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
The rise in atmospheric CO2 has been proven to be from fossil fuels due to increased amounts of the C12 isotope.
Ian W says:
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.
The model says the CO2 level would NEVER go down unless the anomaly dropped to below -0.58. We could have a drop i temperatures of 1 deg but, according to the model, CO2 would carry on rising.
Is it me that’s going mad or everyone else?
Lon, you seem to be contradicting yourself in the paragraph after Figure 3 when you say 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.
Surely, the lack of annual variation in the model is because you are using -6 month and +6 months values which cancel out the annual variations of CO2 levels – or have I missed something?
Bart says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:38 pm
“Dictionary.com: ex·trap·o·late (ĭk-strāp’ə-lāt’) v. tr. 1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information. 2. Mathematics: To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values.
Ice cores are evaluated by doing #1 based on models for diffusion rates and other reactions. You do #2 by assuming that the bandwidth of stored information is greater than it is, so that you can see fine details like peaks and canyons which, realistically, you cannot.”
Nice one. By the way you’ve chosen to interpret defn 1, I think taking virtually any scientific measurement would be extrapolation. Are you telling me there is no model assumed when you measure temperature with a thermometer? Maybe you should think about what it is you’re actually observing in that case.
Your application of defn 2 is actually closer to describing interpolation. Torture the language enough and it can mean anything you want. You obviously don’t know how the term extrapolation is generally used either in economics or science. Here’s a hint: concentrate on the words projection & forecast.
“Sure, if that is what floats your boat. If you have issues with it, don’t nag me. I don’t believe any of this crap can be reliably estimated after centuries have passed in the first place.”
The link you gave re stomata shows one tiny bump to about 310ppm during the whole period 900 – 1300 A.D. But I won’t nag you about this crap, since nobody can ever hope to know anything about the state of atmospheric CO2 before about 1850 in your view.
“Major non sequitur. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence….”
Well blow me down, you actually have a point. I did not state my case well there and took a short cut. In a response to another poster I made clear that I think the warmists have every incentive to show a high CO2 level during the MWP, as it would strongly support their case and be a hell of a lot easier than all the trouble they went to to hide the MWP. So I think it would have been established, possibly even faked by people of Mann’s ilk, if it plausibly could have been. But you’re right, absence of evidence ….
I think I’d better clarify my position.
The model in Lon Hocker’s post may actually model observations reasonably well. However, it does not show that CO2 rise in temperature dependant. It simply shows that temperature can moderate (or amplify) the CO2 rise. This is something we knew anyway. The rate of rise is greater during El Nino than La Nina, for example. But the CO2 level never falls – it carries on rising.
The model tells us that CO2 will carry on rising as long as the temperature anomaly remains above -0.58 deg. If the model is correct, it implies that -0.58 is the point when temperature exactly balances the effect of human CO2 emissions, i.e. we will have some sort of equilibrium.
The model most certainly does not tell us that CO2 levels are dependant on temperature as it’s easy o show that even though temperatures fall (even by a lot) – CO2 levels continue to rise.
So , although I think the model is wrong anyway, it does demonstrate at least that there is a steady background increase in CO2 levels and that the short -term fluctuations (not the trend) around the underlying trend are driven by temperature.
Smokey says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Jeff Green says:
“The temperatire (sic) lags co2 increases.”
No, it doesn’t. You have it exactly backwards. On every time scale, CO2 rises follow temperature rises, and CO2 declines follow temperature declines. On every time scale, from months to millennia. CO2 is a function of temperature changes, not vice-versa.
Also, please do not link to realclimate; they are no more credible than Michael Mann. Thanx.
2 interesting statements in you post, i.e.
CO2 rises follow temperature rises,
CO2 is a function of temperature changes, not vice-versa
So why haven’t we seen CO2 fall when temperatures have fallen over the last 50 years. The model in the post above is looking at CO2 variation over months. Why wasn’t there a fall between 2007 and 2008 or between 1998 and 1999/2000/2001 or throughout thwe 1950s/1960s. The model in this post will NOT show a drop in CO2 unless the temperature anomaly goes below -0.58. Do you agree with this?
