Guest post by Lon Hocker
Abstract
Differentiating the CO2 measurements over the last thirty years produces a pattern that matches the temperature anomaly measured by satellites in extreme detail. That this correlation includes El Niño years, and shows that the temperature rise is causing the rise in CO2, rather than the other way around. The simple equation that connects the satellite and Mauna Loa data is shown to have a straight forward physical explanation.
Introduction
The last few decades has shown a heated debate on the topic of whether the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing rising temperatures. Many complex models have been made that seem to confirm the idea that anthropological CO2 is responsible for the temperature increase that has been observed. The debate has long since jumped the boundary between science and politics and has produced a large amount of questionable research.
“Consensus View”
Many people claim that anthropological CO2 is the cause of global warming. Satellite temperature data, http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt, and Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt, are well accepted and freely available to all researchers. Figure 1 shows a plot of the Ocean Temperature Anomaly from the satellite data shows a general rising trend. Shown along with the temperature data is a simple linear model showing the temperature rise as a linear function of CO2 concentration. This shown linear model is:
Temperature Anomaly = (CO2 -350)/180
No attempt has been made to optimize this model. Although it follows the general trend of the temperature data, it follows none of the details of the temperature anomaly curve. No amount of averaging or modification of the coefficients of the model would help it follow the details of the temperature anomaly.
Figure 1: Ocean Temperature Anomaly and linear CO2 model
Derivative approach
An alternate approach that does show these details is that the temperature anomaly is correlated with the rate of increase of CO2. I discovered this independently and roughly simultaneously with Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf.
Applying this model to the Mauna Loa data not only shows the overall trend, but also matches the many El Niño events that have occurred while satellite data has been available. The Figure 2, shows the derivative model along with the observed Ocean Temperature Anomaly. The model is simply
Temperature Anomaly = (CO2(n+6) – CO2(n-6))/(12*0.22) – 0.58
where ‘n’ is the month. Using the n+6 and n=6 values (CO2 levels six months before and six months after) cancels out the annual variations of CO2 levels that is seen in the Mauna Loa data, and provides some limited averaging of the data.
The two coefficients, (0.22 and 0.58) were chosen to optimize the fit. However, the constant 0.58 (degrees Celsius) corresponds to the offset needed to bring the temperature anomaly to the value generally accepted to be the temperature in the mid 1800’s when the temperature was considered to be relatively constant. The second coefficient also has a physical basis, and will be discussed later.
Figure 2: Ocean Temperature Anomaly and derivative CO2 model
There is a strong correlation between the measured anomaly and the Derivative model. It shows the strong El Niño of 1997-1998 very clearly, and also shows the other El Niño events during the plotted time period about as well as the satellite data does.
Discussion
El Niño events have been recognized from at least 1902, so it would seem inappropriate to claim that they are caused by the increase of CO2. Given the very strong correlation between the temperature anomaly and the rate of increase of CO2, and the inability to justify an increase of CO2 causing El Niño, it seems unavoidable that the causality is opposite from that which has been offered by the IPCC. The temperature increase is causing the change in the increase of CO2.
It is important to emphasize that this simple model only uses the raw Mauna Loa CO2 data for its input. The output of this model compares directly with the satellite data. Both of these data sets are readily available on the internet, and the calculations are trivially done on a spreadsheet.
Considering this reversed causality, it is appropriate to use the derivative model to predict the CO2 level given the temperature anomaly. The plot below shows the CO2 level calculated by using the same model. The CO2 level by summing the monthly CO2 level changes caused by the temperature anomaly.
Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 + 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58)
Figure 3: Modeled CO2 vs Observed CO2 over Time
Not surprisingly the model tracks the CO2 level well, though it does not show the annual variation. That it does not track the annual variations isn’t particularly surprising, since the ocean temperature anomaly is averaged over all the oceans, and the Mauna Loa observations are made at a single location. Careful inspection of the plot shows that it tracks the small inflections of the CO2 measurements.
The Mauna Loa data actually goes back to 1958, so one can use the model to calculate the temperature anomaly back before satellite data was available. The plot below shows the calculated temperature anomaly back to 1960, and may represent the most accurate available temperature measurement data set in the period between 1960 and 1978.
Figure 4: Calculated Temperature Anomaly from MLO CO2 data
Precise temperature measurements are not available in the time period before Satellite data. However, El Niño data is available at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml making it possible to show the correlation between the calculated temperatures and the and El Niño strength. Note that the correlation between temperature anomaly and El Niño strength is strong throughout the time span covered.
