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.
Allan MacRae says:
August 30, 2012 at 9:34 pm
This post and paper are timely – I am reposting the following entry from a few days ago.
I personally discovered the relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature in late 2007 and published the paper below on icecap.us in January 2008.
Could you not give us a single rough figure for the relationship. Because …..
What I think what you may have ‘discovered ‘ is that atmospheric CO2 increases more in ‘warm’ SST years than it does in ‘cold’ SST years. However, the key point to note here is that it never goes down – not even in ‘cold’ SST years. That’s because, even though the oceans absorb more and emit less during cold years, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning exceed the net natural exchange.
Even if there were no fossil fuel burning atmospheric CO2 levels would still fluctuate by up to about +/- 2ppm per year, but the fluctuation would be about some equilibrium level of, say, 300 ppm. In an El Nino year (warm) CO2 levels might be 302 ppm while in a La Nina year they might be 298 ppm. CO2 levels over the past 50 years or so have underlying upward trend which cannot be explained by temperature.
For example
dCO2 (since 1982) = 50 ppm
dCO2 (since 1998) = 25 ppm
Now tell us what the temperature changes are that have ’caused’ these increases.
Ferdinand:
Thankyou for your mention at August 31, 2012 at 1:14 am of a point I made earlier in this thread.
As many know, you and I have been having a mutually respectful but strong and heated debate of these issues for a long, long time. Indeed, parts of those exchanges have been on WUWT. People wanting to see them can search the Salby threads on WUWT. So, I think it would be a distraction for me to engage in a reprise of those arguments in this thread.
I think I stated the basic disagreement between us in my post at August 31, 2012 at 1:01 am, and people can assess our arguments for themselves. If the research I want is conducted then one day there will be additional data so the future will reveal to what degrees each of us is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
However, if you insist on repeating our arguments here then my responses will be to copy from posts I made on earlier WUWT threads. I would prefer that those who want to compare those arguments refer to the earlier threads so this thread is not disrupted.
Richard
Ferdinand:
In retrospect, I think my reply to you could be misinterpreted as being a ‘fob off’. So, although I intend to not repeat our disagreements here, I write to demonstrate good faith by making a specific response to your statement which mentioned me. You said;
Your assertion that “It is possible to estimate the deep ocean exchanges” is correct. However, I was refuting the claim that the atmospheric carbon isotope changes “prove” the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.
The fact that one can adopt assumptions which enable the data to ‘fit’ an anthropogenic cause does not alter the fact that the isotope changes do NOT prove the anthropogenic cause. Indeed, a factor of 3 difference between the assumed cause and the expected isotope change is a big difference.
Your estimate merely shows that the isotope changes do not provide a definitive proof that the atmospheric CO2 rise is not anthropogenic.
Having said that, I again say that I think a repeat of our arguments would be a distraction to this thread.
Richard
This statement appears to be of importance on a lay man common sense level…
“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.”
So, arguments against the greenhouse effect aside, let’s assume that water vapor and other gasses do raise the ERL and following the moist adiabatic lapse rate down from a higher ERL we get more DWLWIR to the ocean surface (which from the statement above is the catalyst for surface temperatures over land). Let’s also assume that this increase in DWLWIR is absorbed in the surface of the ocean (50 microns?) and reduces the cooling rate of the ocean surface.
We know that the oceans are warming.
So, in this scenario we have CO2 causing a slight warming of the very top surface of the ocean. BUT we also have a downward trend in lower level cloudiness which is certain to allow more SWR into the ocean and thus heat the ocean.
A few questions:
1) For those that believe that CO2 is the cause of the warming ocean, what is the mechanics to get the small amount of heat from the surface to build up in the vast ocean to cause the current warming trend?
2) Are the clouds driving the ocean temperature or are they a feedback, if a feedback what is causing the downward trend in cloudiness?
3) Can anybody quantify how much of the ocean warming trend is caused by these two factors?
I know I have made several assumptions but I don’t believe that I have gone outside of any known published studies.
PS…Be nice!
John of Kent says:
Nonsense, Steven. “Back” scattered IR radiation cannot heat the earths surface or atmosphere. The radiation is a consequence of that temperature, not the cause. Heat only flows from warm to cold, NEVER the other way round. Clearly Steven Mosher knows nothing about radiation physics!
Listen to Jo Posthma, he knows his stuff!
Sorry, john mate, Steve’s right and Jo (whoever he is) is wrong. Initially many of us intuitively thought like Jo but after a few minutes of thinking things through we began to understand the basics.
