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.
Bart says:
September 1, 2012 at 11:21 am
Bart says:
September 1, 2012 at 8:50 am
“If the pCO2 of the atmosphere was 60% lower, the current upwelling waters are likely as much as 60% higher than what sinks today.”
While this is a valid point that the pCO2 of the atmosphere and the concentration of CO2 in the surface layer of the oceans tend to vary inversely with temperature, the conversation should not be straight-jacketed into such a narrow paradigm.
This is a nonlinear feedback system with significant transport lag. Such systems tend to develop oscillatory behavior, generally with a period comparable to the length of the lag. Nonlinearities can then induce subharmonic oscillations and the formation of “beads” (distinct regions of high concentration separated by lower concentration gaps).
….
Moreover, the character of the oscillations can change over time as, e.g, two large beads coalesce becoming one extra-large one.
Thanks for this illuminating explanation of the involvement of nonlinear dynamics.
Could the bead coalescence that you refer to, be analogous to the bead coalescence seen in this video:
(at 1 min 42 sec from start)
This is a great paper from Humlum and his Norwegian colleagues – a serious challenge to AGW orthodoxy. Ice core CO2 lag confirmed by the same at the present day.
OT but according to BOM, as referenced at the WUWT ENSO page, the Pacific equatorial subsurface warm pool appears to have just collapsed, especially on the western side:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif
this, if it continues, would kill off any chance of el Nino and confirm neutral ENSO for the time being.
Leonard Weinstein said:
“If you had a small amount of water and exposed it to a vacuum, the energy to evaporate (540 cal.gram) comes from the remaining water, and thus quickly lowers its temperature. It turns to ice”
I think I see where we are having a problem.
Your 540 cal.gram is the energy required to break the bond between water molecules and of course that does remain constant since the strength of the bond it is a physical property of water molecules.
My point relates to the ratio between the amount of energy required to start the process which is affected by atmospheric pressure.
So, if there is a vacuum then no energy is required to initiate the process. It just happens straight away and all the energy comes from the water which cools as you say and as I said previously.
If there is not a vacuum then the freedom of the molecules to evaporate is diminished because the atmospheric pressure reinforces the bonds between the molecules and so one needs an additional parcel of energy to kick start the process and that parcel comes from the surrounding environment and not the water.
The higher the atmospheric pressure the more energy is required from the surrounding environment to cause the evaporative process to begin.
At 1 standard atmosphere only about one fifth of that 540 cal. gram is required to cause evaporation to occur but at a higher pressure it will be more than that.
It is that ratio which determines the net energy cost to the system of a given amount of evaporation and therefore the temperature that the oceans must achieve in order to reach equilibrium.
richardscourtney says:
September 1, 2012 at 9:19 am
old construction worker:
Thankyou for the link you provided in your post addressed to me at September 1, 2012 at 7:38 am.
I did not know that. Thankyou.
Richard
—————————————————————
Your are welcome. I too was surprised . Now you know why I said: Was that under “Steak House Conditions” ?
Allan MacRae:
re your post addressed to me at September 1, 2012 at 11:45 am
Well done!
Richard
Thank you Richard,
Who else spends New Years Eve Day playing with numbers?
I need to get a life. 🙂
Steven W.
You still are wrong. The evaporation of water to a given (saturated) partial pressure gas for a given temperature takes approximately the same amount of energy to complete at all reasonable total pressures, including initial near vacuum (the energy required is weakly temperature dependent, but not much over normal Earth temperatures). The level of the partial pressure is due to hydrogen bond strength in the water, liquid molecular motion and molecular velocity in the gas above, but the energy to vaporize each gram is the same at all of these pressures. The actual evaporation rate is reduced if the water vapor partial pressure is near saturation, and maximized if the partial pressure is far below saturation. However, it still takes the same amount of energy per gram in all cases.
Bart says: September 1, 2012 at 11:21 am
“This is a nonlinear feedback system with significant transport lag. Such systems tend to develop oscillatory behavior, generally with a period comparable to the length of the lag.”