Since I have been reading for some time, now seems like a good time to join the conversation. Lon Hocker has done an interesting piece of work.
But, as a retired research engineer, every statistian I ever worked with beat into me that “correlation does not imply causation.” Thus the headline is not really justified by the work. That said, you can’t have causation without correlation. So maybe he is on to something.
If I understand correctly, Lon Hocker is trying to say
delta(CO2)/delta(t) = f(SSTavg).
Where SSTavg is the average sea surface temp over the period delta(t)
and using Tn (the midpoint temp of the interval) as the average.
Therefore it is okay to use n-6 and n+6 for CO2. However using the midpoint temp for the average may not always be the best estimate for the average. Best to calculate it over delta(t).
However, those that advocate AGW are saying this:
T= f(CO2)
Which is not the same equation. Proving the former relationship does not disprove the latter.
It appears to me that Hocker has shown that short term changes in CO2 are probably caused by sea surface temperatures. I wonder if the ups and downs in CO2 from his eqation were summed over the last hundred years if it would give us the current CO2 level?
RE: Willis Eschenbach: (June 9, 2010 at 9:51 pm) “But it’s much worse for this hypothesis. Why is the CO2 continuing to rise, if the temperature isn’t rising?”
That might be ‘explained’ by continued deep-ocean warming in progress.
I have previously noticed that it is possible to ‘force-fit’ the SST data since 1880 to the smoothed CO2 data by application of a monthly compounded, three-stage cascaded low-pass filter where each stage has an identical time constant on the order of 25 to 30 years and independent initial values on the order of -0.2.
Of course, this does not prove anything without actual data on the average undersea ocean temperature profile changes over this time period. This armchair ad hock model, unsupported by any theory, seems to suggest that CO2 levels would eventually rise to over 600 ppm if sea-surface temperatures remained at their current levels.
I have a question that the regulars her at WUWT certainly can answer.
Since the general opinion here is that the temperature rise is a byproduct of so-called “adjustments” to the instrumental record, how the CO2 level reacting to these adjustments? So am I to conclude from this article that the temperature is really rising?
John Whitman says:
June 9, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Willis,
Nice you see you here. : )
I think that the causation Lon appears to be showing is SST to the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration in time. It is not with the levels of CO2 concentration.
Yes he is – but it’s nonsense since it takes no account of the change in SST. SST could have dropped 10 degrees but Lon’s model will still show a rise in CO2 providing the temperature anomaly is greater than -0.58. Examples:
Example 1: Jan anomaly 0.5 ; Feb anomaly 0.5 (no temp change)
FebCO2 – JanCO2 = 0.22(0.5 + 0.58) = 0.24 i.e. no temp change -> CO2 rises .
Example 2: Jan anomaly 0.5 ; Feb anomaly 0.0 (temp drops 0.5 deg )
FebCO2 – JanCO2 = 0.22(0.0 + 0.58) = 0.13 i.e. temp down by 0.5 deg -> CO2 still rises
Example 3: Jan anomaly 0.5 ; Feb anomaly -0.5 (temp drops 1 deg )
FebCO2 – JanCO2 = 0.22(0.5 + 0.58) = 0.02 i.e. temp down by 1 deg -> CO2 still rises
It is only when the anomaly drops to -0.58 that there will be no rise. If this model does simulate true conditions then it is simply saying that when anomalies drop as low as -0.58 the coldness of the oceans will offset the CO2 from human emissions.
Notes:
In example 1 (if model is correct) even if there is no change in temperature for the next 10 years CO2 will increase by 29 ppm.
In example 2 (if model is correct) even if temperature anomalies fall and remain at 0.0 for the next 10 years CO2 will increase by 15 ppm.
In example 3 (if model is correct) even if temperature anomalies fall and remain at -0.5 for the next 10 years CO2 will increase by 2 ppm.
