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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Anthony – I frequently read the posts and comments on your site. Is there any way you can number the comments? I don’t have time to sit down and read them all in one sitting (plus they are always expanding), and it’s hard to find my place if I read some and then come back.
Keep up the good work. Thanks
It’s entirely possible to have a positive feedback system where one state variable (e.g. CO2) lags another state variable (e.g. T). The fact there is a delay does not mean there is no link between them, so to use the delay as an argument against a mutual causal relationship is invalid. Presumably the driver of the system is neither of the state variables involved, so it is irrelevant whether one is triggering the other. For me the CO2/T graphs neither prove nor disprove causal relationships.
If CO2 and T do force each other, surely the positive feedback only ceases when levels are reached where the positive feedback gain ceases, and there is no more dependence. Otherwise the warming spike would continue. So if, as is argued by some, CO2 and T are mutually reinforcing coming out of an ice-age, then that is not an argument to indicate that they are currently affecting each other, because they should be in the “saturated” regions at their current levels.
If CO2 and T are the variables involved, what happened “suddenly” 3 million years ago to start the ice ages off? Surely the laws of physics did not change? The only possibility is continental drift, which cannot possibly affect the relationship between CO2 and T. Continental drift can only change the course of ocean currents, so ocean currents have to be a primary mechanism causing the ice ages.
I also had a symmetry argument against CO2/T relationship, but Jorgekafkazar has provided me with a reason why there may be asymmetry, with different rates for degassing and re-gassing.
Oxana Lansner (17:32:57) :
Sweet, you have all my support!
Jeg elsker dig!
Your wife.
Ah! So it’s Danish is it?
Jeres husband er mange!
From someone who long ago derived from your shores, via Britain …
(and I desperately hope I got the translation right for ‘your husband is a great man!’ )
Thank you for this analysis. I have sent this to all on my email list.
Question:
Isn’t the anthropogenic CO2 in our atmosphere a gnat on the windshield as compared to the volcanic activity on our planet? Isn’t that the real driver of CO2 concentrations and our contribution a drop in a very very large bucket? Doesn’t THAT make all this futile exercise? Not to mention that water vapor is a more important green house gas than CO2
Robert Bateman (20:41:04) :
Why, certainly. The backing off of solar wind leading to increased cosmic rays
The station best suited to observe the cosmic rays is Thule very close to the geomagnetic pole. Here is the last 40+ years of Neutron Counts at Thule: http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png As you can see there has been no long-term changes in cosmic rays over that time. The count at every solar minimum always returns to the same value [with a very small systematic – and understood – alternation between minima]. This minimum is no different. Here http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/thule.html#levels is a real-time plot. The bottom panel is the count to compare with my plot. We are just now seeing the minimum values play out as the cosmic rays lag solar activity by 6 months or so [it takes 12 months for the solar wind to go from the Sun to the heliospheric boundary]. In assessing the long-term trend, one can see that it is much smaller than the solar cycle variation, so if the solar cycle variation gives us a barely noticeable [0.1 degree] effect due to cosmic rays, then the effect from the much smaller trend is correspondingly smaller.
Is this your Man From Nasa?
ET (20:56:30) : said, “Seems rather hard to believe that no one has taken samples of CO2 from either GRIP or GISP2 during the interglacial.”
Interesting. I always wondered how much of the ice core data was missing due to meltIng of snowpack during the interglacials.
@Mike Bryant (18:00:31) :
****
Mary Hinge (15:24:54) said:
“He must learn that climate science is not the simplistic two dimensional process he thinks it is.”
Frank, Mary will be giving classes on three AND four dimensional climate science processes. Be sure to sign up for the classes. You must learn.
****
Yes, i also now have this vision of these weather people are simply 4-dimensional people in their own Einsteinish universe. My good, it must be hard to go through this examin for meteology! Much harder than the physics and chemistry i took as civil engeneer, im sure.
In Denmark we have H.C.Andersen, and he wrote about the emperor with no clothes. It only worked because the tailors assured everyone that the emperor indeed had clothes on. It was only the “simple people” that could not see this. And thus everybody says nothing…
It seems that the crowd of peoble just telling the obvious is getting bigger and bigger. Some day soon the emperor will be embarresed? And I would not like to be in the shoes of the tailor.