Firstly the atmosphere does not heat the earth – The sun does. However the atmosphere can slow down the rate of cooling. Basic thermodynamics tells us that if the Outgoing LW energy is less than the Incoming solar energy then the earth will warm.
Steve’s right – if the height of the ERL is raised then the rate of outgoing IR will drop and since incoming solar energy should remain fairly constant, this will create an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy and thus result in warming. To try to put it in simple terms (and probably failing): As CO2 molecules accumulate in the atmosphere, the average height at which IR emission to space occurs will increase. This means energy will be emitted from a higher (i.e COLDER) level. We know from S-B Law that this will result in a reduction in energy emission.
Konrad says:
August 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm
.
The first problem with the ERL hand waving is that CO2 at altitude is not just radiating at the local air temperature. It is also being illuminated by IR from the increased CO2 below. The second problem is that CO2 is heavier than air and the “well mixed” argument does not hold at the altitudes in question.
Regarding the “second problem” in particular. Could you explain the key features of the following emissions spectrum graph
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page19.htm
I’m particularly interested in the funnel centred around the wavenumber 600cm-1 to 700 cm-1 (or about 15 micron).
You might also care to comment on this post by Steve McIntyre (a noted sceptic) who, while referring to an emissions spectrum graph states the following:
Re my post
John Finn says:
August 31, 2012 at 3:27 am
The link to the Steve McIntyre quote is at
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/
richardscourtney says: August 31, 2012 at 1:01 am
Well, I make no such “assumption”…
…
But I say the AGW-hypothesis is based on three assumptions; viz.
1. The recent rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is mostly an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has an anthropogenic cause.
2. The anthropogenic cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is mostly or entirely accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 emitted by combustion of fossil fuels.
3. Increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration causes significant rise in global temperature when atmospheric CO2 concentration is greater than 280ppmv.
[end of excerpt]
Understood and agreed Richard – well said.
I am saying that the only point of disagreement between warming alarmists and most climate skeptics (in what I term the “mainstream” climate debate”) is your Assumption 3 above, which is essentially an argument about climate sensitivity to CO2, positive versus negative feedbacks, and whether the alleged humanmade increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause major or minor warming.
In this Assumption 3, I have strongly sided with the climate skeptics – I think climate sensitivity to CO2, if it exists at all, is so small as to be practically insignificant.
However, as you rightly point out, your Assumptions 1 AND 2 must also be true for the AGW hypothesis to be correct, and there are significant questions about the validity of both these assumptions.
This puts both of us outside the scope of the “mainstream climate debate” as I have defined above – but in scientific matters I’d rather be correct than popular. 🙂
P.S.
I want to acknowledge that, to my recollection, it was you Richard who pointed out to me (probably in 2008) the papers by Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling et al (1995) – thank you.
Also, thank you for so clearly stating your three assumptions, which are generally ignored in the mainstream climate debate and yet are the very foundations on which the shaky AGW hypothesis is built.
Although I do not agree with his “mass balance” and C13/C12 arguments, I want to acknowledge Ferdinand Engelbeen’s always interesting posts. Somewhere in our dialogue lies the truth, and this respectful and healthy debate is both interesting and constructive.
Finally, I recently misquoted the source of Veizer (2005) – it is not GSA Today, but Geoscience Canada Volume 32 Number 1.
ERL? you’ve got me there.
If a gas gets heated at height in the atmosphere then that heat will radiate to space earlier than from the surface thus reducing the radiation getting to the surface. Any gas molecule that is heated will reradiate energy at a lower level than that received so lowering the energy levels reaching the surface.
richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:01 am
Importantly, although ‘assumption 1′ may be correct, it is certain that ‘assumption 2′ is wrong.
and
But there is no such direct relationship: in some years almost all the emissions seem to be sequestered from the air, and in other years almost all the emissions stay in the air.
