then is the double of 0 ppm of CO2?

    “Of course those models are tested against observation. And they work. They work so well that they used to be classified. They work so well that we defend our liberty with them.”

    A nice use of emotive pleas and equivocation. Our ‘Liberty’ is not defended by the failed models of climatology. Nor is our ‘Liberty’ defended by the ham-fisted and mathematically illiterate approach that climatologists prefer. But if you mean instead that our ‘Liberty’ is defended by partisan hacks? Then sure, I suppose we both agree that politicians exist and make the decisions on military expenditures and usage.

    I applaud that you stooped to flesh out your argument a bit. But it’s still meaningless unless you can fix your math, your fallacies, and do something at all about stepping up to the empirical plate. We can deal with Popperian notions of falsified models later.

  96. LazyTeenager says:

    Skiphil says:
    October 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm
    ooh, 1.1C (+/) will put quite a damper on Alarmist frenzies…..not much of a pretext for panic there…. they will need to find ways to discredit or ignore this.
    ————-
    Nup. Will not be ignored and will only be discredited if its faulty in some way. There is already a body of research in this area and researchers will have to figure out why this does not agree with other research. Simply saying this paper is correct because it gives you the answer you want, does not cut the mustard in real science land.

  97. davidmhoffer says:

    Steven Mosher;
    So the physical models are correct but then you all knew that. You knew it because our country is defended by this science. you cell phone and Wifi works because this science is correct.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well excuse me but bullsh*t.

    Cell phone and wifi and radar and other examples work precisely because we use the part of the signal that does NOT get absorbed/reflected/scattered as it passes through the atmosphere. It does not follow that we know with any degree of certainty what happens to the part of the signal that DOES get absorbed/reflected/scattered and that is precisely the part of the signal that is important to understand in the context of CO2 forcing. Further, it is the secondary and following effects of what happens to the signal AFTER it is absorbed/reflected/scattered that are of as much or more importance and the fact is that we know even LESS about them than we do about the direct effects.

    Claiming we know how wifi works and so that means the climate models are accurate is utter and total hogwash.

  98. peterg says:

    I would also like to disagree that a lower cap has been placed on CO2 sensitivity. This would only be the case if it were provable that oceanic temperatures had no effect on CO2 concentration,
    and it is well known that colder fluids dissolve more gases.

    Although radiative physics suggests that a certain variation in CO2 causes a radiative forcing, asserting that this directly leads to temperature variation ignores the physics of convection. Fixed lapse rates means that the extra heat is easily convected away for the slightest of increases in temperature.

    Therefore the lower bound on CO2 sensitivity might approach zero.

  99. David Ball says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    October 6, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    “Nup. Will not be ignored and will only be discredited if its faulty in some way. There is already a body of research in this area and researchers will have to figure out why this does not agree with other research. Simply saying this paper is correct because it gives you the answer you want, does not cut the mustard in real science land.”

    IOW, LT hasn’t got a clue.

  100. D Böehm says:

    peterg,

    Excellent comment. Thanks for posting.

  101. u.k.(us) says:

    LazyTeenager has had better days.
    Elucidation has escaped his grasp.
    Yet, here we are.

  102. highflight56433 says:

    “The theory that CO2 can trap radiation, or acidify sea water in the concentrations it is present in our atmosphere and oceans is physically impossible, and no amount of Mickey Mouse conclusions will change that”

    Exactly. All the energy spent arguing over literal nothingness. The oceans have an extensive amount of buffers that chemically resist Ph change, especially from CO2, not exactly a strong acid maker as it does not stay readily in solution. Just open a bottle beer and let it sit over night…oops went flat. Oh darn.

    If anything, I would say the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that dilutes water vapor would actually have a cooling effect as the CO2 increases to 100%.

    But….it is more fun to debate … a condition of having too much free time.

  103. gymnosperm says:

    This study compares 18O from benthic forams with an 11B proxy for atmospheric pCO2 in pelagic forams over a small benthic temperature drop and recovery and a large pCO2 drop and recovery.
    the paper states (I summarize) ” the change is consistent with carbon cycle models except that the models project that the change should have taken 500,000 years (Henry’s law?) and it actually took only 50,000 years.”

    One could assume that the atmosphere and ocean equilibrated for CO2 then as now in about a millenium and that the ratio of pCO2 and benthic concentration (data are all over the map but let’s say 15% more in the deep ocean) was also the same. The remaining variable is temperature.

  104. peterg says:
    October 6, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    This would only be the case if it were provable that oceanic temperatures had no effect on CO2 concentration, and it is well known that colder fluids dissolve more gases.

    Yes, but very limited: 16 ppmv/°C, nothing more, at equilibrium as can be derived from the solubility curve of CO2 in seawater, or ~18 ppmv for the warming oceans during the period in question. Thus not responsible for the CO2 increase from 770 to 1130 ppmv as estimated from the sediments. That allows us to estimate the effect of CO2 on temperature, as far as no other positive and negative driving forces and feedbacks are at work. Which is the big question…

  105. gymnosperm says:
    October 6, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    One could assume that the atmosphere and ocean equilibrated for CO2 then as now in about a millenium

    The millenium equilibrium is only for a small part of the deep oceans: where the THC is passing. To equilibrate the whole deep oceans with the atmosphere (including a shift of ocean currents as seen during the more recent ice ages) takes many millenia…

  106. DWR54 says:

    Allan MacRae: October 6, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    “A better questions would be:
    Does this 6th order polynomial have any predictive value? Perhaps you can answer that for yourself.”

