By Dr. Patrick Michaels from World Climate Report
Sea level rise is a topic that we frequently focus on because of all the gross environmental alterations which may result from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it is perhaps the only one which could lead to conditions unexperienced by modern societies. A swift (or accelerating) sea level rise sustained for multiple decades and/or centuries would pose challenges for many coastal locations, including major cities around the world—challenges that would have to be met in some manner to avoid inundation of valuable assets. However, as we often point out, observational evidence on the rate of sea level rise is reassuring, because the current rate of sea level rise from global warming lies far beneath the rates associated with catastrophe. While some alarmists project sea level rise of between 1 to 6 meters (3 to 20 feet) by the end of this century, currently sea level is only inching up at a rate of about 20 to 30 centimeters per hundred years (or about 7 to 11 inches of additional rise by the year 2100)—a rate some 3-4 times below the low end of the alarmist spectrum, and a whopping 20 to 30 times beneath the high end.
To get from here to catastrophe surely requires a significant acceleration in sea level. And, because disasters pay scientists handsomely, a lot of people have been looking. Here is how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report summed up its investigation:
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from th3 19th to the 20th century, the total 20th-century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m.
Since 2003—the last data assessed by the IPCC—the rate of sea level rise has slowed (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Decadal (overlapping) rates for sea level rise as determined from the satellite sea level rise observations, 1993-2011 (data available from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).
This observation seems to tip the scale to “decadal variability” rather than an “increase in the longer-term trend” in explaining the 1993 to 2003 behavior.
But there is much more evidence that no anthropogenic global warming-related acceleration of sea level rise is taking place.
A couple of months ago, an important paper was published that examined the changing historical contribution of ground water removal (for human water needs, primarily irrigation) to global sea level. A primary finding was that this non-climate component of sea level rise was both significant and rapidly increasing, currently making up between 15 and 25 percent of the current observed rate of sea level rise. Further, the rate of ground water extraction has been increasing over time, which imparts a slight acceleration to the rate of sea level rise over the past half-century or so. Once this non-climate signal is removed, there remains no evidence for a climate-related acceleration. We covered that finding here.
Another paper has just been accepted in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that identified multidecadal cycles in the historical mean sea level observations from many ocean basins. A research team led by Don Chambers from the University of South Florida examined tide gauge records from across the globe and found oscillations with a period of about 60 years in all ocean basins except the Central/Eastern North Pacific. Chambers et al., note that a 60-yr quasi oscillation has previously been identified in other earth/climate systems including ocean circulation, global mean surface temperatures, large-scale precipitation patterns, and atmospheric pressure, among other things. Many of these cycles can be traced back hundreds of years—an indication of a natural (rather than manmade) origin.
Chambers and colleagues note that given the strong possibility for such cycles in the global sea level data, that care must be taken when attempting to identify accelerations, as they, in fact, simply be upswings in the natural oscillatory behavior. For instance, in most ocean basins, the bottom of the cycle was reached in the 1980s and an upswing has been occurring since then—precisely when the IPCC notes that the rate of sea level rise has been increasing. For this reason, Chambers et al. note:
The 60-year oscillation will, however, change our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than 1-cycle of the oscillation. Although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global [e.g., Merrifield et al., 2009] or regional [e.g., Sallenger et al., 2012] sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year fluctuation. While technically correct that the sea level is accelerating in the sense that recent rates are higher than the long-term rate, there have been previous periods were the rate was decelerating, and the rates along the Northeast U.S. coast have what appears to be a 60-year period [Figure 4 of Sallenger et al., 2012], which is consistent with our observations of sea level variability at New York City and Baltimore. Until we understand whether the multi decadal variations in sea level reflect distinct inflexion points or a 60-year oscillation and whether there is a [Global Mean Sea Level, GMSL] signature, one should be cautious about computations of acceleration in sea level records unless they are longer than two cycles of the oscillation or at least account for the possibility of a 60-year oscillation in their model. This especially applies to interpretation of acceleration in GMSL using only the 20-year record of from satellite altimetry and to evaluations of short records of mean sea level from individual gauges. [emphasis added –eds.]
