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.
Edim,
The non radiatively active gases warm up until they are in thermal equilibrium with the surface, then they’re involvement in the overall energy balance ceases.
Bart, Phil,
Re Greg House… see?
Davidmhoffer, no they’re constantly gaining energy from the surface and can only lose it by transfering it to the radiatively active gases, which can radiate it to space.
Edim;
The dominant planetary (at TOA) cooling flux is actually from atmospheric radiation, not surface radiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To explain it better, you’re focused on only half the process. If there were no radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, then there would be no radiance from atmosphere to space. 100% of the cooling would come directly from the surface. But once you inject radiatively active gases into the atmosphere, while it is true that they radiate to space, they only radiate what the absorbed from the surface in the first place. So while you see cooling processes from atmosphere to space, they only exist because of warming processes that occurred first from surface to atmosphere. Hence, the warmer temps of an atmosphere with radiatively active gases versus one without.
davidmhoffer says:
August 31, 2012 at 11:50 am
At no time in either case does the warmer object on average get warmer than it was initially. But, as I stated later, that is beside the point, because there is an additional consideration: the active energy source in the mix. Then, the effect you highlight is what modulates the emissions of the warmer body induced by the active energy source, causing surface temperature to rise.
Phil. says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm
“CH4 absorbs/emits at around 1300 cm-1 whereas CO2 absorbs/emits at around 667 cm-1, why do you believe that absorption in the CO2 band from the Earth’s LWIR would deplete the CH4 band at 1300 cm-1?”
The equilibrium temperature of the surface results from a complex interplay of where the major emitters in the atmosphere are, and where the emissions spectrum overlaps their excitation frequency. The emissions spectrum is not a monotonic function. Hence the partial derivatives of surface temperature with respect to changes in the relative atmospheric constituents are not generally monotonic, either. It is quite possible to have negative sensitivity due to a particular constituent.
FerdiEgb says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm
This comes down to a simple mass balance equation. If more CO2 is continuously coming up than going down, it will accumulate at the surface, and it will proportionately be taken up by the atmosphere. This is a simple statement of fact, actually a tautology. There is no way around it.
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”. “
FerdiEgb says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:52 pm
“Your fit is based on a temporarely trend in temperature, which by accident fits the trend in CO2 increase…
Doesn’t help you. During that “temporary” interval, the climate system has to respond to it. And, since that “temporary” interval happens to be the one over which the most significant increase in CO2 occurred over the last century, it accounts at the very least for the most significant increase in CO2.
“… but doesn’t fit in other periods (like the 1945-1975 cooling period).”
A) it fits since 1958
B) if we had reliable measurements prior to 1958, it would be possible to determine if there were a shift in the climate state at an earlier time, requiring an update of parameters in the model
C) we do not have reliable measurements prior to 1958
“Let even be for the MWP-LIA or glacial periods with ~ 100 kyr of below “baseline” temperatures.
We do not have reliable measurements prior to 1958. I choose to base my opinion on the best, most modern, most reliable and direct measurements of the physical quantities, not on unverifiable, indirect proxy measurements.
“It gets quite problematic if the theory violates a lot of observations…”
There is definitely a problem in that the observations are skewed toward those things people decided to observe, based on the hypothesis they were working on. It might violate a number of the dodgy observations you have available, but you have no idea how it comports with observations which were never made.
“The point is that anyway the natural sinks are larger than the natural sources. “
It does not follow. You have no data whatsoever which can verify that. Like I said, you could as easily have said: “it implies natural minus a little + all of the human emissions are absorbed somewhere.” With just a minor change in wording, I have absorbed all of the human emissions, and the natural sources are larger than the natural sinks. Yet, the two statements are equivalent. You can always play such games when the underlying variables are indeterminant, i.e., unobservable, given the data at hand.
Edim says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Davidmhoffer, no they’re constantly gaining energy from the surface and can only lose it by transfering it to the radiatively active gases, which can radiate it to space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I thought the same at one time. The reason that this is not the case is that the same rules that govern how energy is transmitted radiatively between gas molecules also applies to conduction. Since gas molecules can only exist at very specific energy levels, they cannot exchange energy with other molecules unless those molecules have those exact same energy levels. Since the non radiatively active gases do not have the specific energy states required to transfer energy to or from the radiatively active gases, there is no on going process of energy exchange between them in the atmosphere.
To Mike Mellor:
You stated: “I’m wondering why CO2 warms Mars but doesn’t warm Earth…”
But it does! Much of the skeptic population here accepts the belief that greenhouse gases (of which the most important is water vapor, not CO2) result in the Earth’s surface temperature raised by approx. 33 degrees C. over the theoretical black-body temperature of an object in Earth’s orbit. (See http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html.)
