Guest post by Joe Bastardi, WeatherBell
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner ( Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred in many forms but can not be created or destroyed.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. In a debate, someone argued just because it is small doesn’t mean it is not important. After all even a drop with 0.042 gm of arsenic could kill an adult. Yes but put the same drop in the ocean or a reservoir and no one dies or gets ill.
Then there is the energy budget. The amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the energy in y the oceans. Trying to measure the changes from a trace gas in the atmosphere, if it were shown to definitively play a role in change (and it never has), is a daunting task.
NASA satellites suggest that the heat the models say is trapped, is really escaping to space, that the ‘sensitivity’ of the atmosphere to CO2 is low and the model assumed positive feedbacks of water vapor and clouds are really negative. Even IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth said “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
We are told that the warming in the period of warming from 1800 was evidence of man-made global warming. They especially point to the warming from 1977 to 1998 which was shown by all measures and the fact that CO2 rose during those two decades. And we hear that this warming has to be man-made with statements like “what else could it be?”
However, correlation does not mean causation. Indeed inconveniently despite efforts to minimize or ignore it, the earth cooled from the 1940s to the late 1970s and warming ceased after 1998, even as CO2 rose at a steady pace. Some have been forced to admit some natural factors may play a role in this periodic cooling. If that is the case, why could these same natural factors play a key role in the warming periods too.
Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. After a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity after 1800 to the grand maximum in the late twentieth century could be argued as the ultimate cause of any warming through the introduction of extra energy into the oceans, land and then the atmosphere.
The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.
Then there is a little matter of real world observation of how work done affects the system it is being done on. When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earth’s temperature has leveled off, if CO2, the alleged warming driver continues to rise?
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper. These use real world observations not tinker toy models nor an 186 year old theory that has never been validated.
Finally, as to the matter of LeChateliers principle. The earth is always in a state of imbalance and weather is the way the imbalances are corrected in the atmosphere. Extreme weather occurs when factors that increase imbalances are occurring. The extremes represent an attempt to return to a state of equilibrium.
The recent flurry of severe weather – for instance, record cold and snow, floods, tornadoes,, is much more likely to be a sign of cooling rather than warming. The observational data shows the earth’s mid levels have cooled dramatically and ocean heat content and atmospheric temperatures have been stable or declined. Cooling atmospheres are more unstable and produce greater contrasts and these contrasts drive storms, storms drive severe weather. A warmer earth produces a climate optimum with less extremes as we enjoyed in the late 20th century and other time in history when the great civilizations flourished.
Time will provide the answer. Over the next few decades, with the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing towards states that favor cooling, there should be a drop in global temperatures as measured by objective satellite measurement, at least back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temperatures warm despite these natural cycles, you carry the day. We won’t have to wait the full 20-30 year period. I believe we will have our answer before this decade is done.
UPDATE: I’m told that a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week. Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world. Also, about 3 hours after the original post, I added 3 graphics from Joe which should have been in the original, apologies. – Anthony
HenryP August 14, 2011 at 4:16 am
asks,”Slioch, what is your point?”
I would have thought that was obvious. They have been several posts in this thread asking what would be the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 if humans had not existed. I continued that theme and answered that question.
The articles you post, from a Christian blogger, are not scientific papers, do not address the issue which I was answering and are replete with errors.
HenryP August 14, 2011 at 4:16 am
asks,”Slioch, what is your point?”
I would have thought that was obvious. There have been several posts in this thread asking what would be the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 if humans had not existed. I continued that theme and answered that question.
The articles you post, from a Christian blogger, are not scientific papers, do not address the issue which I was answering and are replete with errors.
Henry@P Wilson
I’d like to query that. Where do you get that relationship from, that shows wavelength against K?
Reply:
Wien’s displacement law expresses the relationship between temperature and wavelength. The two factors are inversely proportional, so the shorter the wavelength, the higher the temperature.
Henry@Slioch, John B
The point is that as far as warming is concerned, the increase in CO2 does not do anything.