Bart, your above statement seems consistent with the following observations, which I have been posting since early 2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/#comment-274521
Allan M R MacRae (01:31:52)
[excerpt]
I pointed out two years ago that that global CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months in a cycle time of ~3-6 years.
We also know that CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years in a cycle time of ~100,000 years(?)
There may be other intermediate cycles as well – Ernst Beck postulates one.
A fine puzzle for someone to sort out.
Jan Veizer may have already done so.
“””””…..Phil. says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Think!
Greg House says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:49 pm
“The 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated on the basis of experiments and there were back then apparently no experiments confirming your notion of “average”, so no, it is not about “average”. “…..”””””
Well all of thermodynamics is about macro systems, which by their very nature can only be described in statistical terms; “heat” whatever one thinks that is, is entirely the statistical average of a large assemblage of randomly interracting “particles”.
So it is not just the second law that is about averages, it is all of thermodynamics. There is no thermodynamics of a single particle.
“””””…..richardscourtney says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:41 am
davidmhoffer and Bart:…..”””””
Kirchoff’s Law applies only to systems in thermal equilibrium with the radiation field. Nothing in earth’s atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium.
“However, it still takes the same amount of energy per gram in all cases.”
I know it does as regards the actual phase change but higher pressure delays or inhibits the phase change by supplementing the natural bonds between the water molecues.
Thus at zero pressure in a vacuum evaporation occurs immediately with no need for any energy in the surrounding environment.
At 1 atmosphere you need energy in the local environment equivalent to a temperature of 100C.
At more than 1 atmosphere you need more energy in the local environment.
At less than 1 atmosphere you need less energy in the local environment.
I’m willing to be educated on how I might better express the issue but it is clearly not wrong.
Clearly, to boil one needs a temperature of 100C but not to evaporate. However, evaporation is the same process of phase change where only the topmost molecules of the water are involved rather than the whole or a deeper portion of the body of water.
The same principle applies,though, in that the air above the water in the local environment needs to be at a higher temperature for evaporation to occur when pressure is higher.
Of course the partial pressure of the atmospheric gases is also important but in the real world open to a sky humidity is always being removed by wind and because water vapour is lighter than air the more humidity the faster it gets removed by convection on a global basis.
That rate of convection is also pressure dependent so overall and averaged globally the influence of the partial pressure between water and air is negated by the convective process leaving the temperature of the local environment plus surface pressure of the atmosphere on the water surface in control.
So, you would be right if the Earth system were in a closed container with limits on convection. In that case partial pressure is paramount and at a given level of humidity evaporation would stop whatever the temperature rose to.
But in a system open to the sky with convective freedom the bottom line is that the rate of evaporation globally depends on atmospheric surface pressure and the temperature of the local environment.
Therefore atmospheric surface pressure determines the rate at which evaporation can occur at a given level of insolation which in turn determines the temperature that the oceans must reach to achieve equilibrium with insolation.
George E. Smith:
I assume your post at September 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm is intended to add emphasis and to clarity my post. If so, then thankyou.
In the unlikely event that there are others still reading this thread who may not know, I point out that “LTE” in my post is “thermal equilibrium” in your post.
Richard
Hi Richard,
Here is our emailed correspondence from 31Dec2007 on dCO2/dt versus T, with Jan Veizer’s excellent response. This, in part, is why I have always been so impressed with Jan Veizer.
Best, Allan
________________________________________
From: Jan Veizer
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Allan MacRae; Jan Veizer; Chris Landsea; Roy Spencer
Subject: RE: Need help please – delta CO2 vs. LT temperature anomaly
Dear Allan,
See 2007JD008431_Dec4.pdf(925KB) . It is your explanation No.1, but it is both (more photosynthesis/respiration on land putting more CO2 into the atmosphere) and less uptake by warmer oceans. Please wait until the paper is published, which should be within days, before making it public.