    Thanks for the reply.

    I would say that a 6th order polynomial has absolutely no predictive value; and it has a very limited indicative value too. That is true now, and it was true in September 2008, as you now know.

  107. kwik says:

    OssQss says:
    October 5, 2012 at 8:16 pm
    “!I found this relevant to the post, so here ya go! ”

    That was’nt very nice of you, QssQss ! I spendt quite some time watching the whole clip (again), and then #6 …… Shame on you!

    In fact I find episode 6 even better. The talk of the little ice age…..Now, I ask all the climate “scientists” ; What caused the little ice age…. Surely it couldn’t have been humans, so it must have been naturally. And when it can cool naturally, it can warm naturally…. Or are you DENYING it?

    [video link removed - clicking on it gave message it did not exist ~mod]

  108. Venter says:

    Comparing climate models to cell phones and wifi precision shows that Mosher is desperate enough to bring in any nonsense in support of his favourite climate models. [snip - ad hom ~mod]

  109. jeremyshiers says:

    As Neville has already said Prof Murray Salby’s lecture to Sidney Institute on 24 July 2012
    cleary demonstrates that CO2 follows temperature and not vice versa.

    [video link removed - clicking on it gave message it did not exist ~mod]

    In a previous lecture Prof Salby showed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small number which arises from the difference between 2 large numbers, the amount of CO2 emitted and the amount absorbed. This migh help allay Louis Hooffstetter fears of postive feedback loop. Along with the observation that despite CO2 continuing to rise over the last 15 years temperature has not risen.

    The July 2012 lecture is 40 minutes + 20minutes q&a
    For the impatient I’ve put the graphs and summary of the arguement on my blog

    http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/increasing-co2-raises-global-temperature-or-does-increase-temperature-raise-co2/

    Please pass the link to the lecture on, as the video was put on youtube as private so it can only watched by those who have the link [please post the link to the video again, but do not embed it ~mod]

  110. Richard of NZ says:

    I would think that the most critical part of this paper is the first line of the abstract combined with the information given in table 2.

    Quote
    “Climate sensitivity is a crucial parameter in global temperature modeling.”

    This to me says that without accurate knowledge of the sensitivity modeling is a complete and utter waste of time. From table 2 we see that the current estimates of sensitivity vary from 0.5-9, more than an order of magnitude! It is reasonable to conclude that there is no accurate estimate of climate sensitivity, therefore no accurate modeling, therefore we can all pack up and go home after requesting that the “experts” and politicians refund all of the money they have so far wasted on combating “climate change”, to the people who unwittingly provided it.

  111. HenryP says:

    Henry@all
    I did some research trying to get some credible CO2 readings from “independent” (read: skeptic) stations but I found everything is being carefully controlled by the AGW crowd.
    Most recently some clowns in the arctic reported their CO2 for the first time above 400 ppms/
    the reason why I doubt it very much is because it seems that it all was carefully timed to publish those results to coincide with the story of the melting ice there, as if to show or prove there is a “relationship” between the two… My own results show severe cooling in Anchorage (which is also in the arctic?): two weather stations there show a drop of about 1.5 degrees K in the mean average temperature since 2000. Theoretically such severe cooling should have led to a drop in CO2 or at least a leveling off there, but not an increase. Normally, the cold would act as a sink for CO2:
    CO2 + H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+
    We desperately need some independent CO2 station at a neutral location (preferably not nearby a volcano) that can take daily measurements and at the end of the month convert it to a monthly mean.
    I am hoping Anthony or someone else whom we can trust will do this. We really need to be able to rely on ourselves, not those who sincerely believe the science is “settled” and who will do everything in their power to protect their jobs…..

  112. jeremyshiers says:
    October 7, 2012 at 1:12 am

    In a previous lecture Prof Salby showed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small number which arises from the difference between 2 large numbers, the amount of CO2 emitted and the amount absorbed.

    The natural amounts emitted and absorbed are huge, compared to the human contribution, but these are mainly throughput, what goes in goes out, without a huge change of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect of these flows is a net sink of ~4 GtC/year, while the human (one-way) contribution is ~8 GtC/year. The variability in the natural sink rate also is around 4 GtC/year, which is quite small for a natural process…

    Further, Salby in his latest lecture is completely wrong by his attribution of the integrated temperature increase to the CO2 increase and forgetting to tell where the human contribution goes…

  113. wikeroy says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    October 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    “Of course those models are tested against observation. And they work. They work so well that they used to be classified. They work so well that we defend our liberty with them.”