Its striking that nothing has changed since H.C. Andersen died.
foinavon (17:46:23) :
I agree that the book is a fine one. I said so before. However it’s a bit out of date. The beauty of writing indeed has no shelf date (very nicely put btw!). However scientists (and science publicizers that write books) are forced to recognize that all scientific knowledge is conditional and subject to modification/reinterpretation as knowledge advances. Our understanding of glacial transitions in 2000 was simply not so well advanced as now, since much of the spectacular coring was obtained and published after that period… ..in science we should be basing our understanding on knowledge as it advances, even if we should also maintain an interest in aesthetics…
@Foinavon: Your usage of English here shows some non-Anglicisms. Are you a non-native English speaker? If so, please forgive me. I’ve assumed otherwise. Do you have a preference?
I’m OK in Spanish & French (several years of formal classes in both), can read some German & Portuguese. I have a smattering of several others including Latin, Greek, Swedish & Norwegian and can ‘kind of’ pick out bits of Danish & Icelandic (but they use too many cases!) & Russian (which I took a class in but ‘had issues’…) Ido, Esperanto and Interlingue are relatively readable to me since they are roughly based on Romance principles. If you would prefer one of these (given my limitations!) please feel free to post in a bilingual format.
(The perils of being borderline Aspergers with an interest in languages… but I digress…)
Perhaps I have not understood you correctly due to a language issue… Do you have a preference? If it is not English, please, again, forgive me! (I’m a native speaker of English, but Spanish and French are close behind, and the Nordic languages have a historical affinity for me – family history includes Amish (German of a sort) and Irish (Gaelic is, er, not my best, but I’m working on it… )
But back to Ice Ages. Is it not a fact that every interglacial only happens when all the conditions are aligned such that the N. pole gets heat? Is it not the case that the S. pole can be in the ‘hot mode’ (precession, obliquity, eccentricity etc.) and we do not get an ice age?
It seems to me that as long as Milankovitch is shown true, we are sitting on a ledge of ‘just past the peak of an interglacial’ and waiting to fall off. In that context, I see little to fear from AGW and in fact, think it may well be our saviour from a (literal!) Frankenstein outcome…
(Frankenstein was written during the Little Ice Age, and the introductory paragraphs are oriented toward a frozen hell of a world. The story was written as folks on holiday were faced with a terrible cold and snowy ‘vacation’ and decided to scare each other as a diversion from the cold that blighted their outing…)
Note to Simon Evans
Firstly, Frank has articulated much better what I have been posting for some time in a number of places-thanks Frank!
Regarding my conversation with you and Smokey on the other thread I need to put things into context as I originally shared your scepticism on variable co2 levels.
I first became interested in Beck after looking at co2 against past known Hadley CET to 1660 and became aware of higher and lower temps in the past.
This graph;
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/menken_hobgoblin.jpg
was created with the correct unsmoothed temperatures and correct time scales overlaid with IPCC co2 data-not to same scale- but graphed to greatly exaggerate the levels so time scales and variations could be better seen.
After looking at it my thoughts were that temperature rise preceded co2 increases and co2 seemed to have nothing to do with anything as temperatures have fluctuated greatly in the past at only 280ppm (ice cores) well before we came on the scene. Alternatively the ‘correct’ co2 levels were missing prior to 1958 and a constant 280ppm was wrong.
This graph
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
is to correct scales and introduced the levels of man made co2 (blue line at the bottom) and some previous readings (green dots) from Beck. All the co2 action seems to take place between around 260-370ppm after which perhaps the logarithmic effect made little difference to temperatures.
I became aware of Beck’s work and independently researched the history of co2 and discovered that taking readings was very common from around 1820 for a variety of purposes connected with measuring levels (for ventilation purposes) from mines to medical to factories. Agricola was aware of co2 2000 years ago, as was Florence Nightingale in the 1850’s who I believe took readings , together with thousands of scientists- some of them Nobel winners. These readings are available in a variety of documents from ‘Air and water’ in 1872 to Frances Benedict in 1912 and Giles Slocum in 1956. There is also a complete bibliography of references to readings.
I subsequently corresponded with Beck (who puts his work on the web in a manner that would shame certain IPCC scientists) and I subsequently closely examined a small number of readings as regards the person, methodology, equipment, circumstances and likely accuracy. The only conclusion I could come to was that although by no means all of the 90000 readings ( a fraction of those taken that remain) were accurate, a significant proportion could not be easily dismissed.