Figure 5: Calculated Temp CO2 from CO2 and ENSO data
An Explanation for this Model
The second free parameter used to match the CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly, 0.22 ppm per month per degree C of temperature anomaly, has a clear physical basis. A warmer ocean can hold less CO2, so increasing temperatures will release CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.
The Atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 (http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/carbon_res_flux.gif), the ocean 36,000 billion tons of CO2. Raising the temperature of the ocean one degree reduces the solubility of CO2 in the ocean by about 4% (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html)
Figure 6: Solubility of CO2 in water (While CO2 solubility in seawater is slightly different than in pure H2O shown above in Figure 6, it gives us a reasonably close fit.)
This releases about 1440 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. This release would roughly triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
We have seen what appears to be about a 0.8 degree temperature rise of the atmosphere in the last century and a half, but nowhere near the factor of three temperature rise. There is a delay due to the rate of heat transfer to the ocean and the mixing of the ocean. This has been studied in detail by NOAA, http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal, and they estimate that it would take 230 years for an atmospheric temperature change to cause a 63% temperature change if the ocean were rapidly mixed.
Using this we can make a back of the envelope calculation of the second parameter in the equation. This value will be approximately the amount of CO2 released per unit temperature rise (760 ppm/C)) divided by the mixing time (230 years). Using these values gives a value of 0.275 ppm /C/month instead of the observed 0.22 ppm/C/month, but not out of line considering that we are modeling a very complex transfer with a single time constant, and ignoring the mixing time of the ocean.
Conclusion
Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly.
We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.
================================================
Lon Hocker describes himself as: “Undergrad physics at Princeton. Graduate School MIT. PhD under Ali Javan the inventor of the gas laser. Retired president of Onset Computer Corp., which I started over 30 years ago. Live in Hawaii and am in a band that includes two of the folks who work at MLO (Mauna Loa Observatory)!”
Data and calcs available on request
Peter Miller says: “…Your hypothesis is dependent on the oceans being saturated with carbon dioxide – the current level is circa 90 ppm, a very long way from saturation level at current global temperatures.”
(1) You’ve assumed the oceans are isothermal, Peter. (2) Did you assume salt water?
For those talking of ocean acidification.
What is the PH of concentrated carbonic acid like… I dunno, maybe sparkling mineral water?
DaveE.
The Total Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide and it’s effect on the Tropospheric Temperature by Dr. Nasif S. Nahle, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet
“By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel, Leckner(1) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(2)(3)(4), I demonstrate that carbon dioxide molecules do not possess the thermal properties to be able to cause global warming or climate change here on Earth”. Download the PDF at:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=5847
This spreadsheet model sure puts predictive skills of two dozen super-expensive super-computer models to shame. WOW!
Andrew.
I wonder how this derivative analysis works on the geological record. Does anyone know more about this?
On the one hand, there is the observed lag of CO2 levels on Temperature [Idso, S.B. 1988] – but has anyone analysed this data by rate of change of Temp?
Also, I recall Lindzen commenting (following his Heartlands 2010 talk) that when the milankovitch cycles were first matched with the ice core temp proxy, the match was actually not very good. Then (a student of his?) tried a derivative of temp (rate of change) and the correlation was much better.
Sorry for being slow on the uptake for you folks that figured that there is a linear term missing in the analysis. In figure 3 there is a missing CONSTANT. That is the starting value of the CO2 concentration to make it fit the Mauna Loa Data. The theory, as you folks noted, deals with the derivative of the CO2 level, so that that constant is nowhere to be seen in figure 2, and is irrelevant to the analysis.
As others have noted, the interesting thing is that after the correlation between the rate of increase of CO2 and the temperature anomaly have been accounted for, there is absolutely no room for a linear relationship between the CO2 level and the temperature anomaly in the residual. The rate of increase of CO2 accounts for ALL of the temperature anomaly!
Now we need to figure what is really causing the temperature anomaly…
Thanks for your patience.
The strong CO2 peak in 1997/8 in Fig 2 may not come from the ocean. According to Wiki:
“Forest fires in Indonesia in 1997 were estimated to have released between 0.81 and 2.57 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is between 13-40% of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.”
Peter Miller says:
June 9, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Anthony
This is one of the few times I disagree with you.