How much confusion do we get by ignoring known facts–such as the rate of fossil fuel combustion and the direct relationship between CO2 and photosynthesis? If we don’t understand that the basic monotonous upward trend in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel consumption, it’s difficult to have a discussion about newer and more controversial topics related to climate. Perhaps small scale fluctuations in CO2 can be related to ENSO etc, but the overall trend is due to burning fossil fuels and the main annual signal is due to seasonal changes in photosynthesis.
Argument that oceans are not saturated with CO2 and therefore can not release it when the surface warmed is unsupported by fact, that each El Nino, La Nina or major volcanic eruption is pretty much visible in the growth rate – so some degassing must be happening.
http://climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20Last12months-previous12monthsGrowthRateSince1958.gif
The growth rate itself looks much like the temperature record.
90% of the battle in this type of analysis is getting the correct data in the correct format from the raw data files. I am struggling to acheive this from the data files linked to.
Could somebody please post a table with three columns of data:
column 1: Date
column 2: Temperature anomaly measured on Date
column 3: Co2 concentration measured on Date
RE:Anne van der Bom: (June 10, 2010 at 3:34 am) “So am I to conclude from this article that the temperature is really rising?”
If you look at the scale on the left side of the chart at the top of this article you will only see an indicated average global temperature increase of about 1.2 degrees F since 1880.
ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS:
The word “vegetation” has only been used 4 times above. This thread is a disaster.
Joel Shore says:
“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.”
Joel, I have a problem with the first Figure in Willis’ thread. CO2 levels stay constant for almost 1,000 years and then suddenly shoot up in 1850? No way. If you believe in a correlation between temperature and CO2 you have to agree that graph doesn’t make sense. Are there other contributions to the CO2 rise other than oceans? Sure, probably. But you can’t dismiss the incredible correlation between temp and CO2 from Figure 2. We can argue whether it is all due to ocean warming – I don’t know. But when comparing Hocker’s Figure 2 with Willis’ Figure 1, I’ll stick with Figure 2 thanks. The low levels of CO2 pre industrialization as determined by ice cores are clearly wrong.
I note that most of the insightful comments in this thread are critical but, while I admit I have not thought this through in detail I wonder if we don’t dismiss it too quickly. Remember that what is being plotted is the first derivative of CO2 concentration. The fact that there is very little lag is in no way incompatible with a time constant of 600 to 800 years for ocean warming or with a 600 to 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature. If the lag is a single time constant then what it does is simply to change the gain of the first derivative which is the 0.22 factor in this article. I note that the 0.22 factor was calculated by assuming a long time constant for ocean heating.
With regard to the questionable temperature record, I note this uses the satellite record not the land based record and I thought the satellite record was generally accepted as reliable.
Willis’s comment that this theory is shot down by the fact that the temperature since 1998 has not risen while CO2 has is also not as damming as it seems. Remember the article plots the derivative of CO2 versus temperature, if the temperature remains static the apparent correlation implies the derivative should also remain static but that does not mean the derivative is zero. It simply means the rate of change of CO2 is constant so it could well be continuing to rise.
I must admit the implications of what is shown seem to be almost too simplistic to be true but then I have seen situations where a breakthough seems too obvious and simplistic to possibly be true, yet is. To me two things seem to be significant. Firstly that the tracking seems to hold for all but about 1 of the dozen or so peaks and troughs over a period of 50 years (back to 1958) (the one where the tracking does not hold could well be significant I admit). The number of peaks and troughs for which the correlation holds strikes me as more significant than the time period. Its easy to show correlation over a long period where both traces show a simple rising or falling trend but to track multiple complex rises and falls as well as this seems to strikes me as significant, it’s a lot for it to be just co-incidental. If its not coincidental then it is reasonable to ask what causes the correlation. I don’t find it acceptable to say its far fetched so it can be dismissed. Real world obervations require an explanation. If the correlation is not direct eg: due to plant growth rates, is this significant in itself? There are precendents where entire theories have been disproven from a single tiny observational anomaly. It may be irrelevant but I think it deserves a bit more thought before being dismissed.