    You mean, like here? ;

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/ed-caryl-modtran-shows-co2-doubling-will-have-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/

  114. HenryP says:
    October 7, 2012 at 3:18 am

    Most recently some clowns in the arctic reported their CO2 for the first time above 400 ppms

    I have serious objections against the language you use in this case. Since Keeling Sr. started with accurate CO2 measurements at the South Pole (yes SPO was first, not Mauna Loa, but lacks a few years of continuous data), the data are what they are. Keeling was only interested in supplying the most accurate CO2 readings available, only in second place in GW, which he thought was mainly beneficial in the first decades of the MLO data. The measurments at MLO started in 1959, before the global cooling scare and long before the global warming scare…

    Further, there are lots of stations all over the world operated by different laboratories in different countries. Even if they all cheated over the course of 50 years, why there is nobody of the hundreds of people involved in the world objecting to this practice, even not after retirement…
    ——————-

    What you forget is that the Arctic has a huge seasonal amplitude, thus while the global average currently is ~395 ppmv, with the fall/winter NH increase of CO2 it is possible that the Arctic levels were reaching 400 ppmv.

    Normally, the cold would act as a sink for CO2:
    CO2 + H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+

    Yes, but in the NH, the mainly mid-latitude seasonal changes of vegetation are more important than what is absorbed by the oceans. The Ferrel cells bring in new air from the mid-latitudes to the polar areas much faster than the absorption rate of the polar oceans…

    Further, a regional decrease of 1°C in polar waters gives a decrease of 16 ppmv in regional pCO2 of the waters, thus an increase in uptake flows, but the human input is ~4 ppmv/year, of which ~2 ppmv as mass remains in the atmosphere. Thus within a few years, the human input exceeds the temperature influence.

  115. Tony Mach says:

    [Snip. Policy violation, and fake email address. — mod.]

  116. Allan MacRae says:

    Regarding the comment by DWR54 on October 7, 2012 at 12:41 am

    Please define “indicative value” in the context of this conversation.

    Did you invent this term for use in this dialogue?

    I googled “indicative value” and only found the term used in financial (stock trading) terminology, which would be inapplicable herein.

    You attempt to speak with great authority, without having established any personal credibility.

    Please share with us your track record of successful predictions in climate and energy, if you have one.

    That would, of course, require references, and posting under your real name.

  117. Allan MacRae says:

    Hello Ferdinand.

    It is the Thanksgiving holiday weekend here in Canada. Thanksgiving is celebrated mainly in the USA and Canada, and we give thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed upon us.

    Our American friends celebrate Thanksgiving about 6 weeks later than we do – in addition to their other many blessings, they are particularly thankful that it is warmer there than in Canada. :-)

    One of the specific blessings that I would like to acknowledge is intelligent, civilized people like you Ferdinand. Although we do not agree on everything, I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful insights and I try to ponder and learn from them.

    Happy Thanksgiving Ferdinand. Best wishes to you and your family.

    Regards, Allan

  118. george e. smith says:

    Well I would also point out that in that little list just how many of those min-med-max triads there are with 95% confidence limits, and having mutually exclusive non-overlapping sensitivity ranges. Izzat some statistical mathematical definition of bullsh*t ?

    And related to that subject and the value of proxy Temperatures and proxy CO2 data, and the relative timing of events., readers should check out the new Oct 2012 issue of PHYSISC TODAY on page 13 (good karma) a rather definitive statement by somebody named John Harte at the University of California, Berkeley. He gives his e-mail if you want to comment to him.

    So John Harte splits the knowledge universe into “the concensus view on global warming” versus the “Deniers” with a capital D, of that view, and poo-poos the argument as “fallacious”, that such proxy data from Vostok, for example, show that Temperature rise comes before the CO2 rise that caused it.
    “It is widely recognized today” announces Harte, “that temperature and CO2 are locked in a positive feedback relation to each other.”
    Harte asserts; (Dr Leif Svalgaard notwithstanding,) that the sun causes it, with “weak” insolation variations, which then of course the CO2 amplifies.
    One could infer from his claim, that the loop gain of this positive feedback mechanism is significant; maybe even greater than unity.
    Now Harte does not explain why the Vostok data shows nowhere, the sequence of monotonic stepwise increases (or decreases) which such a propagation delayed transient sequence must contain.
    It is a complete fiction that the Vostok data shows some specific CO2 rise –Temp rise response propagation delay, and then some specific temperature rise — CO2 rise propagation delay, and of course likewise fall response times. There is no discernable fixed prop delay from CO2 change to temp change; they are randomly unrelated; Only the Temp change to CO2 response delay, is anything like a fixed propagation delay; typically cited as 800 years or so.
    But Harte is evidently declaring the new concensus mantra; each simply drives the other; always in the same direction; hence the positive feedback declaration; but no explanation for the complete lack of any such sequential stepwise bootstrapping in the data.

    Now Harte described the causal solar insolation signal as weak (not me), so he presumably is excluding Milankovitch type orbital events, which many would consider unweak provocations, compared to 0.1% p-p solar cycle TSI changes, which Leif rightly says don’t do much.

    I take Harte’s use of the perjoritive terms “Denier” and “concensus” to imply he is making a political statement, and NOT a scientific one; which seems a good reason why PHYSICS TODAY should not have published his essay.

    He ends with a conjecture that ” the Vostok data suggests carbon – climate feedback could greatly enhance future warming as well.”

    Since I’m in California, I’m sure my tax dollars are being used at that institution, to keep food on the table of many unemployable “experts”.