Your hypothesis is dependent on the oceans being saturated with carbon dioxide – the current level is circa 90ppm, a very long way from saturation level at current global temperatures
Peter – it is not a hypothesis – it is Henry’s Law – one of the accepted laws of physical chemistry. A ‘Gas Law’
Andrew W says:
June 9, 2010 at 1:50 pm
From Wiki: “Henry’s law is used to quantify the solubility of gases in solvents. The solubility of a gas in a solvent is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solvent. ”
Over the last 150 years the partial pressure of CO2 has risen by about 35%, so CO2 is moving into the oceans, not out of them.
.
Andrew, you appear to have misquoted the law from Wikipedia (note my bold highlights):
“In chemistry, Henry’s law is one of the gas laws, formulated by William Henry in 1803. It states that:
At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.
An equivalent way of stating the law is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid at a particular temperature is proportional to the pressure of that gas above the liquid. Henry’s law has since been shown to apply for a wide range of dilute solutions, not merely those of gases.
Henry’s law means that there will be a standard ratio of atmospheric CO2 to dissolved CO2 in the oceans dependent on vapor pressure and temperature.
It should be remembered that it is not only the ocean surface that absorb CO2 it is also the water droplets in clouds. The surface area of these droplets is huge possibly more than the oceans, they are pure water and are very cold so these droplets will ‘scrub’ CO2 out of the atmosphere very rapidly. Then they fall as rain to the surface with the dissolved CO2.
Finally
John Finn says:…….
That’s it. Gerald has phrased his post better than I did earlier but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. I think Zeke (above) has also made a similar point. This ‘study’ simply shows what we already knew, i.e. CO2 levels rise a bit more in warmer years and a bit less in colder years.
The only reason the ‘model’ appears to work is due to the fact that both CO2 and temperatures have been rising in the last few decades. If temperatures started to fall the model would break down.
But there is a large drop in atmospheric CO2 after the El Nino peaks and in the La Ninas- so cold temperatures show reduction in CO2. Hardly the time when there would be less fossil fuel usage.
This lost credibility IMO with “I discovered this independently and roughly simultaneously with Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz ”
First, he doesn’t cite any evidence that the discovered this “simultaneously”, not a claim to be made lightly. Second, Beenstock and Reingwertz are economists — and their paper is unpublished (so far as I can tell). Several blogs say its in Nature, but does not appear in their archives (e.g., EURreferendum, 13 February 2010).
Nick Stokes says:
June 9, 2010 at 4:54 pm
No, my question stands. The “reasons” given there are…
No, the reason given is that the CO2 tracks the El Nino events, and El Nino is NOT caused by CO2.
As Zeke and others have pointed out, the real flaw is that this all relates to fluctuations only, not the main trend.
Not so. FTA:
See Figure 2 for reference.
Lon: I agree with some of the other posters.
I get a good correlation (>0.9), when I used delta CO2 over 3 to 12 months previous, with the best match at 6 months previous. This was with both UAH and CRUT3 data. The best fit is after 1998, but there is still a good correlation going back to 1960, using CRUT3 (>0.6).
Either temperature is going back in time to affect CO2, or the rate of CO2 change affects temperature.
If you would like to see my calculations, please send me an e-mail, and I will send my Excel sheets.
WAY OFF TOPIC
Forgive me I know this is way off topic, but I am compelled to past this on.
So if this does not post, so be it. Please past it on.
YES, THEY WALK AMONG US
Why our country is in trouble????
A DC airport ticket agent offers some examples of why our country is in trouble!
1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman (Carol Shea-Porter) ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn’t get messed up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)
2. I got a call from a Kansas Congressman’s (Moore) staffer (Howard Bauleke), who wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport information, and then he interrupted me with, ‘’I’m not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts.’’
Without trying to make him look stupid, I calmly explained, ‘’Cape Cod is in Massachusetts, Capetown is in Africa.’’
His response — click.
3. A senior Vermont Congressman (Bernie Sanders) called, furious about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando. He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that’s not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state.
He replied, ‘Don’t lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state!’’ (OMG)
4. I got a call from a lawmaker’s wife (Landra Reid) who asked, ‘’Is it possible to see England from Canada?’’
I said, ‘’No.’’
She said, ‘’But they look so close on the map.’’ (OMG, again!)
5. An aide for a cabinet member (Janet Napolitano) once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas. I pulled up the reservation and noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, ‘’I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.’’ (Aghhhh)
6. An Illinois Congresswoman (Jan Schakowsky) called last week. She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m.
I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois, but she couldn’t understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast, and she bought that.
7. A New York lawmaker, (Jerrold Nadler) called and asked, ‘’Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?’’ I said, ‘No, why do you ask?’
He replied, ‘’Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said ‘FAT’, and I’m overweight. I think that’s very rude!’’
