New paper – "absence of correlation between temperature changes … and CO2"

WUWT readers may remember way back when…I posted this from Joe D’Aleo:

Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2

daleo-cru-msu-co2.png

Joe wrote then:

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

There’s a new paper by Paulo Cesar Soares in the International Journal of Geosciences supporting Joe’s idea, and it is full and open access. See link below.

Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

Author: Paulo Cesar Soares

ABSTRACT

The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature.

Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase.

The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

From the conclusion:

Figure 21. Changes of specific humidity (vapor) in atmosphere compared to tropical and global temperature changes (vapor data from Tyndall Center)

Figure 22. Cause and effect of specific humidity in the atmosphere associated with temperature changes: correlation in monthly scale, compared to CO2 correlation, between 1983 and 2003. Temperature from tropical band; CO2 at Mauna Loa (CDIAC)

The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing effect is already realized with its historical values. So, the reduction of the outcoming long wave radiation window is not a consequence of current enrichment or even of a possible double ratio of CO2. The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is explained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known increase insolation and vapor content in atmosphere.

 

The role of vapor is reinforced when it is observed that the regions with a great difference between potential and actual specific humidity are the ones with high temperature increase, like continental areas in mid to high latitudes. The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable.

If the warmer power of solar irradiation is the independent driver for decadal and multidecadal cycles, the expected changes in insolation and no increase in green- house power may imply the recurrence of multidecadal cool phase, recalling the years of the third quarter of past century, before a new warming wave. The last decade stable temperature seems to be the turning point.

Full Text (PDF, 1794KB)  PP.102-112 DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2010.13014

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I think that this sentence from the abstract is important:
“Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. ”
The atmosphere has such low thermal mass that changes in heating from seasonal CO2 level, should be detectable. I haven’t read the paper and don’t have time but if that is the point of it, it should be pretty interesting.

DocattheAutopsy

Denier! Quick, call the editors of the “reputable” journals and threaten them if they don’t pull this article!
For Science!

mike sphar

Don’t ya just hate it when that sort of anti-correlation thing happens ? Must be all that climate disruption warmth causing cold this winter.

chemman

But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2

Anything is possible

If you extend back to 1958, the co-efficient of correlation between CO2 and HadCRUt global temperatures is 0.907.
How significant is that?
Well put it this way : The co-efficient of correlation between the number of Home Runs hit in MLB and HadCRUt global temperatures over the same time period is 0.885.
Make of that what you will!

Anything is possible

Nice to see a scientific paper come to a conclusion that ISN’T “counter-intuitive.” (:-

pat

Hope this guy is ready for the revenge that will be inflicted upon him.

John Day

The first sentence of the paper’s conclusion is a stunning refutation of the AGW “theory”:
“The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed.”
In hindsight, it should have been obvious from observation of the atmosphere of Mars, almost pure CO2, about 30 times more abundant (per unit surface area) than on Earth, and yet Mars’ black-body temp and mean surface temp are virtually the same: 210K. The atmospheric warming effect of CO2 is thus shown to be neglible.
It is water, in all its physical states, that warms and regulates our climate, sustaining life as we know it on Earth.

Gary Pearse

The rapid response team or whatever that new body is has been working on this ever since Trenbreth declared that it was a travesty that there had been no warming for a decade (or whatever the time period was). Skeptics provided an avenue for escape in showing that we were likely going into a 30 yr cooling period. The new, revised CAGW theory was that yes, GW has being temporarily interrupted by a natural cycle, but when it come back!! Oh my oh my. This gave the zealot fringe of the movement time to adjust themselves out of the ever increasingly uncomfortable divergences or to transition into lukewarmers or to simply die.

In researching Earth’s Atmospheric and Oceanic Oscillations and I came across an abstract to a presentation by Y. Wang and T. Yao at the American Geophysical Union’s 2010 Fall Meeting. Their presentation was on the influence of the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere-ocean couple systems on the 20th century warming on the Tibetan Plateau.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMGC41A0875W
I am intrigued that their “REOF analysis suggests that the 20th century warming revealed by the Malan ice core was remarkably influenced by the summer NAO and AO indices, and winter AO and PDO indices. A multivariate linear regression shows when combined, the summer NAO and winter PDO and AO account for 63.2% variations of the total variance in δ18O over the past century. ”
Does anyone have access to Wang and Yao’s presentation? Does anyone know if their research has been or is being published?