  119. ehneilso says:

    As a science (biology major) teacher, to get some good discussion going, I tell my students that the single thing we could do on Earth to increase the health and robustness worldwide ecosystems would be to double the CO2 levels in the atmosphere because it has been shown that plant biomass increases by 38% due to increased photosynthesis when CO2 is increased to 1000 ppm. Plants are the producers that form the base of almost all ecosystems on Earth, so increasing the health/growth of plants will improve the ecosystem. It is interesting to hear some students reaction to this after years of indoctrination from other teachers.

  120. george e. smith says:

    WRT the table; note Lindzen and Choi 2011 put the range at 0.5 to 1.3 also with 95 confidence from physical measurements.

    It would be nice to see some real data with 95% condidence that there even IS a logarithmic relationship between CO2 abundance and global temperature.

    T = T,0 + CS* log2( CO2 / CO2,0)
    If you can’t figure out the nomenclature, go watch “The View” or some other suitable time eating entity.

    For me personally, I believe the entire concept of climate sensitivity is total horse pucky; both real data observationally, and on pure physical theoretical grounds.

    So I really think the whole discussion is an exercise in self flaggellation.

    Try fitting some real data to the form T = T,0 exp (-1/ CO2^2) or alternatively
    CO2 = CO2,0 exp (-1 / (T-T,0)^2) .

    Of course you have to throw in some range and scale parameters to select the correct part of the function, to get a fit.

    I know it fits either one of those equations either way, because, the data also fits a perfectly linear and equally unsupportable equation, and there is always some roughly linear portion on any continuous function; and you only have to equal the fit to the logarithmic and ergo exponential equation; that allegedly Stephen Schneider invented for climate sensitivity.

    How many more tax dollars are going to be wasted supporting this fiction of climate sensitivity.

  121. gymnosperm says:

    Ferdinand says:
    The effect of these flows is a net sink of ~4 GtC/year, while the human (one-way) contribution is ~8 GtC/year. The variability in the natural sink rate also is around 4 GtC/year,

    =====================================================
    This is very interesting. So the sink variability equals the sink rate and some years there will be hardly any absorbtion and other years it will absorb much of the human contribution? This seems very unstable.

  122. wikeroy says:

    Allan MacRae says:
    October 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    “I may have read this abstract too quickly, but to me the term “climate sensitivity” assumes atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature, whereas the data I am familiar with clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature and is driven at least in part by temperature.”

    Yes, Petit et.al., Fisher et. al., Callion et. al;

    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

  123. HenryP says:

    Ferdinand says
    the data are what they are.
    Henry says
    well, looking at my own average data, for the drop in maximum temperatures, in degrees C per annum, (47 weatherstations= 47x38yrsx365days= 651890 results)
    data are: 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)
    and we plot all of this, it fits best into a sine wave:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    but whatever plot you would use, you would end up showing an increase in temp. from the fifties onward and therefore naturally also expect to see an increase in CO2 from about the fifties, exactly as the Keeling curve suggests, due to the natural warming, as a result of the chemical reaction quoted before. But since 1995 we turned negative on warming, i.e. it is cooling. So, by all accounts the CO2 should start leveling off now…especially there where it gets colder.
    Seeing that none of stations are reporting this they must all be clowns who think that they can fool me…..
    (but they will still fool a lot of people like you, Ferdinand. Especially the timing of the reported “400” is suspicious since it “happened” at the same time when ice is reported to be at its minimum…..suggesting that there must be some”correlation”)
    That is why I think it is important that skeptics get their own station reporting on CO2 (seeing that it causes so much “warming”)

  124. Allan MacRae says:

    The concept of “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 may be nonsense.

    There is no real evidence that CO2 significantly drives global temperature.

    Temperature increased from ~1850 to ~1940, as fossil fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (allegedly) increased moderately. However, the quality of atmospheric CO2 measurements for this period is highly questionable.

    Temperature DEcreased from ~1940 to ~1975, even as fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased strongly and atmospheric CO2 increased moderately. CO2 even decreased in some 12-month intervals, such as 3 of 12 such intervals in 1965 and 3 of 12 again in 1974.

    Temperature increased again from ~1975 to ~2000, as fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased strongly and atmospheric CO2 increased strongly.

    Temperatures have remained FLAT or DEcreased slightly since ~2000, even as fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased strongly and atmospheric CO2 increased strongly.

    For the period since 1940, when fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated, there have been about 25 years of global warming and about 47 years of global cooling or absence of warming.

    Based on this data, the logical conclusion is that the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 on global warming is insignificant.

    Nevertheless, a trillion dollars has been squandered based on global warming hysteria, with no credible supporting data.

    Electrical grids have been degraded by nonsensical wind and solar power schemes, and world food production has been disrupted through food-to-fuel nonsense.

    Malaria has destroyed the lives of tens of millions due to the vilification of DDT.

    In summary, the environmental movement has become one of the most dishonest and destructive groups on Earth.

    The greatest victims of the corrupt environmental movement are the poor of the world.

    The remaining question is whether is destruction is deliberate or not.

    ________________

    http://www.green-agenda.com

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
    United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
    number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
    We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
    -Michael Oppenheimer,
    Environmental Defense Fund

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
    reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    -Professor Maurice King

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

  125. DWR54 says:

    Allan MacRae: October 7, 2012 at 5:47 am

    “Please define “indicative value” in the context of this conversation.”