However, most of the skeptic community represented here believe that CO2’s influence on global temperature–the “climate sensitivity”–is overstated. The reasons why vary wildly.
Many accept that all else being equal, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a rise in temperature of a bit over 1 degree C. The IPCC’s “consensus forecast” states 3 degrees C. for this doubling, mostly based on water vapor feedback effects. Many here believe that particular feedback is wildly overstated and might even be negative.
Some here have beefs about the radiation physics. They believe that the atmosphere is a more complicated place than a laboratory bench–a fair point. This leads them to postulate that other atmospheric effects shield, or overwhelm, the effects of CO2’s absorption & re-emission spectra.
If you keep looking and reading, you will find a number of other skeptic viewpoints.
Kasuha says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Perhaps you can help me develop the hypothesis to a higher level. Or, even come up with another entirely. The fundamental constraint is that it must conform with the empirical fact that the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperature. Human attribution for even a majority of the rise in CO2 does not satisfy that constraint, hence is ruled out.
Bart says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:52 pm:
“Statistical mechanics postulates that, in equilibrium, each microstate that the system might be in is equally likely to occur, and when this assumption is made, it leads directly to the conclusion that the second law must hold in a statistical sense. That is, the second law will hold on average, with a statistical variation on the order of 1/√N where N is the number of particles in the system. ”
================================================
This Wikipedia quote does not support your statement.
Look, it is not enough to find a word or two in a text, sometimes the are used in a very different sense. Just reread your initial statement and try to see any relation to your quote: there is none or, let us say, very little.
Again, you can not add or subtract photons just like that like an accountant, it is physics. I understand how nice it might be like “2photones-1photon=1photon”, but there is apparently no experiment supporting this calculation. Maybe you could consider dropping the tale and serving as a good example for warmists. I am still curious who will be the first one.
davidmhoffer:
At August 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm you say:
Sorry, but that is incorrect.
Radiatively active molecules can be rotationally and/or vibrationally excited by absorbing a photon or by collision with another molecule. And they can be de-excited collisionally, too. Indeed, it is collisional de-excitation which enables excited GHG (i.e. H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) molecules to warm the ‘inert’ nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) molecules which comprise most of the atmosphere.
Kinetic energy of a collection of gas molecules is observed as temperature.
There are far more N2 and O2 molecules in the air than GHG molecules and the GHG molecules can be radiatively excited, but the N2 and O2 molecules cannot be radiatively excited. The energy of the ‘inert’ N2 and O2 molecules is entirely kinetic while the energy of the GHG molecules is kinetic and also energy of radiative excitation. Therefore, on average, the GHG molecules will be more energetic than the N2 and O2 molecules.
Hence, the net effect of collisions is much more collisional de-excitation than collisional excitation of GHG molecules with the effect that on average the N2 and O2 molecules are warmed as a result the radiative absorbtion by GHG molecules.
Richard
Chris R. says:
August 31, 2012 at 3:06 pm:
“Much of the skeptic population here accepts the belief that greenhouse gases (of which the most important is water vapor, not CO2) result in the Earth’s surface temperature raised by approx. 33 degrees C. over the theoretical black-body temperature of an object in Earth’s orbit.”
====================================================
Really? My impression is quite the opposite. But I can understand why you have yours.
The majority of commentators here have expressed their scepticism about the so called “greenhouse effect” and actually think that it is a complete BS invented for political reasons, but it is the other side who write the majority of the comments, and their comments are often long, so if we counted words then yes, my estimation were like 80-90% come from the other side.
No, I did not really count, it is just my guess.
davidmhoffer:
As an afterthought, I consider that I should have added another point in my post to you.
The probability of collisional de-excitation increases with gas pressure. This is because if a GHG molecule absorbs a photon it will de-excite by emitting a photon if it is not involved in a collision with an ‘inert’ molecule first. Pressure is an indication of the frequency of collisions. And this is one reason why radiative emission to space increases with altitude.
Richard
richardscourtney says: August 31, 2012 at 9:52 am
Yes Richard – how could I forget these famous comments:
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
* Source: http://www.green-agenda.com
Bart says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Phil. says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm
“CH4 absorbs/emits at around 1300 cm-1 whereas CO2 absorbs/emits at around 667 cm-1, why do you believe that absorption in the CO2 band from the Earth’s LWIR would deplete the CH4 band at 1300 cm-1?”
