WUWT readers may remember way back when…I posted this from Joe D’Aleo:
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2
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:
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
Werner Brozek says:
January 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm
The following may be on interest to you by the Institute of Physics:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Werner, you only have half the story. The IoPs submission was so controversial, that it was forced to make a subsequent statement. A discussion of this is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/13/iop-fires-back-over-criticism-of-their-submission-to-parliament/
In this we find
“The Institute adds that it has long had a “clear” position on global warming, namely that “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.”
I remember following this discussion at the time it occurred. It appeared that someone twisted the IoP’s arm, and forced it to make the second statement. Which completely supports my position on learned societies and CAGW.
Quack scientists don’t know when they are wrong and lying becomes a way of life to them. We need more funding for homes for deranged scientists, not for climate change.
Perry says:
January 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm
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?
==========================================================
Perry in the most simple description:
CO2 – carbon – plants/animals – CO2 as a waste product
That’s a longer process than just off gassing CO2
That would explain why it’s easy for CO2 to off gas, but slower to get it back into the ocean.
There’s something else going on though.
I have a working relationship with CO2, use it jiggle pH.
I know it’s a lot harder to get CO2 into water, than it is to get CO2 out of water.
Don’t know why, it just is what it is, and never really questioned it until now.
Anyone got an idea of why that is?
Well, since Mauna Loa is in the USA, it makes sense to try to find correlations between USA temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels in the USA.
😛
Happy New Year.
I smell a rat!
From this “journal’s” website;
“Scientific Research Publishing (SRP: http://www.scirp.org) is engaged in the service of academic conferences and publications. It also devotes to the promotion of professional journals. The company has an outstanding work team as well as the widespread third party relations, enables our customers to obtain great satisfactions and convenience in their publications.
Name: Scientific Research Publishing, Inc. USA
Mailing address: P. O. BOX 54821 Irvine CA 92619-4821, USA
Email: service@scirp.org
Phone: 408-329-4591″
So proportedly based in the USA, but obviously both the “journal” paper and the website don’t speak or write or edit the English language all that well, if you were ask me.
Also a first volume-first year journal to boot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
“Scientific Research Publishing is an academic publisher of open access electronic journals. The company created a controversy when it was found that its journals duplicated papers which had already been published elsewhere, without notification of or permission from the original author. In addition, some of these journals had listed academics on their editorial boards without their permission or even knowledge, sometimes in fields very different from their own. A spokesperson for the company commented that these issues had been “information-technology mistakes”, which would be corrected.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html
Two new journals copy the old.
It would appear that the Chinese are also good at pirating, err copying, many other things as well, as has been well known for quite some time.
As I read this blog entry, I was dumbfounded an the apparent lack of writing skills displayed in the body of the text. Given that these words were taken directly from the “journal’s” text, it is now apparent as to why this blog entry was so poorly written.
Finally, a single author from Brazil no less (English is obviously NOT their native/first language), sure to set the world on fire in the very near future, or at least the Amazon Rain Forest. 🙂
R. Gates says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
“All in all an interesting paper but suspicious in its circular reasoning.”
===================================
R, since you wrote the book on “circular reasoning”, you might know.
But this paper is definitely not a case of that. It was excellent.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
So let’s see – this paper shows ~10 years of data, which appears to be from the US only. It starts in 1998, the strongest El Niño (cherry-picking, anyone?) in at least the last 100 years.
– 30 years is the time period generally accepted to show statistical significance of warming, based on the variability of weather and climate.
– The global HadCRUT3 record (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/simple_average/) shows considerable warming for the past 60 years. There are some variations in the trend (it’s certainly not monotonic), and the last ~10 years _might_ indicate something interesting in another 10 years or so.
Short term variations – and in global surface temperatures, that’s <30 years – tell you very little about what's going on.
If there HAD been a correlation, you can bet we would have heard about it in the MSM every day. Now, its total silence……
There was a short video-clip from the floods in Australia in todays news here in Norway. Not one word about AGW proponents forecasting droughts.
If it had been opposite, you can be damned sure it would have been mentioned…..
The AGW troika at work. Politicians Scientists for grants MSM
“latitude says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I know it’s a lot harder to get CO2 into water, than it is to get CO2 out of water.