The paper that Slioch quotes does not tell me how the values were arrived at. It is probably looking at the problem from the wrong end, i.e. assuming that global warming is caused by the increase in GHG’s and then working your way back.
Why do my values never confirm what Slioch and the likes of him are claiming?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
As far as the bisophere is concerned more CO2 is better as it promotes greenery.
Why is it that the very same people that trust nothing about temperature measurements and temperature reconstructions……
……treat CO2 reconstructions like they are the holy grail
CO2 is a lot harder to reconstruct………….
to: benfrommo
If your query on the cause of increasing CO2 was directed at me, based on my earlier comment —-
While the current increasing levels of CO2 may have been brought on by the usual carbon cycle, I do indeed suspect that industrial activity is, in any event, also contributing to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. But, so what? The relevant issue remains unaddressed by the Warmistas — denial of satellite temperature readings, denial of the recent ocean cooling, and denial of the MWP and earlier warming periods during this interglacial which could not have possibly been brought on by man’s activities, and all this is compounded by the fact that there is NO (none, nada, zilch) evidence that CO2 has contributed in any measurable way to the planet’s recent increases in temperature. In fact, all the available data indicates that in the distant past the variations in the level of CO2 have been brought on by much earlier variations in temperature, no doubt, to the carbon cycle. More recently, since the industrial revolution, while CO2 has constantly trended upwards, there have been several sustained periods of cooling, or flat temperatures, the two most recent being from 1940s to 1970s and from 1998 to present. No short term correlation at all between CO2 level and the planet’s temperature.
In spite of Trenberth’s ludicrous position, the null hypothesis must remain: Global warming, as well as climate change, are natural events, and that must remain the case unless (credible) scientists can produce strong evidence to the contrary.
While, in the long run it’s a no-brainer to continue searching for ways to reduce our “footprint”, the slow increase in CO2 (2ppmv annually) is nowhere near the crisis point which the UN (and liberal politicians of every stripe) claim. (These folks never want to miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis — H.L.Mencken said it better.) The CO2 level has been much higher in the distant past, we know that plants love more of it, and submarine crews have done quite well in CO2 levels of 3000 to 5000 ppmv.)
Volker Doormann,
Thanks,very cool. Way over my head though but I think I get the gist. My husband was really into studying the earth’s wobbles and shifts in the magnetic field while in school. He worked a lot with the data from The Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) . My husband calls it all …the dance. 🙂 People don’t know that there are more little wobble/dances then just the Milankovitch Cycles that are not well understood. “free nutation” is it called? 7000 to 5000 yrs ago for instance, the Sahara Desert was a green lush place to live. (That climate change had nothing to do with CO2 concentrations did it?) From an article on the subject it says: “The green Sahara episodes correspond with the changing direction of the earth’s rotational axis that regulates the solar energy in the tropical Atlantic Ocean.” Bottom line; none of this is as well understood as some people like to claim. I think its because they grew up with instant gratification and never took a geology class. 😉
R Gates, whatever! Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have been lower then now and it still got warm.125,000 yrs ago sea level high stands were up to 20 ft higher; Greenland probably had no ice-CO2 concentrations lower. So what are you going on about? We are NO WHERE near that now even with your human added CO2. Concentrations of CO2 have been thousands of times higher and it still got cold on Earth for that matter; for 100s of thousand of years according to the geologic record. All you have is a computer model telling you to worry about CO2 “now”. The geologic record says no such thing.
While I agree with Joe Bastardi, he is missing some very important information- there is experimental data that proves that the Hypotheses of “greenhouse gas effect” does not exists. The first to prove that the”ghg effect” does not exist was Robert W. Wood a professor of physics and optics at John Hopkins University. This was published and peer reviewed in 1909.
This work has been redocumented ;here is the reference” Wood is correct: There is no Greenhouse Effect.
Posted on July 19, 2011 by Dr. Ed
Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse (Summary by Ed Berry. Full report here or here. & PolyMontana.)
by Nasif S. Nahle, June 12, 2011
University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico.
In addition there is another experiment that is under review that also proves that the”greenhouse gas effect does not exist”.
