Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
(Note from Anthony – English is not Frank’s primary language, I have made some small adjustments for readability, however they may be a few passages that need clarification. Frank will be happy to clarify in comments)
It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Click for larger image Fig 1. Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
But this is the climate debate, so massive rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows:
First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it’s the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down. Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.
Very unlike solar theory and all other theories, when it comes to CO2-theory one has to PROVE that it is wrong. So let’s do some digging. The 4-5 major temperature peaks seen on Fig 1. have common properties: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall. To avoid too much noise in data, I summed up all these major temperature peaks into one graph:
Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostokdata confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.
The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:
Fig 3.
Below is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:
Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.
I write “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect “…
The whole point with CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up, see for example around -6 thousand years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If no such CO2 effect already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises.
So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect”.
The problems can also be illustrated by comparing situations of equal CO2 concentrations:
Fig 5.
So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:
Fig 6.
How come a CO2 level of 253 ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253 ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level?
One thing is for sure:
“Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures.”
This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2”.
But simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures.
– Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, I should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)
Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all?
No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?
This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.
Fig 7.
Well, if CO2 should be reason to such “temperature-fall-slowing-effect”, how big could this effect be? The temperatures falls 1 K / 1000 years slower than they rise.
However, this CO2 explanation of slow falling temperature seems is not supported by the differences in cooling periods, see fig 8.
When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.
It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and more:
Fig 8.
Again, this fits very well with Vostok data: Longer periods of warmth seems to be accompanied by longer time needed for cooling of earth. The differences in cooling periods does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more.
Note: In this writing I have used Vostok data as valid data. I believe that Vostok data can be used for qualitative studies of CO2 rising and falling. However, the levels and variability of CO2 in the Vostok data I find to be faulty as explained here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass PMI-001 exam fast using self study 70-290 guide and 350-029 tutorial.
Hi Ferdinand,
You said above:
“Contrary to what Alan MacRae believes, it is perfectly possible that two variables show a positive feedback on each other, despite a lag of one of them.”
I am sometimes surprised to learn what I allegedly believe (or do not believe). Perhaps it would be more appropriate if you were to state what you believe, and I were to state what I believe.
Alternatively, you could continue to act as my spokesman and I could act as yours, but I suggest this could result in a certain lack of clarity.
Best personal regards, Allan 🙂
P.S. I still believe your material balance argument falls short, but you could be right.
“as you compress the spring more and more, it requires greater force to move the spring an equivalent distance ”
No, it doesn’t. IT requires the exact same *additional* force to move it another inch. The way I read it originally, I read that it took 300lbs to move it one inch, and an additional (300+X)lbs to move it another inch.
“You don’t just push with 300lbs of force stop at one inch and then push with another 300lbs of force to get it to compress two inches.”
Yes, actually that is exactly right.
” You push with 300lbs of force and it will stop compressing at one inch, then you must push with 600 lbs of force to get to two inches.”
That is exactly what I said. I’m not speaking Latin here.
Think about it for a while, and you’ll get it…
I’m not speaking German here. What’s the problem.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (10:52:06) :
The 0.05 seems a little underestimated, as there is an inverse correlation between (low) cloud cover and TSI. See fig.1 in Kristjánsson e.a.: http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf
That paper concludes: “We conclude that this new analysis significantly weakens the evidence for the cosmic ray-cloud coupling suggested by Svensmark [1998].”
The correlation has only been observed over a short period of time and does not mean there is any physical connection, especially since they cast doubt on Svensmark’s mechanism, so i cannot take this as evidence for anything.
Frank Lansner (12:50:04) :
“Ten thousand years of Maunder Minimum Sun would cool the climate system 0.05 degrees.”
Yes, I do not agree with you on the impact of solar activity, but this is not my essential point here.
So if whatever condition caused such temperature changes continued 20-25.000 years, what temperature effect would that have? That’s the point here, sunspots or not.
First, you muddy the waters with all that CO2 hate-speak. The essential point is that whatever caused the LIA would not be operating for 20,000 years. The climate warms and cools on time scales of centuries [or even decades] no matter what the Sun does. When I referred to a Maunder Minimum condition that was, of course, referred to the Sun. So, if the Sun were the only variable, a non-varying Sun at Maunder Minimum level [just about where it is today], would not prevent those climate swings from coming and going.