    I used the word “indicative” in the sense of “showing, signifying, or pointing out”, etc. By which I mean that a high order polynomial alone does not ‘show, signify or point out’ anything of any significance in a long term data series. Instead it tends to act to smooth the longer term data and attach undue weight to more recent variations.

    The UAH graph from your September 2008 post at ICECAP is a good case in point. At August 2008 it indicated rapid cooling, causing you to make the claim that “Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared!” (Perhaps this is one of the “successful predictions in climate and energy” you were referring to above?)

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

  126. HenryP says:

    george e smith says or quotes
    compared to 0.1% p-p solar cycle TSI changes, which Leif rightly says don’t do much.
    henry says
    it appears now from my own investigations into this that slight changes in the EUV and FUV may in fact indeed be the cause of different reactions on top of the atmosphere involving HxOx, NOx and Ox which in turn result in more (or less) high energy being back radiated.
    Namely, I have been able to correlate both the dip and the increase in maxima with changing ozone levels in both the NH and the SH. Ozone started its downward curve since the fifties and is now moving up since 1995/6, exactly at the same time when the speed of warming turned negative, e.g. see here,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%c2%b1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/#comment-1103440

  127. HenryP says:

    Henry@DWR54, Allan

    last time I looked at UAH I could not make head or tail of the results;
    there is no correlation whatsoever, which makes me wonder about the data itself.
    OTOH
    the mean average temp. of earth is a stupid variable to look at.
    Namely, earth stores its energy, in its waters, in its vegetation, in its chemicals, in weather and in currents, etc. etc. so that what pops out (energy out) is bound to be full of unrecognizable patterns.
    Better look at maximum temperatures, it is a much more reliable variable to look at and there should be records of those from the past that might be a lot more reliable than average temps.
    (thermometers that got stuck on its max. will give you much more reliable result than having people record a temp. every 6 hours or so to give you a mean for the day.)

  128. gymnosperm says:
    October 7, 2012 at 7:49 am

    This is very interesting. So the sink variability equals the sink rate and some years there will be hardly any absorbtion and other years it will absorb much of the human contribution? This seems very unstable.

    For a natural process, the variability in CO2 rate of change is quite modest: individual processes may vary with 10-20% from year to year. The main fast processes for CO2 are the temperature influence on oceans surface layer and vegetation: while the continuous and seasonal flows are huge (some 90 GtC in and out of the oceans and some 50 GtC in and out of vegetation per year, that is good for 45 resp. 25 ppmv change within a year), the net result in the atmosphere is not more than some 5 ppmv/°C for the seasonal swings (mainly due to NH land vegetation) and 4 ppmv/°C for huge influences like the Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 El Niño. The main reason for a low influence probably is that vegetation and oceans work in opposite direction for the influence of temperature on CO2 levels…

  129. HenryP says:
    October 7, 2012 at 8:42 am

    But since 1995 we turned negative on warming, i.e. it is cooling. So, by all accounts the CO2 should start leveling off now…especially there where it gets colder.
    Seeing that none of stations are reporting this they must all be clowns who think that they can fool me…..

    The CO2 levels should be leveling off, if and only if temperature was the cause of the increase. But as human emissions since 1995 reached an accumulated amount of some 70 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere (of which 35 ppmv still resides in the atmosphere), you need at least a drop of 4°C in average for all ocean surfaces all over the world to compensate for the human emissions… Not something that is observed…

    Further, lots of CO2 stations work fully automatic, without any human intervention, except if one of the calibration gases has a problem, then all the data affected are recalculated. That may give a change in absolute value for the period involved, but that hardly changes the trend.
    Raw data (calculated hourly averages of 10-second voltage samples from outside air and three calibration gases, including their stdv) are available from four baseline stations. And if you want to see that the calculations were right, on simple request they will provide you with the primary voltage data of the instruments (as I did receive for a few days).

    Thus I don’t expect that anyone has a turnknob in his/hers hand to adjust the some 8 million raw measurements per year of any single station with some (even variable!) 0.00023 ppmv/hour.

    But nobody will stop you if you want to do your own measurements on a bare rock somewhere in the middle of the oceans (or alternatively a desert)… Conrad in Germany and other countries has a reasonable resolution CO2 meter for 305 euro’s. Only needs to be calibrated against some well known CO2/air mixture.

  130. Allan MacRae says:

    DWR54 seems to be intellectually challenged on October 7, 2012 at 9:19 am

    I wrote in 2008 at ICECAP: “Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared!”

    This is not a prediction, it is a statement of fact for atmospheric temperatures at that time.
    Repeating from above , here are some of our successful predictions:

    We confidently wrote in 2002 at

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the
    alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    Since then there has been no net global warming, and perhaps some modest cooling.

    We also predicted the debacle in green energy, where a trillion dollars of scarce global resources have since been squandered on alternative energy nonsense.

    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    In comparison, every dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmist movement has failed to materialize. There has been no runaway global warming. Corn ethanol and other food-to-fuel programs are humanitarian, economic and environmental disasters. Grid-connected wind and solar power schemes have driven up energy costs, failed to provide useful additional energy, and have destabilized electricity grids.

    Please describe your successful predictions in climate and energy – cite references and use your real name – no more sniping from the shadows of anonymity.