If you want to review and do the experiment while it is being reviewed by competition physicists, go to: http://www.GreatClimateClash.com in the December, 2010 archives The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist by Berthold Klein, look at section 10 the Demonstration.
R. Gates says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm
[long post, not reproducing] 🙂
I haven’t heard of DMS, so I will look it up, thanks.
If you are citing phytoplankton, wouldn’t you think that effect would be a bit shorter than 800 years? Unless you are saying there is a gradual decrease in dust over 800 years? I’m not sure why that would be the case as glaciers recede and expose more land that would very likely have a fair amount of dust to contribute. And with regard to phytoplankton, I don’t see why that process would take 800 years to complete. I realize geological timescales are different, but phytoplankton doesn’t respond on those timescales. Their effect would be the sum of the effect on each generation of phytoplankton, and I’m not sure what your explanation of the 800 year difference is. And as far as the dust levels being higher during the colder periods, can we agree that it might just as well be attributed to less water vapor in the atmosphere, and less water in general to catch dust in? During ice ages, I’m sure that any dust that precipitates out of the atmosphere is taken up by it soon after, given the odds it lands on dry ice. As the ice starts melting, I’d think all the wet water (surely a scientific term) would trap the dust much better than all the drier ice surfaces.
Have a good Sunday.
P Wilson says
Wien’s displacement law expresses the relationship between temperature and wavelength. The two factors are inversely proportional, so the shorter the wavelength, the higher the temperature.
Sorry for my ignorance. I don’t get it.Yet. I think it should be higher energy.
The problem that I have is that what is described in a law must be experienced in practice.
e.g I can feel the heat of IR but UV burns without you even being aware of the heat.
Why is that?
but even after googling this law
I cannot see how you can come at -36C (or the K equivalent) ) for the 14-15 um (where CO2 absorbs)
Can you show me how you came to that?
Cleanwater2 says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/#comment-719361
Well it (a GH effect) may exist but you have to come with a balance sheet of each GHG
(which nobody has, really, up to now)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Henry@clearwater2
BTW the link you gave
http://www.greatclimateclash.com/
does not work
Blade says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/#comment-719234
Very good post!
Could not have said it better myself…
David Falkner says:
August 14, 2011 at 8:45 am
R. Gates says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm
[long post, not reproducing] 🙂
I haven’t heard of DMS, so I will look it up, thanks.
If you are citing phytoplankton, wouldn’t you think that effect would be a bit shorter than 800 years? Unless you are saying there is a gradual decrease in dust over 800 years?
____
Yes, of course it takes a while to begin the process of warming the oceans up enough such that evaporation increases, dust decreases, and the amount of DMS produced by phytoplankton activities is reduced while at the same time, the level of CO2 absorbed by the phytoplankton is reduced. It must also be remembered that the two positive feedbacks: Outgassing of CO2 and the Dust/phytoplankton/DMS/Cloud, since they are ocean processes, and and such, have to “wait” for the large thermal profile of the ocean to change, which takes a while given the gradual changes in insolation brought about by the Milankovitch forcings.
BTW, I think you’ll find the entire area of phytoplankton/DMS research to be quite eye opening. At least it certainly was for me.
Liza Robinson said:
“125,000 yrs ago sea level high stands were up to 20 ft higher; Greenland probably had no ice…”
___
Might want to talk to your expert husband on this issue, but Greenland had LOTS of ice 125,000 years ago.
Slioch says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:46 am
In Summary:
The increase in atmospheric CO2 in recent centuries is entirely caused by human activities. In the absence of humans, evidence suggests that current levels would be below 280ppmv, and perhaps as low as 240ppmv
=====================================================================
Well of course it would….plants and other natural processes will lower it until it becomes limiting….
…any small burp after that…and everything dies
After doing some thinking about the physics, I am pretty sure the actual equation describing “forcing” will be something of the form:
(BTW, I am on a Windows box instead of one of my normal Unix/Linux boxes so I don’t have the knowledge of the mechanisms used for proper equation entry)
F = K * ln( d[CO2] + sumof( a[i] * d[i])), where “i” iterates all of the other atmospheric GHG, ‘d’ is concentration in parts/cm^3, the ‘a’ are normalized so that a[CO2] = 1.