Steve from Rockwood

This paper raises red flags for me. Figure 1 seems to prove a positive relationship between global warming and CO2. Many of the graph captions do not reference all the traces. Most of the sentences are less than 10 words long. Some sentences seem to be missing words. Was this peer reviewed by Homer Simpson? I see a beer cup ring on the lower left of Page 2.

NeilM

Piers Corbyn rips ’em a new one – CO2 hocus pocus…
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6947#comments_top

doubleplusungood

Re: chemman, yes I’m sure all the politicians, bureaucrats, careerist scientists, and “environmental journalists” will all throw in the towel. This thing has a life and momentum of it’s own, if three straight winter forecasts of higher than average temperatures in the U.K. by the Met Office is completely wrong and there isn’t even so much as ” I wonder why ” by the The Powers That Be, what makes you think one climatologist is going to stop this gravy train?

Ahh, yes. But how much of the PDO change is due to co2.

dp

Surely someone somewhere (realclimate?) is going to write “Absence of correlation is not absence of causation – this is a predicted characteristic unique to anthropogenic CO2”.

Rob Z

Hmmm, seems suspicious to me. You may not know it but all the current weather forecasting models for local weather now have an input for CO2 concentration. We’ve had particulate counts for some time and we now have CO2 counts. Warm humid air masses have little impact on local weather. ONLY the CO2 emmitted by the local power plant is important. Why just the other day I heard this weather forecast: “The CO2 concentration rose by a 1ppm last night in AZ due to all the coal being burned and massive heat waves are expected in the form of snow in Phoenix and record cold across the sunny southwest. CO2 concentrations across the Himalaya’s are up 2ppm, expect continued drought across Australia in the form of standing water. CO2 continues to cause little weather change across the Hawaiian Island chain as temperatures remain moderate.

Steeptown

It’s a travesty that the underlying warming resulting from fossil fuel burning is being hidden by all these things like water vapour and the sun! ☺

Bob Maginnis

I notice that the first graph is USA temperatures instead of a more honest and relevant global temperature, which is rising even in the MSU record.

David Baigent

@ Anything is possible 10:40 am,
Correlation and Causation are not the same. !!
db..

Kevin Kilty

Indeed, the integrated PDO series produces a trend line that parallels the global temperature trends nicely. But correlation is not causation, and I wish that there were enough variation of all the potential factors of temperature change over short enough time period to allow us to build a table of contrasts–even better, a few dose-response curves for these factors. Then we’d be able to wheedle out causation and interactions. Otherwise, I fear my children will be arguing these same questions when they are adults.

Theo Goodwin

Anything is possible says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:40 am
“Well put it this way : The co-efficient of correlation between the number of Home Runs hit in MLB and HadCRUt global temperatures over the same time period is 0.885.
Make of that what you will!”
MLB players did not use enough steroids to get as pumped as climategaters?

FrankK

Anthony,
Now what is needed is for a study on “extreme events” correlation with CO2.
We now have a recent letter to the Australian newspaper (Weekend Aust 1-2 Jan 2011 page 17) ago saying that climatologists having been saying “for decades” that AGW is related to extreme events. ( we are having massive floods in Queensland at present).
Have “climatologists” been saying this ? Its news to me. It amazes me that an editor allows this sort of tough-in-cheek opinion into print when editors would seem so intent on relying on confirmation of source. I can only imagine that it was put up to create a suitable response.
Happy New Year

H.R.

Then we get this:
“The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere… […]”
Who’s to say Gaia didn’t make sure we evolved so we could replenish the atmosphere with CO2? OTOH, maybe you need to throw in lines like that to keep funding coming for studies that produce contrary results.