Taking co2 readings was commonplace in previous times and was mentioned in Gaskells ‘North and South’ and a UK Factories act was put in place in 1889 which set a limit in factories and mines, enforced by the relevant inspectorate. The British do not put in place legislation unless it can be enforced (and people fined!) After looking at the various methods used- including the Haldane analyser, it was impossible to conclude anything other than that previous levels prior to 1958 and back to the first reliable readings-Saussure in 1820-were similar to today.
Looking in detail at the politics of the situation and the belief system of GS Callendar and Charles Keeling -who in effect ‘decided’ that 280ppm was the pre industrial level without any proof whatsoever (other than the formers highly selective use of the measurements to support his own theories) I looked at the ice cores. This is a highly technical area and a new science open to wide interpretation of what a tiny number of cores are telling us, and to me is unconvincing .
I had much the same questions as you put to me over on the other thread. I answered them myself, then thought why not ask Ernst Beck to confirm my thoughts. His reply to me was far more detailed than mine so I have-with his permission reproduced them. I have seen the second document he mentions-but this is only generally available on payment. It adds a fair bit to our understanding but the new work he is compiling will be more comprehensive.
That Co2 flux and sources/sinks is a complex and largely unknown area is apparent-the idea that we are thinking of transforming our lifestyles and economy based on such flimsy evidence as has emerged so far claiming our supposed culpability is astonishing. I do not pretend to have the answers but two things remain that to me are unresolved.
Temperatures in the past have fluctuated greatly without the mechanism of co2 fluctuation, suggesting that at best it is a weak driver as evidenced by the constant ice core measurements. Or that co2 is some sort of driver-albeit still weak- and past levels have always fluctuated around modern levels. In this case blaming man and proclaiming doom and gloom seems misplaced.
I am further concerned that the ‘evidence’ for man made co2 being the cuplrit is based on highly theoretical and therefore unproven hypotheses backed up by computer models that even the IPCC say should not be relied on.
This is a long post so I will stop here and put up your original and highly pertinent objections shortly, together with the reply from Ernst Beck.
TonyB
I don’t understand why in Fig. 2 the CO2 levels do not drop down as far as their starting level. They do in the original data.
And I note that you have shifted the vertical scale of the CO2 chart so that 300ppm is now roughly level with 3 degrees C rather than 2 degrees C.
And I think you have expanded the CO2 scale vertically from the original graph.
Do these changes affect the analysis? Could you perhaps show us the data underlying the composite graph, and how it was formed.
re Francois O (13:31:35), it is high time that in all countries taxpayers insist that all tax-funded science be published where all taxpayers can read it.
Michael D Smith (18:43:08) :
Ok, and we have a Mike Smith too… (Guess what the M stands for in E. M. Smith…) so it looks like we are ‘triple teaming’ them…
Reminds me of the time the company put out a “know your Mike Smith ” edition of the company newspaper…(there were 5 of us!)
For what it’s worth, there has been one Mike Smith for each 2000 of working population at every company at which I have worked.
Thanks for pointing out the D-O cycles. I hadn’t seen that before. I don’t know how to translate O18 to temperature, but the correlation is there, and obviously something significant was going on there! That looks like a heck of lot of variation to me, especially compared to the more recent past.
To my earlier point, these recent cores will record much higher detail than the older ones. It’s not so much an effect of trapping air, it’s that the gases actually are in solution in a semi-permeable material. Granted
I am tired of epicycles. This note is going to generate even more of them in order to turn the Temperature/CO2 correlation into a plausible cause: CO2 effect:temperature rise.
Nobody disputes there is a correlation, it is the direction and the magnitude of the role of CO2 in temperature rising that is crucial for AGW climate models that is at risk here.
It is instructive to think of the epicycles: Scientists of that time added more and more epicycles as more and more planetary objects were discovered. They were discarded when the causative arrow became clear, planets go around the sun and not the sun around the earth. Even now, if you take a geocentric system, epicycles will appear, but what is their use except in astrology ( a correlation is causation industry too)?
Scientists should aim for the clear, simple and illuminating explanation. This post helps in this direction.
I think it is time for real scientists in the climate community to take stock and decide that the GCM models do not work: CO2 is dominantly effect and not cause, there are no errors with the scenaria,(1) just fuzzy logic, the tropospheric temperatures do not behave, except if one presumes large errors, temperatures have plateaued It seems the PDO etc ( storing and releasing heat) together with changes in albedo ( the Plame plot) can simply describe what we see as global temperatures.