If one removes all of the GHG with ‘a’ < 1, the remaining GHG will still swamp the contribution due to CO2 to insignificance.
Liza Robinson says:
August 14, 2011 at 8:33 am
“Volker Doormann,
Thanks,very cool. Way over my head though but I think I get the gist. My husband was really into studying the earth’s wobbles and shifts in the magnetic field while in school. He worked a lot with the data from The Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) . My husband calls it all …the dance. 🙂 People don’t know that there are more little wobble/dances then just the Milankovitch Cycles that are not well understood. “free nutation” is it called? 7000 to 5000 yrs ago for instance, the Sahara Desert was a green lush place to live. (That climate change had nothing to do with CO2 concentrations did it?) From an article on the subject it says: “The green Sahara episodes correspond with the changing direction of the earth’s rotational axis that regulates the solar energy in the tropical Atlantic Ocean.” Bottom line; none of this is as well understood as some people like to claim. I think its because they grew up with instant gratification and never took a geology class. ;-)”
Liza Robinson,
I like that joke a Mexican taxi driver heard that Jesus was born in Near East, Palestine, and he was asking ‘Why then he got a Mexican name?’ But seriously, I agree with that there are a lot of unexplained phenomena in the land of natural science. In the time I have looked for the higher frequencies of the terrestrial temperatures than the frequency of the Little Ice Ages, it was obvious to me that the earth oscillations of the fluids on the surface and its impedances are superimposed to the solar functions and the planets. For the changing of the global temperature on a decadal scale, it is known that the earth because of its shape wobbles with a frequency of 1/1.1855 years (Chandler), and that the fluids (air and oceans) on the surface of the earth resonates with the half frequency of 1/2.371 years or 28.45 month. Because of the heat content of the water of the oceans this leads to phases called El Niño e Southern Oscillation (ENSO) occurring again with an average of a half frequency of 1/4.742 years or 57 month.
Quote: “The global sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly data from 1950 to 1996 were used to analyze spatial characters of interdecadal SST variations. A wavelet transform was made for the equatorial eastern Pacific SST anomaly time series. Results show that there are three remarkable timescale SST variations: 130-month interdecadal variation, 57-month interannual variation and 28-month quasi-2-a variation. (QlAN Weihong et al.)” (In a recent WUWT posting: “Climate variability in East Africa & El Niño Southern Oscillation” it is spoken about an evidence that the ENSO frequencies are present until 20000 years in East Africa.) 🙂
This all gives some difficulties to separate the solar heat current from the oscillating impedances of the oceans and for a simulation of the global climate on a scale of month. On the other side it could be a method to learn more on the causes of the climate factors, simulating the solar function from the planets in high resolution.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_1600.gif
By filtering the high frequency temperatures of about > 1/10 years ^-1 one can find a good correlation with temperature proxies like stalagmites in the alps:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/comnispa_vs_x.jpg
Unfortunately it is ever a brave crest wandering touching the unknown from the side of the established science world powered only by the inner truth, as Joe B. has said.
I like that statement from Carl Sagan: “No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
(Carl Sagan)
Thanks for reading.
V.
reply to post by: DesertYote says: August 12, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Hi DesertYote,
I suspect the reason that you didn’t get many direct replies is because the effect of various concentrations of GHGs’ in the atmosphere is such a complicated issue – not an easy one to address well in blog comments.
I believe that your premise of varied concentrations of GHGs is too simplistic – that it would clearly be one aspect that would have to be factored in, but wouldn’t be anything close to accurate or correct taken by itself. Other parameters that would have to factored in include things such as the dispersion pattern within the atmosphere, the wavelengths each type of GHG can absorb and the point at which they reach saturation, interactions with other atmospheric molecules, possible interference from other types of GHGs, and so on. There are probably other ‘big picture’ aspects that I’ve missed, just coming off the top of my head here.