1
02
2009
gary gulrud (13:40:51) :
“I think it is time for real scientists in the climate community to take stock and decide that the GCM models do not work”
Indeed. If models’ performance could be improved by adusting to past data, you’d think we’d have crossed this Rubicon. Instead it’s past data that’s being adjusted. Whatever the intent, science is no longer practicable when this is done other than by the observers themselves for systematic error.
1
02
2009
Syl (13:48:13) :
Roger Sowell (22:01:22) :
“AGWers, and Deniers both should read this!”
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html
Thank you for the reminder. Why is it that whenever I read Feynman I end up with a catch in my throat and find it difficult not to weep? Rhetorical question, I guess, but Feynman cuts through the carp in a gentle way then bam hits you with the underlying nugget of truth he’s prepared you for. And the beauty of that truth is such a relief from the day-to-day intellectual struggles that one simply lets go.
Very difficult to express, but I take a deep slow breath and feel refreshed.
1
02
2009
MattN (14:00:10) :
“Matt, you are wrong in saying “Except that is not true” because your second sentence is completely consistent with Eric’s statement. Thus it’s obvious that you didn’t understand it. What do you think “another 300 lbs” means? It means 600 lbs for two inches, then 900 lbs for three, etc.”
I know how a spring works. I have an engineering degree, and I race cars for funzies on the weekend.
In my example, it takes 300lbs to compress 1 inch, but it does NOT require any more than another identical 300lbs to compress it another inch. Unless, of course, it is a progressive rate spring….
sorry that by accident several later post were included. Perhaps a nice moderator could remedy that from
1
02
2009
gary gulrud (13:40:51) :
and down to the end.
nobwainer,
“Can you provide a paper that backs up your statement?”
This is obviously correct since the earth is pretty much a perfect sphere. I know it’s slightly pear shaped but to such a minor degree that it can be ignored. The shadow it would cast is identical no matter what it’s orientation.
His first statement, “The Milankovitch oscillations themselves cause very little net radiative forcing…They just change the distribution of the solar radiation hitting the earth” was wrong and you corrected him on that.
Now one might thing that how elliptical the orbit is does not effect total radiation hitting the earth when averaged over the entire year, but that is not true. The reason it is not true is because an orbiting body moves faster when it is closer, and slower when it is farther. With a more elliptical orbit it spends more time further away.
Also it turns out that there must be a conservation of kinetic and potential energy in the orbit. Moving the closer portion of the orbit in further actually happens deeper in the gravity well, thus for a unit n of change there is a large conversion of P to K. The outer end of the orbit must move out to compensate for the increased speed of the earth near the sun, but it does so in the less dense gravity field further from the sun. It therefore has to move proportionally further from the sun than the near point moved in.
Thus average distance from the sun for a more elliptical orbit is further given the same energy content. Both factors reinforce each other, and a more elliptical orbit spends more total time on the further portion of an orbit that is on average further from the sun.
That, orbital eccentricity, is the only component of the Milankovitch cycle that changes total radiation hitting the earth.
That doesn’t mean the other components aren’t huge climate factors. The patterns of sunlight hitting the earth in relation to orbit is extremely important. Just image if the axis of the earth were inclined 90 degrees, and pointed at the sun twice a year. The north pole would have sunlight for half the year, and the south pole the other half. During their alternate summers it would get much hotter than the hottest place on earth now. There would be extreme wind patterns, etc.
Timing between these effects matter a lot also. If in the above example the Arctic summer coincided with a highly elliptical orbit at it’s closest point to the sun the temperatures would be even higher.
This is way of topic and I would as soon you not post it, but think about it instead, how the heck can I deal with this.
I was getting ready to attend the winter meeting of the AAPT that is scheduled in two weeks, I feel obligated as a section officer to go; but today I recieved a promotional email telling me that I would have the opportunity there to hear the great Al Gore speak.
Now here is a guy who has never passed a physics course and has done more damage to physics education than anyone I can think of. Now I am wasting my hard earned registration money to pay for his BS dog and pony show. I don’t dare say this too publicly as I could put funding for some projects in jeopardy. Do you have any members of APS or AAPT among your posters who could post on this travesty.
“That is exactly what I said. I’m not speaking Latin here.”