The bottom line is this: the more people look for the anticipated acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, the less evidence they seem to find in support of it. All the while, we eat into the 21st century with a rate of sea level rise not much different from that experienced during the 20th century—and one which was hardly catastrophic, readily proven by a simple look around.
References:
Chambers, D., M.A. Merrifield, and R. S. Nerem, 2012. Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level? Geophysical Research Letters, doi:1029/2012GL052885, in press.
Wada, Y., et al., 2012. Past and future contribution of global groundwater depletion to sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L09402, doi:10.1029/2012GL051230.
KR, I’m familiar with Peter’s video featuring Josh Willis of NASA JPL. He’s wrong.
Here’s an example of NASA JPL’s scientific malpractice w/r/t sea level rise. This is a slide from a presentation by NASA JPL’s Lee-Leung Fu at a JPL Climate Symposium, Oct 24, 2009:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Fu_Oct24_09_graphing_fraud.jpg
Look at the circles. Do you see what they’ve done?
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Fu_Oct24_09_graphing_fraud_circled.jpg
For the “2.0 mm/yr” trend line, they started with a negative noise spike, to get a bigger slope! Do you see it?
And look closely at that final “3.2 mm/yr” tread line:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Fu_Oct24_09_graphing_fraud_zoom.jpg
For that one, they not only started with a negative noise spike, they ended with a positive noise spike! Plus, they stopped short of the end of the data in order to show the greatest possible slope!
That’s how NASA JPL (Josh Willis’s outfit) demonstrated “acceleration” in sea level rise at a JPL Symposium: by simple graphing fraud, which would earn an 8th grader an “F” from any competent middle school science teacher.
The truth is that there’s been no detectable acceleration at all in rate of sea level rise over the period during which mankind has been driving up CO2 levels substantially (roughly the last 3/4 century).
tonyb, I know what “GMSL” is. In fact, it’s in the glossary on my web site:
http://www.sealevel.info/glossary.html#gmsl
(Feel free to suggest other additions to the glossary, BTW.)
My “whatever that is” remark referred to C&W’s “additional spatially uniform field.” I’ve corresponded with Dr. Church about it, and I still don’t understand what it is. However, he did tell me that it’s not a “fudge factor,” and that it’s not temporally uniform. (Think about that, in the context of a paper on acceleration, in fact the first paper ever published in which anyone claimed to have detected any acceleration at all in sea level rise in the 20th century.)
KR wrote, “There was certainly a spike in sea level rise – but the inflection point of the rate of acceleration ~1930 just prior to a mid-century flattening is indeed a minima in the acceleration data.”
No, KR, there wasn’t a “spike in sea level rise” circa 1930, there was an increase in rate of sea level rise, which means a spike in acceleration. That’s a maximum, not a minimum. Rahmstorf apparently doesn’t know the difference between minima and maxima. (He’s not a native English speaker, so I’ll give him a pass on his confusion between plural and singular.) (But who’s “H&D”?)
Please see http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff for numerous references to the thorough beating that Rahmstorf’s semi-emperical nonsense has taken. My favorite quote: “It turns out that Rahmstorf has pulled an elaborate practical joke on the Community…” -Steve McIntyre
KR wrote, “Do you realize that the tidal gauge data Tamino used… [is] gauges which are corrected for both atmospheric pressure and glacial isostatic adjustment — meaning that the tide gauge and satellite data are directly comparable?”
Good heavens, KR! Have you ever looked at any actual sea level data?
Take a look at my web site, and click on “Data.” Then pick your favorite tidegauge set (or leave it at the default, which is NOAA’s current LTT list), scroll down to the data, and look in the far-right colum. That’s the GIA-corrected long term sea level trend for 259 of the best long term tide gauges in the world.
Look at the numbers. The “GIA corrected” trends vary from less than -3 mm/year to more than +3 mm/year!
