An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.
The highlights of the paper are:
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
The paper:
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
- a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
- b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
- c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
- d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/green-holocaust-2/
Ole Humlum is the guy behind the climate4you.com website which I highly recommend as a good source of weather info/graphs etc.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20Last12months-previous12monthsGrowthRateSince1958.gif
Rate of the CO2 increase is slowing down, resembling the global SST very much.
I would like to know when Dr. Murry Salby’s paper will be published. His theories would seem to be bolstered by this new paper.
“Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.”
follow the cite and you end up with a blog post by a lawyer who has nothing of scientific interest to say about radiation physics. The issue is not whether or not IR warms the oceans. The mechanism is quite simple: GHGs raise the temperature of the earth by raising the ERL. When the ERL is raised the earth radiates from a higher colder zone. That means it cools less rapidly
While the Hockey Schtick does have a tendancy to link to deniers of the GH effect among others, let’s concentrate on the paper in hand.
Friends:
There is nothing new under the Sun. I draw attention to
Kuo, C., Lindberg, C., Thompson, D.J., 1990. Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Nature 388, 39-44.
In 1990 that paper reported atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature cohere such the changes to the CO2 lag changes to the temperature by 9 months. Subsequently, other papers indicate that the time of the lag varies with latitude.
This Norwegian paper reports that the finding made in 1990 by Kuo, Linberg & Thompson still remains true.
Richard
Steve M has both the physics and the fact trace on the assertion correct. There is a additional statistical problem in this lead/lag analysis. The data is sufficiently noisy that there is almost no statistical significance. This is as bad as Dessler’s 2010 paper (quoted by NASA as definitive) that found a positive cloud feedback. The scatter plot looked like a shotgun pattern, and the r^2 was 0.02. Means nothing at all.
Absolutely.
Main players on decadal and multi decadal scale Sun and Earth in concert
Sun > Earth > Oceans > Land & Atmosphere
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“GHGs raise the temperature of the earth by raising the ERL. When the ERL is raised the earth radiates from a higher colder zone. That means it cools less rapidly”
ERL – Environmental Research Laboratory?, Extraterrestrial Remote Lander? Oh, that radiating level. l can see that if the atmosphere warms it will expand, so that the radiating level will be higher, if that were the only consideration. But it will not gain mass, so the tau (transparency) will remain constant. As for CO2, it may contribute a small amount to downwelling radiation at the surface but it will also increase the emissivity of the upper atmosphere. So, warming at the surface (greatly moderated by convection) and cooling above. Your IPCC fairy story is just another fabrication of the politicians of the UN who have nothing of scientific interest to say about radiation physics.
Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.”
…..Rhe issue is not whether or not IR warms the oceans. The mechanism is quite simple: GHGs raise the temperature of the earth by raising the ERL. When the ERL is raised the earth radiates from a higher colder zone. That means it cools less rapidly
_____________________________
STRAWMAN!
The statement is CO2 and other greenhouse backradiation can not warm the oceans by penetrating the oceans.
So how about the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado @ur momisugly Boulder? Is that highbrow enough for you???
Here is their graph. I am not embedding it so everyone can see it is a link to LASP @ur momisugly Colorado
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
The relationship is blatantly obvious. The rate of change of CO2 atmospheric concentration is affinely related to temperatures. The correlation is especially prominent in the summer hemisphere, suggesting a strong oceanic link related, quite likely, to the fact that that’s where CO2-rich deep ocean currents upwell.
The temperature relationship leaves no room for significant human influence on overall concentration. Our puny input is plainly sequestered rapidly by the Earth’s systems with barely a pause in stride.
From Steven Mosher on August 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm:
That post was authored by “MS”, from a comment above I gather that’s Murry L. Salby. I can see on Amazon that he authored “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, Volume 61 (International Geophysics)” in 1996, edited by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Renata Dmowska, available for Kindle and apparently still in print, and recently authored “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” which appears to be a well-respected textbook going by the editorial review and the quotes from academia.
Which mere “lawyer who has nothing of scientific interest to say about radiation physics” are you referring to?
I read somewhere that they “proved” the rising co2 levels were from fossil fuels based on carbon isotope analysis. Either their proof is somewhat overreaching, or this analysis is incorrect.
It’s interesting and it’s very similar to Dr. Salby’s findings as presented here on WUWT in April. But neither does explain one thing.
