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
The lack of correlation between CO2 as a causal factor and consequential temperature rise has been increasingly obvious since 1998 when the temperature apparently started to level off with a continuing rise in CO2 level. What is baffling is why a vastly complex set of interrelated factors should have ever come to be portrayed as an oversimplified single cause /effect relationship which even got as far as a United Nations supported international seal of approval. For anyone interested in some of the complexities can I be so bold as to suggest glancing at my paper on the Science of Global Warming posted on http://billpeddie.wordpress.com
peddiebill says:
January 1, 2011 at 8:03 pm
“What is baffling is why a vastly complex set of interrelated factors should have ever come to be portrayed as an oversimplified single cause /effect relationship which even got as far as a United Nations supported international seal of approval. ”
=================================
Exactly! Well said.
Then again, we are talking about the United Nations here, a failed, money-grubbing, international, bureaucratic disaster of epic proportions. Not exactly the gold standard.
No wonder they are so easily duped!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
CAGW enthusiasts make much of the apparent disparity between GISTEMP (the alarmists’ preferred series) and the solar irradiance trend over the past 30 years or so:
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/tsi_temp_anom_chart_1880_20092.png
Solar irradiance and temperature seem to correlate well over three centuries but from circa 1980, GISTEMP has been increasing while the TSI has been declining from a peak around 1960:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif
‘Global dimming’ is the offsetting effect that the CAGW crowd use to explain the lack of warming due to the dramatic increase in post-war CO2 emissions c.1945 – c. 1980, but that can, of course, also explain the TSI / temperature discrepancy:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/graphics/diminggraphic.gif/image
There has been “brightening since 1990” (Wiki) and the TSI, while declining, is still at a relatively high level and it is worth noting that while GISTEMP increased 1980 – 1990, UAH declined:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1990/trend/offset:-0.18/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1990/trend
So the temperature rise in the last 20 or so years could be the result of ‘catchup’, i.e. the temperature that would have been reached due to ‘undiluted’ TSI (with some help from CO2 no doubt) around the peak in the early sixties.
The temperature stasis or slight decline in the last ~10 years is more consistent with the TSI trend than CO2.
Let’s see now. CO2 is 385 parts per million in the atmosphere.
385/1,ooo,ooo times 25,000 is: 9.625. Equivalent to less than 10 gallons in a 25,000 gallon swiming pool.
Hmmmmm. Lots of swiming pools have 4 or 5 incadescent 4o watt light bulbs, say 200 watts of heating power. Of course they “heat” the water in the swimming pool . . . but nowhere near enough to be measured. Put 10 gallons of boiling water into that 25,000 gallons when the water is frigid, mix well. Yell out, “Hey gals and guys, I just warmed up the frigid pool, jump right in!” Then, better hide a good long bit. Calcs are calcs. “But I just warmed it up with 10 gallons of boiling water” just isn’t going to cut it.
Warmists are one-note Johnnies, pretending they have written a beautiful musical opus.
Perhaps some climate “scientists” best be looking for a place to hide, about now.
I smell a very big rat with “Scientific Research Publishing”.
It is run by Chinese. It has the highest page rank in Iran. Anything can be published in their journals.
The above article is mostly just junk, unfortunately.
Jari says:
January 2, 2011 at 1:44 am
Your proof ? Just because it’s in a journal of which you don’t approve doecn’t mean it’s “junk”. You are just adopting the usual AGW follower’s mantra. Show us your reasoning.
Oh, c’mon, guys – how can you possibly say that water vapour is the main driver of climate..?
Its GOT to be CO2 – obviously – because how could the politicians tax clouds..??
It’s a travesty we’re letting all that heat escape. We could be using it to frighten the populace into enslavement.
=========
There is crap in good journals and good stuff in bad journals, and vice versa. You have have to look at the individual article and evaluate it. Judging by publisher prestige is too inaccurate.
When I first read the paper I was also struck by the finding that CO2 was released faster than it was absorbed. It makes sense that CO2 is released as a function of the volume of water heated, but absorbed as a function of the area of the water cooled. The warming of the top layers of the ocean would thus release vast quantities of CO2 in the spring and summer in each hemisphere, matching the observations. The lack of rainfall towards the poles would limit the rate this would be absorbed.
I did a search on Google scholar and found that the author of this paper has two previous publications in English, including an article in 1978 in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America. He also has quite a few publications in Portuguese about geography and geology, but none that I noticed about about climate change.
Every week I get one or two emails inviting me to publish in scientific journals that I have never heard of, mostly with titles not related to my area of expertise. This seems to be a new phenomenon in the last year or two. The publisher of this journal has a reputation for “bogus journals.” I don’t know how such journals would make money–research libraries are hard put to subscribe to mainline journals and I doubt that many individuals would be willing to put on the money. In anycase, if this really is a “peer-reviewed” journal it’s at the lowest of the low.
latitude says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Excuse me, I was away for a bit, just got back, haven’t had a chance to the paper.
Another path for CO2 to enter the ocean (and lakes, ponds, etc.) is rain. It doesn’t take much of a rain storm for the rain drops to have a much greater surface area then the surface they’re landing on. (A rainfall with a measured depth equal to the raindrop size likely has a greater surface area than the rained upon surface. Need to think a bit about spherical packing and all that.) Raindrops may even be supersaturated for CO2 unless they fall on water that’s close to the freezing point.
—–
BTW, Ernest Hemingway wrote with short declarative sentences. Strunk & White like that style too.