All the best in 2008
Jan
________________________________________
From: Allan MacRae
Sent: December-31-07 7:32 AM
To: Jan Veizer; Chris Landsea; Roy Spencer
Subject: FW: Need help please – delta CO2 vs. LT temperature anomaly
Good morning Gentlemen,
Same question as below.
Best Wishes and Happy New Year, Allan
________________________________________
From: Allan MacRae
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:24 AM
To: Tim Patterson; Sallie Baliunas
Subject: Need help please – delta CO2 vs. LT temperature anomaly
Dear Friends,
In the attached Excel spreadsheet I have plotted the rate of annual increase of atmospheric CO2 (ppm/year) with the Lower Troposphere Temperature anomaly (degC).
There seems to be a fairly good correlation.
Could you kindly review my conclusions and comment, and suggest if this is a worthwhile or a trivial observation.
Also, if it is non-trivial, what should I do with it?
Best wishes and Happy New Year, Allan
CONCLUSIONS
Rate of annual increase in CO2 correlates with Lower Troposphere (LT) temperature anomaly.
therefore, either:
1. Incremental CO2 level is caused by surface warming, prob. due to ocean exsolution of CO2.
or
2. Incremental CO2 level is driving LT temperature anomaly.
but
Global LT temperatures have been essentially level since ~1997, while CO2 has risen.
LT correlates with delta CO2, not with CO2, contrary to greenhouse theory.
This suggests 1 above is more likely true than 2.
I wish the conclusions of this paper were correct, but unfortunately they are not.
This paper makes a fundamental mathematical error, and hence the conclusions are not supported by the method used (and indeed easily shown to be incorrect). No correllation, no matter how strong, with the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 can explain the linear component of the long term rising trend in CO2. This is because the linear component of the long term trend corresponds to the mean value of the annual increase. The correllation is mathematically independent of the mean value (if you look at the mathematical formula for a correlation, wherever the observations appear in the equation they have their mean value subtracted). Thus the correlation explains the variability of the annual increase around its mean value, but not the mean value itself and it is the mean value that is responsible for the long term trend. This is a mistake that has been made before, and I expect it will be made again, but it is a shame for all concerned that this one has slipped through peer review.
The effect of sea surface temperatures on the annual increase in CO2 is well known, and has been for 30+ years (Bacastow 1976) and is described in the IPCC reports. The analysis of this in the paper is essentially correct, but entirely uncontraversial. The suggestion however that anthropogenic emissions has little effect on atmospheric CO2 is howerver incorrect (as multiple lines of evidence suggets) and the conclusion relflects the authors error in not considering the effect of anthrpogenic emissions on the mean value of the annual increase, which is not measured by te correlation coefficient, and is what actually causes the long term trend.
A full explanation requires equations and diagrams, which I can’t include here, but you can find a full explanation here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
and a regression based example here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roys_risky_regression.html
“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
”
Geez, I thought you were more knowledgable than this. This is nonphysical claptrap from early hansen pop writings. There is no such thing as ERL. Radiation comes from the surface and all atltitudes depending upon wavelength. As one goes higher the pressure drops and the absorption bands get narrower around ghg absorption lines so are no longer affected as much. Narrower absorption lines also increase the intensity of emission for a given T as one gets closer to the center of the line away from the declining edges. If you go back to stefan’s law and the origins of hansen’s guff, and think about what adding ghgs mean to a parcel of atmosphere, you’d also realize that it increases the emissivity and that very slight increase in absoption also causes a slight increase in emission for a given T.
In other words, practically no energy is radiated from your ERL. That radiation which is transparent comes from below, much from the surface or cloud tops. That which tends to be absorbed, will do so again and again above your ERL.