If you undo all the math, remove all temperature changes and remove all subsequent CO2 changes, there’s still a steady slope at which the CO2 raises and the temperature would have to reduce dramatically to make it stop. But that’s not what was in the past, the temperature was not that dramatically lower than today and the CO2 concentrations were not so steadily (and definitely not at such rate) growing throughout the holocene – so if it’s not by humans, where is it all coming from?
Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm
====================
True to type warmest response eh? Perhaps a similar scientific background to Al Gore then?
You and your warmist mates missives are getting weaker and weaker……..
Vince Causey says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
IIRC it was Salby that showed that was a load of inflated BS ?
Here is information from NASA with an animation of earth greening and changes in CO2
Watching Earth breathe: An animation of seasonal vegetation and it’s effect on Earth’s global
So there is another lag where CO2 response to Mother Nature and not the other way round.
Steven Mosher;
GHGs raise the temperature of the earth by raising the ERL. When the ERL is raised the earth radiates from a higher colder zone. That means it cools less rapidly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lack of precision in your statement makes it difficult to respond to. As a system that includes the atmosphere, your statement is false as GHG’s do not change the temperature of earth at all. What they change is the temperature profile from earth surface to TOA. May we presume you meant temperature at earth surface and you are excluding the armosphere as being part of the earth for this statement? If your intent was in regard to earth surface, then your following statement is also false because the earth radiates to space very little from earth surface but mostly from the atmosphere. So in that part of your response, I presume that you mean earth to include the atmosphere? Then you say it cools less rapidly which I presume is going back to a definition of earth as meaning earth surface and excluding the atmosphere? Three sentences and each one raises more questions about what the heck you mean that take more time to understand than the point you are trying to make.
Oh yeah… What the heck is ERL?
Wow look at the usual suspects leaping out of their spider holes to defend the greenhouse effect. This paper hardly touches on it…the main point of the paper is the CO2 lags. But they jump on board to re-frame the argument and create a straw-man to sow confusion, and also to defend the greenhouse effect. Typical tactics of a badly losing pseudoscientific religion.
But, there is the underlying question posed – with CO2 not actually being responsible for any changes in warming/cooling, can it be responsible for setting any temperatures in the first place? That premise seems to be impossible to measure with empirical data since none has ever actually been presented for the climate showing so; that is, not outside of the mere inferences made within the particular constraints of certain assumptions and model boundary conditions. No real-time measurements show CO2 leading temperature change. You can IMAGINE CO2 causing temperature change and creating temperature increases within the constraints of certain models and approximations, but you can’t actually measure it empirically in the system in real time. Talk about a major problem. This would be the first science that continued to exist in modern times despite never actually having ever had empirical data to support it. Of course, that’s why alarmism and the whole negative orientation towards the concept of climate change in general is Pseudoscience.
They just took something which is normal and happening naturally all the time and pretended it was new and unknown and suddenly manifest and entirely unheard of before but required the end of capitalism and new massive taxation & regulations to comprehend. Neat trick. Major fail.
Vince Causey:
At August 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm you say:
That “proof” is bunkum. The change in the isotope ratio is in the correct direction for its cause to be the anthropogenic emission but its magnitude is out by a factor of 3 from expectation if the anthropogenic emission is its cause.
Indeed, Roy Spencer provided two articles on WUWT about this so-called proof. The latter is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
and it concludes saying;
“BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??”
Richard
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/
Another paper that does a VERY deep dive into the data and shows no relationship between CO2 and temps.
Mr. Causey:
Dr. Spencer’s analysis of CO2 carbon isotope ratios might interest you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
Vince Causey says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
I read somewhere that they “proved” the rising co2 levels were from fossil fuels based on carbon isotope analysis. Either their proof is somewhat overreaching, or this analysis is incorrect.
_________________________
Isotope Analysis is dicey, let me see if I can dig out Fred’s PDF…. Oh good here is a link to both his papers. Fred H. Haynie, a retired EPA research scientist, has devoted the past four years to a study of global climate change, and in particular the relationship to CO2. One of the papers goes indepth into the isotope Analysis.
More References on CO2:
Articles by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
GAVIN SCHMIDT’S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2 SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW (rebuttal of the rebuttal)
ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
Lucy Skywallker pulled together information from all over the net and consolidated it in these two links:
Questioning the CO2 Ice Hockey Stick
CO2 figures, cycle, solubility, GHG effect, oceanic scale, and biosequestration includes Do isotopes show fossil fuel use?
A lagging entity can have a significant effect on a leading entity only if it is empowered by voodoo, or perhaps “climate scientists” are suggesting that CO2 molecules travel at speeds faster than light.