This interesting essay by Dr. Spencer is reposted from his blog, link here:
Global Warming Causing Carbon Dioxide Increases: A Simple Model
May 11th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Global warming theory assumes that the increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere comes entirely from anthropogenic sources, and it is that CO2 increase which is causing global warming.
But it is indisputable that the amount of extra CO2 showing up at the monitoring station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii each year (first graph below) is strongly affected by sea surface temperature (SST) variations (second graph below), which are in turn mostly a function of El Nino and La Nina conditions (third graph below):
Click for larger images
Click for larger image
During a warm El Nino year, more CO2 is released by the ocean into the atmosphere (and less is taken up by the ocean from the atmosphere), while during cool La Nina years just the opposite happens. (A graph similar to the first graph also appeared in the IPCC report, so this is not new). Just how much of the Mauna Loa Variations in the first graph are due to the “Coke-fizz” effect is not clear because there is now strong evidence that biological activity also plays a major (possibly dominant) role (Behrenfeld et al., 2006).
The direction of causation is obvious since the CO2 variations lag the sea surface temperature variations by an average of six months, as shown in the following graph:
So, I keep coming back to the question: If warming of the oceans causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that long-term warming of the oceans (say, due to a natural change in cloud cover) might be causing some portion of the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2?
I decided to run a simple model in which the change in atmospheric CO2 with time is a function of sea surface temperature anomaly. The model equation looks like this:
delta[CO2]/delta[t] = a*SST + b*Anthro
Which simply says that the change in atmospheric CO2 with time is proportional to some combination of the SST anomaly and the anthropogenic (manmade) CO2 source. I then ran the model in an Excel spreadsheet and adjusted an “a” and “b” coefficients until the model response looked like the observed record of yearly CO2 accumulation rate at Mauna Loa.
It didn’t take long to find a model that did a pretty good job (a = 4.6 ppm/yr per deg. C; b=0.1), as the following graph shows:
Click for larger image
The best fit (shown) assumed only 10% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human emissions (b=0.1), while the other 90% is simple due to changes in sea surface temperature. The peak correlation between the modeled and observed CO2 fluctuation is now at zero month time lag, supporting the model’s realism. The model explained 50% of the variance of the Mauna Loa observations.
The best model fit assumes that the temperature anomaly at which the ocean switches between a sink and a source of CO2 for the atmosphere is -0.2 deg. C, indicated by the bold line in the SST graph, seen in the second graph in this article. In the context of longer-term changes, it would mean that the ocean became a net source of more atmospheric CO2 around 1930.
A graph of the resulting model versus observed CO2 concentration as a function of time is shown next:
If I increase the anthropogenic portion to 20%, the following graph shows somewhat less agreement:
Click for larger images
There will, of course, be vehement objections to this admittedly simple model. One will be that “we know the atmospheric CO2 increase is manmade because the C13 carbon isotope concentration in the atmosphere is decreasing, which is consistent with a fossil fuel source.” But has been discussed elsewhere, a change in ocean biological activity (or vegetation on land) has a similar signature…so the C13 change is not a unique signature of fossil fuel source.
My primary purpose in presenting all of this is simply to stimulate debate. Are we really sure that ALL of the atmospheric increase in CO2 is from humanity’s emissions? After all, the natural sources and sinks of CO2 are about 20 times the anthropogenic source, so all it would take is a small imbalance in the natural flows to rival the anthropogenic source. And it is clear that there are natural imbalances of that magnitude on a year-to-year basis, as shown in the first graph.
What could be causing long-term warming of the oceans? My first choice for a mechanism would be a slight decrease in oceanic cloud cover. There is no way to rule this out observationally because our measurements of global cloud cover over the last 50 to 100 years are nowhere near good enough.
And just how strenuous and vehement the resulting objections are to what I have presented above will be a good indication of how politicized the science of global warming has become.
REFERENCES
Michael J. Behrenfeld et al., “Climate-Driven Trends in Contemporary Ocean Productivity,” Nature 444 (2006): 752-755.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Both? We know that colder Oceans will hold more C02 and that once the Oceans warm C02 is released. At the same time, within SST/Biological limits, Planktonic life will bloom due to higher temps and more free C02 (food). The question, in my mind at least, would be how much of a buffer does that Biological system create? You would see the physical out gassing with warmer SST’s buffered to some extent by biological growth and re-absorption. The question would concern the ratio of biological buffer v. Physical “Coke-fizz”.
