Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2 (NOOA; green), monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2; blue stippled) and monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3; red), since January 1980. Last month shown is December 2011.

Reposted from the Hockey Schtick, as I’m out of time and on the road.- Anthony

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 COvariations 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.


 

See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Ole Humlum is the guy behind the climate4you.com website which I highly recommend as a good source of weather info/graphs etc.

Juraj V

http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20Last12months-previous12monthsGrowthRateSince1958.gif
Rate of the CO2 increase is slowing down, resembling the global SST very much.

GoCanucks!!!

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.

richardscourtney

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

Rud Istvan

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

pochas

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.

Gail Combs

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 @ 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 @ Colorado
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif

Bart

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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From Steven Mosher on August 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm:

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.

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?

Vince Causey

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.

Kasuha

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?

James Allison

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……..

Kev-in-Uk

Vince Causey says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
IIRC it was Salby that showed that was a load of inflated BS ?

Gale Combs

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

… Note that there is roughly a three-month lag between the state of vegetation at Earth’s surface and its effect on carbon dioxide in the middle troposphere….

So there is another lag where CO2 response to Mother Nature and not the other way round.

davidmhoffer

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?

Joe Postma

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.

richardscourtney

Vince Causey:
At August 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm you say:

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.

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

davidmhoffer

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/

Gale Combs

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.

Matt G

CO2’s affect on the climate is a classic example of circular reasoning. Evidence shows climate behaves only one-way with CO2 and it is not the ideas without taking any feedbacks into account in the laboratory (where there is no ocean). CO2 naturally in the atmosphere is just an indication of how much the ocean has out gassed previously. It is there because of the chemical nature of oceans warmed by the nearest star, not because adding CO2 determines the absolute ocean temperature. CO2 atmospheric concentration is therefore an effect of temperature not the cause of temperature on the planet scale. It has so unnoticeable effect that the difference between the poles and the tropics at the near surface can be more than 90 degrees c at any one time. (Yet CO2 levels at both sites are similar) Massive differences occur all the time on the planet, yet some of us are worried by a fraction of a degree over a long period.
This paper goes into a bit more detail than other observations already well known, but pro CAGW’s ignore with continued circular reasoning. It is impossible for a climate system to behave the same way in both directions with cause and effect or the planet would have frozen or fried many millions of years ago. If you add the cause you can increase the effect, but if you add the effect (CO2) you can’t increase the cause. You can’t have oceans increasing energy, which in turns increases CO2, which increases energy, which increases CO2. It is circular reasoning and when would it ever end?
That’s why the climate has not warmed, as it was to believe by pro CAGW’s, the planet system only behaves one way at a time and is prevented from becoming too cold or hot by feedbacks that reduce or eliminate the change. (Key player here being albedo)
The ERL has not changed over recent decades measured by LWR’s. This gives no indication that GHG’s have had any effect on the planet during this period for cooling to be less rapidly.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr.php?num_months=12
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/olr-s-pg.gif

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming.

Actually, no. What it suggests is that short term fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 are driven largely by nature rather than man. Is anyone surprised by this? I don’t think so. We all know that the annual amount of CO2 absorbed and emitted by nature (oceans and biosphere) is considerably larger than annual anthropogenic emissions, but the net natural change is much smaller than our emissions – hence the large annual cycle in atmospheric CO2 but the very small net natural change in atmospheric CO2 over centuries and millennia. Over the Holocene (last 10,000 years or so) until the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 changed at a maximum of around 0.002ppm per year. Now we’re raising it at around 2ppm per year – 1,000 times faster than the natural rate. That is what’s causing the current very rapid global warming (that and the other greenhouse gases we’re emitting). It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that:
(1): Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are indeed driving global warming;
(2): The paper in question does not in any way contradict (1) – it merely adds detail to what we already knew.

Steve Mosher: “You state: 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.”
I don’t understand this. CO2 absorbs radiant energy and hence warms the atmosphere. The heat flux is dependant on the concentration of CO2 and the distance. Increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the amount of radiant energy absorbed by the atmosphere. I would suggest that you have it backwards. As CO2 levels increase, the level at which nearly all of the energy that will be absorbed decreases. That is if we consider (say) 200 bar.cm (the units used in most engineering texts), absorption will be nearly complete (yes yes, absorption will eventually go to 100%, just not on this planet. Also, at very high levels of CO2 the curve seems more hyperbolic that logarithmic with the asymptote nearly parallel to the x axis). As the partial pressure of CO2 increases, the altitude that this occurs at decreases rather than increases. That is, I would suggest that the “ERL” decreases as CO2 increases, not the other way around. The earth cools less rapidly because the atmosphere is warmed (slightly). Well. The earth cools at the same rate no matter what. It does it at a (slightly) higher temperature. If the earth were radiating at a lower rate (cooling less rapidly), it would be getting very hot very quickly.