(Note: atmospheric pressure differences have only short-term effects, they’re negligible w/r/t long term trends.)
Now do you understand why it is a severe error to mix and match sea level trends from different locations in the same graph?
KR wrote, “I would point out that sea level rates follow temperature – which is a quite separate discussion from temperature following CO2. From Kemp…”
That’s partially true. The part that is true is that the rate of sea level rise seems to have accelerated as the LIA ended, and we know that sea levels went way up at the last deglaciation, of course. But here’s the rub: if you believe the adjusted temperature datasets, the last two decades have been at least as warm as at any time on record — yet the measured rate of sea level rise hasn’t increased at all. Sea level is rising no faster now than it was 3/4 century ago. All that additional CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t caused any measurable increase in the rate of sea level rise.
Which brings us to your 2nd point: the mechanism through which CO2 is predicted to cause drastically accelerated sea level rise is indirect: the CO2 is supposed to cause warming, which, in turn, is supposed to cause sea level rise. Obviously, that hasn’t happened. So why not?
Logically, there are only two possiblities: either the connection between CO2 and temperature is much weaker than the alarmist models predict, or the connection between temperature and sea level rise is much weaker than the alarmist models predict (or both).
A lesson you can draw from that failure is one that Richard Lindzen aluded to when he wrote, “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.” A chain of inference is not merely as weak as its weakest link. The weaknesses of each link in the chain multiply. If two links in the chain each have a 50% chance of being right, there’s only a 25% chance that the whole chain of inference leads to a correct conclusion.
W/r/t Kemp, at least he acknowledges the existance of the MWP, but he implicitly denies the existence of the RWP. If you can pick what data you’re going to believe, of course you can find correlations between two kinds of data. The truth is that we only have good sea level data for the last ~ 200 years, and the temperature data is worse than the sea level data, which makes exercises like Kemp’s questionable at best.
daveburton – Pre-industrial sea level rise of 0.25 mm/year, 2 mm/year over the last 100 years (an order of magnitude increase), and 3.2 mm/year over the last 20 years (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed, starting, I’ll point out, at 1993, an intersection with the middle 2 mm/year fit line, not below it)…
Josh Willis _is_ correct, there has been acceleration of sea level rise over the same period of increasing temperature, and not incidentally increasing levels CO2.
And again, to repeat my first comment, Pat Michaels is cherry-picking short, statistically insignificant, intervals for his argument.
—
I would agree that the particular JPL slide you pointed to is a bad graph, a poor argument. A simple quadratic or power fit to the data would be far more appropriate. Especially since the residuals of a linear fit over that interval are significant, and a higher order fit statistically supported. With acceleration…
A single bad slide does not, however, invalidate the full body of evidence. I would consider that a “Look, squirrel” distraction.
daveburton – “H&D” was my shorthand for Houston and Dean 2011. My apologies if that was unclear.
H&D only looked at the quadratic term of a quadratic fit for data since 1930. That’s a poor fit in this case, as 20th century sea level data certainly does _not_ follow a parabola. And if you fit a (inappropriate) quadratic criteria as H&D did, the minima of that criteria appears in 1930.
In reality, recent sea level rise is greater than (and with statistical significance) it’s average value since 1930, with most of that increase in the last four decades. [ The term for this behavior is “acceleration”. ] H&D simply used an inappropriate analysis – sea level data since 1930 is best fit (to statistic significance) with a cubic polynomial that follows the mid-century changes – a quadratic fit fails significance testing. H&D presented a bad argument.
As to the rest, I’m going to continue to disagree. Semi-empirical models fit the data better than the physical models (likely due to underestimates of cryosphere melt), the full body of data shows acceleration, and if you want to look at global data you need to look at more than local sources – sea rise is not uniform, there are regional differences, hence you have to look at global data to determine the net effect.
daveburton, thanks for exposing the graphic sleight of hand. They use similar tricks like zero baseline temperature charts that make it appear that the natural warming trend is accelerating, when it is not. GISS is notorious for their dishonest charts.