Keep in mind also that the entire biosphere blooms on various time scales. Our observed Oceanic Planktonic bloom, although possibly short lived, is transferred more permanently through various stages into Herring and then to Herring eating Whales. The “carbon” trapped and released would create harmonics in the C02 record. As far as I can see there is a (short time scale) biological multiplier at work here in that the average lifespan of the Carbon trapped by Plankton may be months but by the time Herring are the beneficiaries that lifespan is now years. By the time our specimen Herring is eaten by a Whale the “carbon” is trapped and released on decadal scales. The same must be true for land based life also.
This may be one reason why purely “Physical” models of C02 and climate have proved so inadequate. Climate is not just some 2D “energy transfer” model. Apart from the complications of “energy transfer” when applied to water vapour (!) you can add some further “complications” when including biological systems (!).
As there have been a few posts concerning Dr Spencer personally , I would like to say that I enjoy reading his work and thoughts. To me he is what “science” should be about. He seems to question his own data and conclusions as often as he does those of others and that should be how science works. Do surface temps govern clouds or do clouds govern surface temps? I may not be a climate scientist but I understand
exactly what kind of questions he is asking and attempting to answer. Unfortunately he tends toward real data and we can’t have that in Nintendo science.
Flanagan (13:08:37) : Look, CO2 it is just a tiny part of the atmosphere, only a 3.85 per TEN THOUSAND (provided we believe in Mauna Loa-a Volcano-figures).
So, it is a trace gas, which you and me, we humans, EXHALE , and plants/trees breath. It is a small part of the air, which DOES NOT can hold heat as compared with water (3,227 times less).
Our planet earth, I don´t know if you ever look above to the sky, IT IS NOT CLOSED, as within a crystal box, it is OPEN TO SPACE, there it goes the warm by a process which makes baloons fly up, ya know? , that´s called convection. So, when air gets some heat it goes up there and loses it.
Read: http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
I posted this OT in another thread and got no replies. Hopefully, I’ll get a response here.
—————————
Maybe someone can help me understand something that has been bothering me for sometime.
Why don’t we have CO2 measuring capabilities at every NOAA weather site?
It seems to me we know from Beck’s work that local CO2 amounts vary significantly from location to location. This is even used by warmists to discredit Beck’s work. So, if there are local differences that can be up to thousands of PPM then it seems like that should also impact the local temperatures. It would also seem like forecasting weather would be severely hampered without CO2 monitoring since the effects of radiation are immediate.
Of course, if we had this capability then I can think of several ways to demonstrate the validity of the CO2 effects on temperature. So, why haven’t climate scientists been up in arms demanding that we have this data?
I realize that the satellite that was lost could have provided some of this information. And, other satellites are available. But it seems to me very local CO2 monitoring stations where the temp is monitored right next door would be invaluable to understanding AGW.
Why aren’t we putting the dollars budgeted for improved models into collecting this data. Can anyone tell me where I’m off base?
Try an experiment of going outside on a warm, cloudy day. When exposed to the sun, you can feel the heat. When a cloud passes over, the shadow induces a change in the heat intensity you feel, making it noticeably cooler (ie not necessarily cool, but cooler). Unlike permanent shade, this isn’t the cooler air, it is the result of a partial blocking of the sun.
Given what we know of the solar cycles, a strong sun during a solar maximum has more power and likely results in less cloud cover overall. It would then be expected to have a ocean heating effect. The slightly warmed oceans are therefore more chemically active, both releasing more CO2 and increasing organic decay rates. I would also presume the increased surface warming would trigger greater ocean current activity, churning up more CO2.
Once the opposite occurs, a solar minimum reduces the direct warming effect and triggers greater cloud cover, resulting in increased shade. This causes a marginal cooling, reducing CO2 releases, slowing decay, and reducing ocean current movement.
As these are slow processes resulting in marginal changes, the effects become more noticeable over longer periods of time (ie the time duration of the Solar Maximum or Minimum counts), as well as being contingent on the intensity. Timing would also count with regards to other cyclical events, whether solar or Terran, as these would either amplify or offset each other.