There is not the slightest reason that the year by year variability in CO2 increase rate should correlate with the emissions rate. By the same reasoning, there is no decrease or increase of sealevels, as the tides over a day and months are several orders of magnitude larger than the small changes in average sealevel. It takes 25 years to filter any change in sealevel out of the noise. Similarly, it takes only 2-3 years to filter out the influence of the human emissions out of the noise caused by temperature changes. The correlation between the accumulated emissions and the trend in the atmosphere is obvious:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
while the temperature-CO2 trend is less obvious:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
We are talking of a multivariate system, where the two variables: emissions and temperature both influence the year by year increase and the trend. The year by year variability is largely caused by the temperature changes, but the trend is largely caused by the emissions…
richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:31 am
Sorry, my previous response was before I did see your comment, indeed we have been there a number of years, thus everybody can look at the arguments used in previous discussions
Icarus62 specifically but generally speaking clearly there is a desperate need for more jobs in the economy otherwise there is a great risk that all this hot air will do more heat the planet more than co2 ever could. This nonsense proves only one thing that there isn’t a single solitary soul on the planet that has any idea exactly what is happening and why but there are a lot of smart guys and governments that are using the climate anxiety and debate to empty all of our pockets of as much cash as possible. There is nothing worse than a back room lawyer or a pseudo scientist or indeed a scientist so loaded up with guff and learnt by wrote gibberish who then strives to empower themselves with a knowitall pontificating attitude. As John Christy said to Senator Boxer in a recent hearing ‘we really don’t know, its a wicked problem,. For goodness sake find something positive to do with your lives instead of wittering on about what causes what and why because little will change until someone manages to persuade politicians that ripping us of on the basis of co2 is just one big scam. That is the issue and nothing else matters at all. I am only taking interest today because I am waiting for the morphine to kick in to control arthritus pain in my neck but frankly reading your pretentious bullcrap is more painful than my neck. In intellect terms there is in reality little between you and George Monbiot, its all gibberish!
Ferdinand:
re: your posts to me at August 31, 2012 at 4:06 am and August 31, 2012 at 4:15 am. No problem and no misunderstanding from me. As Alan MacRae says;
“Somewhere in our dialogue lies the truth, and this respectful and healthy debate is both interesting and constructive.”
I only wish everybody who disagrees about these things as strongly as you and me would also post their views without rancor and as forcefully as we do.
Richard
Steve Mosher is absolutely correct. The only significant energy input into the oceans is short wave solar energy. However, the rate that energy leaves the ocean is partially determined by long wave radiation directly to space (in the absorption window), and by the radiation heat transfer by absorption and re-radiation. Conduction to and convection by air, and evaporation and condensation at altitude also carry some of the energy from the oceans to higher altitudes. There is no heating by back-radiation, but the back radiation slows net radiation heat transfer up, and thus the accumulating solar radiation heats the water more. Eventually the convection and latent heat transfer make up the lost radiation heat transfer to restore equilibrium. The mechanism is through the raising of the altitude of radiation to space, which is initially cooler due to the lapse rate, but eventually the temperature increase is felt all the way through the atmosphere, which warms to restore the balance.
Leonard,
Sounds plausible, but can you quantify the amount of warming (heat buildup) in the ocean to a certain amount of CO2? How much ocean heating is due to clouds which have a direct effect on SWR reaching the ocean?
The PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere will never amount to a hill of beans as far as it effects temperature, totally irrelevant. Man made global warming seems to be artifact of thermometers in inappropriate places rather than a few misplaced photons smooging up to CO2 molecules and warming the cockles of their heart..
Mosher has been saying a lot about the magical qualities of photons and their strange affinity for CO2 molecules, firstly Mosher I have yet to find a physical proof of a photon, talk of a photon hitting your eye and that enables you to see falls in the face that it is actually an electron that hits your eye and lets you see. That would make the photon an electron, thus an electron at a lower level of energy than the electrons in the CO2 molecule would have a snowballs chance in hell of entering the CO2 molecule and heating it. Sadly heat flows one way, I could make a lot of money using my freezer as a welder if it did not.
That the world has been impoverished for CO2 and the flora on a starvation diet seems not to bother those of a green or warmist bent, that N.A.S.A have revealed the wonderful increase of biomass on the world in recent times is a success of a few extra parts per million of CO2.
This year I shall endeavour to give to our planet all the CO2 I can afford.
” but the back radiation slows net radiation heat transfer up, and thus the accumulating solar radiation heats the water more.”
I don’t think that is so, having spent a lot of time trying to unravel that very issue. see here:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/TheSettingAndMaintainingOfEarth.pdf
Mosher says
” 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.”
Yeah, as opposed to an English Major who has no formal qualifications in physics or science who thinks that applying dubious statistics to a pile of crap data and averaging it would make it gold standard, isn’t it? And yeah, the same english major whose collaborative work with BEST was done on the basis of science by press release but ended up in the crappy paper getting rejected, isn’t it?
Pot, meet kettle.
“davidmhoffer
Two photons get absorbed at 2.5 meters, and again at 7.5 meters, and then go straight through.