Icarus,
What is “blindingly obvious” is the fact that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia.
That is irrefutable scientific evidence showing conclusively that the rise in CO2 is an effect of the previous rise in temperature, not a cause of rising temperature.
It is hard to argue with definitive empirical evidence, but I’m sure you will give it a try.

The paper is behind a paywall unfortunately.
Its worth reminding people that, excepting statistical chance, correlation is always proof of causation.
If sea surface temperatures lead CO2 concentrations and they are correlated then,
Either, sea surface temperatures (in part) cause CO2 concentrations,
Or, they both have some common cause or causes.
And the statement downward LWR cannot warm the ocean is true in the sense that roof insulation cannot warm your house. Of course your house is warmer with roof insulation, because the insulation slows the loss of heat, as does downward LWR in the atmosphere.

davidmhoffer

ERL – Effective Radiation Level?

John Douglas

HOW DOES MAN MAKE CO2?
BY DEFINITION ALL THE CARBON IN FOSSIL FUELS HAS BEEN SEQUESTERED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE , BURNING THESE COMPLETES THE CARBON CYCLE ie RECYCLES THE CARBON,WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?
PS In the late fifties in 6th form grammer school we were forced to study LOGIC , Medieval disputations etc. A crippling disadvantage in this Brave New World.

Gunga Din

I’m a simple guy. I don’t have letters to put behind my name to impress anybody. But I do know that water is wierd. The hotter water is, the more of a solid it will disolve. The colder water is, the more of a gas it will disolve. CO2 is a gas. The oceans hold lots and lots of CO2. As the oceans warm, they release that CO2. It takes a lot of hot air for a long time before the oceans warm and release their CO2.
(Unless you still believe Mann and Hansen.)

Bart

Kasuha says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm
…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…”
It’s a puzzle. Consider this simple thought experiment.
Suppose that temperatures were dramatically lower during the Little Ice Age, so that ocean waters downwelling to the depths at the time contained significantly more CO2 than today’s surface waters do.
Suppose those waters started rising to the surface again around the turn of the 20th century. As the waters heat to surface levels, they release that stored CO2. Since the waters currently downwelling are relatively CO2 depleted, it starts to accumulate at the surface and outgas to the atmosphere, in proportion to the difference between surface temperatures now versus surface temperatures then.
The downwelling waters may have picked up additional CO2 during their long trek through the depths due, e.g., to undersea volcanic vents. In effect, this would equivalently shift the temperature at which they downwelled even lower.
This is my favored working hypothesis. Current atmospheric CO2 levels depend not just on temperature differentials in the near past, but in the distant past as well, when currently upwelling ocean waters first descended into the depths.

davidmhoffer

John Eggert;
I would suggest that you have it backwards. As CO2 levels increase, the level at which nearly all of the energy that will be absorbed decreases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve lost track of how many threads there have been over the years on this issue!
John, Mosher is right. Consider a photon travelling upward toward space. Either it has a clear path to escape, or it doesn’t. Increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the chance that it will get absorbed and re-emitted before escaping increases. Since being absorbed and re-emitted happens at a higher altitude than the photon originated from, the average height at which a photon escapes is higher, not lower, as CO2 increases.

richardscourtney

Philip Bradley:
At August 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm you assert:

Its worth reminding people that, excepting statistical chance, correlation is always proof of causation.

It is worth informing you that correlation is NEVER a proof of causation.
Any two time series are likely to show periods where they correlate if they are long enough.
However, in the event that a causal link is demonstrated to exist between two parameters then the correlation of the two parameters describes how a change to one effects a change to the other.
Coherence is indicative when considering causality because if changes to A follow changes to B then it is not possible for the changes in A to be the cause of the changes to B (in the absence of a time-machine).
Richard

Gail Combs

Kasuha says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm
….. 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?
________________________
What makes you think the “Team” has not messed with the CO2 measurements as they did with the temperature measurements???
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time: Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

Ian W

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.”
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

A one club golfer – only surface radiation being scattered is considered… Yet….
Most of the heat energy leaving the Earth’s surface is carried up toward the troposphere by convection of water not by radiation. Have a look at http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/flash-rb.html. All that infrared radiation from latent heat of fusion and condensation. You can see when the weather systems are building strongly by the heat radiation. Latent heat release due to water state change does not follow Stefan Boltzmann.
Hurricanes and storms in the ITCZ can carry liquid water up to 40,000ft or more in 100kt updrafts where it rapidly freezes releasing huge amounts of heat energy. Look at (currently) Hurricane Kirk and tropical storm Leslie. Go to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html look at method 1 the energy released by a hurricane due to cloud and rain formation per day. “equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity” Nothing to do with Stefan Boltzmann.
Now go back to GOES East and look at that long frontal system part of the Ferrel cell circulation. The huge amount of energy being released from latent heat of fusion and condensation. Nothing to do with Stefan Boltzmann.
And more importantly nothing to do with GHGs scattering infrared radiation

Excellent paper which brings yet more bad news to the pseudo-scientific religion adherents of CAGW. They will have to dig deep for strawman arguments to offset the latest revelations. The time lag between temperature of the world and the level of CO2 shows exactly what is and i not happening.