Mt understanding is that at present, the Solar Cycle, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Inter-Decal Oscillation and Southern Oscillation Index have all recently swung from “warm” to “cool” (with the others I’m not sure, although the Indian Ocean patterns are still casting a dry effect on Australia despite multi-year La Ninas). Its when they align that things appear to get interesting, and if we are entering such a period of alignment (and it seems difficult to determine what level of inter-causality exists), then we should expect an ocean cooling effect and, if Dr Spencer is correct, a drop in CO2 levels.
Oh, and speaking about “what we don’t know about the CO2 in the ocean” there is also this:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/37370
from January of this year. A quote or two:
Fish ‘gut-rocks’ solve ocean puzzle
For decades marine scientists have been perplexed by the increase in alkalinity with depth in the top 1000 m of the ocean surface when chemistry suggests this should only take place lower down. But now, a team from the UK, US and Canada reckons excretion of a highly soluble form of carbonate from fish intestines could go some way to solving the mystery.
“Our most conservative estimates suggest three to 15% of the oceans’ carbonates come from fish, but this range could be up to three times higher,” said Rod Wilson of the University of Exeter, UK.
Notice the large ranges? 3% to 15% but maybe 3 x that…
Now what was that you were saying about “it had to come from people” based on some hypothetical ocean CO2 accounting? We haven’t a clue…
“We also know that fish carbonates differ considerably from those produced by plankton,” said Wilson. “Together these findings may help answer a long-standing puzzle facing marine chemists, but they also reveal limitations to our current understanding of the marine carbon cycle.”
The carbonate the fish excrete is high in magnesium and more soluble than the forms of carbonate produced by plankton. As a result it can dissolve at higher levels of the ocean.
Together with colleagues from the University of Miami, University of Ottawa in Canada, University of British Columbia, Canada, and the University of East Anglia, UK, Wilson estimated the total biomass of bony fish in the world’s oceans as between 812 million and 2050 million tonnes, leading to a total carbonate production of around 110 million tonnes.
Again with the 812 to 2050 … kind of a wide range, eh what? Yet we end up with a single nice 110 million tonnes answer… at least it has an ‘around’…
Now here’s a little thought for you:
We’ve reach “Peak Fish” some decade or two ago. (As of now some 30% of all fish eaten is aquacultured so nobody cared much about the Peak Fish crisis…) The fastest we can harvest them from the ocean. Do you think that maybe hauling billions of pound of fish out of the ocean might reduce the quantity of carbonate pellets the fish in the ocean can excrete?
Do you think that might leave more CO2 in the ocean to outgas?
Do you think that might raise the CO2 level in the air?
Wether that it A Good Thing or A Bad Thing I’ll leave for another day… “Just think what you will know tomorrow” – Men In Black.
Ed Scott, thanks for those great links:
click1
click2
In the first link, Gavin Schmidt has been gelded by Monckton. Did Schmidt actually believe that he could get away with his prevarications online?? Altering graphs produced by someone else is thoroughly dishonest. It is fraud, isn’t it? It appears that people check their ethics at the door when they enter GISS/RealClimate territory.
Also, regarding human CO2 emissions: click. That puts the minuscule human CO2 emissions in perspective. Hardly alarming.
Finally, WUWT trumps RealClimate once again. We have a genuine Viscount on our team! How cool is that?
“”” Flanagan (13:08:37) :
Well, there’s nothing new here. CO2 desorbing from oceans is one of the most classical positive feedbacks in global circulation models. End of the story. “””
Well it might also be one of the false “feedbacks” as well.
A general principle of GHG “global warming” is that a GHG such as water vapor or even CO2 absorbs surface emitted long wave infrared radiation which is in the 13.5-16.5 micron wavelength range for CO2, and covers a much larger spectral range in the case of water vapor. That captured energy is transferred to the normal atmospheric gases through molecular collision processes; which apparently happen sooner than spontaneous re-emission from the capturing molecule (at low altitudes and higher pressures. The net result is a heating of the atmospheric gases themselves (N2, O2, Ar). Those ordinary atmospheric gases couldn’t care less what species of absorbing molecule crashed into them to convey that heating energy to them. As a result of that heating of the atmosphere, the atmosphere being physical matter above zero K emits a thermal radiation spectrum that depends on the material (atmosphere) temperature, generally following in some fashion the black body radiation spectrum. So as a result of atmospheric heating the amount of long wave radiation emitted from that material increases probably as the 4th power of the temperature (K). That radiation is generally emitted in an isotropic radiation pattern; so about half of it can be expected to head downwards towards the earth; about 705 of which is actually the oceans. The remaining 30% which lands on material which is other than water results in no further CO2 emission to the atmosphere; so no positive feedback there.