KR says: I would point out that sea level rates follow temperature – which is a quite separate discussion from temperature following CO2.
KR doesn’t understand. There is no evidence showing that temperature follows co2. But there is ample evidence like this showing that co2 follows temperature:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
Neither KR nor anyone else has ever provided a chart showing that co2 leads temperature. That is because co2 is a function of temperature, not a cause. All available scientific evidence shows that co2 changes are caused by temperature, not the other way round.
Lacking any supporting evidence, AGW is only a conjecture. It is no different than the false claim of accelerating sea level rise. Empirical evidence shows that SLR is not accelerating. There is no verifiable evidence showing acceleration. That is why they have to create their dishonest charts. Likewise, there is no evidence of AGW. So they make up fake charts to try and prove something for which they have no evidence.
You are all missing what’s going on. This data makes perfect sense. Obama promised that by electing him, the rise of the oceans would begin to slow, and the planet would begin to heal. It’s working!!! I think that Romney promised to increase the rate of sea level rise. (OK, the Romney part I made up).
Good grief! I showed KR that GIA-adjusted, tide-gauge-measured, long term sea level trends vary by more than 6 mm/year(!), and asked KR, “Now do you understand why it is a severe error to mix and match sea level trends from different locations in the same graph?”
Obviously, the answer to that question is “no.” KR replied on September 14, 2012 at 12:08 pm, committing exactly that error, saying “Pre-industrial sea level rise of 0.25 mm/year, 2 mm/year over the last 100 years (an order of magnitude increase), and 3.2 mm/year over the last 20 years… starting… at 1993.”
1. Prior to tide gauge records, we have no good measurements of sea level rise. The claim to know “pre-industrial seal level rise” to a hundredth of a mm/year is complete poppycock.
2. The 2 mm/year claimed rate “over the last 100 years” is averaged & adjusted tide gauges (about 2/3 measured plus about 1/3 GIA adjustment), and the 3.2 mm/year for the last 19 years is averaged & adjusted satellite data (inflated by 0.3 mm/year to account for hypothesized sinking of the ocean floor, which means it’s really a measure of depth, not sea-level, since sea-level is the level of the surface of the sea). The two figures, 2 mm/yr and 3.2 mm/yr, result from measuring different quantities, by different methodologies, in different locations. Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges.
If you look at tide-gauge data alone (and don’t switch gauges in mid-graph!), you see no acceleration. In fact, most studies find slight decelerations.
Likewise, if you look at satellite data alone, you see no acceleration. In fact, you see deceleration (though, frankly, the satellite data is such a mess that I don’t think you should trust it).
Only by conflating the two, which is gross statistical malpractice, is it possible to create the illusion of acceleration in sea-level rise.
Why is this hard to understand??
KR wrote on September 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm, “H&D only looked at the quadratic term of a quadratic fit for data since 1930. That’s a poor fit…”
KR, your complaint about Houston & Dean fitting a quadratic as a test of acceleration comes just 20 hours after you cited Church & White 2006 as proof of acceleration… yet that’s the test that they used, except that they chose 1870 as the starting date. It seems clear that your real complaint isn’t with the method, it’s with the result.
BTW, KR, you know who I am, but who are you?
Mark Patton wrote, “There is no evidence showing that temperature follows co2. But there is ample evidence like this showing that co2 follows temperature”
What an interesting message, and what an interesting graph!
I was expecting a paleo-climate graph, showing temperature shifts leading CO2 shifts by a couple-hundred years. But this is something entirely different. It’s a graph of 12-month average minus 60-month average for both CO2 and temperature (using the WoodForTrees “Isolate” parameter, which “Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise'”).
I’ve never seen this sort of graph before. It clearly shows HADCRUT temperature fluctuations leading CO2 fluctuations by about 1-2 years.
Is this original work, Mark? Is anyone else writing about it? Is it published anywhere?
Mark continued, “Neither KR nor anyone else has ever provided a chart showing that co2 leads temperature. That is because co2 is a function of temperature, not a cause. All available scientific evidence shows that co2 changes are caused by temperature, not the other way round.”