After putting him on hold for a minute, I looked into it. (I was dying laughing.) I came back and explained the city code for Fresno, Ca. Is (FAT – Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a destination tag on his luggage.
8. An aide for Senator John Kerry (Lindsay Ross) called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked, ‘’Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii?’’
9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman, Bobby Bright (D) from AL who asked, ‘’How do I know which plane to get on?’’
I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, ‘’I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.’’
10. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) called and said, ‘’I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?’’
I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola, FL on a commuter plane.
She said, ‘’Yeah, whatever, smarty!’’
11. Mary Landrieu (D) LA Senator called and had a question about the documents she needed in order to fly to China . After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. ‘Oh, no I don’t. I’ve been to China many times and never had to have one of those.’’
I double checked and sure enough, her stay required a visa. When I told her this she said, ‘’Look, I’ve been to China four times and every time they have accepted my American Express!’’
12. A New Jersey Congressman (John Adler) called to make reservations, ‘’I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York .’’
I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, ‘’Are you sure that’s the name of the town?’’
‘Yes, what flights do you have?’’ replied the man.
After some searching, I came back with, ‘’I’m sorry, sir, I’ve looked up every airport code in the country and can’t find a ‘Rhino’ anywhere.”
‘’The man retorted, ‘’Oh, don’t be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!’’
So I scoured a map of the State of New York and finally offered, ‘’You don’t mean Buffalo , do you?’’
The reply? ‘’Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.’’
Now you know why the Government is in the shape that it’s in!
Could anyone be this DUMB?
Jimbo says:
June 9, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“Leaving the harder mathematical stuff for others … If this analysis is correct, then there was almost certainly no MWP, and current warming is unprecedented.”
Translation: “I really don’t understand any of it, but I have absolute faith in the ice core extrapolations.”
I think your faith is misguided.
Peter Miller,
You ask a profound question. Maybe it would direct you to read the papers of Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a noted ice core specialist whose constant criticism is about misuses of Vostok ice core proxies, without pressure corrections. His critiques are frequently ignored, since they do not provide support to AGW.
Under comparatively very modest pressures, as occurs in compressed ice, CO2 in ice cores forms hydrates that reduce the CO2 in ice core bubbles to a uniform low figure.
This low figure is then mistakenly assumed tobe the “pre-industrial” and “natural” level of CO2 in the atmosphere, before Man destroyed his environment. In comparison, we have been measuring atmospheric constituents since scientists started studing gases about the time of Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Priestly.
Georg Beck has retrieved quite extensive laboratory experiments conducted by impressive teams of scientists over long periods of the 18th and 19th century. One thing is glaringly obvious. Their laboratory measurements do NOT agree with the imputed ice core proxies dated to those eras when the pressure of overbearing ice has forced the CO2 into hydrates, even as they correlate atmospheric CO2 changes cotermiminus to the Tambora and Krakatoa massive volcanic eruptions.
What are you going to believe? Lab measurements, or ice core proxies, or perhaps chicken entrails?
I don’t think there is any argument about whether temperature fluctuations such as those due to ENSO drive changes in atmospheric CO2 levels (which, although rather small, are large on the scale that CO2 levels rise in one year). This has been known for a long time. This is the carbon cycle feedback to rising temperatures. However, as Willis has been explaining in this thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/ , it is way too small to explain the rise of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution, besides contradicting a wealth of empirical data and understanding of the carbon cycle that tells us without a doubt that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic.
A study: The carrying of umbrellas has caused H2O Falling, not the other way around
Guest post by Lloyd Christmas
http://tinyurl.com/346y7jx
I’m a bit skeptical of this article because if you go back and look at ice core data of temp and CO2, you don’t see about a 120 ppm swing in CO2 for a swings of about 12C. We haven’t had nowhere near a 12c swing in temp over the last 150 years. Plus, there is the 800 year lag in CO2 from temperature changes.
Jim D says:
June 9, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“Could this not just be explained by the fact that a warmer ocean has a reduced uptake rate of CO2?”
Since nature is always generating CO2 at 24X the rate of anthropogenic input, any reduction in uptake means an immediate increase in airborne concentration, with the extra build-up from natural far outpacing that from anthropogenic.
As Richard Telford pointed out above, the observation of correlation of annual CO2 change with El Nino goes back to Bacastow. It’s discussed in this 2001 paper from the Hadley Centre. Here’s their diagram, corresponding pretty much to Fig 2 here. It shows Nino-3 index (dashed) and annual change in CO2 (solid).