That 3.7W/m^2 added atmospheric absorption for clear skies (and only for clear skies) is at the tropopause and the actual absorption increase is spread over the troposphere. By the time one gets to 70km altitude it is only about 2.7 W/m^2 . And the results will be a lapse rate that exhibits conservation of energy (including convection and conduction as well as radiation) by altitude. In the arena of stefan’s law, one also has a shell of gas at an altitude with an outer surface and an inner surface and it has a tiny emissivity based upon the absorption characteristics. That means if the continuum radiation received by the shell were for a moment at the same T as the shell of gas, the gas would radiate that same amount of power outward and that same amount of power inward – leading to a massive loss of power leaving the shell no choice but to make up for it by a drop in T, causing the lapse rate to exist. With an increase in ghgs one then has the similar problem with a shell or parcel in that there is a small increase in absorbed power but there is also a small increase in emitted power downward and emitted power upward due to the increased emissivity. Without additional power coming, that shell cannot sustain the added efficiency in emission at the original T.
Look for that missing extra warmth to be increasing evaporation, generating clouds, blocking sunlight and operating as a setpoint control system with massive negative net feedback and regulating temperatures very nicely except for those nasty glitches where surface albedo (in the form of new snow and glaciers) periodically short circuits the system.
richardscourtney says: September 1, 2012 at 9:15 am
Allan MacRae:
You ask my opinion on your views in your post at September 1, 2012 at 7:48 am.
Firstly, I am certain that – as you suggest – local sequestration of CO2 is more than capable of sequestering ALL locally emitted CO2 both natural and anthropogenic. At issue is why it does not when its ability to do it is demonstrated by the dynamics of sequestration at all observed sites.
_______________
Hello Richard,
In response to your point, the answer on a global scale may be deficiency of water – please see the following quotation from Jan Veizer (Geoscience Canada, Volume 32 Number 1 March 2005).
“During photosynthesis, a plant has to exhale (transpire) almost one thousand molecules of water for every single molecule of CO2 that it absorbs. This so-called “Water Use Efficiency” (WUE), is somewhat variable, depending on the photosynthetic pathway employed by the plant and on the temporal interval under consideration, but in any case, it is in the hundreds to one range (Taiz and Ziegler, 1991; Telmer and Veizer, 2000). The relationship between WUE and NPP deserves a more detailed consideration. In plant photosynthesis, water loss and CO2 uptake are coupled processes (Nobel, 1999), as both occur through the same passages (stomata). The WUE is determined by a complicated operation that maximizes CO2 uptake while minimizing water loss. Consequently, the regulating factor for WUE, and the productivity of plants, could be either the atmospheric CO2 concentration or water availability. From a global perspective, the amount of photosynthetically available soil water, relative to the amount of atmospheric CO2, is about 250:1, much less than the WUE demand of the dominant plants, suggesting that the terrestrial ecosystem is in a state of water deficiency (Lee and Veizer, 2003).”
Apologies if you have already noted this point elsewhere.
Best, Allan
dikranmarsupial:
In your post at September 2, 2012 at 4:18 am you assert
but does not state the error. Instead, you ‘arm wave’ about variations around mean values.
Such assertions of unstated mathematical errors are a standard tactic of ‘warmers’ when confronted with analyses they cannot fault but which provide results they don’t like. Indeed, the same tactic is being used in the current ‘Monckton’ thread.
Then you say
This assertion of “multiple lines of evidence” is another common tactic of ‘warmists’ who always make the assertion when – as in this case – there is no such evidence (none, zilch, nada) which is why you do not state any.
You then advertise and link to a propagandist ‘warmist’ blog which I would not touch with your barge pole. A better assessment than anything on that blog is provided in this thread by Allan MacRae in the post immediately before yours (i.e. at September 2, 2012 at 3:39 am).
Richard
Richard, it is a pity that you should take such an attitude rather than work through the mathematics. Do you agree that the correlation coefficient is independent of the mean values of either signal?
cba,
ERL is the “effective radiation level” of radiation to space. The actual radiation does leave from a range of locations, including from the ground, from clouds, and from a range of altitudes from near ground to TOA (from absorbing and radiating gases). An integrated average of these altitudes does give a value for ERL, and use of this average to calculate a black body radiation to space is an effective simplification to balance outgoing radiation to absorbed solar radiation. The altitude of the ERL does determine the so called greenhouse effect, by coupling with the lapse rate. Thus adding absorbing gases like CO2 would raise the location of the ERL, and thus raise the ground temperature once (average) equilibrium is established. The effect is changed by feedbacks such as change in cloudiness, but that is not what Steven Mosher was referring to, or considering. He is correct as far as what he said. I disagree with Steven on some points, but not this one.