CO2/water feedback was an interesting hypothesis that has not panned out. A true scientist lets go, and looks for the next challenge ( I would suggest models like Tsonis et al are building).
In my field, Particle Physics, we had the really great scientist Feynman sticking to his parton model for quite a while. He had to give in to QCD, in the end . Data said differently and he accepted it.
*******
(1) Only a 1 sigma change in the assumed albedo of the GCM models will make a 1C error about any scenario line
Frank,
“In Denmark we have H.C.Andersen, and he wrote about the emperor with no clothes. It only worked because the tailors assured everyone that the emperor indeed had clothes on. It was only the “simple people” that could not see this. And thus everybody says nothing…”
I believe that our only hope now is simple people with simple common sense. Ab honesto virum bonum nihil deterret.
Thanks for your work on this.
Mike
foinavon
Where is this evidence that the CO2 rising preceeds warming in the north? If true it still doesn’t make sense because than the order would be South warms CO2 rises North warms. That wouldn’t be good evidence that CO2 was the cause of the warming more like CO2 has little to do with it.
In addition when I first saw the ice core data from Greenland at a presented paper in a 1990 ACS meeting this was not the case. In other words it was clear from the Greenland data as well that the warming had happened first though the time lag was less.
My Post 00 31 16
Simon (I also hope Frank-and others- can comment
Please refer to my post of 00 31 16 and my reservations and caveats to put this current post into context. As I say I had composed a reply to your original questions, but after checking some details with Ernst Beck I felt his reply was much more comprehensive than mine so I have posted it with his permission.
Your very pertinent questions are in speech marks. Becks comments are not;
“Ok, I’ll run through my reservations with the Beck paper (E&E 2007) (with apologies to others for this being OT in respect of the original post).
1. Beck refers to 90,000 analyses of C02 since 1812. Of these, 64,000 were taken at Giessen (not Bremen, as I mistakenly said last night) over an eighteen month period. So, some 79% of the data from which he draws conclusions about global C02 concentrations over a 150 year period is from one location over 18 months.”
I have compiled from literature at the moment ~95 000 CO2 data from more than 300 000 analyses because of double to quadruple measurements and then averaging.
I do NOT draw global conclusions. All CO2 measurements near ground are local and also the so called background CO2 data are local for instance in about 4 km altitude (MLO) they differ in latitude and continent or marine location.
If we compare famous ice core data concerning CO2 e.g. Vostok 1999 (petit et al), we have 200 years. They all take them globally!
“2. Beck states that “The longest single time series was determined in Paris’ Montsouris laboratory, and comprises 12,000 measurements over the 30 years from 1876 until 1910″, but we don’t have any detail of these measurements beyond that. He then graphs details for four locations, none of which cover the same periods. I cannot see what validation of one location against another applies.
“Looking to my webpage http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm you can find every resources and information you will find.
I´m writing a large monograph concerning in detail all information on the historic measurements since 2006. At the moment I do statistical analysis of my data using Maximum Entropy Spectral Analysis and Wavelet Spectral analysis. I hope I have finished the discussion about the results soon so that I can implement the results in my monograph.
After that the whole thing will be published. My website, publications and presentations are parts of this work.
The montsouris data had been investigated in detail by Stanhill, please see my website: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/montsouris/stanhill1-23.pdf.
The four locations in my first paper are examples of very well done measuring series giving all necessary information to evaluate the data. More in my presentations and my second paper and the rest >140 in my monograph. It was not possible to do this in a 23 page paper.
The validation of one location against another is common in modern CO2 measurements. The WDCGG lists the data of the global network. If you compare the different locations you will see mostly the same data. But this is impossible because of very local data. E.g: CO2 on Mauna LOa ( ~4km volcano, no vegetation) or Schauinsland (1200 altitude, forested area, much vegetation) . The graphs are nearly identical. The explanation is a filtering of raw data and a statistical processing at both locations to get the predefined graph . At Schauinsland they had taken only the values at night, by the way. This is data picking to get the graph you want!!! All data are taken as globally important.
