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.
“icarus62i says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm
(1): Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are indeed driving global warming”
Here, let me correct your statement: Anthropogenic CO2 drives the climate, but what proof do you have.
Increase in CO2 ppm has always lagged “temperature”. There is no “hot spot”, can’t find the “extra heat” in the oceans, no increase in “heat trapping clouds”, can’t explain away “Roman Warm Period and the cooling period afterwards, tried to hide the MWP, LIA and got caught , so where is your proof? All you got is a computer model based on increase CO2 which has never been V&V. And you want me to live in a “cave” based on that!
Bart says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm
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.
We have been there already a few times, but your working hypothesis violates several observations:
– The 13C/12C ratio of the deep oceans (and the oceans surface) is higher than that of the atmosphere. Thus any substantial contribution of extra CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio, but there is a steady accelerating decline in d13C ratio as well as in the atmosphere (ice cores – firn – atmosphere) as in ocean surface, completely in ratio with fossil fuel use:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
– As proven by millions of measurements over the oceans, the oceans are a net sink for CO2, not a source.
– The human contribution (in mass, not in individual moleculres) is for 10% absorbed in the ocean surface (Revelle factor), some 15% in vegetation (based on the oxygen balance), some 50% resides in the atmosphere, thus 25% must be absorbed somewhere else. Add to that the extra CO2 released from the deep upwelling places near the equator, that means that the deep ocean sinks near the poles must absorb the 25% human emissions plus all of the deep ocean upwelling CO2. Thus anyway the deep ocean sinks are larger than the deep ocean sources…
And then Gavin says ….. and then Tamino ….
Funny thing about that bright glowing gasbag in the sky. It warms things. Very well. I cannot imagine how backscatter from a gas with the concentration of 390 ppm could contribute in a meaningful way to the onslaught from Sol. It’s basically insignificant. If the climate is so tenuously in ‘balance’ that a trace gas can cause it to topple, then it must have been essentially constant throughout earth history….and we know that is not the case.
So, to the Moshers of the world who dream up bizarre quotes from political science organizations to support their dreamstate, kindly get a life. The Earth really doesn’t give a Sh*t.
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…..
Smokey
The link you gave shows negative values for CO2 in several years. Bearing in mind, mean annual CO2 concentrations have never fallen over the history of the ML record. Could you explain your link?
PS I can but I suspect you (nor TonyB (another one)) understands the plot you’ve linked to.
FerdiEgb says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:14 pm
….We have been there already a few times, but your working hypothesis violates several observations:….
_____________________________
Ok answer me this,
The CO2 during the Cambrian Period was nearly 7000 ppm. Earlier, the atmosphere was even higher in CO2 and there was little or no oxygen. Obviously the Earth’s carbon cycle could not only handle that amount of CO2 but was able to scrub it from the atmosphere and lay it down as rock.
So how come the Earth’s carbon cycle is now so delicate it can not handle mankind’s puny 3-4% per year added especially since the plant life on land and in the sea is gobbling it down as fast as it can? “I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979)” link and Plant response to CO2
Graph showing steady decrease in CO2 over time.
davidmhoffer says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm
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.
Thank goodness you responded to John Eggert. I thought I might have to step in to support Steve.
I wonder if it might help if, as far as climate is concerned, people thought of the earth AND it’s atmosphere as a single entity. Then consider this
If the outgoing LW energy from the earth (including it’s atmosphere) is emitted from a higher, colder layer then, according to the S-B law, the energy emitted is reduced. So, now the earth (including it’s atmosphere) will be receiving more energy from the sun than it will be emitting to space. We will therefore have an imbalance where incoming energy is GREATER than outgoing energy. This will result in the earth (and it’s atmosphere) becoming warmer – until an equlibrium is reached whereby the outgoing LW energy is equal to the incoming solar energy.
I’m not sure this is a particularly good explanation but from regular reading of the posts and comments on WUWT, I know this is a subject where there is significant confusion. It would be useful if someone like Steve Mosher or yourself (David) could put together a guest post to explain the issue in simple ‘laymens’ terms.
Philip Bradley says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Its worth reminding people that, excepting statistical chance, correlation is always proof of causation.
===========================================================================
Everytime I come home from work, my dog wants a treat.
Therefore if I never went to work, my dog would never want a treat.
Ian W says:
Most of the heat energy leaving the Earth’s surface is carried up toward the troposphere by convection of water not by radiation
Right – but we are concerned about the heat energy which leaves the earth’s atmosphere . It is only by radiation that the earth (including it’s atmosphere) gets rid of energy to space.
Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm:
“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”
======================================================
This notion is so absurd (shock).
What do you mean by “earth”? You can not mean the solid earth/the surface of the solid earth, because the solid earth has no higher “ERL” (effective radiating level). And what does the solid earth radiate from? Right, FROM THE SURFACE! And where has the alleged “global warming” been “measured”? Right, ON THE SURFACE, too! And what do you need to get higher temperatures ON THE SURFACE? Right, you need more energy coming TO THE SURFACE. And what your higher colder zone in the atmosphere has to do with more energy coming TO THE SURFACE? Right, absolutely nothing.