Yeah, and if you’d read my original comment you’ll see that I understand that and said that you were correct. What I’m saying is that this is exactly what Eric is claiming also. So it is only your first sentence is wrong. You misread Eric.
Analogy:
Eric: The Sun is big.
Matt: Eric you are incorrect. The sun is large.
Me: Your second sentence is right but so is Eric’s. Your first is wrong.
Now you did it again. I said: “as you compress the spring more and more, it requires greater force to move the spring an equivalent distance ”
Then you said: “No, it doesn’t. IT requires the exact same *additional* force to move it another inch. ”
Again, your first sentence is wrong precisely because your second sentence is equivalent to my sentence. Requiring the exact same additional force is the same as requiring greater total force. Neither Eric nor I claimed it required greater additional force. We just claimed it required greater force.
You are just misunderstanding us. I think you’d agree with the sentence “as and object increases in weight by multiples of ten pounds, it requires greater force to lift” Not sure why you ignore the fact that the sentence is by default about the total weight of the object and total force. It’s not about how much “additional” force is required. Obviously ten additional pounds of force is required to lift the object for every ten pounds added.
Richard Sharpe,
“I wish you would use Newtons”
Not my example, and doesn’t make a difference.
“Your wording above leaves open the possibility that it takes 900lbs to get to two inches of compression.”
That’s NOT my original nor Eric’s wording. It’s a restatement of one possible interpretation of Matt’s wording. I was pointing out that his wording is ambiguous. That’s why the word “don’t” is injected. It’s his injection of the word “addition” that’s the problem. His word “additional” can be interpreted as either something to “mathematical addition to the original” or as “another separate additional force”.
I went out of my way to agree with one interpretation of Matt’s wording. I said, “Yeah, and 300 lbs + 300 lbs = 600 lbs.” Then I pointed out that this was in agreement with what Eric said.
The only reason why I could think that Matt would disagree with Eric was because he was taking a second incorrect interpretation of his own sentence.
I then put together a sentence to show the other possible interpretation. I substituted “addition” with “another”, meaning another separate action. Now perhaps that was ambigous standalone but it isn’t with the sentence that immediately follows it. Let me inject context from each sentence into the other.
You can’t compress the spring further by pushing with another action that only exerts 300 pounds of force. It won’t go further (move an equivalent distance) unless, as Eric said, “greater force” is used.
I don’t know where you get 900 lbs from this. I said that the first action stopped. I already showed the proper addition in the prior paragraph. Sure if you lift the sentence (like Matt did in is followup) and take it out of context, then it gets more and more ambigous.
Long and short of it is that Eric was right all along about needing a “greater force” to compress the spring further, and Matt misunderstood him.
BTW, I wrote,
Obviously the last 600 in italics was a mistype and should be 900.
Is this a bad parody or what? Enough with the @ur momisugly#$%^&* spring constant.
Why don’t you set up your own website, dedicated to discussing F=kx?
🙂
Syl (13:48:13) :
“Thank you for the reminder. Why is it that whenever I read Feynman I end up with a catch in my throat and find it difficult not to weep? Rhetorical question, I guess, but Feynman cuts through the carp in a gentle way then bam hits you with the underlying nugget of truth he’s prepared you for. And the beauty of that truth is such a relief from the day-to-day intellectual struggles that one simply lets go.
Very difficult to express, but I take a deep slow breath and feel refreshed.”
Dr. Feynman was one-of-kind. I read his bio Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman, then watched his physics lecture videos. Pure genius.
Feynman had that (apparently) rare ability to perform superior science at the highest level (he won a 1/3 share of the 1965 Nobel prize for QED), AND he could communicate complex ideas in clear, understandable terms. I attribute much of my success, however limited, to emulating that communication technique.
I especially like his account of his days in New Mexico working on the bomb project, when the foremost scientists would come to him as a sounding board for their new theories. Feynman was not swerved by anyone’s reputation or consensus; if their theories did not measure up to the data or fundamental laws, he debunked them then and there.
One can only wonder what he would have to say about the current state of climate-warming science.
@Leif.
I dont hate CO2, its the other way around 🙂
(retorical, im sorry, could not let it be…)
Honestly, I think i just try to understand nature just as i believe you do.
In context with the Maunder minimum i understand that you are saying that whatever conditions brought it about, it could not continue for 20.000 years.