  131. HenryP says:

    Henry@ferdinand
    Thanks Ferdinand. I will think about what you said.
    I hope you can understand why I am bit skeptic about the results coming from the AGW crowd, seeing as their livelihoods depend on it.
    I remember that some gas labs used to measure CO2 in gases (like oxygen) at 4.26 um using an infra red spectrophotometer.
    I wonder why we could not use that method for CO2 in air mixtures? Or is that the one Conrad is selling?
    (BTW, myself, I am convinced that the CO2 does nothing to the climate. )

  132. HenryP says:
    October 7, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    I remember that some gas labs used to measure CO2 in gases (like oxygen) at 4.26 um using an infra red spectrophotometer.
    I wonder why we could not use that method for CO2 in air mixtures? Or is that the one Conrad is selling?

    One of the problems with CO2 in air is that water vapour overlaps in several bands of IR. In the relative simple hand-held NDIR methods that is compensated for by measuring at two frequencies: where water is the only absorber and where CO2 is the main absorber, but disturbed by water vapour. The first band gives how much water is present and thus its influence on the CO2 band can be calculated and substracted. But that gives results with a resolution of not better than a few ppmv.
    Most baseline stations remove water vapour over a cold trap and measure CO2, but also measure 2 or 3 calibration gases within the same hour. This makes the method more accurate to about 0.2 ppmv. This can be made fully automatic with quite robust equipment and a minimum of fine mechanical items and maintenance.

    A few automated stations use GC for CO2, CH4 and other gases of interest. But these indeed need far more maintenance…

  133. rbateman says:

    I’m wondering why someone doesn’t do laboratory experiments with CO2, H20 vapor and both in combinations and study those results. Maybe they already did, and walked away with more questions than they started with.

  134. davidmhoffer says:

    rbateman says:
    October 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    I’m wondering why someone doesn’t do laboratory experiments with CO2, H20 vapor and both in combinations
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

    Be sure to read the docs in the zip file containing the criticisms of the experiment as well.

  135. D Böehm says:

    davidmhoffer,

    Thanks for posting that link. I have not read it in a while. Re-reading it was very worthwhile. Dr. Hug’s conclusions reflect current real world observations.

  136. davidmhoffer says:

    D Boehm;
    Dr. Hug’s conclusions reflect current real world observations.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Only by coincidence. The criticisms in the zip file are fair in my mind.

  137. gymnosperm says:

    Ferdinand says:

    “The main reason for a low influence probably is that vegetation and oceans work in opposite direction for the influence of temperature on CO2 levels…”

    So really the atmosphere and oceans work in opposite directions? In spite of the fact that there is quite a bit of pelagic “vegetation” in the oceans? This would make some sense for land plants as above some threshold temperature they are forced to shut down to avoid dehydration. But pelagic vegetation does not share this problem even though it interfaces with the atmosphere somewhat.

    You may know but I can’t find the distribution of chlorophyll between the land and oceans. Biomass seems not a good proxy. Maybe at first order they are equal.

    The sign of influence between the atmosphere and the ocean is very important because many of us are tripping over what we know of the air bubbles in the ice cores which are all atmosphere.

  138. gymnosperm says:
    October 7, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    So really the atmosphere and oceans work in opposite directions? In spite of the fact that there is quite a bit of pelagic “vegetation” in the oceans?

    An increase of temperature of ocean waters gives more release of CO2, due to less solubility of CO2 in seawater with elevated temperatures. On the other hand, biolife increases with higher temperatures in seawater, which removes in part CO2 from the surface layer and atmosphere, depending of exchange speed with the atmosphere and drop out of organic and inorganic residues out of the oceans surface layer. Precipitation plays no role for ocean plants, but play a huge role in land plants in some circumstances: an El Niño event increases temperature and plant growth in general, but gives drought to large parts of the equatorial rainforests, leading to extra CO2 releases.

    How can we determine which is leading at some events? CO2 releases from ocean water warming give a slight increase of 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and opposite for cooling. CO2 releases/uptake from vegetation decay/growth give a huge drop/increase in 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere. O2 releases from ocean water warming are limited, but O2 use/release from vegetation decay/growth is substantial. The combination of both reveals the source of the CO2 movements as result of increased/decreased temperatures.

    On seasonal changes, biolife is dominant: the huge growth of leaves/wood in spring/summer, mainly in the mid-latitude NH, removes so much CO2 from the atmosphere that the increase in water temperature can’t coop with that and CO2 levels drop (and the 13C/12C ratio increases). In the SH, the seasonal swings are much smaller, thus biolife in the oceans seems less influential in the seasonal changes than land plants.

    On year-by-year changes, the oceans seems to be more dominant, as an increase in temperature shows an increase in CO2 rate of change, around the trend. Partially also as result of droughts in some events (El Niño) and light scathering in other events (Pinatubo eruption) on land plants.