So, what you are talking about does not fit together, it is an absurd word salad.
mods – someone left off a close italics thingy
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs, mod.]
@Mods:
Missing a close italics in this comment –
Andrew W says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:10 pm
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs, mod.]
davidmhoffer says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm
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.
David:
Ah yes. The absorption and re-emission . . . stuff.
Yes. Consider a photon >>originating at the surface<>originating at the surface<< will be absorbed at a low altitude INCREASES as the level of CO2 increases. Indeed, I can't believe that this is still a matter of debate.
You are also dead wrong about one thing. The following is not semantics. Read the next two sentences a few times and decide if you disagree with either of them. Your entire premise hinges on them both being wrong. Photons are NEVER re-emitted. NEW photons are emitted.
Not always at the same wavelength as they were absorbed at. A cold gas will, on average, emit longer wavelength photons than are emitted, on average, by the hot surface. (The gases are not black bodies by any stretch of the imagination, but they do emit over the entire Black Body Emissive Power Spectrum) So "re-emission" may result in new photons that have a much lower probability of being absorbed by CO2 than the original photon.
Also. A CO2 molecule will become energized by absorbing a photon, but photon emission is not the only means available to dissipate that energy. It may collide with an oxygen or nitrogen molecule and transfer energy. These will then have more energy and hence be hotter, thus bringing the entire system back into equilibrium. Indeed, we must assume a fairly large amount of energy is transferred to the other molecules, else how does the atmosphere warm? If they are warmer than absolute 0, they will emit a photon. That emission might be at a radically different wavelength than the original photon that has a much lower probability of being absorbed by CO2. Eventually a steady state is reached by radiant transfer to space. And the atmosphere is warmer. The lower atmosphere is warmed by conduction, radiation from the surface and solar insolation. The upper atmosphere is warmed primarily by solar insolation and convection. Most(NEVER ALL!) of the absorbable radiant energy from the surface has been absorbed by the lower atmosphere.
FerdiEgb says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:14 pm
“The 13C/12C ratio of the deep oceans …”
Already refuted upthread here and here.
“…the oceans are a net sink for CO2…”
Inferred based on assumed carbon cycle. Circular reasoning.
“…the deep ocean sinks near the poles must absorb the 25% human emissions plus all of the deep ocean upwelling CO2…”
…for your narrative to work. This, again, is circular reasoning.
Your hypothesis, however, requires something which is prohibited by the fact that temperature leads CO2 by a substantial amount (90 degrees of phase), and effect cannot precede cause.
“davidmhoffer says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm
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.
Wow davidmhoffe. You and Mosher make a few assumptions. First, the co2 molecule is a 1½ of KWART (sorry, I couldn’t pass it up) low from a ERL leak and will absorb protons. Second, air current is going to carry them higher than normal.
If what you say is true then we would already have evidence of a “hot spot”, but we don’t.
Conclusions from this paper by physicist Denis Rancourt
Radiation physics constraints on global warming
http://tinyurl.com/6py3tpb
[…]
The radiation balance steady state temperature of Earth’s surface is approximately two orders of magnitude more sensitive to changes in solar constant and planetary albedo than
to changes of atmospheric concentration of greenhouse effect CO2.
Virtually the same results (as eqs.24 and 25) are obtained for our single-layer atmosphere model (eq.7), and the same results were previously obtained for a model where the atmosphere was treated as an inert (non-thermalizing and non-radiative) infra-red greenhouse filter (i.e., like a pane of greenhouse glass that acts only to transmit or reflect back some fraction of the longwave emissions from the planet surface).
In view of the above model sensitivity calculations and given the physical simplicity of the model with no free parameters and based on established physical principles, it is clear that many factors will have a larger effect on surface-temperature-determining radiation balance than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. For example, such factors as changes in albedo from aerial mineral dust variations due to land use changes, changes affecting cloud dynamics (albedo), effective solar irradiance variations, and many more, are expected to have larger impacts than CO2 concentration under present saturation absorption conditions.
Anyone wishing to focus on CO2 concentration as a climate driver should have the onus to explain ignoring the above straightforward demonstration of an approximately two order of magnitude irrelevance of CO2 relative to solar irradiance (of known seasonal variation) and albedo and emissivity (both under-studied and significantly more complicated than the effect of CO2).
John Finn;
It would be useful if someone like Steve Mosher or yourself (David) could put together a guest post to explain the issue in simple ‘laymens’ terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I’m flattered. But the problem is that there is no way that I have ever been able to find to truly reduce this to “laymen’s terms”. It is one of those issues best described by one of my favourite quotes “Complex difficult problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers”.