I think that’s a bit overstated. Even though temperature clearly drives CO2 (unsurprising, given the way that CO2’s solubility varies with water temperature), that does not preclude the opposite being true, as well. There are good physical reasons to expect a few tenths of a degree warming from today’s high CO2 levels. Calculations by tools like MODTRAN, the NCAR radiation code & RRTM can’t account for little-understood feedbacks, but there’re not total nonsense, either.
daveburton,
That WFT graph has been posted here on WUWT for a couple of months now. I am not aware of any published paper, so the opportunity is there (hint☺).
I agree that CO2 is probably the cause of some minor warming. However, the amount of warming due to human emitted CO2 is negligible. It is so small that it is unmeasurable (at least I have never seen anything posted that purports to empirically measure AGW per unit of CO2 emitted).
I think it works both ways. Oceans outgas and reabsorb CO2 in response to changing temperatures per Henry’s Law, and human emitted CO2 leads to some slight warming. But the only scientific evidence showing a measurable response is the response of CO2 to temperature changes. I am aware of no graphs showing that temperature changes are caused by changes in CO2.
Any warming due to AGW is too small to measure, and thus any putative AGW can be disregarded for all practical purposes. If AGW cannot be measured, it is only a conjecture, and not a very scientific one.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
There goes another article of faith for the Church of Global Warming.
So does this mean that my house in north-central massachusetts will NOT be an ocean-front property any time soon?
Mark Patton, daveburton – That graph you linked (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958) has indeed been showing up for a while. Examining it, however, reveals that it isn’t telling us anything about the long term trend in either CO2 or temperature.
The key to understanding this is in the “Isolate” term used for both time series above. From the WoodForTrees help page (http://www.woodfortrees.org/help):
The “Isolate” function, in other words, removes any long term trend from the data, leaving only short term variations. In this case, a 60 month (five year) filter removes any change longer than five years. What this leaves behind is the effects of ENSO on the carbon cycle, as discussed first in Bacastow 1979 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1979/JC084iC06p03108.shtml) and more completely in Jones et al 2001 (http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~mat/hadcm3lc/paper.pdf). The ENSO, or more precisely the effects of ENSO on the biosphere, increase and decrease carbon take-up in the short term. With no effect on the long term trend.
The plot Mark Patton linked to is simply variation around long term trends – trends which can be seen by the rest of data as in: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:60/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/from:1958/normalise – simply looking at the “Mean” values that the “Isolate” plot removed.
This, incidentally, is the same error that Dr. Salby, and more recently Dr. Humlum (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/) have made in claiming that ocean warming causes recent CO2 increases – a focus on short term noise and variation while ignoring the long term trends.
Choosing an analysis method that ignores long term trends (differencing, “Isolate”, etc), then making claims about those trends, is just a logical error.
KR:
At September 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Salby’s conclusion may be right or wrong, but he does not make that “error”.
And citing RC nonsense as justification for insulting the work of a scientist is not acceptable.
Richard
KR,
You are engaging in complete misdirection.
The WFT chart I posted says nothing whatever about trends. It is not intended to show trends. The purpose of the chart is to show conclusively that ΔT always leads ΔCO2.
There are charts based on data from months to hundreds of thousands of years. They ALL show that temperature leads CO2. There may be some very minor effect from AGW, but it is too small to measure. And if it cannot be measured, it is not science. It is speculation. Conjecture. Opinion.
The only ‘confusion’ is that which is intended by your deliberate misdirection. Empirical evidence shows conclusively that the CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong. Please stop trying to peddle that scare story. You are fooling no one. Except, maybe, yourself.
richardscourtney – “Salby’s conclusion may be right or wrong, but he does not make that “error”. And citing RC nonsense as justification for insulting the work of a scientist is not acceptable.”
I will note that Salby has not (yet) published his paper on the topic, but judging from his presentations on the subject, that is _exactly_ the error he made.