In other words, for your mathmatical equation to work, you would have to add in all sorts of other variables to the equation. As just an initial example, for your equation:
atmosphere A) with x PPM CO2 and y PPM of CH4, and
atmosphere B) with x PPM CO2 and 2y PPM of CH4
to work, we would have to assume that the molecules of CO2 and CH4 act identically in terms of their power as a GHG, and that they are evenly and equally dispersed throughout the atmosphere, interact identically with the surrounding atmosphere, etc. All aspects that don’t hold true for those two types of molecules, let alone all the other GHGs including water vapor. Of course for this atmospheric only experiment we would also have to assume each molecular species remains constant in the atmosphere too, ignoring the reality of the dynamic natural cycles or changes that occur because of interactions with plant and animal life, rocks, oceans, weather patterns, duration in the atmosphere, and so on.
So for your mathmatical representation to work, you would have to alter it to account for all of these other factors (plus I imagine some I’ve missed). Then somehow also manage to account for the huge uncertainty we’ve got in current levels of understanding of some of those very factors….
In other words, a very complicated subject all the way around, not easily represented without some pretty complicated mathmatical formulas if you really want to get down to the estimated forcing from one type of GHG as compared to another.
Anyhow, that’s my take on it, for whatever it’s worth.
Henry@DesertYote
Assuming average water vapour is 0.5%, CO2 is 0.04% and the rest is 0.02, then we find that the increase of 0.01% in CO2 of the past 50 years is ca. 0.01/0.55 x 100= 1.8%
But now, oxygen also absorbs in the 14-15 region……
This could account for a large part of earth’s missing 14-15 radiation as the oxygen content in the atmosphere is almost 21%. It is a very weak absorption but nonetheless it is there. This makes your formula or any attempt to a formula a bit futile.
There is no AGW or CAGW literature I could find that even acknowledges that oxygen has this (weak) absorption or even that it is a GHG.
reply to post by: Punch says: August 13, 2011 at 2:13 am
It seems to me that you are missing a key aspect of AGW skepticism – that most of us already wholeheartedly believe and embrace the idea; that mankinds current state of science wrt global climate is in its infancy, and that we most certainly do NOT have or understand all of the related facts.
This is a key aspect of disagreement with the AGW crowd – the AGW supporters keep trying to claim that ‘the science is settled’ and that we absolutely know enough to be certain that CO2 is the driver, man is the cause of the bulk of the supposed drastic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, and so on.
Meanwhile the skeptics (which, by the way, OUGHT to include ALL scientists, if they are real scientists, but somehow this fact seems to elude many of the most prominent ‘climate scientists’)… anyhow, meanwhile the skeptics in large part are saying that there are many many factors that are crucial to the issue that we don’t know nearly enough about to even begin to claim that the science is settled or that we know CO2 is a major player, etc.
That it is ridiculous, if not criminal, to spend trillions of dollars and re-order our entire society, life styles, and standard of living as if we know enough about these things to be even close to being certain, when in fact we don’t. That there are many many more pressing things for mankind to spend the money on, things that we know beyond doubt are causing massive amounts of misery and death around the world, and/or things that show far greater promise to advance mankind, rather than expending our resources on something that is so tenuous and questionable, and where the goalposts keep being moved as key tenets of the hypothesis are overturned, and the issue as currently presented by AGW ‘scientists’ is for the most part not falsifiable.
In other words, we already admit what you seem to think happening to be wrong on a single estimated prediction of one aspect of the whole AGW meme, during a single year no less, would somehow force us to admit. Meanwhile, we just want you guys to admit it yourselves! :0)
“Time Lag!”
Salby and Bastardi’s claims require there to be essentially none. Temps go up, and CO2 goes right up with it.
“This box is all about CO2 and its necessary *immediate* effects upon temperature according to their AGW…”
The effects of CO2 on temps take some time to materialize, as anybody who actually looked at what climate scientists have said would know. The yearly warming trend is a lot smaller than the year to year variation caused by things like ENSO. Much of the warming expected comes from slow feedbacks. Really, your statement is a strawman. Nobody is predicting a monotonic year to year increase in lower tropospheric temps.
