This is an interesting paper from our good friend Dr. John Christy of UAH and D. H. Douglas. In it, a bold claim is made about the likelihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998. Here is figure 1 from the paper:
From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.”
Here is how the abstract reads:
“The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Nino/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”
You can read the paper and the link below. which provides a new perspective on the role of CO2 as a radiative climate forcing.
Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy, 2008: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth.
I’m sure this will raise the ire of a number of people, but at the same time, what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?
h/t Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
“…what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?”
The sun?
The standard explanation given to the missing heat problem is that, it has been stored deep in the oceans, or “The Pipeline” as some prefer to call it. The extra warming is kept in the abyssal layers by thermal inertia, but it will eventually come out and push the atmospheric warming trend back to its previous trajectory.
For any layman, journalist or politician, this is a plausible explanation. The fact that the seas don’t seem to be warming can always be countered with the argument that, the missing heat has sunk deeper than what can be measured. So this debate is a dead end, not?
I wish they had published someplace other than Energy & Environment. It will be refuted on places like RealClimate for that reason alone. As Pielke added later on his website:
[ADDED 10am EDT: I have been informed that the journal Energy and Environment is not scinetifically peer reviewed nor in any citation index. Unfortunately, this significantly diminishes the impact of this very important paper. While the publication process is a difficult road for research that differs from the IPCC type perspective, papers must stll be submitted and published in peer reviewed journals that appear in science citation indexes].
In any case, this is something I have been wondering about for months now after examining the lower troposphere satellite temperature record from 1979 – 2007.
Prior to 1998, there is very little slope to the temperature curve, as AGW advocates would suggest should be the case with increasing levels of CO2. And post 1998, it is the same story. It appears that most of the temp increase over the period happens with a “step” of sorts that occurs in 1998. This step seems way out of sync with what one might expect if CO2 were the culprit; i.e., gradually rising temperatures on the order of 1-4 degrees C / century.
5. Summary
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value.
I note that the solar forcing is but a fraction [and I assume they mean a small fraction] of the trend, consistent with the notion that the Sun is not a major climate driver.
Richard111 (21:26:46) :
“…what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?”
The sun?
To first order one would assume that the ‘normal’ situation is no change and that therefore the flat response does not need to be explained. It is when the trend is NOT flat that explanations are called for, one would think.
Too bad it was published in Energy and Environment. If it is to get the recognition it deserves, the paper needs to be in a real peer reviewed journal.
Left side of the chart shows degrees Kelvin. Didn’t know Kelvin degrees went below zero.
Submitted to Energy & Environment? That’s all the AGW proponents need to know for them to dismiss the paper. I believe I’ve seen that journal dismissed as not being a proper peer-reviewed outlet. How about trying a unique approach and try a critique of the paper rather than dismissing it for appearing in the ‘wrong’ journal?
Now I’ve got more fun reading to do this evening.
[…] the story in Watts Up With That? 17 September, […]
Don’t forget Lockwood and Frohlich’s ‘unknown solar amplifier’ – small solar changes can have a bigger effect than expected. What relationship do yearly averaged sunspots have with solar activity?
It doesn’t look as though climate is anywhere near as sensitive to CO2 as the IPCC claim. There isn’t any factor that has a perfect correlation with temperature – any correlation with a single factor always breaks down due to the fact that there are many factors involved in driving climate. Internal Climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation are important.
Figure (A1) seems to be correlation plot of smoothed values. If so, the R2 values are much to high [i.e. nonsense] as adjacent data points are not independent. This would [should!] never have passed peer-review [certainly not if I were a reviewer].
If all the “extra” heat not in the atmosphere (but still apparently there due to AGW) is being stored deep in the oceans, shouldn’t that result in a measurable sea-level rise? Or would the amount of heat involved not amount to much in terms of expansion?
@Mike McMillan
The ordinate axis are RELATIVE, and refers to comparisons. They could of course have used Celcius which are identical to Kelvin, exept for the “starting point” of the scale, but there might be a journal requirment to use Kelvin as the unit for temperature.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Gabriel (00:31:02) :
We’ve covered this point in previous posts and there has been a measurable sea-level rise trend as measued by TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 over the last 15 years. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html. The dip late last year was due to the La Nina. I should also mention that the trend line is a three month running mean. For balance Anthony supplied this link from the University of Colorado that uses a two month smoothing http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
You should note that the UC graph only goes up to February (still showing the effects of La Nina) of this year whereas the CSIRO graph takes us to May.
The rise is fairly constant at 3.3mm a year, this is a 50% increase in rate compared to the 2oth century.
Surely they weren’t published in one of the major peer-reviewed journals because they failed the ‘dogma test’.
Mary: except the last year or so seems to be breaking from the trend, yes? So where has that heat gone?
Tamino posted in his blog a nice decent explanation on how a CO2 forcing combined with a noise generator formula could give you more than a decade of supposed cooling. It’s just about perception. Ten years is nothing, not because it does not bode well for warmers, but because the noise of weather makes it possible for one or even two decades go slightly down in temperature, while the big picture is clearly headed upwards.
Being a skeptic is fine. Being delusional and blind is another altogether.
ad (02:00:38) :
“Mary: except the last year or so seems to be breaking from the trend, yes? So where has that heat gone?”
If you look at the graph with the latest data you can see the trend is up, look at the graph with the signal still included and you see this years minima is above last years minima. So I ask you “where has the heat come from?”
Why haven’t the oceans warmed? BUT THE OCEANS HAVE WARMED:
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/WO_700m_yearly_HC_meanTemperature.jpg
This graph shows that the top 700 metres of ocean has a strong rising trend over both the last 5 & 15 years. Since the oceans hold far more heat (1000 times?) than the air (by volume), it seems that Global Warming is carrying on just fine. The only question is whether it is Nature or Man that is doing the warming (I favour Nature)…
Mary – “The dip late last year was due to the La Nina.”
I would like clarification on that. During a cold cycle the same TSI is absorbed by the ocean but less heat is lost. Conversly during a warm cycle vast amounts of heat are lost to atmosphere as demonstrated in 98. So how does La Nina result in a drop in sea level?
“the noise of weather makes it possible for one or even two decades go slightly down in temperature,”
OK… that should be enough time to get all the CO2 taxes and cap and trade in place then! 🙂
Luis Dias
Ten years is nothing, but plenty long for Hansen et al (and IPCC) to gather the “proof” they were looking for, that being the “radiative imbalance” resulting in rising OHC.
When Tamino can explain why the oceans stopped gaining heat in 2003, then your assertion will hold water.
@Luis Dias.
Tamino ignores the temperature effects of volcanos. See Lucias blog.
DR, you haven’t answered my rationale, you only posted more questions, or the fallacy of too many questions. The point in the post is concerned about the fact that the warming trend has stopped. Still, as shown by Tamino, it does not prove anything. As to answer your question, go read Chris H 3:44 comment and see his graph. Your assertion is unfounded, and wrong.
@Niels,
Lucia also doesn’t ignore the over-the-top 1998 El Niño, which is what essencially drives the assertion that we are living in a cooling trend. It’s apples to apples.