Fair enough. You propose a mechanism – any mechanism! – by which the rate of change of CO2 can cause the instantaneous temperature value. Not saying you can’t do it, just that it sounds as non-physical as anything could be. But whatever, if that is the case, you are saying (along with climate realists) that the IPCC’s claimed physical mechanisms are totally wrong, since they depend on amount, not derivative.
Prior to the 1980’s, ice core analyses routinely showed CO2 levels at 2-3 times higher than today. The analytical method was basically “adjusted” to precisely give an average of ~280 ppm, and this became the “standard.” I agree that the precision of the new method is better, but accuracy is another question of concern.
Jim D @June 9, 2010 at 5:26 pm:
Yes, exactly. That is the differential relation whether there is staturation or not. You are seeing through fog. There are an infinite number of related curves to the one above of saturated water, not sea water, but the same laws apply. That is why Lon points out the differential nature of his analysis. Lon might have to have his parameters adjusted slightly by more exact measurements of staturation but it doesn’t take away from what he is presenting above.
Nick Stokes says:
June 9, 2010 at 6:15 pm
‘… which is between 13-40% of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.”’
Which means it is between 0.05% and 1.6% of natural emissions. Try again.
Ron House says:
Really? Interesting since this interannual variability is discussed in Section 7.3.2.4.1 of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm :
The Lintner reference, by the way, is available here: http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~ben/PUBLICATIONS/Lintner_CO2_2002.pdf . In the introduction, it notes:
The Keeling et al. paper is available here: http://hydrology.lsu.edu/courses/papers/Keeling_etal_Nature1995.pdf See, particularly, Figure 2.
Wheel, meet your latest re-inventor.
Couple of points:
1. Cause-and-correlation. We are early in an analysis period. Don’t ignore a theory that cannot explain everything – but equally, DON’T believe a good theory if it cannot explain all the (good) data available.
If good data doesn’t fit, the theory – no matter how well accepted it is by “a consensus of experts” – is dead wrong in those instances. Note that EVERY scientific advance was preceeded by an outsider presenting a new theory (maybe an incomplete one) that contradicted the “expert’s” current theories. (Note also that a good theory may work under many cases (Newton’s Laws work fine under most cases – they are not wrong except under high speeds near light. But they are incomplete.) The AGW’s favorite greenhouse gas theory of global warming isn’t wrong. It is merely incomplete and worth less when describing this particle planet’s global climate variations.)
When the continental shelves were fit together in the early 1920’s – and found to match very closely – did we know cause yet?
Did Maxwell’s equations – linking derivatives of magnetic field and light fields together in a good theoretically sound basis – come before or after light and magnetic waves were being used?
When a solid piece of pitchblende caused photographic plates to be exposed in a dark room, did we know that radiation even existed? (Much less the reason it existed and how matter disintegrates into smaller, more higher energy particles without chemical changes?)
Note also that NO AGW alarmist has been able to tell us why the ENSO/LA Nina/North Atlantic oceans periodically change temperatures, even though changes in those patterns explain every recent change in temperatures.
Maybe. I still have grave doubts that the global temperature graph presented is accurate. Use a earlier (pre-Hansen corruption) of the data that shows true 1890-1970 temperatures, and you may need to revise the theory.
2. That said: We need to account for biological feedback on CO2 absorption. If every green plant and algae and underwater biologic is growing 8 to 27 faster and larger and stronger now with the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, what does that change in the yearly and monthly absorption rates? Will that increased absorption get saturated in the next 50 – 100 years?
3. The ENSO affects limited ocean areas – very large areas, but not (as I uderstand) the central pacific is greatly affected, but north and south Pacific are not changed as much, the Indian Ocean little, and the North Atlantic and South Atlantic are not afecetd. What happens to the equations (to the analysis) if water temeratures are broken out by area of ocean and extent of change? Will that increase, or decrease the relationship? The warm mid-pacific, near-equatorial waters most affected by
4. In recent times (the past 2400 years) we have seen three proven rises (Roman, Medieval, and Modern warming periods) and two known falls (Dark Ages and LIA.) What do the recent ice samples and other proxies reveal for CO2? How much of today’s CO2 levels merely be the result of the longer term rise from the LIA – PLUS a contribution from industrial activity?
5. Recently, we have better tracking (and good predictions for the near future!) from correlations of both solar/gravity/cyclical solar system positions to temperature changes, AND ENSO/La Nina roles to global ocean temperature changes and CO2.
May I suggest that the three are related more closely than either author expects?