Is this opinion specific for the Maunder minimum, or would you say the same for
Middle age warm period, Roman warm period, Sporer min, and the long warm period 5-6-7 thousand years ago?
If none of the causes for these temperature variations “could not last for 20.000 year”, would you then join AGW and conclude: “then it must be CO2″?
You write:”When I referred to a Maunder Minimum condition that was, of course, referred to the Sun. So, if the Sun were the only variable, a non-varying Sun at Maunder Minimum level [just about where it is today], would not prevent those climate swings from coming and going.
”
Ok, i think i know what you are saying.
Now that you are “online” i would like to ask:
Yes, the solar condition is now as in the Maunder minimum, except the Maunder minimum lasted 50 years and got much colder.
1) Could the length of the Maunder minimum be predicted from our knowledge today?
2) If not, how do you know how long time a solar minimum in theory could last?
@Leif, I will rephrase the 2 questions:
1) Could the length of the Maunder solar minimum be predicted from our knowledge today?
2) Do you know how long time a solar minimum in theory could last?
I know that you dont believe that solar activity leads to that much, but still im interested in your view on the above.
Roger Sowell (00:02:26) :
One can only wonder what he would have to say about the current state of climate-warming science.
Cargo cult science? He could be very cutting.
I had the luck to hear him in two workshops, one in 1964 and the other in 1981 or so. He was soo much like a child in the way he saw the world, as a total experience. I remember him going down a ravine in Crete, in company with other theoreticians, bathing in the waters while discussing QCD etc. Took them twice the time of the rest of us to arrive at the beach.
He said that he remembered the moments the Feynman diagrams jelled in his head, he remembered he was on his bed with his feet on the wall!! ( maybe the extra blood helped. He had eidetic memory, he could read a book, page and figure numbers, from memory).
He was also the proposer of the parton model, a useful tool which finally led to QCD, but it took some time for Feynman to be reconciled with QCD. But he did. A lesson to all these modelers that there is a time to discard a model, if the data says so.
( It was the reason why I was at that workshop, our data was saying that there was more than the parton model).
Lucy Skywalker (06:27:59) :
Frank, one of your volcanic URL’s seems to be a right fraud, we’ve just had some fun exploring here. Upshot is, it’s as I thought, no recent seismic activities increase, rather, the correlation appears to be with solar low activity.
Hi Lucy. In a pdf of a paper I lost in a disk crash recently, the graph showed a lag of 30 years or so between changes in solar activity and volcanic activity. If it is right, we are in for some serious action volcanically, as the effect of the strong cycles from the start of the eighties kicks in. I will try to replicate the graph. Drop me another email, I lost your address.
Hi Allan,
I don’t think that I have put words in your mouth. If you write:
I did interprete that as that you think that there can’t be a feedback of CO2 on temperature, which is not true…
But no worry. We agree that the influence of CO2 on temperature at best is weak and at “worst” is not even measurable…
Another point of discussion:
I don’t see how this weakens the material balance over a year or several years. The seasonal variation on global scale is about 5 ppmv, or 10 GtC in and out the atmosphere. Human emissions approach 8 GtC/yr, but only one way: towards the atmosphere. The residual variability of the seasonal changes is +/- 3 GtC over a year (mainly caused by temperature and precipitation), the average result is 3.5 GtC net sink per year. That means zero addition (as mass, not as exchange of molecules) by nature over the full seasonal cycle over the past 50 years. Thus the mass balance still shows that the sole source of the increase are the human emissions…
Frank and moderators,
I have a problem about a non-topic item here: the historical data, as interpreted by Ernst Beck. I have a lot to say about the data where his interpretation is based on, but that needs far more space in a discussion on its own (which lasts now for a few years with him!), than as off-topic here. Can we start a different thread on that?
As a teaser, read my comments about Beck’s interpretation of the data here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Leif,
The correlation has only been observed over a short period of time and does not mean there is any physical connection, especially since they cast doubt on Svensmark’s mechanism, so i cannot take this as evidence for anything.