“My” historical data are near ground and typical for the vertical profile of CO2 in the atmosphere at that location. Near ground we have about 35-50 ppm seasonal variation on continent and about 12 ppm at an altitude of about 4 km (background). Please see here: http://www.purdue.edu/climate/pdf/Gurney%20Science.pdf
The averages in 4 km (background) and near ground (local influenced) are within about 4 ppm the same. Thats all. I will include a picture out of the chapter in my monograph on that issue. http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/surgut-hom.jpg
“3. Looking at the Kreutz/Gissen record as an illustration, we see very large variations in C02 measurements from one month to the next, e.g. c.300 to 430 between 9/39 and 10/39, and 340 to 550 over two months from 6/40 to 8/40. If such measurements were indeed representative of global CO2 concentration, then how could such quantities of C02 be moving in and out of the atmosphere at such a rate? This is equivalent to between a third and two thirds of all the CO2 contained in land plants globally. He refers to “monthly cycling” and suggests this is evident in Mauna Loa measurements, but not on that extraordinary scale! We have no evidence from ground observation or satellites to confirm such flux – are we to presume this is something that stopped happening in the 1950s?”
“(Perhaps the questioner) who asked this has no idea of the daily and seasonal variations of atmospheric CO2 at a real location. Real fluctuations during a day can be more than 100 ppm without human influence. It is simple vegetation or wind. Of course they are not globally representative. We should stop these crazy thinking of a global climate or weather. Neither temperature nor any other parameter locally measured is globally representative. This is the result of the Keeling procedure of filtering data, cutting the outliers and processing the data. Take a look at the temperature data (Giss or HADCRUT). They are processed every month the old and the new one to fit the ideas of rising temperatures because of global warming.
The oceans easily emit such high CO2 every year. A warm water current will release per 1°C warming up to 70 ppm more CO2. This had taken place in the Northern Atlantic ocean during the 30s.
The monthly cycling ( about 28 days) I have observed is the fingerprint of lunar phases and part of the lunar nodal cycle. We can see it in all CO2 series also MLO (see my website)
The only thing we have to do is spectral analysis of the CO2 data. Please ask the questioner why nobody has done this? I will give you the answer below.
“4. Seeing, then, the enormous and rapid variations in supposed global atmospheric C02 concentration as measured at Giessen and other locations, he then presumes that this can be fitted to the monotonic annual variation and steady rise in concentrations measured at Mauna Loa from the 1950s. How could this be plausible?”
“The answer is given above. The Giessen data are typical for Giessen, latitude ~ 50 on continent. MLO is typical for a volcano at 3800 m altitude in a marine surround. Please ask the questioner why they do not publish raw data from MLO with the volcanic degassing?
1950 there were a sudden drop in atmospheric CO2 which can also seen in other data series. During the 50s the CO2 is rising again, but not as MLO will pretend. CO2 was higher on continent.
“5. Even if the measurement stations were entirely free from any contamination from human influence, and even if they were representative of a geographically ‘averaged’ location (that is, free from natural variability), they would not be able to measure background CO2. You can’t do that reliably close to sea level, owing to variations in atmospheric mixing (consider the build up of smog at certain times), or at least you can’t do it meaningfully without being able to apply corrections for bias.”
No measurement station is free from “contamination”. This is the wrong term and given by the AGW prayers to dismiss typical natural fluctuations. Of course the Giessen data are not free from typical influence of humans, which was clearly outlined by Kreutz. (see here: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/localinf_giessen1939.jpg)
Of course they have not measured “background level” at Giessen. Background CO2 is a special atmospheric concentration on some marine stations and stations at higher altitudes (MLO) or by processing the real measured data to fit the background rules (e.g. Schauinsland, WDCGG). Background is not typical for the world because the atmosphere is not typically well mixed. But we can do a background estimation by the windspeed-CO2 test for not well mixed locations . ( see here: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/kreutz/kreutzwspapprox.gif and for modern stations (Diekirch Lux) see here: http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html.
“Beck is concerned to stress the accuracy of the instrumentation. I have no knowledge of that, so will take his word for it. But accuracy is of no use unless you know that you’re measuring what you want to be measuring.”
I have investigated the chemical methods in detail. If the English word “accuracy” is the wrong term please take the right one. The Pettenkofer method delivers a precision of +-1% of the reading value at it´ s best.”
I hope that is a good and straightforward reply to your very reasonable questions Simon. In my experience Ernst Beck is very willing to answer questions direct. Like me he does not pretend to have all the answers but I certainly believe our understanding of co2 levels and its behaviour is very limited at present, and that additional information will eventually come to light that will further question the established version of events.
TonyB
Thank you for the article and the analysis. Very interesting.