Benjamin Franz

What a strange journal.
This is in fact only the third volume ever published by the “International Journal of Geosciences” – which published it’s first volume in Nov. 2010 (just two months ago).
The publisher, “SciRP”, has an “interesting” history.

R. Gates

Interesting paper. certainly worthy of a second read, but a few thoughts off the top.
First, in the conclusion he remarks:
“However, a permanent in- crease in water vapor in the atmosphere due to an in- crease in insolation, evapotranspiration and mainly temperature change in ocean water…”
Of course he makes throughout the paper that it is a warming earth that is causing the increase in water vapor, and everyone of course knows that water vapor is a more potent GH gas than CO2, but his conclusion is quite empty in regards to what could be causing that longer term warming that is causing the increase in water vapor. Solar insolation has not increased during the period in question and temperature change in the oceans offers no long term answer either as that heat must ultimately come from an increase in solar insolation (or increased GH gas activity). In short, his reasoning seems a bit circular as he acknowledges the warming but finds no source other than water vapor, which his says is being increased from the warming. So what is the source of the warming?
Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2, yet no GCM has ever indicated that such signatures would be found but rather, it is the long-term increase in CO2 since around 1750 (up 40% since that time) that would eventually become the dominant signal upon which other natural cycles would ride. His insistence that various shorter term CO2 fluctuations should be seen in the temperature data is unsupported by any climate model.
Finally, it is interesting that he does acknowledge the general increase in water vapor and warming of the oceans over time, without even mentioning the fact that these have both long been cited as one of the effects of general AGW. The even stronger positive-feedback induced GH warming caused by increased water vapor was one of the effects cited many decades ago as stemming from the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1750’s. Why does the author choose not to reference this possibility?
All in all an interesting paper but suspicious in its circular reasoning, appeal to the lack of effects of CO2 that no GCM’s have ever predicted would exist, and lack of acknowledgment of basic feedback processes long predicted as existing between increased CO2 and increasing water vapor.

Ian

Pity the article is written like Yoda speaks…When they go through the review & editorial process, is no effort made to improve the use of English in submitted articles? (And to be fair, my Portuguese is non-existent, so I wouldn’t want to be writing for a Brazilian-based journal either…but still – it means the arguments are less clear than they ideally would be and permits easy sniping on side issues. It would probably only take a couple of hours for a competent editor to clean up the language.)

RockyRoad

chemman says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:32 am

But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2

Actually, it shows the politicians, regulators, and climsci people just don’t want to work hard enough to wrap their brains around anything more difficult than CO2 as the culprit. They don’t want to target water (the real scoundrel) because in their totalitarian mindset, it would mean West Coast inhabitants would have to drain their swimming pools and let their grass die (albeit in full view of the Pacific)! Of course, such actions would have the same negligible impact as curtailing CO2 emissions, but the thought of swimming in empty pools or playing golf on dead fairways was just too personal–they had to target something that was a no-brainer, taxable, and in line with their Fabian Socialist doctrine of curtailing capitalism and revoking individual freedoms.
In other words, being stupid is easy and popular.

latitude

“. The last decade stable temperature seems to be the turning point.”
================================================
I don’t like the sound of that…..
But it would have been a lot colder if it wasn’t for CO2…….
Sounds like our president……….

Brian H

JD;
Not sure if I saw it right, but the comparison for Mars showed the BB temp actually 0.1° WARMER than the measured: 10.1 vs 10.0.
Wouldn’t that be a kicker: CO2 causes cooling when nothing interferes with it!

Joe Crawford

I’m just happy to see journals now accepting papers that deviate from the “consensus”. Maybe we will get a little sanity back in the study of climate.

chemman says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2
These are not the culprits. The ones who are really stuck on stupid are the Royal Society, The American Physical Society, The American Chemical Society, the National Academies of Sciences from the USA, France and The Netherlands. Here in Canada senior members of our National Reserach Council. And the list goes on and on.
It is particularly tough for politicians to go against the advice of all these august bodies. Until we get one of these organizations to break ranks, and look at the science, it will be tough for politicians to change. How we knock sense into an organization like the Royla Society, I have no idea. They have nailed their colors to the mast on CAGW. Sir Alan Runge tried, and failed miserably.