As to the RC post I linked – it’s not a peer-reviewed paper. They note, however, that the effects Dr. Humlum was discussing have been known for a very long time, as (the example they pointed to) discussed in Keeling and Revelle 1985 – “Effects of El Nino/southern oscillation on the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide” (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985Metic..20..437K). Humlum (and Salby) at the very least appear not to have read significant portions of the existing literature, and have misinterpreted the observations. In addition to using differencing to discuss long term trends, which is foolish in the extreme.
Mark Patton – Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing right along with our emissions. And since it is a greenhouse gas, it is adding an additional forcing to the climate.
In the past (prior to our use of fossil fuels) CO2 changes were feedbacks in response to warming/cooling of the oceans, driven by solar variations over the Milankovitch cycle – and CO2 followed temperature. Now there has been a change – we’re burning it. That’s new… and forest fires in the past do not eliminate the possibility of arson in the present.
More misdirection from KR. Where is KR’s putative “forcing”? There is no measurable ‘forcing’ attributable specifically to human emitted CO2. There is only unscientific speculation. Without verifiable measurements, KR is just posting his belief.
There is no argument that CO2 is not rising, as KR tries to re-frame the debate. Of course CO2 is rising. And more CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. It is a net positive. There is no evidence showing any global damage or harm from the added CO2, therefore CO2 is harmless.
KR is still engaging in discredited alarmist scare tactics. But he lacks any actual measurements to support his belief. The only empirical measurements show that changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature. By trying to re-frame the debate to other issues, KR is admitting that he cannot refute the fact that the only empirical evidence shows that CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. That fact destroys the CO2=CAGW belief.
The fact that CO2 is rising, but temperature has only intermittently risen, is entirely coincidental. It is just as coincidental as this:
http://joannenova.com.au//globalwarming/graphs/us_post_causes_global_warming_lrg.jpg
That chart shows better temperature corellation with postal rates than with CO2. It is coincidental, to be sure. But so is the CO2/temperature claim, for which there exists no empirical evidence.
KR is desperately trying to convince people of his version of climate alarmism, without posting any scientific evidence that withstands even the mildest scrutiny. His belief is in climastrology, not in the scientific method. KR’s only arguments consist of misdirection. He has no scientific evidence showing that human emitted CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. That is KR’s belief, nothing more. It has no supporting evidence.
This is a science site, not a climastrology blog like RC or SS. KR needs to post verifiable scientific evidence showing conclusively that human CO2 emissions directly cause rising global temperatures – if he can. But because he has no such evidence, he misdirects, and obfuscates with his red herring and strawman arguments. He cherry picks. He posts everything except evidence compatible with the scientific method and real world data.
People are getting wise to the junk science being peddled by the alarmist crowd. They have no convincing scientific evidence, only their belief. That is not good enough. Because skeptics have posted verifiable scientific evidence, and it totally refutes the climate alarmist nonsense.
Mark Patton – “KR needs to post verifiable scientific evidence showing conclusively that human CO2 emissions directly cause rising global temperatures…”
I would suggest reading The Discovery of Global Warming (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm), follow the many many references on points of question, and come back and talk about when you have done so. It’s a well organized walk-through of the developing knowledge and theory in this field, far better than I could manage in a blog post.
If you opine that all of the evidence collected over the last 150 years on physics and causality, as described there, is (for example) a huge distortion, a concerted effort to mislead all of us for some reason (whether $$ for scientists feeding at a trough, one world goverment, machinations of the Illuminati, or the like), I would suggest reading the recent posts at http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=22. And finding a mirror.
KR,
You cannot credibly argue with this chart…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
…without posting solid evidence showing that human emitted CO2 is what caused global warming since the LIA.
Post your empirical evidence, per the scientific method – or admit that you have only your belief.
The only evidence I am aware of (and pal-reviewed papers are not ‘scientific evidence’) shows that changes in CO2 are the result — not the cause — of global warming. But you keep avoiding that obvious fact.