The 70% that does strike the oceans or any other water gets absorbed in the top 10 microns of the water surface, resulting in rather prompt increase in evaporation due to the extra surface energy.
The amount of heating of the oceans due to that long wave IR can’t be very large, because only a few microns of the surface absorbs it; and the resulting water evaporation also carries a lot of latent heat back into the atmosphere.
So if you are looking for GHG caused atmospheric warming to warm enough ocean water to disgorge a bunch more CO2; my guess is you will look for a long time.
So I think your concept of a positive feedback effect from further emission of CO2 from long wave IR heated ocean water, is all wet. Now incoming sunlight which penetrates deep in the oceans and has a much higher irradiance level that the atmospheric IR emissions; will in fact warm a lot of water and cause increased CO2 emissions.
Not all em radiations are created equal, and the thermal effects of long wave IR are quite different from those due to solar spectrum radiation when it comes to the effect on water. Notice that the thermal radiation from the atmosphere should carry no fingerprints of whatever molecular species captured that energy in the first place, because that atmospheric radiation is coming from ordinary N2, O2, and Ar molecules.
I agree that if the ocean isn’t warming (well the MMGWCC alarmists claim it is warming so fast it is going to flood all of us), then it wouldn’t be outgassing CO2 at an increased rate.
The fact that CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is decreasing is only evidence that a source of depleted C13 carbon is being burned; it is not evindence that that source is the origin of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
In a past life I used to grow epitaxial layers of the mixed alloy GaAs(1-x)P(x) single crystal on GaAs substrates; from the vapor phase. We fed Hydrogen containing a percentage of Arsine (AsH3) through a capillary, into a flask (several litres), and then out of that flask into another capillary; the capillaries were actually coiled up inside the flask to save space for one reason. after going through typically three such capillary flask combinations the gas mixture was fed into the reactor where the vapor deposition took place. After growing an initial layer of GaAs on the substrate; the fow of Arsine bearing hydrogen was cut back, and a new source of hydrogen containing phosphine (PH3) replaced it, so we started feeding phosphine into the flasks which already were stabilised with a certain percentage or Arsine; so the ratio of Arsine to phosphine in the first tank, slowly changed building up phosp[hine at the expense of arsine. That changing mixture headed into the next capillary, and started changing the mixture in there, and so on to the third flask. The capilary/flask combination behavbes like an RC time constant integrator, and the three of them in series resulted in a near Gaussian leading edge with a prescribed rise time, creating a smooth change from zero phosphine to around 45% or so to 55% Arsine, that resulted in a transition from pure GaAs deposited crystal to GaAs0.6P0.4 crystal, that being the recipe for the then brightest red LED material.
At no time did the total hydrogen flow change; it was maintained constant; but the output composition of reagent gases was smoothly changed from one mixture to another. And yes I used ordinary elecric filter circuit theory to design the three pole Gaussian filter that shaped the transition process.
So don’t try fooling this old codger that a changing atmospheric composition and amount means the source of the composition change is also the source of the extra amount. Yes it could be; but no it doesn’t have to be, because you can change the composition without changing the amount one iota.
George
Co2 clearly follows temperature in the earths history, it is clear that solar activity in the past drove SST and co2 was a result of this warming due to outgassing of the sea, which is essentially a large co2 reserve. We know that slightly elevated TSI triggered the Medieval Warm Period, and over the last centuary TSI was at a similar level, hence observation would indicate that the sea should be warming (the amplification required could be due to variation in cloud cover) and therefore co2 should be released. It makes sense and matches observation and as far as I am concerned that is science, explaining observation. Your above empirical model goes a long way towards demonstrating this is still happening and makes perfect sense. There are of course numerous papers that support this, many papers estimate the co2 lifetime at around 7 years, co2 rises at the same rate in each hemisphere etc…
Yet question the co2 dogma and you are called a “denier” or a fool!
RW…. Anthony already said the point about C13 is redundant because of the problems with the measurement of C13.
Your first point was based solely on the C13 count…. Not very ingenious of you.
Your second point pertains to Ice cores… Once again there are serious problems in the measurement and reliability of CO2 content that remains in ice cores…. The degree of resolution that you are trying to attributing to that remaining CO2 and your use of it as a Temperature Proxy is way beyond what that CO2 measurement can provide, hence your obviously incorrect 14C degree figure and therefor, your point.