Brian H

Ian;
Of ESL scientific papers the grammar learn to decipher we must. Unavoidable is it.

burnside

Agree with Gates, above. Any significant rebuttal from peers to date? Significant, that is, in that it’s respectable?

Rob Z

I wanted to make another comment but it may raise the ire of the local climate modelers who hold their model outputs in such high esteem. For years we’ve been saying the models are crap when, in all fairness, the computers calculate what they’re told to calculate. The models themselves are amazing. Works of art. Lines and lines of code. Years and years of tweeking. Amazing they calculate anything at all. However, to quote the conclusion of the paper: The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable.
The broader implication: The United States of America should NOT have under any circumstances used the results from the models for policy decisions. It doesn’t matter if 10 runs out of 10 runs or 1000 runs out of a 1000 runs suggest the earth will warm 2C over 100 years. Garbage programmed, garbage out. The sad truth is, it’s pretty much over. The EPA has run amok. We can only hope that common sense prevails and the House of Representatives sneaks in back room deal legislation to defund stupidity.

So I have been researching Earth’s Atmospheric and Oceanic Oscillations and thus far I have identified 4 Major/Primary Oceanic Oscillations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) and El Nino/La Nina, as well as 7 Major/Primary Atmospheric Oscillations, the Arctic Oscillation (AO), Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), North Pacific Oscillation (NPO), the Madden / Julian Oscillation (MJO), Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) and Southern Oscillation (SO).
Here is some background on each of the Major/Primary Oceanic Oscillations I’ve identified and their roles within Earth’s Climate System:
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
The Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO):
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AMO.htm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
The Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO), which is closely associated with the Atmospheric Oscillation the Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) and is the Oceanic component of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD). The Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) is also closely connected to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO): (Note, took some liberty in naming the Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) as it does not appear to have a well established name within the literature. It might be better as the Indian Ocean Interannual/Decadal Oscillation (IOIDO), but time will sort that out.)
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/28816.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/51n8664436045952/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-10/04/c_13542305.htm
El Nino/La Nina, which are closely associated with the Atmospheric Oscillation the Southern Oscillation (SO), is the Oceanic component of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO);
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ENSO.htm
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/26/enso-update/
Here is some background on each of the Major/Primary Atmospheric Oscillations and their roles within Earth’s Climate System:
The Arctic Oscillation (AO):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-oscillation-ao
(The following is a good animation of the Northern polar circulation and Arctic Oscillation over the last 30 days);
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml
the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO);
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-oscillation-aao
(The following is a good animation of the Southern polar circulation and Antarctic Oscillation over the last 30 days):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/north-atlantic-oscillation-nao
The North Pacific Oscillation (NPO), which is closely associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Oscillation
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/Linkin-Nigam.JCLIM.May.2008.pdf
The Madden / Julian Oscillation (MJO):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/mjo.shtml
http://wwa.colorado.edu/IWCS/archive/IWCS_2008_May_focus.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/22/the-madden-julian-oscillation/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden%E2%80%93Julian_oscillation
The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO), which is closely associated with the Oceanic Oscillation the Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO), and is the Atmospheric component of Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD). The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) is also closely connected to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO):
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.74.9668%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=%22EQUINOO%22%20atmospheric&ei=7WIfTcPBOcL78AbX8YDhDQ&usg=AFQjCNFiWHVPF-KYx7ifdVbB3HKEcdcCBg&sig2=KPCUfkXR89b-GN1vTVp9ZQ&cad=rja
http://www.springerlink.com/content/51n8664436045952/
ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/28816.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-10/04/c_13542305.htm
and the Southern Oscillation (SO), which is closely associated with the Oceanic Oscillation El Nino/La Nina and collectively referred to as (ENSO)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/southern-oscillation-soi
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso
In addition to the Major/Primary Oceanic and Atmospheric Oscillations, there are an array of Minor/Secondary Oceanic and Atmospheric Oscillations and Patterns including:
The Monsoon Intra-Seasonal Oscillation (MISO)
https://sites.google.com/site/metscience/AtmosphericScience/metbranches/general-circulation/intraseasonal-low-frequency-variations/monsoon-intra-seasonal-oscillation
http://www.wcrp-amy.org/Admin-2008wcrp2010-amy/edit/UploadFile/200912311125103.pdf
http://www.appmath.columbia.edu/users/sobel/Papers/bellon_et_al_08.pdf
Tropical Intra-Seasonal Oscillation (TISO):
ftp://www.iges.org/pub/ctr/ctr_247.pdf
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/xfu/Fu_MWR2172.pdf
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/…/Fu_CPC_Oct7.ppt
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/JAS-Chao-9404.pdf
The Pacific / North American Pattern (PNA):
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/pna.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/pacific-north-american-pattern-pna
This page offers a summary of all of the Monthly Atmospheric and Oceanic Climate Indices offered by the NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/climateindices/list/index.html
This page offers a summary of the Northern Hemisphere Teleconnection Patterns offered by NOAA’s National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/telecontents.shtml
If you know of any additional Oscillations or Patterns, or additional reference materials on the Oscillations and Patterns I noted above, please add your links below.
Thanks to ES and R. Gates for their contributions to this piece and Julienne Strove for starting me on a wander through Earth’s Oscillations.

ferdberple

An interesting paper. Using CO2 differences between the northern and southern hemispheres to isolate trends that would otherwise not be found by studying only NH data.
The conclusion, CO2 follows temperature. The models have it backwards. They are trying to model the cause from the effect, which actually works when training the model using historical data, but has zero predictive value going forward.
Which pretty much sums of the results of the models. They are no better than chance. Like a stopped clock, they are right twice a day. Even the IPCC calls them projections, not predictions.

Sam Hall

Here is the meat of the paper
“The close correlation between temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 increase, including a small delay is indicative of temperature drive mechanism of CO2 lib- eration. The temperature changes correlate better with CO2 changes for a delay of half to one year, in this series; the inverse order did not verify, which is meaningful for temperature driver and not CO2 driver mechanism. The delay is expected in order to heat ocean water thermo- cline lamina, to liberate CO2 and to transfer it to the at- mosphere.
The absence of correlation for temperature decrease and CO2 decrease means that the process is not reversible as it would be, if associated to less radiation absorption by CO2. The process of ocean uptake of CO2 involves complex and multiple mechanisms of the whole carbon cycle, differing from simple degassing.
The independence of on time and month temperature changes in relation to CO2 and vice versa is consistent and indicates that more CO2 in the atmosphere did not imply warming. And that only after some warming months CO2 enrichment becomes notable.
The absence of correlation with huge volume of in- dustrial emission to the atmosphere seems a very robust indicator of the independence of temperature variable relative to CO2”
Just what we thought was happening. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way.

Perry

I would appreciate an answer on this sentence.
“Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption.”
What route please? Any ideas?
Regards,
Perry

Dennis Wingo

I found a paper that bolsters this research, from the Antarctic
http://www.epi-us.com/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
Bertler, et al (2004) studied isotope records from snow samples in the McMurdo Dry
Valleys and concluded that warming in areas such as the Antarctic Peninsula and cooling of
the terrestrial Ross Sea region are linked to ENSO changes, not to greenhouse gas effects.

Eric (skeptic)

R Gates is correct when he says “Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2, yet no GCM has ever indicated that such signatures would be found but rather, it is the long-term increase in CO2 since around 1750 (up 40% since that time) that would eventually become the dominant signal upon which other natural cycles would ride. His insistence that various shorter term CO2 fluctuations should be seen in the temperature data is unsupported by any climate model.”
It’s not just the models. A simple examination of the seasonal change will reveal that seasonal CO2 to temperature attribution (or non-attribution) is impossible. At perihelion in early January the solar input increase is far higher than the slight increase in CO2 forcing due to dead vegetation in the NH. Nonetheless, the global average temperature is lower because the SH oceans absorb the extra solar energy. In that dynamic, the seasonal CO2 change simply doesn’t matter.

aaron says: “Ahh, yes. But how much of the PDO change is due to co2.”
The PDO is a statistically manufactured dataset that basically represents the pattern of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N. The PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, and, therefore, has no impact on global temperatures. If fact, the PDO and the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific (north of 20N) are inversely related.

Kevin Kilty says: “Indeed, the integrated PDO series produces a trend line that parallels the global temperature trends nicely.”
Wish to expand on this? The PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N.

latitude

R. Gates says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
Of course he makes throughout the paper that it is a warming earth that is causing the increase in water vapor,
=======================================================
I understood that he’s saying a warming earth causes a rise in CO2 levels.
=======================================================
Gates says: but his conclusion is quite empty in regards to what could be causing that longer term warming that is causing the increase in water vapor.
========================================================
That wasn’t the point of his paper, so he didn’t go there. He’s just saying the correlation between CO2 driving warming is weak, very weak. That CO2 levels are following warming faster than they are following cooling.
==========================================================
Gates says: Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2,
========================================================
I understood that he’s looking for monthly or seasonal CO2 levels from the fluctuations in temperature.
========================================================
Gates says: Finally, it is interesting that he does acknowledge the general increase in water vapor and warming of the oceans over time, without even mentioning the fact that these have both long been cited as one of the effects of general AGW
=========================================================
He’s saying that warming oceans not only release water vapor but also CO2, and the release of CO2 is fast. That it takes a lot longer for cooling oceans to lower CO2 levels back down again.
But that CO2 is obviously not the primary driver, because it can’t be explained by cooling oceans.
Gates in the pdf 3.3……. He disagrees with you…

Baa Humbug

Now we await the inevitable debunking by the ‘team’ duly authored not by one, but 6,7 or even 8 of them to lend weight to their rebuttal paper.
Any takers of bets as to how many authors in the rebuttal paper?

Benjamin Franz says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:53 am
“What a strange journal.
This is in fact only the third volume ever published by the “International Journal of Geosciences” – which published it’s first volume in Nov. 2010 (just two months ago).
The publisher, “SciRP”, has an “interesting” history.”
Thanks for pointing that out. One has to be careful regarding confirmation bias.

highflight56433

Fossil fuel oxidation produces both carbon dioxide and an almost equal amount of dihydrogen monoxide. Typical gasoline is C8H18 when fully oxidized results in eight CO2 and nine dihydrogen monoxide. There were petitioners gathering signatures during the recent IPPC convention to ban the release of dihydrogen monoxide due to environmental concerns.
Based on this paper, if there is no correlation of CO2 to climate anything, then possibly dihydrogen monoxide as pointed out by those petitioners? There appeared to be great concern and enthusiasm to quickly ban the substance.
More Cueve Clicquot? Yes?

LazyTeenager

Joe’s graph is not convincing since the temperature change attributed to CO2 is small over a long time scale.
Comparing that to the large cyclical short time scale changes dies not makes sense.
aND I have always thought the climate skeptic habit of plotting graphs with the 98 El Niño on the far left edge is very tricky. Probably fools a lot of people with 6 th grader reading comprehension skills.

Steve from Rockwood

The Yoda-speak is not the fault of the author but of the journal. The AGW papers are by and large very professional looking and well written. At first you may think they know something.
This paper seems to me to be one of those “baby got thrown out with the bath-water” papers.
This is a bit worrisome [square brackets added by me]:
“The first [point to be considered] is that if a causal relation exists, then removing external trends, increase of residuals in CO2 must imply an increase of residuals in T”
I think AGWers would point out that the trend (in rising temperatures) is due to a rise in CO2 levels. So removing external trends (or looking at residuals, or flux changes) would seem to be the wrong thing to do. Estimating trends has been what this whole mess is all about. I don’t think anyone believes correlation in the short term variations in CO2 and temperature mean anything with respect to climate change.
Won’t a cross-plot of the data from Fig.1 show a strong correlation between CO2 and T, unless I am missing something. Help?

LazyTeenager

Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence.
———-
Errr no. It’s not taken as a premise.

rogerthesurf

I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.
Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.
In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.
As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.
No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.
Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.
The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.
AGW is baloney anyway!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com