Average emission height = 4 meters”
I understood what you were saying. What I’m saying at 2.5 meters there should be a “hot spot” if the back traveling LWR proton from 7.5 meter CO2 molecule is doing or causing any “extra work” that can be measured in the 2.5 meter CO2 molecule.
Let me put this another way: You go to your favorite Steak House, the chef sets your steak under a infra red “heat lamp” which is 18 inches above the counter. We know the steak will not stay as hot as it was on the grill. We know that the “heat lamp” will kept the steak from cooling down faster than not having a “heat lamp”. At some point in time, the steak will reach an equilibrium “temperature” regardless of any LWR being radiating out of the steak. We place a second steak 60 inches away from same “heat lamp”, the second steak will cool down faster than the first steak. It too will reach an equilibrium but be cooler than the first steak regardless of any LWR being radiating from the steaks. The question is: Does the LWR from the second steak cause any measurable “work” in the first steak.? If you add 9 more steaks at 60 inches, will that increase the LWR “work” in the first steak. Maybe somebody really good in math could say what that “increase” in “work” should be, but can that “work” be isolated and be measured? I don’t care how fast LWR is reaching the kitchen walls.
So, Average emission height is meaningless.
Stephen,
Your article says that any increase in IR on the ocean’s surface would result in more evaporation, negating heating of the surface. In this article they measure ocean skin temps during cloudy conditions with an increase in skin temperature and DWIR during cloudy conditions.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Do you think that the experiment in the RC article was accurate? Could it be possible that because of a decrease in SWR during cloudy conditions that evaporation slowed and caused the ocean surface to warm?
Thanks, Eric
Eric H
I don’t think the RC article is accurate for the reasons stated.
Clouds do reduce evaporation by increasing humidity beneath them. I think that is the main reason that the water surface temperature rises and not any increase in downward IR (and also reduce SWR into the oceans) but in global terms that just introduces a greater temperature and humidity differential between cloudy and clear areas which gets offset by an increase in horizontal windflow so zero net effect globally.
Note that SWR doesn’t cause immediate evaporation because it penetrates past the evaporative layer. It only affects evaporation when the energy from the SWR rises back to the surface again.
The important thing is that the oceans can only hold so much energy as is necessary to release energy to the air as fast as it gets in from SWR. That requires a specific oceanic energy content beyond which the oceans will release any extra energy by way of evaporation.That quantity of energy is set by pressure at the surface plus insolation as per my article.
However, internal ocean movements do change the rate of energy release over time so the system cycles around the equilibrium set by atmospheric pressure and insolation.
John Finn;
means energy will be emitted from a higher (i.e COLDER) level. We know from S-B Law that this will result in a reduction in energy emission.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. At any given level at which photons that otherwise would have passed straight through are instead intercepted and absorbed, the temperature at that level is elevated. When it cools, it therefor cools from a higher temperature than it otherwise would have been at.
Stephen,
Thanks for the reply, I will continue to ponder and learn.
old construction worker;
I understood what you were saying. What I’m saying at 2.5 meters there should be a “hot spot” if the back traveling LWR proton from 7.5 meter CO2 molecule is doing or causing any “extra work” that can be measured in the 2.5 meter CO2 molecule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To which I agreed. In the absence of all other processes, that is roughly what we’d expect to see. But the real world isn’t absent those processes.
Konrad says:
August 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm:
“Greg, you are very persistent with your claims regarding the inability of LWIR emitted from a cooler object to slow the cooling of a warmer object. Sadly you are incorrect. I have conducted several empirical experiments into an issue discussed elsewhere on this thread concerning the ability of LWIR to slow the cooling rate of liquid water.
I have found that LWIR incident on the surface of a most warm materials CAN slow the cooling rate of those materials (even if emitted from a cooler matter).”
=================================================
Konrad, I have just written about distorting of my position by davidmhoffer and you immediately are doing the same thing (sad). Again, I do not claim “the inability of LWIR emitted from a cooler object to slow the cooling of a warmer object”. I do claim that apparently nobody has proven experimentally, that colder things can either warm warmer things or slow down cooling of the warmer things by means of infra-red radiation. Simply because no warmist I talked to on various blogs has been able to present a link to such a scientific experiment. I hope you can understand the difference.
Now, even if you honestly believe that you proved that experimentally you need to understand, that a pure claim “I did it” is not sufficient in a scientific debate. Just imagine another use would just claim he proved the opposite.
So you need first to publish an exact description of your experiment with all the data so that scientists could verify it. Then we can look at your conclusions and see whether they are supported by your data. And so on. Unfortunately, what we have now is only your claim and that, as I said, is not enough.