I agree, two solar cycles is quite short, but it seems that in both cycles a similar response of (low) cloud cover is visible, whatever the mechanism. That is empirical evidence. Moreover, the solar cycle is visible in ozone levels, jet stream position, rain patterns, ocean surface temperatures, etc. over much longer time periods. Each of them is part of climate, beyond what only TSI shows…
The above excellent article highlights the difficulties of determination of cause and effect relationships which are a severe problem when attempting to evaluate every aspect of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. And it raises the point of why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration changes are observed to follow global temperature changes at all time scales.
I write to suggest that the ~800 year delay observed in the Vostock ice cores is a function of the thermohaline circulation. And the available data indicates that this same effect is the most likely explanation of the measured recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
It is often claimed that ‘ocean acidification’ (i.e. change to the pH of the ocean surface layer that is reducing the alkalinity of the surface layer) is happening as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, I have repeatedly pointed out that the opposite is also possible because the deep ocean waters now returning to ocean surface could be altering the pH of the ocean surface layer with resulting release of CO2 from the ocean surface layer. Indeed, no actual release is needed because massive CO2 exchange occurs between the air and ocean surface each year and the changed pH would inhibit re-sequestration of the CO2 naturally released from ocean surface.
Ocean pH varies from about 7.90 to 8.20 at different geographical locations but along coasts there are much larger variations from 7.3 inside deep estuaries to 8.6 in productive coastal plankton blooms and 9.5 in tide pools. The pH of the oceans is lowest in their most productive regions where upwellings of water from deep ocean occur.
It is thought that the average pH of the oceans decreased from 8.25 to 8.14 since the start of the industrial revolution (Jacobson M Z, 2005). And it should be noted that a decrease of pH from 8.2 to 8.1 corresponds with an increase of the CO2 in the air from 285.360 ppmv to 360.000 ppmv at solution equilibrium between air and ocean (calculations not published).
In other words, the ocean ‘acidification’ (estimated by Jacobson) is consistent with the change to atmospheric CO2 concentration for the estimated change to the solution equilibrium between air and ocean.
Thus, it is important to determine the cause/effect relationship between the changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the pH of the ocean surface layer: i.e. which of these changes is causing the other to change.
The upwelling regions having lowest pH suggests that the ocean pH is changing to alter the atmospheric CO2 concentration. And the Vostock ice core data suggests a reason why this is likely.
I am very sceptical of the ice core data because I think they indicate falsely low and very smoothed values for past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I base this opinion on the works of Jaworowski (indeed, at his request I presented his paper on ice core analysis to the 2008 Heartland Climate Conference because illness forced his absence). However, I do think the ice cores indicate long-term changes to past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And – as the above article says – the Vostock ice cores indicate that changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to temperature by ~800 years. If this is correct, then the atmospheric CO2 concentration should now be rising as a result of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
This begs the question as to the cause of the ~800 year lag of atmospheric CO2 concentration after changes to temperature indicated by ice cores. And I suggest it is an effect of the thermohaline circulation.
The water now returning to the surface layer entered the deep ocean ~800 years ago during the MWP. Therefore, a release of oceanic CO2 in response to altered pH would concur with the ice core indications (assuming my acceptance of long-term trends in ice core data is correct). And this release could be expected to provide a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (of at least 1.5 ppm/year) as a result of the water now returning to the surface having entered deep ocean during the MWP.
Indeed, those who proclaim man-made global warming assert that heat from present global warming is going into the oceans and will return later. If so, then – for the same reasons – effects of the MWP must be returning now.
Several studies have shown that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration varies around a base trend of 1.5 ppm/year. A decade ago Calder showed that the variations around the trend correlate to variations in mean global temperature (MGT): he called this his ‘CO2 thermometer’. Now, Ahlbeck has submitted a paper for publication that finds the same using recent data. Reasons for this ‘CO2 thermometer’ are not known but they probably result from changes sea suface temperature.
So, there is strong evidence that MGT governs variations in the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration but there is no clear evidence of the cause of the steady – and unwavering – base trend of 1.5 ppm/year.
It is often suggested (e.g. by IPCC) that the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is accumulating in the air, and this could be the cause of the steady base trend. However, a rise related to the anthropogenic emission should vary with the anthropogenic emission, but the steady rise does not.
Simply, in the absence of more information, the anthropogenic emissions vary too much for them to be a likely cause of the steady rise of 1.5 ppm/year in atmospheric CO2 concentration that is independent of a temperature effect.