All you ever show is correlation. That is not good enough, because it does not show causation. I have shown the causation. You have done nothing but try to re-frame the debate around your belief. You are in witch doctor territory.
The alarmist crowd has such incredibly weak arguments that it is easy to understand why the public is looking at your endless pronouncements of doom with a jaundiced eye.
KR, I know what the WoodForTrees “isolate” function does; in fact, I described it. The purpose is to tease out short-term effects.
Thanks for the links, though. Jones does, indeed, attribute the CO2-lagging-temperature relationship to the effects of ENSO on the carbon cycle, as you say. The Bacastow full-text is behind a paywall, but abstract indicates that he attributes it to a different cause: “the decrease in CO2 level is due to reduced sea surface temperatures,” i.e., because the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as temperature increases. (If you have a copy of the Bacastow paper, I’d be grateful if you’d email it to me.) Both authors are probably correct, at least to some degree. (Pardon the pun!)
You are also correct that identifying a short-term relationship between two measurements (temperature & CO2), after removing the long-term trends from the two kinds of data, does not mean that there’s necessarily a similar long-term relationship. (Will you please tell Rahmstorf that, in the context of sea-level?)
However, you’ve overstated your case when you claim that temperature has “no effect on the long term [CO2] trend.” There is considerable evidence that temperature does drive CO2 levels on longer timescales. For instance, I’m sure you’ve seen the paleoclimate graphs, from isotopic analysis of ice cores, indicating that atmospheric CO2 levels increase and drop as temperatures increase and drop, with a lag of at least a couple hundred years.
It’s easy to understand why. About 98% of the Earth’s CO2 is dissolved in seawater, and only 2% is in the air, so changes in the solubility of CO2 in seawater can greatly affect atmospheric CO2. Since the solubility of CO2 in seawater drops as temperature increases, it should come as no surprise that warmer climate causes increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
KR, that physical principle applies over short (under 2 year) and long (200-1000 year) periods, and everything in-between. The short period relationship indicates that modest changes in SST are sufficient to cause measurable changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. The longer delay associated with larger changes in atmospheric CO2 levels corresponds roughly to the time it takes for deep water and surface water to be exchanged in the oceans. It is no “logical error” to expect that an observed short-term relationship suggests a longer-term relationship of the same sort. Rather, it is illogical, in the face of such evidence, to think that temperature does not also drive CO2 levels, at least to some extent, on decadal time scales.
Mark Patton says, “There may be some very minor effect from AGW, but it is too small to measure. And if it cannot be measured, it is not science. It is speculation. Conjecture. Opinion.”
Mark, I think you mean “from GHGs,” right?
I think it’s not quite right to say “if it cannot be measured, it is not science.” Better is, “if it cannot make testable predictions, it is not science,” because testable predictions are what are necessary for falsifiability, which is necessary for the exercise of the scientific method. (It is also true that, “if you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.”)
I also think it’s overreach to say that the belief that GHGs have a warming effect is mere speculation. Although teasing out the overall effect on measured temperatures is (perhaps prohibitively) challenging, there are good measured data for the effects of trace gases on the transmission & absorption spectrum of air, and real, quantified calculations that can be made from that, with tools like MODTRAN. From those calculations we can predict a direct warming effect from the ~100 ppm CO2 that is generally thought to be due to human activity, and it amounts to a fraction of a degree.
The big argument is over feedbacks and effects: Climate Movement activists say that the Earth’s climate system is inherently so unstable that the slight warming from additional CO2 will be multiplied dramatically through positive feedbacks, such as water vapor and albedo changes. Cooler heads see little evidence that is true.
KR wrote, “Mark Patton – Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing right along with our emissions. And since it is a greenhouse gas, it is adding an additional forcing to the climate.”
I agree with that, KR, but:
1. Even though anthropogenic CO2 emissions are more than enough to account for the measured in crease of atmospheric CO2, that doesn’t mean that none of the increase is the result of warmer temperatures. It is likely that, absent the last couple of decades of generally warm conditions, the oceans would have absorbed more of the anthropogenic CO2, resulting in a smaller rate of increase in measured atmospheric CO2.