“Ice ages can last millions of years (2.5 million and counting for our currrent Pleistocene), interglacials can last tens of thousands of years (12 thousand for our current Holocene). These two examples vastly dwarf the 800 years or so time lag that the available data seems to indicate from warming episode to atmospheric CO2 increase.”
And yet, even with the last interglacial being warmer than now, and lasting a lot longer than the current warming to boot (or the MWP, which you claim is what is causing the current CO2 increase), CO2 levels never went over 300ppmv. They are now over 390 ppmv. Surely the Eemian interglacial lasted long enough and was warm enough for CO2 levels to top current levels. They didn’t even come close. Salby and Bastardi’s claims are refuted by the evidence.
reply to post by: Chris Colose says: August 13, 2011 at 10:16 am
I’m sorry, but I’m finding it very difficult to be anything other than blunt in reply to these statements by Colose, because they have got to be some of the most arrogant and ignorant statements I’ve seen in some time.
Chris is apparently oblivious to the fact that a massive amount of ‘serious’ scientific debate occurs in the lab, and verbally among both one’s peers in the office or over longer distances by phone and email, and even in the Q&A portions of society presentations. ‘Serious’ scientific debate even occurs with scientists from entirely different disciplines who can help evaluate the base science and logic being used or considered, and this can often be extremely valuable (it’s a shame it’s not done more often!). Occassionally even on blogs, when scientists encounter good ideas or discussions, regardless of the source. Passable scientists (or better) simply don’t limit their ‘serious’ debate to the rarefied atmosphere of solely themselves and academic literature, although I image there may be the rare exception. Such a limitation would be a massive blow to scientific progress.
Meanwhile the claim that there are virtually no remaining ‘skeptical’ climate experts publishing in the literature aside from ‘the Alabama duo and Lindzen’ is absurd on the face of it. It shows that either Chris is horribly ignorant of recent relevant literature, or that he very selectively cherry picks and applies double standards to who he views as ‘climate experts.’
It’s very distressing to see someone working on a graduate degree in the sciences who appears so blinded by bias and a serious lack of understanding of some of the most basic scientific tenets. I’d be inclined to write it off as a one-off, except that the whole ‘climate science’ field appears to be riddled with such types. Which tells us very clearly that there are serious problems in the universities and with the professors who are turning out such types.
Volker Doormann says:
August 14, 2011 at 11:47 am
For the changing of the global temperature on a decadal scale, it is known that the earth because of its shape wobbles with a frequency of 1/1.1855 years (Chandler), and that the fluids (air and oceans) on the surface of the earth resonates with the half frequency of 1/2.371 years or 28.45 month. Because of the heat content of the water of the oceans this leads to phases called El Niño e Southern Oscillation (ENSO) occurring again with an average of a half frequency of 1/4.742 years or 57 month.
ENSO events (el Nino, La Nina) are not monotonically regular, but are intermittent. There are “neutral” periods with no ENSO polarisation. This makes it more difficult to propose that ENSO is driven by a constant orbital related parameter. ENSO is quite likely a nonlinear oscillator, oscillating by its own internal dynamics, BUT with the possibility that its oscillation could be driven by outside forcers. However the relation between a periodically forced nonliner oscillator and its forcer, can be very complex – in the case that the forcing is weak. (If it is strong then the forced system follows the forcer directly.)
commieBob says (August 13, 2011 at 4:07 am): “The link Steve Mosher pointed to does not deal with what Matt was talking about. What we’re waiting for is a simple calculation that relates the concentration of CO2 to a change in temperature.”
Actually it’s exactly what Matt was talking about, i.e. change in temperature due to a doubling of CO2. Matt confused the issue by bringing in Le Chatelier’s Principle, but you accurately quoted his “back-of-the-envelope” claim of a 2 degree F surface temp increase for a doubling of CO2. Mosh’s reference addresses this question.
Nowhere in his comment did Matt mention the oceanic concentration of CO2 as a function of temperture. But below is a reference on CO2 solubility in seawater. It’s quite technical, because it’s not a simple subject:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/cdiac74/chapter2.pdf