    Over very long term (ice ages, interglacials), the oceans are dominant too, but reduced by increased land area (less land ice) and more plant growth, both in the oceans and over land. While the solubility of CO2 decreases with 16 ppmv/°C, the ice cores show some 8 ppmv/°C over tenthousands of years…

  139. jeremyshiers says:

    [please post the link to the video again, but do not embed it ~mod]

    As requested here is the link to 24 July 2012 Prog Salby lecture, hopefully without the embed

    youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w

    the lecture shows CO2 follows temp not vice versa

  140. HenryP says:

    jeremyshiers says
    the lecture shows CO2 follows temp not vice versa
    henry says
    that is what I think as well.
    looking at my graph for the drop in maximum temps.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    then it would seem that theoretically it has been ‘warming’ naturally since about 1927 until 1995 (energy-in) which to me makes the Keeling curve reasonable to understand, i.e. more heat in is more CO2 out (of the oceans).
    But… that can only apply until about 2005 or thereabouts when cooling must have started to kick in (energy-out).
    I wouldn’t trust the records from before 1927 unless someone can show me a certificate of a calibrated thermometer from before that time or unless they looked at maxima which is a much better parameter to look at than means. Means average temps. are very confusing (but that is what the AGW crowd wants you to be)

    However,

    Ferdinand Engelebeen says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%c2%b1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/#comment-1103533

    If he is wrong, the (current) records 2005-2012 are wrong. I do not exclude that latter possibility due to the fact many people’s jobs are on the line and a whole industry has been built on and around this CO2 nonsense. But this should be reasonably simple to prove; if like I said before, we (the “skeptics”) do our own testing with our own equipment. (perhaps Anthony has any ideas on this?)
    I will also have a look if I can get hold of some equipment here (in South Africa) but I do not hold high hopes for that.

  141. John West says:

    Possible title revision: Cause-and-Effect Continues to Confound Climate Commentators

  142. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Just in case anyoneis interested, CPD have an on-line comments feature. This allows others to put up comments aboutpapers that are up fordiscussion.
    Asten only has 1 comment, but it is from some people who might know a bit about the subject:

    The authors of one of the main studies Asten uses in reaching his conclusion, Pearson et al.

    Link here: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/C1879/2012/cpd-8-C1879-2012.pdf

    General conclusion: They are deeply underwhelmed by Asten’s results. They go into quite a bit of detail as to why. Their general conclusion is that if one were to apply their data correctly then the range of CS values Asten should calculate is anywhere between 0.6 to 4.9 – such a broad range of values as to basically be useless. Their criticism spans a range of objections. But it seems to boil down to the fact that the period Asten examines is simply unsuited to this type of simplistic analysis – not enough detailed data and a period in climate history when a lot of complex factors were at play, making it very hard to extract a CS value from this period. They suggest another period around 3.3Myr ago that gives clearer results.

    This is often a problem when one tries to draw conclusions from very preliminary work. To all those commenters here that seem to have just accepted the results of this study without looking any deeper into it, go and read the reply from Pearson et al. It provides an interesting case study in to how the relatively simple level at which many climate science topics get discussed in the blogosphere can lead many people to reach faulty conclusions based on insufficient information.

    Sites such as WUWT andmany others are really only engaged in a simplistic shadow play. The actual nuts and bolts details of climate science is very seldom reported on the blogosphere. It’s probably too large, complex and nuanced to be boiled down to the level that non-scientists on blog’s can grasp. So the simplified version of science that is the actual currency of the blogosphere often has very little to do with the reality of the actua lscience that is out there.

  143. Allan MacRae says:

    Glenn Tamblyn condescendingly says on October 11, 2012 at 1:52 am

    “Sites such as WUWT and many others are really only engaged in a simplistic shadow play. The actual nuts and bolts details of climate science is very seldom reported on the blogosphere. It’s probably too large, complex and nuanced to be boiled down to the level that non-scientists on blog’s can grasp. So the simplified version of science that is the actual currency of the blogosphere often has very little to do with the reality of the actual science that is out there.”

    ________

    From Glenn Tamblyn’s previous comments, it is clear that Glenn is a fervid disciple of the global warming alarmist movement.

    Perhaps the only objective measure of one’s scientific and engineering competence is one’s predictive record.

    To date, the predictive record of the IPCC and the global warming alarmists is a litany of failure. All their scary predictions of runaway global warming and wilder weather have failed to materialize.

    The global warming alarmists have NO predictive record, and they have NO credibility in climate science OR in energy. They have squandered a trillion dollars of scarce global resources on voodoo science and worthless “alternative energy” schemes.

    ____________

    Some of Glenn Tamblyn’s wacko comments, from

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/quote-of-the-week-the-hilarious-epic-fail-of-dana-nuccitelli/

    Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.
    ____________

    Glenn says:

    And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

    Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

    ..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

  144. HenryP says:

    Allan MacRae says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%c2%b1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/#comment-1106783

    Henry says
    Good comment. Put all the dirty linen of such people on the wash line so we can have a good (scientific) look at that as well..
    Like I said before, they even put a lot of my pension money on this alternative energy nonsense and with so much at stake, for such a lot of people: it makes me wonder and doubt the results of CO2 stations currently reporting to us. I think you will find some there are some crooks there as well. They could not possibly reporting that CO2 is going down because that would cost them their own jobs.
    We therefore desperately need (an) independent CO2 station(s) reporting to us, skeptics.
    Any ideas from anyone on this?

  145. Allan MacRae says:

    Hello Henry,

    Temperature decreased from ~1940 to ~1975, even as fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased strongly and atmospheric CO2 increased moderately.

    Atmospheric CO2 even decreased in some 12-month intervals, such as 3 of 12 such intervals in 1965 and 3 of 12 again in 1974. Details below.

    Perhaps we will see this annualized CO2 decrease again, IF we see significant global cooling.

    ____________

    Annualized Mauna Loa dCO2/dt “went negative” a few times in the past (calculating dCO2/dt from monthly data, by taking CO2MonthX (year n+1) minus CO2MonthX (year n) to minimize the seasonal CO2 “sawtooth”.)

    These 12-month periods when CO2 decreased are (Year and Month ending in):
    1959-8
    1963-9
    1964-5
    1965-1
    1965-5
    1965-6
    1971-4
    1974-6
    1974-8
    1974-9

    Data Source (2008 version of):
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

  146. HenryP says:

    Allan says
    Perhaps we will see this annualized CO2 decrease again, IF we see significant global cooling.
    henry says
    you still seem to have some doubts about that

    I was recently on holiday at a resort where we often go
    with computer tablets telling us the weather and even giving me stats I was amazed to find that temps. dropped on average 10 degrees C compared to a year ago and even the sea water was at least 2 or 3 degrees cooler from what I knew it should be….at this time of the year (when we always go)…

    then I say to the family: it is cooling…globally…
    I even have my graph to prove it…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    then everyone says
    but why is nobody reporting it?

    you tell me?
    could it perhaps have something to do with (a lot of) money?
    Relying too much on satellites (where you cannot go inside to re-calibrate) could also be a factor…

    as to the CO2 data
    I don’t know why they would use Hawaii as a measuring point;
    it is a very volcanic island (lots of CO2 there going up naturally, in big squirts, I am sure)
    so our starting point would be… what… exactly?

    on top of that we still have those crooking the results…..
    (sorry, but I have become very skeptical, true, but I hope you see that I have my reasons)

  147. Allan MacRae says:

    Hi Henry,

    The decline in CO2, if it occurs , will depend on the magnitude of cooling and the natural delays in the system. I think there is more than one time-cycle (and associated delay of CO2 after temperature change) at work.

    I tend to believe the satellite temperatures because I have corresponded sporadically with Roy Spencer and John Christy for years. Also there is the RSS interpretation.

    Re CO2, there are so many measurement stations around the world and they correlate quite well so I tend to believe them as well.

    The surface temperatures, on the other hand, exhibit a strong warming bias.

    Regards, Allan

  148. HenryP says:

    Henry@Allan
    I can do an estimate of the cooling from my own dataset;
    it is not that I do not trust others, it is just that I trust myself better.
    The parameter that is important to watch is the drop in maxima, in degrees C/annum as it follows on a perfect curve. I estimate from the sinus wave curve on the maxima that we are now nearing the bottom at an average rate of about -0.035 degrees K per annum for the next 6-8 years. That would be a drop about 0.3 degrees K by 2020.
    So far, on the maxima we have dropped 0.2 degrees K since 2000, but don’t forget we came from an average of +0.036 38 years ago to -0.016 for the past 12 years.
    On the means we also dropped about 0.2 degrees K since 2000, looking at my own data set.
    (Hadcrut 3 says it is -0.1 K; UAH says: …..? = too much noise to say anything at all)
    I would therefore say that on the means we will now drop as fast as we are dropping on the maxima.
    (I hope it is not more than that)
    So, what we on earth are looking at is a total drop of about -0.5 degrees K from 2000 – 2020.

    Do you think that is a lot?
    (my sun laughed at me when I showed that the walls in our house differ by about the same 0.5)

  149. Allan MacRae says:

    HenryP says: October 12, 2012 at 8:15 am
    “So, what we on earth are looking at is a total drop of about -0.5 degrees K from 2000 – 2020. Do you think that is a lot?”

    ___________

    Well actually Henry, 0.5C of global cooling IS significant, in that it will reverse essentially all the warming that has occurred since the NOAA weather satellites were first launched in 1979, which is approximately when the recent warming cycle started (Earth warmed by about 0.5C from ~1975 to ~2000). There was modest global cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, so global average temperatures, if your prediction is correct, will actually be COOLER in 2020 than they were circa 1940.

    So if your prediction is correct, Earth will have experienced net COOLING since 1940 in spite of a huge increase in fossil fuel emissions, and that should finally discredit the (imo already fatally flawed) hypothesis that supports catastrophic global warming mania. Sensible people will conclude that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is insignificant (near-zero) and recent temperature variations are predominantly natural in origin. No doubt the global warming alarmists will shift seamlessly to the hypo that CO2 causes global cooling.

  150. HenryP says:

    So we are cool!!
    Be assured of a few very cold winters coming up – especially Europe. I predict an elfstedentocht in Holland for next year and/or any of the 2 following years
    I am most disturbed now, since on checking my tables again I found that although warming of the globe (in the past) was more biased towards the NH – i.e. the landmasses in the SH did not really warm up much.- I was hoping we in the SH would be OK against the coming cold. But it appears we are cooling on both hemispheres at the same rates now. How can that be? It is not fair./
    …..I hate the cold….

  151. HenryP says:

    Anthony says (blogg just released)
    NOAA never mentions this new pristine USCRN network in any press releases on climate records or trends, nor do they calculate and display a CONUS value for it. Now we know why. The new “pristine” data it produces is just way too cool for them.
    Henry says
    we are cool!!
    but everybody is (or will be) lying about it…
    better that we get our own station for measuring the CO2 as well…

Comments are closed.