Furthermore. If the consensus of the Scientific community can base such high stock in such ambivalent data…. Politics can be the only explanation.
E.M.Smith: The carbonate the fish excrete is high in magnesium ..
Oh my God…! Where does this CO2 nonsense has take us to?
Fish excrete!!! That´s really funny LOL
O’ Evil prophet, all the damage you have made!
You are no longer a serious person, prophet, you are a clown!
I sincerely hope Dr. Spencer publishes this analysis in a peer-reviewed journal, to make a further strong weapon for pitting ourselves against AGW believers.
C. Boncelet (13:40:15) :
I think you overlooked this line :
“…this admittedly simple model.”
CO2 is simply along for the Climate Change ride.
Anthropogenic CO2 is piggybacked onto Natural CO2.
CO2 is a prisoner of the Earth’s Climate, BioChemistry and GeoChemistry.
If you try to bury it, it will bubble back up.
if you don’t bury it, the plants will eat it, including eating your expensive carbon-fiber.
If the plants don’t eat it, the oceans will suck it up and calcify it.
Hey, you’re dragging it around too!
Would you care to supersize your carbonated drink to go along with your carbon-based lifeform burger?
Re: Adolfo Giurfa (18:45:15)
I was just thinking about how hopelessly-conflicted some of these threads get when you succeeded in putting all into some much-needed context — Nice work Adolfo!
I admire that Dr. Spencer says, “here is my hypothesis, here are my data and methods, criticise and improve”
I think there are some who could learn from that.
I have a problem with the whole MMCO2 thing however.
If temperatures hadn’t changed, surely CO2 concentration would have changed little in the atmosphere due to the vapour pressure trying to maintain a similar proportional concentration between oceans & atmosphere.
I’ve forgotten so much, so if I’ve got it all wrong, correct me please.
Dave.
Smokey:
Oh, give me a break, Smokey! He didn’t “alter the graphs”…He simply simply copied that part of the graph that was relevant, leaving off a little plug along the top border of the graph for Monckton’s website address and he also did not copy Monckton’s caption below the graph. There is no law that says that if you show a graph that someone else has shown you also have to include their caption. (Of course, if Gavin had misrepresented the graph because Monckton had said something very different in the caption than what Gavin implied Monckton was saying, Monckton might have a legitimate complaint. But he doesn’t make any such complaint.)
This is a completely manufactured controversy over nothing and you, a supposedly “skeptic” have fallen for it hook-line-and-sinker! You appear to be about the least skeptical person on the entire planet when it comes to things that agree with your preconceptions.
Forgot to mention.
I’ve not forgotten so much that I’ll fall for the ‘saturated oceans’ ploy
DaveE
As for Spencer’s ideas, as RW has explained, they are in clear contradiction with what we know from the data … which is that the oceans are in net absorbing CO2, not emitting it.
Furthermore, there is no self-consistency here with other data that has been presented … For example, if you want to believe that the oceans have not warmed for the last few years (as a blog post here from several days ago asserted) and you want to believe Spencer’s post here then why have the CO2 levels continued to rise significantly?
Also, if you want to believe that during past glacial – interglacial cycles, the initial CO2 change lagged the initial temperature change by about 800 years (as seems likely), then you have to conclude that even to get the release of CO2 that was seen in those cycles takes a long time…and that effect, as has been noted, is at most about 15ppm rise in CO2 levels for every 1 C of global temperature change, which would imply a fairly small contribution to the >100ppm rise in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution given the temperature rise that we’ve seen.
In fact, the rise in CO2 levels from ~280ppm to ~385ppm is almost entirely due to our emissions. (And, in fact, it would be about twice as large if the oceans and biosphere were not acting as a sink for CO2.) The year-to-year temperature fluctuations due to El Nino and La Nina and the like do cause fluctuations in the rate at which the CO2 level rise but the overall warming of the oceans has not been significant enough to contribute anything but a small fraction of the overage change in CO2 levels seen since the beginning of the industrial revolution (and, even then, it is not the oceans releasing CO2 in net…it is them just absorbing less of what we emit).