Setting aside all the technical issues, what I find most disturbing — and revealing — about the pro-AGW crowd is the extent to which so many of them desperately WANT it to be true that mankind is facing an enormous disaster that will require us to abandon modern industrial technology and suffer a drastic reduction in our living standards. Many of them are positively SALIVATING over the prospect of seeing us shivering in the dark, with drastically curtailed travel privileges, severely rationed food and water consumption, draconian restrictions on electricity usage, etc.
Of course, there are some who buy into the fantasy that we can restrict CO2 emissions to the levels of 50 years ago and not suffer anything other than a mild inconvenience. But that’s just a story to assuage the fears of the less extreme members of the movement. The core believers — the Hansen’s, the Mann’s and their followers — would be absolutely emotionally devastated if some way were found to easily counter the effects of CO2 or if some evidence were uncovered that overwhelmingly and undeniably refuted the AGW claims.
I can’t imagine what sort of corruption of the soul can leave one hoping that mankind suffers such a calamity. I can only hope against hope that they will not succeed in convincing the rest of us to commit suicide for the sake of the mosquitoes, the polar bears and the snail darters.
I’ve seen this story a few times
“Carbon trading may be the new sub-prime, says energy boss”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/30/eu-carbon-trading-scheme
Mike McMillan (16:06:06) :
Except that it is true.
300 lbs for the first inch, 600 lbs for the second, 900 lbs for the third inch.
Thanks for confirming your level of understanding of basic physics. If you are going to claim someone is wrong, you should try and provide supporting evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law
(yes, I know wiki is not proof, but if you care, you can find a basic physics textbook)
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:
Quite rightly.
It’s exactly the same as with a horse and carriage. Something startles the horse into moving, and this sets the carriage rolling. But once the carriage has got under way, it thereafter drives the horse forward. When you see a horse and carriage careering down a road, you’re not seeing the horse “pulling” the carriage, but instead the horse desperately fleeing from the speeding carriage at its heels.
You see, carriages only need horses to give them a little nudge to set them rolling. After that the horses aren’t really needed at all, and just gallop along in front. The only reason the horses are there is so that when the carriage stops (e.g. for its passengers to buy some pizza or something), there’s something there to give it a nudge to start rolling again.
And this is why we have horseless carriages these days. It’s one of the great advances of our time that we have ended wholly unnecessary cruelty to horses. The modern motor car dispenses with the horse. But it still needs something to give it a nudge to start it moving. And this is what ‘starter motors’ do.
It’s all quite obvious, when it’s downhill whichever way you go.
Frank Lansner, thanks for the post and all the efforts to help us clarify. I now have a new way of conceptualizing the cause:effect issue. From Figure 4 on, many minds should be jiggle and jogged; yes, the emperor is naked and we simple-people-Alice’s have been living in the rabbit’s hole. It is time for a breath of fresh air filled with all that life-giving CO2. Kudos to WUWT.
Rob (17:40:04) : Read the Hansen et al article (Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231). They show that CO2, though not the only driver during Milankovitch glacial/nonglacial cycles (albedo and methane are also used), precisely DOES affect climate with the same sensitivity we see during the past half century and, furthermore, the “lowering” temperatures are also explained well.
Rob, is it available free online? IMHO, something this important should not be paywalled. I’ve been pointed frequently to the RealClimate articles on the CO2 “amplification” but even they are, when I look closely, nothing but… hot air… assertions, no evidence. Whereas Frank’s composite graphs are powerful evidence, especially when you add the non-presence of the logarithmic effect (parallel lines).
Katlab (20:27:13) : These past six months I have been reading have shaken me to the core. I feel like I have dropped down a rabbit hole, and I cannot believe anything the MSM tells me.
Have you read my own story? Click on my name.
Frank, det er så godt å ser aktiv diskusjonen i Klimadebatt. Men det er vanskelig for meg å forstår!
I love your references to volcanic and seismic warming factors; have you also considered that the Sun itself might undergo periodic intensifications of warming that take more time to cool?
Its worth pointing out that Petit et al 1999, (Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica: Nature 399, p 429) actually provide an excellent overview of the Vostok data. Their postulation of the role of CO2 feedback forcing climate will not be the to taste of every reader of WUPT, but they do make many good observations.
Amongst those they argue that the CO2 rise at terminations is likely within error of aligning ice age and gas age and I happen to agree with that (there are large uncertainties in both). The time lag at terminations therefore is likely an artifact, but the time lag during cooling is very real, as this article points out.
Excellent explanation Frank, the role of CO2 is clear to me, my next search is how to produce energy with minimum CO2.
Cheers, I will refer green energy to to you.