H.R.

@davidmhoffer says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:29 pm
(Responds to Steven Mosher and then asks):
“Oh yeah… What the heck is ERL?”
In my neck of the woods, “erl” is what you put in your car when you’re “down pert-near a kwart.”
(I’m not kidding and it drives me nuts to hear it.)

Andrew W

Philip Bradley says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm
If sea surface temperatures lead CO2 concentrations and they are correlated then,
Either, sea surface temperatures (in part) cause CO2 concentrations,
Or, they both have some common cause or causes.
Might I suggest the El nino – La nina cycle?

Tony B (another one)

Smokey says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Icarus,
What is “blindingly obvious” is the fact that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia.
That is irrefutable scientific evidence showing conclusively that the rise in CO2 is an effect of the previous rise in temperature, not a cause of rising temperature.
It is hard to argue with definitive empirical evidence, but I’m sure you will give it a try.
=================================================================
It is also hard ro reason with the psychologically and intellectually hamstrung, even when the empirical evidence is blindingly obvious.
Oh wait, no…..reasoning does not play any significant part in religion, does it?
Good sport, though.

Ian W

It would appear that this paper has rediscovered Henry’s Law:
At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.”
If the liquid temperature is raised the solubility of the gas in the liquid reduces. This is high school physical chemistry. Its why people like cold beer rather than warm beer.
The surface overturning layer about 700 meters will outgas relatively rapidly. The deep water, below the thermoclyne does not mix much with the upper layers. The overturning and outgassing would take centuries – and this is what is found. The Earth’s surface is 2/3rds water so Henry’s Law will rule on soluble gases like CO2.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

It’s not the paper, couldn’t find that. But it is a long and informative April 2012 article by the authors about all of this, with more data and graphs. In Norwegian.
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2012/april/319336
Google Translation to English.
Very interesting.

Stephen Wilde

“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.”
That would be me then.
Well trained in logic and the weighing of evidence plus a lifetime’s study of weather and climate from long before many of the current protagonists knew the difference between wet and dry.
Sounds like a good mix to me.
And a heck of a lot of other participants have their primary knowledge base in areas other than climatology.

icarus62

It’s also worth pointing out that the imbalance between outgassing and geological sequestration of carbon – i.e. the rate at which the total carbon in the climate system changes – is even slower than natural changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration, amounting to only about 0.0001ppm per year. In other words, we’re currently returning carbon to the climate system via fossil fuel combustion 40,000 times faster than the natural rate. That is the source of the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2, and that’s what is driving global warming.

Oh my God, not again…
What the paper shows is that the rate of change of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is heavily influenced by temperature fluctuations. But that says next to nothing about the cause of the increase.
– Humans emit twice the amount of CO2 that is seen in the trend. Thus nature is a net absorber of CO2, not a source.
– The (deep) oceans are not the cause of the increase, because of too high 13C/12C ratio and measurements all over the oceans show that the (deep) oceans are a net sink for CO2. See:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
– Henry’s Law shows an increase of some 16 microatm if seawater warms with 1°C increase. Thus the maximum 1°C warming since the depth of the LIA may be responsible for maximum 16 ppmv in the atmosphere (in fact less, because vegetation works in opposite direction), while we see an increase of 100+ ppmv (70+ ppmv since the accurate measurements at the South Pole started).
– The biosphere is not the cause of the increase, as the oxygen balance shows: more oxygen is released by the biosphere than used, thus more CO2 is absorbed and thus the biosphere is a net sink for CO2.
Thus whatever the influence of temperature on the current CO2 levels, it influences the year by year sink rate, without any net contribution to the increase… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
Thus please, this repeated discussion about the origin of the CO2 increase, which is confirmed human by all available observations, makes that skeptics loose all credibility where it is needed: the real (lack of) influence of CO2 on temperature…

Ally E.

Philip Bradley says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Its worth reminding people that, excepting statistical chance, correlation is always proof of causation.
*
WTF? Have you actually LOGICALLY thought about that statement? Sheesh, I used to wonder if you believed what came out of your mouth, now you’ve convinced me you are deliberately seeking to misinform. An intelligent person simply wouldn’t accept such a claim, never mind advance it.
I can only guess you are after those readers who don’t know any science and don’t exercise much in the way of logical thought. Well, you’re not going to find many of those here. I’m pretty sure you won’t capture any open minds scanning the alarmists’ sites with that line, either, come to think of it, so you’re not doing yourself any favours at all.

Jim G

Google “co2 lags temperature” and see how many hits you get attempting to refute it. When one throws a stone at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit. This is a very weak spot, amongst many, for the warmista crowd.

icarus62

Smokey: You’re aware that most of the warming from glacial maximum to interglacial occurs *after* atmospheric CO2 has started to rise, yes?