Joel, the rise in CO2 is a partially modeled data set, not an actual measured data set. The AIRS satellite was supposed to provide the definitive verification of the modeled data set (the seasonally and cyclically adjusted pump amount minus the sink amount). So far, that has not been the case. The actual data sets (modeled versus measured) do not match and have not been compared over a long enough cyclic period to verify the modeled data set even if they did match. You state a case without actual observation-based calibrated measured proof.
Smokey said:
By the way, when you actually materially alter what someone else had graphed or predicted so that it is no longer an accurate representation of what they predicted but you claim it is their prediction, this is in fact very dishonest. And, that is exactly what Monckton did by making a plot that he claimed to show the IPCC predictions when they were in fact not the IPCC predictions but rather an exaggerated version of them. Strangely, you don’t seem particularly bothered by this!
So, in some sense, you and Monckton are “hoisted by your own petard”!
And just how strenuous and vehement the resulting objections are to what I have presented above will be a good indication of how politicized the science of global warming has become.
I have noticed a bit more testiness in the good doctor’s writings of late.
Great work Dr. Spencer.
My first serious doubts of AGW arose about ten years ago when a brilliant chemical engineer offhandedly asserted that the theory was obviously wrong because CO2 increases were simply the effect of rising ocean temperature, not the cause.
Joel:
Already mostly answered, but clearly the dominant process in CO2 absorption is physical. There is not nearly enough plankton in most ocean water to metabolize much of the CO2, certainly not on a daily basis. And the temperature is never the limiting factor in photosynthesis. As noted elsewhere here, the tropics are limited by the low concentrations of CO2 in the water. The polar regions are relatively lush and are limited by light, not temperature.
jmrSudbury (12:11:38) :
Beware of complex models. Finding a better fit by adding factors that have no physical basis or are unknown creates all sorts of incorrect conclusions. I wouldn’t trust the precision of a Geology 101 textbook chart very much, it neglects the daily changes. I saw somewhere that ML CO2 varies 10 ppm every day! This is exactly what would be expected from the daily heating of the top surface of the ocean water.
Absorption by vegetation is minor compared to the amount of overall absorption, and it is certainly does not explain where the half of the CO2 from fossil fuel and cement (now 7 GT/yr) has gone or why it varies so much year to year.
Claude Harvey (13:46:47) :
While total ocean heat is essential to an energy balance of the earth. Only the surface exchanges CO2 with the atmosphere, so surface temperature is the only temperature that matters. Also, the fact that it is cooling, very slightly, does not matter, just that it is still above average. Perhaps most importantly, the water upwelling and outgassing may be from hundreds of years ago when the LIA water was much colder and absorbed a whole lot more CO2 just before it went down the conveyor.
Jan Breslow (13:54:29) :
The thermodynamics are actually pretty straightforward. The argument that the concentration is too low is a misunderstanding of the dynamics. Interactions (collisions) between molecules happen at such a fast rate that very small concentrations of IR absorbers (which by definition emit at the same wavelengths) can efficiently transfer heat as if the gas were pure. Every time a photon is emitted by CO2 changing its vibrational state (which cools it), it almost instantaneously is reheated by collision with a N2 or O2 molecule.
Nick Stokes (15:42:19) :
What is your point? Dr. Spencer has simply shown that without any hand waving, it appears that 90% of the increase is due to temperature. In other words, if SST cools to normal, instead of the ocean only absorbing 50% of CO2 emissions, it would absorb 95%.
Nick Stokes (16:17:55) :
Dr. Spencer never said it went into vegetation. Obviously it is coming out of the ocean or being sequested in the deep ocean, actually both happen each year so you could probably improve the model if you separated the average SST into absorbing (cooling) and outgassing (warming).
A fine example of Occam’s razor:
“The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation.”
So what’s simpler – this model or the multitude of climate models used by the IPCC?
No apologies needed Dr. Spencer, I think you are spot on.
pft (17:14:44) :
Einstein never had his great theories subject to peer review until he went up against Bohr . . . His first paper was rejected in 1935.
That must have been one gutsy peer reviewer.
If AGW is causing CO2 levels to rise at Mauna Lao shouldn’t we expect to see an absolute drop in CO2 levels…
(A) due to the world depression reducing energy consumption significantly the last 9 months.
(B) the Pacific SST dropping for the last few years now
The fact that these these reductions don’t show up in the Mauna Loa CO2 record tells me that the AGW CO2 component is minuscule compared to the non-AGW component of CO2!
So until we can control the non-AGW component of CO2 we’ll just have to live with it whether it causes GW or not.