Please note that the annual anthropogenic emissions data need not vary with the atmospheric rise. Some of the emissions may be accounted in adjacent years so 2-year smoothing of the emissions data is warranted. And different nations may account their years from different start months so 3-year smoothing of the data is justifiable. However, the 5-year smoothing applied by the IPCC to get agreement between the anthropogenic emissions and the rise is not justifiable (they use it because 2-year, 3-year and 4-year smoothings fail to provide the agreement).
So, other possible explanations than the anthropogenic emissions deserve investigation.
I argue that a response to the MWP provided in the present by the thermohaline circulation is an explanation that does concur with the empirical evidence. Water now returning to the surface having entered deep ocean during the MWP may be inducing release of oceanic CO2 in response to altered pH, and this release could be expected to provide the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (of at least 1.5 ppm/year) that is observed to be independent of temperature variations.
I hope this posting is a useful contribution to debate of the above excellent article.
Richard
PS To see my presentation of Jawarowski’s paper (mentioned above) than go to
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork2008-video.html
At that URL,scroll down to
Monday, March 3, 2008
4:00 – 5:30 p.m.
Track 1: Paleolimatology
and click on my name
Frank,
“Honestly, I think i just try to understand nature”
Why lie?
You said, for example: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall.
Of course! It takes longer for ice to form than to melt. So, when insolation breaks the cold cycle, the GHG’s that process begets reinforce melting and away it goes till it gets too far out o balance and starts back the other way. But it takes a LOOOOONG time to snow down miles of ice.
You people are ridiculous. This is fifth grade stuff.
AnnaV
(1) Only a 1 sigma change in the assumed albedo of the GCM models will make a 1C error about any scenario line
You are right and the climate videogames would probably be indeed called cargo cult science by Feynman .
But the reality is even is worse .
Albedo is mainly influenced by cloudiness , not by the surface reflectivity .
Not only the total suface (and volume and height) of clouds matters but also their spatial distribution .
A km² of clouds at the tropics has much more impact on the energy transfer than a km² clouds at the poles .
So as 1% of cloudiness variation impacts the energy transfer 10 times more than the supposed “forcing” through CO2 doubling , one must legitimately demand that the cloudiness be known and predicted with better than 0,1 % accuracy .
This accuracy extends of course to the spatial distribution too .
And that only if one supposes that the climate system is not chaotic what is a dubious assumption to say the least .
Now R.Lindzen has published a chart showing the cloudiness distribution in different climate “models” .
It was simply ridiculous .
The models didn’t even agree on the sense of variation with latitude let alone with the distribution .
When one realizes only this one simple , easy fact then the term video games takes a fully justified meaning .
When one sees on top that some of the most rabid AGWers are trying to explain us with deadly serious faces that the temperatures 100 millions years ago were solely the consequence of CO2 concentration , one only needs to ask them “And what was the cloudiness back then ? Pray tell .”
Try it , it is quite entretaining .
You only get blank stares of a robot who has been hard wired in a way that prevents him to understand even the easiest questions 🙂
Dear Richard,
As result of a long standing discussion, here the main points where we differ:
– The influence of the THC:
The 800 years lag indeed is visible in the Vostok record, but that holds for the large (about 10°C) temperature swing between cold periods and warm periods, where the transition takes more than 5,000 years (upgoing) or tenthousand(s) of years (downgoing). The overall ratio is about 8 ppmv/°C, or an increase of 0.0016 ppmv/year during the upgoing trend. An increase of 1.5 ppmv/year in current times as result of the THC seems a little overdone.
– The influence of the MWP-LIA transition:
In the high accumulation Law Dome ice core, the LIA shows a drop of about 6 ppmv CO2 for a drop of about 0.8°C (if one takes the reconstruction with the largest temperature amplitude, that is NOT Mann’s hockeystick!). The ice core shows a lag of about 50 years for CO2 and again a ratio of 8 ppmv/°C. The speed of decrease was about 0.06 ppmv/year (but smoothed in the ice core). Again 1.5 ppmv/year seems too high.