John Eggert responds to me that I’m wrong because a photon is not “re-emitted” it is actually a new photon. Well he’s right. It is a technicality that doesn’t change my answer, but push comes to shove, he’s right, and my answer was an over simplification. Then he goes on forever about all the different ways that molecules absorb and emitt and resulting frequency shifts and related processes such as conduction…. and he’s right about those things as well. Which also doesn’t change my answer but it would take 5 pages of writing and a few diagrams to explain why. Then there’s Greg House who jumps in with his usual cold things can’t send energy to warm things argument which is half right and it takes another 5 pages to deal with that issue correctly, which ALSO doesn’t change my answer, and at the end of it he’ll still say I’m wrong as will a lot of other people.
John Finn says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Ian W says:
Most of the heat energy leaving the Earth’s surface is carried up toward the troposphere by convection of water not by radiation
Right – but we are concerned about the heat energy which leaves the earth’s atmosphere . It is only by radiation that the earth (including it’s atmosphere) gets rid of energy to space.
Glad you agree – but you also say in a previous post:
If the outgoing LW energy from the earth (including it’s atmosphere) is emitted from a higher, colder layer then, according to the S-B law, the energy emitted is reduced.
But the emissions due to latent heat of fusion and condensation are NOT governed by S-B law so that radiation is NOT reduced. Not only that but the radiation is often above or close to the ERL (which is not a hard limit) especially where there is most convection in the Hadley cells of the tropics.
Ahhg. Bloody html formatting.
The thing that says
“Yes. Consider a photon >>originating at the surfaceoriginating at the surface<<
Would make more sense as:
Yes. Consider a photon originating at the surface. You state that the probability that a photon would be absorbed at a lower altitude DECREASES as CO2 increases. How else to interpret: "Since being absorbed . . . happens at a higher altitude than the photon originated from". I assert that the probability that a photon originating at the surface will be absorbed at a low altitude INCREASES as the level of CO2 increases. Indeed, I can't believe that this is still a matter of debate.
Sorry about that.
old construction worker;
If what you say is true then we would already have evidence of a “hot spot”, but we don’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See what I mean John Finn?
Well old construction worker, I was responding to the question of what happens to the mean emission height due to CO2 increases in the absence of secondary effects. From that perspective, I stand by my answer. The fact that we do NOT see the putative hot spot is a good indication that feedbacks are negative and serve to largely cancel the effects of CO2. Doesn’t change the fact that a photon that otherwise would have escaped straight to space stands a larger chance of having that journey interrupted part way as CO2 increases. (yes, yes, I know, its a NEW photon that finishes the last leg of the journey, not the SAME photon. sigh.)
Effects cannot precede cause? Tachyons, my dear boy! Tachyons!
After two months I’m still a newbie to climate science, but please bear with me…
There is a well-studied planet in the solar system with lots of CO2 in the atmosphere. Give that man in the back row who said “Mars” a big round of applause. The actual surface temperature of Mars is about 8K higher than the Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium temperature. Water vapor is present at a concentration of 210ppmv.
The guys who wear the white lab coats and the polka-dot bow-ties have calculated the optical thickness of CO2 and of water vapor. If we drop their values into a simple climate model we get surface temperatures very close to actual, for both Mars and Earth.
In this comments thread some climate experts are saying that CO2 has no greenhouse effect. I don’t understand the physics, but I do understand the Vostok ice cores. Provided that the dating protocol is valid (and the Vostok people are warmists, thus unlikely to use a false method harmful to their cause), then CO2 does not drive temperature, it follows temperature.
Now I’m wondering why CO2 warms Mars, but it doesn’t warm Earth.
Off topic, wouldn’t it be wonderful if all visitors to this forum came to share and to learn? WUWT isn’t as bad as jonova but a discussion that goes, “Warmist FAIL!!” — “Skeptic LOSER!!” only proves that your shoe size is bigger than your IQ (and a heck of a lot bigger than your manhood). Thankyou to the commenters who display good etiquette. I listen to you and I learn from you.
John Eggert;
You state that the probability that a photon would be absorbed at a lower altitude DECREASES as CO2 increases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said no such thing.
Greg House says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:41 pm
And what does the solid earth radiate from? Right, FROM THE SURFACE! And where has the alleged “global warming” been “measured”? Right, ON THE SURFACE, too! And what do you need to get higher temperatures ON THE SURFACE? Right, you need more energy coming TO THE SURFACE.
===========================================================================
Or you could measure surface temperature by placing your thermometer in a parking lot or next to an airport runway or an incinderator or an air conditioner or …
YFNWG says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Ole is a ‘just the facts’ sort of guy.
He has thoroughly falsified the AGW model of CO2 driving the climate. This has been done by simply graphing the CO2 versus Temp for the earth.
Now it is simply a political show. Some people want taxes and power, which explains why they keep pushing this nonsense of carbon driven climate.
If you believe otherwise, I truly feel sorry for you as you are the victim of a huge propaganda machine.
Cheer to all.
Jack