So the science is not settled?? I have to call my broker and tell him to wait on investing in the carbon exchange.
latitude says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Hmm. I always thought it was easy. When I was a kid I was fascinated by Dad’s seltzer bottle. Why was it so heavy? Why was there a mesh made out of steel wire ribbons around it? Dad put a CO2 cartridge in a sleeve that screwed on to the top. He’d tighten it down – there’d be a muffled whoosh and bubbles came out a tube that went to the bottom of the bottle. Then he’d remove the cartridge and give it to me. It’s cold! How can it be cold? All the others in the box are at room temperature. That would take my mind off the bubbles in the bottom. If the idea was to make water you could spray, getting the CO2 to the bottom seemed like a pointless step.
No matter, those cold spent cartridges were way cool. 🙂
Thanks Anthony, may the Force be with you!
Very interesting paper by Soares. The best explanation I have read for the annual variation of CO2 level at Mauna Loa. [And it is not hidden behind a toll.]
In my opinion, Soares is not only right, he is a brave man, to write this from Brazil, a leftist-dominated country.
That his English is a little odd does not bother me, having read The Little Prince:
“I have serious reason to believe that the planet from which the little prince came is the asteroid known as B-612.
This asteroid has only once been seen through the telescope. That was by a Turkish astronomer, in 1909.
On making his discovery, the astronomer had presented it to the International Astronomical Congress, in a great demonstration. But he was in Turkish costume, and so nobody would believe what he said.
Grown-ups are like that…”
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, 1961, not peer-reviewed.
See http://home.pacific.net.hk/~rebylee/text/prince/4.html
I have linked to this paper from my “Observatorio ARVAL – Climate Change; The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm (in Spanish at http://www.oarval.org/CambioClima.htm)
A much better New Year for all of good will!
Marie Antoinette …… Let them eat cake !
Nicolae Ceauşescu …….Comrades – Comrades !
The über-rich ?
The emporers new clothes …… teee heeee !
For all the global warming thumpers out there let me simplify what this article says. I know you all hypnotically repeat what you are told though you don’t understand it so perhaps it’s futile but… When the oceans are warmer they can’t hold as much CO2.(You do realize warm sodas go flat faster right, same principle). So increasing temperatures cause the level of CO2 to rise. The temperature increases because the sun heats the earth more at some times than at others. Increases in CO2 are not going to change the amount of heat that radiates back to space. The evidence shows it is very ineffective at doing so. Water vapor is much more effective. ( A dry area like deserts have a rapid temperature drop at night whereas humid areas do not-same principle). The readings show that the change in Earths temperature correlate to the change in the suns activity and there is absolutely NO correlation to man made CO2 levels. Now, those that belong to the cult of global warming can go drink your cool aid and die because your god has just been shown to be a phony.You do not have the power to save the world, because men do not have the power to destroy it. Everything you warmists have based your life on is false and you are meaningless fools that don’t matter, although you desperately want to feel like your lives do by judging others for driving cars and using electricity.
I understand nothing in this article, beyond me. But I do know the earth has gone through more than one Ice Age, and we are not in an Ice Age now. So what happen? Didn’t the earth have to warm to bring and end to them?
Prior to the little Ice Age the earth had significant warming, which greatly benefited mankind. Then the Little Ice Age set in for decades, followed by warming again.
Guess them old cats was running around in their SUVs pumping out CO2.
AusieDan says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:25 pm
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?
_____
No it does not. It describes the data but offers no viable explanation for the source of LONG TERM warming of the oceans. There are only three possible sources for long term ocean warming:
1) Increased Solar Insolation
2) Increased GH effect from greater amounts of both CO2 and water vapor
3) Internal heat from the core of the earth (underwater volcanic activity)
#1 is not indicated by the data during the period in question
#2 is THE ISSUE skeptics and warmists love to battle about
#3 is possible, but it there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity during the period in question.
R. Gates says:
There are only three possible sources for long term ocean warming:
1) Increased Solar Insolation
2) Increased GH effect from greater amounts of both CO2 and water vapor
3) Internal heat from the core of the earth (underwater volcanic activity)
#1 is not indicated by the data during the period in question
#2 is THE ISSUE skeptics and warmists love to battle about
#3 is possible, but it there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity during the period in question.
==================================
As usual, R Gates is talking out of his rear end.
He needs to cite the evidence for #2 that increased CO2 and GHG produces long term ocean warming.
And he needs to cite the evidence for his claim in #3 “there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity.”
And he needs to realize, that, in #1 , just like his previous ill-informed description of the “AGW models” which he eventually had to correct himself and start calling them “GCMs”, that “increased solar insolation” is REDUNDANT.
There is no other “insolation” than solar.
Duh! Busted again….and again….and again.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
January 2, 2011 at 3:47 pm
#3 is possible, but it there is no proof that there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity during the period in question.
This study suggests that geothermal heating of the oceans has been seriously underestimated all along
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
allready knew this al gore a bullshiter ,it’s about the sunspots .but libs think there gods and can controll life here on earth
A wonderful scientific paper that fits right in on WUWT. Well done, Anthony!
Clearly anti-correlation is a sign of correlation, knuckle draggers.
Anything is possible said:
January 1, 2011 at 10:40 am
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!
What I make of it is that there is an excellent correlation (assuming n is large) between HadCRUt global temperatures & the use of performance enhancing drugs in MLB. My hypothesis is that the drugs cause increased sweating to compensate for the higher temperatures. 8<)