Just looking a bit further at fig 2 and fig 4 for the time from 1987 to 1992. In figure 2 the tracking between the two seems to be very close yet in fig 4 this stands out as the greatest tracking departure. I realise that fig 2 is temperature while fig 4 is enso so presumably enso does not correlate well to temperature over this period. If so what the data shows is that the derivative of CO2 tracks temperature not enso. Am I missing something here?
I note the -0.58 in the equation which suggests a constant positive derivative for CO2 in the absence of any change in temperature ie: a steady rise. That also needs consideration. Maybe the 0.58 is caused by human emissions and it is only the departures from this constant rise that are correlated to short term temperature.
I also note that the comment has been made that the oceans are nowhere near saturation so the original premise is false. I would have thought that what was important was whether or not the ocean concentration was in equilibrium with the atmospheric level but then maybe thats what was being implied by the comment. If the ocean concentration is far below equilibrium then one would have to assume it will rise with time. If that is the case it implies that any rise in CO2 is due to human emissions is a transient phenomenon. Say we go on burning fossil fuels for another 50 years before we find an alternative, as soon as we stop, the CO2 level would start to fall quite quickly as the oceans move closer to equilibrium with the atmosphere. If we keep burning fossil fuel at a constant rate, the disparity from equilibrium will increase until the rate of rise in ocean uptake (driven by higher atmospheric levels of CO2) matches human emissions at which point CO2 levels would plateau. Yet I don’t hear any such comments from AGW advocates, quite the contrary. They claim CO2 will continue to rise and even if we stop releasing CO2 the excess will hang around for a very long time. That seems to me a paradox as well. Further, why are ocean levels not at least at the equilibrium level for 280 ppm atmospheric concentration. After all the AGW advocates claim atmospheric CO2 has been at 280 ppm for millenia or more?
It strikes me there is more here than meets the eye. It begins to look as though we need to have a closer look at the numbers. I would urge the author to try and develop a more quantitative analysis. Do the rates of change appear plausible and do the absolute values seem reasonable? Are they consistent with longer term data from other sources?
Spector says:
June 10, 2010 at 2:59 am
RE: Willis Eschenbach: (June 9, 2010 at 9:51 pm) “But it’s much worse for this hypothesis. Why is the CO2 continuing to rise, if the temperature isn’t rising?”
That might be ‘explained’ by continued deep-ocean warming in progress.
I think this unlikely at the moment.
Steric Sea level rise has stopped for some time. My calcs estimate that when the sunspot number is under 40/month the oceans emit rather than absorb energy.
The current O|HC measurements showing ocean heat content falling or static in nearly all major ocean basins would tend to support this.
A better answer might be that CO2 always lags behind temperature. And that sea surface temps have been high recently as energy has headed upwards from the deep during the solar minimum, so outgassing will also be a factor.
I read this morning that human emissions of co2 fell 1.1% last year…
I knew this, I already figured that out for myself, without any calculations. This is where Al Gore made his biggest mistake: the CO2 increases in the pre-historic past past lagged the warming. The net effect of the CO2 is probably close to zero influence on global warming. For those interested how I know that the CO2 is probably cooling as much as warming, here is something that I wrote some time ago, which might interest you guys.
here is the famous paper that confirms to me that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
they measured this radiation as it bounced back to earth from the moon. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um.
This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.
So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours). I am also doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data, as some of the UV absorptions of CO2 have only been discovered recently. Also, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 maybe underestimated, e.g. the radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 maybe only 1% but how many watts/m2 does it cause? Here in Africa you can not stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes, just because of the heat of the sun on your skin.
Anyway, with so much at stake, surely, you actually have to come up with some empirical testing? You cannot rely on calculations only.What the IPCC did is weighting (comparing global warming & concentrations of CO2 and other gases with that of 1750 =pre-industrial). That was working from the wrong end. What a jokers.
Personnally, I could find no proper results from actual experiments!
If this research has not been done, why don’t we just sue the oil companies to do this?? It is their product afterall.
I am going to state it here quite categorically again that if no one has got these results, then how do we know for sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Maybe the cooling properties are (more or less) equal to the warming properties.
We know that Svante Arrhenius’ formula has long been proven wrong. If it had been right earth should have been a lot warmer. So I am asking: what is the correct formula? If people are still convinced that CO2 causes warming, then surely anyone must ask yourself the same question as I have been asking??
I think it also very important that the experiments must be conducted in the relevant concentration range, i.e. 0.03% – 0.06%. You cannot use 100% CO2 in a test, and present that to me as a test result. Any good chemist knows that different concentration ranges in solutions may give different results in properties. In any case, those people who presented those 100% CO2 tests and results to their pupils used a simple globe lamp (representing the sun) and totally forgot about the cooling properties of CO2 (like I am claiming above here)
Steve from Rockwood says:
What Hocker’s fit shows is that a temperature change of 0.5 C in a year produces about a 1.3 ppm change in CO2 in the atmosphere. Such CO2 fluctuations are too small to see in the ice core records of CO2. Hocker wants to believe that such a temperature change would change the differential rate between CO2 absorption and outgassing forever. (So, if you initially have the CO2 at a constant rate and then raise it by 0.5 C and keep it constant at the new level, the CO2 levels just keep rising by 1.3 ppm per year.) However, there is no reason to believe that this is the case and every reason to believe that the temperature change just causes a short term effect. (In fact, the ice core data flatly contradicts his notion.)
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:51 pm
But it’s much worse for this hypothesis. Why is the CO2 continuing to rise, if the temperature isn’t rising?
I read this morning that human co2 emissions fell last year by 1.1%
Since you believe the increase in airbourne co2 is due to human emissions, you have a similar question to answer.
Why is the CO2 continuing to rise, if the human emissions are falling?
Wow, it has been a while since we’ve had a discussion grow this fast. I’ve read about a third of the posts, and skimmed the rest. I have to say that I’m surprised there is so much reaction here as if this is something new. The relationship demonstrated here — a lag on the order of a few months between the rate of increase in global temperature and the rate of increase in CO2 has been known for at least 20 years. Last year, Jeffrey Park (frequent Mann coauthor) published an article in GRL claiming that the lag had increased from 5 months to 15 months, and that this is evidence of increasing saturation of the ocean ability as a carbon sink. I’ve been sitting on some research, thinking to write up something for WUWT about this, and haven’t had the time. For now, I’ll just put up a few links to images of cross-correlations between the rate of change in CO2 and temperature:
All years:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2d1lrnn.jpg
Last 15 years:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2m5i8o8.jpg
Last 10 years:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2w2er8j.jpg
For all years, the cross correlations peak at a lag of 7 months. For the last 15 years, the cross correlations show roughly the same structure. But for the last 10 years, there is a big shift with the lag now out at 17-23 months, roughly an extra year of lag. What’s up with that, I wonder? More, maybe, when I have the time. But if anyone wants to speculate now, please do so.
Not to take away from what Lon has done, but a lag of a few months between temperature change, and change in the rate of growth in CO2, is not news. Anyone who wishes to research this, say in Google Scholar, should be sure to include the term “interannual” in their search, as this is term that the literature uses to discuss this phenomenon.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 10, 2010 at 4:39 am
ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS:
The word “vegetation” has only been used 4 times above. This thread is a disaster.
Well, until I used it, the word “interannual” was only used four times too, all in Joel’s post at 7:33PM. I’m often finding myself at odds with Joel, but here he is right to call attention to this.
I just finished teaching an ecology class for the Spring quarter, and several times mentioned this phenomenon. We might have slightly different reasons for thinking this thread is a disaster, but really, are that many of the regular readers unaware of this? One of the few things Gore gets right in An Inconvenient Truth is the explanation for the sawtooth pattern in the Mauna Loa data.
Re: Basil
I think you’ll find that HadSST has simply fallen out-of-phase with interannual LOD, GLAAM, PWP, & SOI a few times during the bounces since the big El Nino (& bear in mind the leverage of big events in cross-correlation). It’s just some spatiotemporal turbulence. It might be fruitful to investigate the seasonality by geographic location. Also, bear in mind the lack of stratospheric eruptions in recent years.