Don’t know why, it just is what it is, and never really questioned it until now.
Anyone got an idea of why that is?”
I had not thought of this either until now, but now that you mention it, it makes sense. When a pop can is opened, the CO2 comes from the whole bottle of pop and fizzes to the top. On the other hand, if you were to take a pop bottle with no CO2, but subject it to a high pressure of CO2, then just the surface area exposed to the CO2 would determine how much dissolves. Make sense?
R Gates
Your post kept commenting on model predictions.
What we all should concentrate on is actual data.
It does not matter that a new theory does not coincide with certain models.
The question is does it explain the data?
Lazyteenager
You say critics of AGW always start the graphs post 1998 (if I remember the date you used correctly). I for one prefer to use all the data available whenever possible. In most cases I use data from about 1850 or there abouts, or at least from 1880. For most of the locations I have looked at temperature, adjusted for UHI, corresponds quite well over lengthy periods,with negative rainfall anomalies, rather than CO2.
Lazyteenager
you said QUOTE But this claim looks just plain wrong. If the oceans give up CO2 on warming then they must do the opposite on cooling UNQUOTE
You are not correct.
Think about opening a bottle of Coke and heating it gently on the stove.
The CO2 will be driven off into the atmosphere.
Then allow it to cool.
The CO2 will not go back in the Coke.
I take what the author is trying to say is that CO2 gets into the oceans by a slow, complicated route.
But that it can be driven out again quite easily if the temperature of the oceans rise.
Steve from Rockwood says: “This paper raises red flags for me. [7 words] Figure 1 seems to prove a positive relationship between global warming and CO2. [12 words] Many of the graph captions do not reference all the traces. [11 words] Most of the sentences are less than 10 words long. [10 words] Some sentences seem to be missing words. [7 words] Was this peer reviewed by Homer Simpson? [7 words] I see a beer cup ring on the lower left of Page 2.[12 words] “
Figure 1 shows no significant relationship. The temperature traces are both flatlined as CO2 continues up and up. Where did you study science?
Knee-jerk, ad hominem attacks on the journal are typical of the intellectual bankruptcy of the AGW movement.
The paper was interesting, but it was difficult to read. Apparently Dr, Soares is a geologist in Brazil, so presumably his native language is Portuguese. While his English is much better than my non-existent Portuguese, it would have helped to have had the paper edited by a native English speaker.
I didn’t understand the abrupt shift from talking about temperature and CO2 correlations, to looking at wavelength versus spectral energy in the discussion. I think his point was that water vapor overwhelms CO2, but then I have never understood spectral density plots (which is what his figure 20 looks like to me).
Is there anyone out there that can explain what his figure 20 means? For instance, at one wavelength the spectral energy is 100%. What does that mean? Does it mean that 100% of the energy at that wavelength is radiated into space? Or what?
At first glance this paper seems to make intuitive sense.
But we should be cautious until we learn more of the author, whether his work is statistically sound and if can be replicated.
I meant to say IF it can be replicated.
I note the full paper is openly available.
That at least is a good start.
I will download it and read it, but I would like one of the professional statisticans at this site to give it a good going over.
latitude says: “…I know it’s a lot harder to get CO2 into water, than it is to get CO2 out of water. Don’t know why, it just is what it is, and never really questioned it until now. Anyone got an idea of why that is?”
You’ll note if you uncap a clear bottle of warm club soda that CO2 bubbles are evolved not just from the top surface, but all the way to the bottom of the bottle. So it is with the ocean as it heats up: CO2 is given off within a thick layer of ocean. Readsorption, on the other hand, is limited by the surface area. Rain may be the fastest route for CO2 back to the oceans, since there’s a lot more surface area available.
Werner Brozek says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Make sense?
==============================
Yep
Now I’ve got to find out why it’s easier to get CO2 out of water, than into water.
Never really gave it much thought before. It’s just one of those things that you know is true, so you work with it, and don’t question it.
Yet I also know that even though it’s hard to get CO2 into water, water can hold a lot of CO2 once you get it in there.
Off to get my pH pen and play around some……….
jorgekafkazar says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Readsorption, on the other hand, is limited by the surface area
===============================================
Jorge, we were posting at the same time.
You’re right, atmospheric CO2 would be limited by surface area.