– The current variability:
The current variability of CO2 around the trend is about 3 ppmv/°C. This correlates quite good with the (sea) surface temperature, thus that is probably the cause of the variability. The trend itself is quite sure caused by the emissions, which are near double the observed increase. That the year-by-year increase shows only a reasonable correlation with the emissions is normal: the year-by-year increase is the result of two independent variables: emissions and temperature. In this case temperature acts as noise for the increase caused by human emissions and one need to average more years (3 and more) to show that the increase per year correlates well to the emissions per year:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
A quite different view is if one looks at accumulated emissions and what has accumulated in the atmosphere: it is a near perfect match (at 53% of the emissions over the full 100+ years):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Thus the rise of the emissions and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere are matched for any period in time longer than a few years…
Further, about the representativeness of the bubbles in ice cores of the ancient atmosphere:
That was effectively solved by the work of Etheridge over 10 years ago on three ice cores at Law Dome. He used different drilling techniques and measured in firn as good as in the ice core. There was an overlap of about 20 years between the ice core bubbles CO2 and direct measurements in the atmosphere of the south pole. The SPO measurements and the ice core and firn measurements matched within the accuracy of the ice core measurements (1 sigma: 1.2 ppmv).
Jaworowski’s objections include remarks which are physically impossible and most was answered by the work of Etheridge. See my response to Jaworowski:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
We know with some certainty that the earth’s orbit around the sun has some influence on the earth’s temperature.
What about the sun’s orbit around the galaxy?
This article correctly states that the temperature started to increase before the CO2 did at the end of an ice age. (This was apparently predicted by Hansen before it was observed in ice-cores, and is currently well known in climate science.) However, the interpretation that CO2 does not influence the temperature is wrong. Temperature and CO2 influence each other in both directions; it is a bit of a chicken-egg discussion. The IR absorbing qualities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases were measured in the laboratory over 100 years ago. This basic piece of physics doesn’t go away by pointing at ice cores. To the contrary, it makes the picture complete: The amplification of the initial warming by GHG and the ice albedo effect (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/tipping_points_melting_ice/) are important to include when trying to understand the total amount of warming.
However, the current situation is clearly different from that at the end of the ice ages, since now we know that the extra CO2 is brought into the atmosphere by human activity. Currently, CO2 is not increasing in response to the warming, but rather due to human emissions, and as such it is now one of the driving forces of the warming. If you claim that the current increase in CO2 is due to the increasing temperature instead (not directly stated, but the reader is led to that conclusion, and rather successfully judged from the comments), then where did all the CO2 go that we’ve emitted so far? How come the isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 has changed? (A reflection of a larger fraction of fossil carbon) And how could one reconcile the absence of warming from CO2 with the observed properties of this and other gases in the lab? And many more unanswerable questions.
Frank Lansner (00:32:00) :
In context with the Maunder minimum i understand that you are saying that whatever conditions brought it about, it could not continue for 20.000 years.
More correct to say, “did not”, see below.
Is this opinion specific for the Maunder minimum, or would you say the same for Middle age warm period, Roman warm period, Sporer min, and the long warm period 5-6-7 thousand years ago?
Here you mix the Sun and the climate as if they are one and the same, or make the implicit assumption that one causes the other.
If none of the causes for these temperature variations “could not last for 20.000 year”, would you then join AGW and conclude: “then it must be CO2″?
Here one could ask: “if CO2 is not the cause, then it must be the Sun”. Both is there rhetorical black-and-white propositions are equally wrong.
Yes, the solar condition is now as in the Maunder minimum, except the Maunder minimum lasted 50 years and got much colder.
Again you make the assumption that there is a connection. The length of the minimum doesn’t matter, the temperature will just be a constant 0.05K lower.
1) Could the length of the Maunder solar minimum be predicted from our knowledge today?
2) Do you know how long time a solar minimum in theory could last?
Some people [e.g. ‘nobwainer’] would say ‘yes’ to both questions [albeit for wrong reasons]. From current dynamo theory it is thought [I know this is weak] that since the dynamo is self-sustaining that it cannot go away or weaken for too long. We have direct evidence from 14C over the past 11,000 years that Grand Minima didn’t last centuries or more: http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png
The red curve is the 14C data. The large-scale changes are not solar, but are due to the changing magnetic field of the Earth [and we have other ways of corroborating this]. The black curve is a 500-year running mean, and the blue curve the difference which is believed to be a measure of the solar modulation.
If there is a constant difference between solar activity at ‘normal’ times and during a Maunder-type minimum, then there will be a constant temperature difference no matter how long the minimum lasts.