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

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.)

“. 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……….

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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