The equilibrium temperature of the surface results from a complex interplay of where the major emitters in the atmosphere are, and where the emissions spectrum overlaps their excitation frequency. The emissions spectrum is not a monotonic function. Hence the partial derivatives of surface temperature with respect to changes in the relative atmospheric constituents are not generally monotonic, either. It is quite possible to have negative sensitivity due to a particular constituent.
That would require a huge sensitivity to CO2, we wouldn’t be living on this planet in that case!
Phil. says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Think!
Not what I said but good advice, your model is wrong as I pointed out specifically in
Phil. says:
August 31, 2012 at 11:28 am
Phil. says:
August 31, 2012 at 11:28 am
I just noticed this comment wedged up there.
“The CO2 dissolved in the surface waters during the LIA which were at a lower temperature but also the partial pressure of CO2 during the LIA was about 60% of today’s.
Although I consider the ice core data highly suspect (because they are impossible to verify), it makes perfect sense that pCO2 of the atmosphere during the LIA would be less than today. It was colder then. When temperatures get colder, more goes into the ocean, in accordance with your relation
c = k*p
k increased, but the total c and p are constrained, so c had to increase while p decreased.
Today, that c is coming back up again. It is displacing the c in today’s equation, so we can say dc/dt is greater than zero. Since, to the degree that “k” is actually constant,
dc/dt = k * dp/dt
and k is greater than zero, you also have dp/dt is greater than zero.
It won’t stop until the temperature decreases to the point at which the “c” of the waters coming up matches the “c” of the waters going down.
richardscourtney;
I shall delve into the collisionaly de-excitation thing again, it has been a very long time since I had a deep dive into the topic. But if you say I’m wrong, I’m inclined to believe you. Sort of a “trust but verify” thing.
Question – how significant is the process? IE of the energy given up by GHG’s in this fashion versus radiance, is it 1%? 10%? etc?
Question Supplemental – does the process go the other way? Can a GHG molecule be bumped into a higher energy state by a collision with a non GHG molecule?
mkelly, Aug 31 at 12:05 pm,
Radiation between surfaces or volumes of absorbing and radiating materials pass photons both ways if the properties and temperature are in suitable ranges. For a simplified case of two flat surfaces with coefficients (absorbing and radiating) of 1, the equation of Net radiation energy transfer is from the hotter to colder surface, and has an equation E=5.73E-8(Thot ^4-Tcold^4), in Watts per m2, where T’s are in K. The constant is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and both the hotter and colder surface contribute to the net value. Both T’s can increase individually, but the net effect (difference) is the only result that is important for the resultant energy flow. In the case of the oceans and atmosphere it is more complicated. The so called greenhouse gases only absorb and radiate in narrow spectral ranges (wavelengths). In those ranges, they act close to black body (coefficients =1), but do not absorb or radiate outside the selected wavelengths. The net result is that some of the radiation from the oceans (which act close to full spectrum black bodies in the thermal range), which is not in the special ranges, passes either directly through the atmosphere to space, or may be intercepted by clouds (which act like the ocean). For simplicity ignore cloud effects as this makes the discussion more complicated. Part of the radiation is absorbed, mainly by water vapor, and to a lesser extent by CO2 and some other gases. The absorbed energy transfers to surrounding N2 and O2 by collisions and slightly warms it. However, the N2 and O2 has a range of velocities (Boltzmann distribution), and the more energetic collisions with the greenhouse gases cause them to sometimes radiate photons. This cools the surrounding gas. Generally the warming and cooling are in close balance, so incoming at a particular level and outgoing nearly balance. However, the atmosphere has a temperature gradient (the lapse rate), so the atmosphere absorbing the photons from the ocean is generally slightly cooler than the ocean. Thus, in addition to the photons that directly passed to space, there is an in-balance of back radiation from the atmosphere to the ocean compared to the upward radiation. This results in a NET radiation heat transfer up from both the passed through photons, and the NET imbalance of radiation in the atmospheric absorption range. While some photons do get absorbed by the ocean surface, only the NET flux heats a surface. Think of two (black body) surfaces at the same T facing each other. Both are emitting and absorbing photons continually. Neither heats or cools! If the surfaces (or surface and gas volume) are different temperatures only the NET energy flux results in heating or cooling.
richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2012 at 3:48 pm
“…the N2 and O2 molecules cannot be radiatively excited…”
…significantly by emissions emanating from the Earth, I think you mean. Their excitation energy is well in the tail of the emissions spectrum. Hence, they are not GHGs on the Earth.
“The energy of the ‘inert’ N2 and O2 molecules is entirely kinetic…”
Not sure that is true. Incoming sunlight does overlap.
Bart says:
August 31, 2012 at 6:15 pm
“It won’t stop until the temperature decreases to the point at which the “c” of the waters coming up matches the “c” of the waters going down.”