Allan MacRae:
Thanks for your post addressed to me at September 2, 2012 at 6:41 am which reports a comment of Jan Veizer about transpiration efficiency.
Firstly, I was aware of the possibility but, secondly, I have good reason to doubt it although I am personally not capable of assessing it. I explain this as follows.
As you know, Arthur Rorsch, Dick Thoenes and I have done much work on these issues: we make a good multidisciplinary (and international) team. Dick used his chemical engineering expertise to assess the dynamics of local sequestration(s) which showed the sequestration processes can easily sequester all the CO2 (natural and anthropogenic) at each locality. However, the global rise in atmospheric CO2 shows that the local sequestrations do not absorb all the emissions.
Arthur is a biologist and he, too, suggested the transpiration limit. But that is improbable. If the water were exhausting then that would show in the dynamics of sequestration, but it does not.
It seems the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle is altering (or has altered) so the system is adjusting. The probable largest direct mechanism of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is reduced oceanic sequestration. The oceans emit much more CO2 than the annual atmospheric rise each year, and they take that oceanic emission back each year. A reduction to the ‘taking back’ would provide the observed rise (n.b. the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is the residual of the seasonal variation).
It is often claimed that Henry’s Law prevents the oceans emitting sufficient CO2 to provide the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is false because it assumes the system is stable and in equilibrium. But the carbon cycle system is not stable (as the seasonal variation demonstrates), it is not in equilibrium (as the seasonal variation demonstrates), and the oceans can emit more than sufficient CO2 to provide the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 (as the seasonal variation demonstrates).
The unresolved issues are
(a) what is the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle?
(b) how does the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle vary?
(c) what causes the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary?
(d) does the anthropogenic CO2 emission induce the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary discernibly?
I hope that answer is sufficient and please feel free to copy it to Jan Veizer for comment if that is your desire.
Richard
dikranmarsupial:
At September 2, 2012 at 6:57 am you say to me
I answer.
1. My “attitude was appropriate for reply to your post.
2. You made the assertion of “a fundamental mathematical error”. I did not. So, you – not I – need to “work through the mathematics” and show me your workings if you wish me toaccept your claim.
3. I “agree that the correlation coefficient is independent of the mean values of either signal”, but so what?
Richard
George E. Smith says:
September 1, 2012 at 9:35 pm:
“””””…..Phil. says: August 31, 2012 at 12:20 pm:Think!
Greg House says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:49 pm:
“The 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated on the basis of experiments and there were back then apparently no experiments confirming your notion of “average”, so no, it is not about “average”. “…..”””””
Well all of thermodynamics is about macro systems, which by their very nature can only be described in statistical terms; “heat” whatever one thinks that is, is entirely the statistical average of a large assemblage of randomly interracting “particles”.
====================================================
It is not what Phil meant with his “average”. I have already answered that on this thread in my “August 31, 2012 at 3:09 pm”-comment.
Anyway, if you mean that a colder body affects the temperature of a warmer body by means of IR radiation because of your “statistical average of a large assemblage of randomly interracting “particles””, then I am looking forward to an experimental proof of that. I have been looking forward to it for a long time on this blog, but still…
Richard wrote: ‘I “agree that the correlation coefficient is independent of the mean values of either signal”, but so what?’
I am proceding through the mathematics step by step, we agree on the first. So you would agree then that the correlation between temperature and the annual change in atmospheric CO2 (diff12 CO2 for short) does not explain the mean value of diffCO2, which is about 1.7ppmv per year?
Greg House:
At September 2, 2012 at 7:44 am you say
When looking for something without success there comes a time when it is worth looking somewhere else. Have you considered moving to another blog to put your points? Perhaps you may there obtain what you seek and have failed to obtain here.
Richard