2. Additional CO2 is calculated to have a diminishing effect on temperature. MODTRAN calculates that less than 20 ppm CO2 would produce 50% of the warming which current CO2 levels produce. The NCAR Radiation Code says 40 ppm, but, either way, we’re past the point of diminishing returns w/r/t warming from additional atmospheric CO2.
So, yes, anthropogenic CO2 is a forcing, but it’s not a huge one. Prof. Lindzen got it right:
daveburton – There are two statements that are being conflated; I think it is important to separate them.
(1) Temperature versus CO2 concentration: ENSO and the ice ages – Yes, temperature (and ENSO driven biological activity, which appears to account for much of the ENSO related variations) affects CO2 levels. Given the 5-6C difference between interglacial and glacial periods in Earth’s recent (~800K years) history, along with the ~100ppm variation in CO2, that means a CO2 sensitivity (as in delta C02 WRT temperature) of roughly 15ppm per degree of global temperature change. Salby’s hypothesis of ocean warming driving recent CO2 changes of 100ppm would require a CO2 sensitivity of ~150ppm per degree, or an order of magnitude larger. That sensitivity would indicate that a drop of 2C leading into a glacial period would reduce atmospheric CO2 to approximately _zero_, and is therefore absurd.
Given observed changes in CO2/ocean absorption with temperature, the CO2 feedback possible at equilibrium from warming over the last 150 years is only ~10ppm, small change considering the observed 100ppm change in the last 100 years. And thermal driven CO2 change has (in the past) taken 500-800 years of ocean circulation – over the last 100 years perhaps only 2ppm _total_ (not per year) could be caused by that thermal solubility relationship.
(2) Recent changes in CO2/anthropogenic influences – 100ppm increase over the last 150 years, with an isotopic signature matching fossil fuels. Each year atmospheric CO2 increases by roughly half our emissions – meaning (as a fraction of available CO2) an amount equal to half our emissions is absorbed by the oceans and plants, half goes into increasing atmospheric CO2. And increasing oceanic CO2 clearly shows that excess CO2 is going _into_ the oceans, not coming out of them.
The ENSO related variation is on the order of ~0.4ppm over 5-10 years. That’s a small, cyclic change WRT the ~2ppm/year increase in CO2, the 150 year 100ppm increase that has no possible source but our emissions. It’s definitely measurable. But it’s just too small to account for the recent trend.
—
In regards to CO2 forcing levels, the logarithmic relationship of CO2 to forcings, and Dr. Lindzen’s repeated (and repeatedly debunked) claims of low sensitivity, those are quite separate discussions. But I think, if you look into it, that _all_ of those points are taken into account in the literature and in the science.
—
Mark Patton – You asked for references. I gave them. If you won’t read them, if you then dismiss 150 years of work as “…not ‘scientific evidence’…”, you are not discussing the data (the spectroscopy, the observations, the physics). Please see my previous post.
daveburton,
This is only a minor quibble, but you wrote: “if it cannot make testable predictions, it is not science,”
…but you need measurements to make testable predictions, no?
KR:
Prof Richard Lindzen’s estimates of low sensitivity have only been “debunked” in your belief-based imagination. In fact, there is plenty of dispute over the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2. Therefore, nothing can be “debunked” when there is no agreement. At least try to argue rationally.
Guesstimates of the sensitivity number range from Dr. Miskolczi’s 0.00ºC for 2xCO2 to the UN/IPCC’s outlandish 3+ºC, which is totally unrealistic given the planet’s (non) response to steadily rising (harmless and beneficial) CO2.
Give it up, KR. CO2 has little if any effect on global temperature. If anything, all the available evidence shows that CO2 is a response to temperature, not vice-versa. And your links are not scientific evidence. Evidence is raw data and empirical observations. Your side has lost the “carbon” argument. Planet Earth herself is falsifying that nonsense.