Or, the “c” of the waters coming up tails off to match the “c” of the waters going down.
Stephen Wilde,
I do not have an account on climaterealists.com and Twitter. You need a more easily accessed entry. However, I can explain your basic error quickly. The enthalpy to evaporate water vapor is VERY weakly dependent of total atmospheric pressure or CO2 content. It depends almost entirely on the local water temperature, and is nearly constant for small temperature ranges. The rate of removal by evaporation also depends on the partial pressure of vapor above the water. There is a limit to how much can evaporate in some cases, due to local saturation and slower or faster removal of the saturated vapor by wind mixing. Since warmer air can hold more vapor before saturation, a warmer temperature generally allows more removal. However, it is always the absorbed solar energy that sets the limits. There is no special energy in the CO2, it is just a gas vibrating like the N2 and O2, and H2O vapor. The CO2 and H2O do take part in the radiation heat transfer process, but in no way affect evaporation other than the way I stated.
Gregg House,
There are many non-scientific commentators on both sides of the issue. However, the scientific skeptics almost all agree with the so called greenhouse effect, with a 33 C increase due to water vapor, clouds, and CO2 (in that order). I have seen many supporters of CAGW (the case for extreme results) blame everything from increased prostitute sex to polar bear deaths (which has been disproved), and thousands of other effects, which are just crazy. Most scientific skeptics just want the facts, not myths, lies, and models (which are a joke if you try to look decades ahead, due to the spreading uncertainty band swamping the small trend).
Stephen Wilde says: August 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Stephen,
Only the temperature affects the partial pressure of saturated water vapor. The enthalpy to evaporate is essentially independent of atmospheric pressure over modest partial pressure ranges and temperatures. Your talk of CO2 effects are wrong. See my response to mkelly.
I tried to enter your site, but it required Twitter or a password, which I did not have. You need a friendlier entry (like e-mail) rather than password.
Cloud cover acts to reduce mixing depth in the well-mixed oceanic layer, and therefor offsets the direct warming effect of insolation.
The paper prompts questions about the influence of changes in global oceanic cloud cover on surface ocean temperature and consequently surface air temperature. The fifty years to 1996 corresponded to a trend increase in that cloud cover (an increase of more than 7%) and was followed by a decrease of about 1.5% over 10 years.
To Greg House:
The issue is that there really are 2 “greenhouse effects” under discussion:
(1) The natural one I referred to which has been in in existence for most of forever. A majority
of posters here believe this greenhouse effect exists.
The average temperature for a body in the Earth’s orbit, having the Earth’s average
albedo, would be some 255 degrees K. This is a easy calculation; in fact my under-
graduate statistical mechanics textbook gave this as a problem. A majority of the
sceptic community here accept this natural greenhouse effect exists, and is caused
mainly by water vapor and the first few parts-per-million of CO2 and some other
greenhouse gases. Since the absorption by greenhouse gases is logarithmic, the
greatest change occurs as the gas is most dilute.
(2) A claimed man-made “greenhouse effect”, mainly starring CO2, which is stated to
be increasing “catastrophically” is the atmosphere due to man’s burning of fossil
fuels.
This is the group that you seem to have your impression of. Very few of the posters
here believe that this “man-made greenhouse effect” has the power to catastrophically
change the Earth’s temperature as stated by the IPCC. I already alluded to the
diversity of views on climate sensitivity among this community in my previous post.
Leonard Weinstein said:
“The enthalpy to evaporate is essentially independent of atmospheric pressure over modest partial pressure ranges and temperatures”
Less energy is required for any given amount of evaporation at the top of Everest as compared to at the ocean surface. .A kettle boils at a lower temperature than 100C if pressure is reduced.
Therefore, the ratio changes between the amount of energy required to provoke evaporation and the amount of energy taken up by the phase change (the enthalpy of vapourisation).
It is that ratio which determines the energy cost of any given amount of evaporation and in turn that determines how warm the oceans must become before energy out equals energy in.
Then once that level of warmth has been attained the oceans cannot warm up any further. Instead the rate of evaporation varies to maintain the balance.So more CO2 (or any GHGs) in the air will only affect the rate of evaporation and not the temperature of the ocean bulk.
Leonard Weinstein says:
August 31, 2012 at 7:24 pm:
“Gregg House, …the scientific skeptics almost all agree with the so called greenhouse effect, with a 33 C increase due to water vapor, clouds, and CO2 (in that order).”
=======================================================
I humbly hope to have refuted such statements: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119
A have read your explanation about “net radiation” and allow me once again to point out that apparently it is not supported by any real scientific experiment. Looks good on paper, though…