Where in the ocean, you have things that are producing CO2.
Problem is, it’s more biology than chemistry.
As much as the ocean is dependent on CO2 for carbon, CO2 is not the only source for carbon. But all sources of carbon can end up as CO2.
Just the way it is…
I need to sit down and read this paper.
John
If correlation does not equal causation, does dis-correlation equal causation?(sarc off)
Happy New Year Anthony (keeping hope alive in this freezing cold -8 (-22c)world) *Hot* Watt.
“Jim Cripwell says:
January 1, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Werner, you only have half the story.”
Thank you for your reply. I did ask a “warmist” the question below. See the question and his answer.
3) Do you consider the Institute of Physics a denialist organization?
No, but the Energy sub-group of the IOP has been infiltrated by denialists, and a denialist drafted their report which was submitted to parliament. That said, IOP does support theory of AGW.
R. Gates says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
“….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)……”
Very carefully worded there I see, as ever.
Let’s put to one side the solar effects beyond TSI. Let’s put to another side the improbability of a gas heating a liquid based on the real-world numbers we see.
Let’s play the TSI game.
TSI hasn’t increased over the past 50-odd years, true. However, it has stabilised at a level not seen in AT LEAST 400 years, probably a thousand years, possibly much longer. So a few questions:
1) How long would this sustained, heightened level of TSI be expected to take to feed into raising ocean temperatures, as (ceteris paribus) it surely must?
2) For how long would this sustained, heightened level of TSI be expected to have a continued positive impact on ocean temperatures, as (ceteris paribus) it surely must?
3) At what point would this sustained, heightened level of TSI have had all the impact on temperatures it was going to, by when temperatures would stabilise, as (ceteris paribus) they surely must?
4) Can the temperature record of a rise in the mid-70s through to the past decade, followed by a period of stability, be better explained by a TSI control knob or by a pretty monotonous rise in atmospheric CO2 levels across the period?
EFS_Junior says: “I smell a rat…”, January 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm
EFS:
This publisher has good and not so good magazines, you are right. Many in their editorial boards are high class scientists, probably much better than many of the mainstream pseudiscientist editors of peer reviewed journals that close doors to everything not matching their political agenda (peer rejection of truth-seekers, pal review of friends’ mediocre articles, intimidation of editorial boards, etc.), all well known practices in the current science filtering process. Others are possibly not so good (or less well known): Maybe because of the many foreighners? (I spottet some citizens of Pachauir’s country).
Let’s go into some logic:
Assume this article was all true and sound: Do you think that Nature or Science and all the other mainstream journals would let it go thru? It would certainly be destroyed by the mafia’s pal review or delayed until the author gives up.
(Meanwhile I rank these to formerly highly respected Magazines at the bottom of the scale, because they are more servants of politics than of science).
I admire editors and scientists that have the guts to go forward with such publications; they must be confident having a ‘well defendable’ quality in view of the avalanche of ad hominem attacks certainly approaching. How dare Brasilians touch the holy grail of ‘Climate Science’ if they only have soccer, Caipirinha and Copacabana (at least, that is was the huge crowd appreciate them for). They cannot be scientists!
BTW, can you tell me what a ‘scientist’ is? Are you one?
What about reading the article and judging it on the basis of its scientific substance? This would be a sound approach, giving an example to all those Nature-Gatekeepers who lost their capacity for rational debate.
As a neighbor of this beautiful country, I love Brasil first and foremost for the quality of his people. I speak Spanish with them, they reply in Portuguese and nobody cares about hearing on ocassion something that sounds a bit strange.
fegerico, that was one of the nicest posts I’ve read in a long time, thank you.
“”BTW, can you tell me what a ‘scientist’ is? Are you one?””
Scientist; someone that does not have the slightest clue, and is trying to get one………
EFS_Junior says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I smell a rat!
=======================
The only thing that stinks of a rat here…is your vicious and prejudiced “from Brasil” comment.
Folks the more the current entrenched alarmist Establishment gets challenged, the more vicious, non-cerebral, and frankly insulting….their tactics become.
Expect it, unfortunately.
Reading an interesting book called “The Deniers” right now on the subject….about the scientists who dare to scientifically challenge the sacred tenets of the Church of the CAGW…and end up getting ostracized and/or defamed, for it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA