Guest essay by Tony Brown
Some readers might recall my recent article ‘The Long Slow Thaw?’
In this I reconstructed Central England temperature to 1538 from its current instrumental date of 1659.
I was surprised by two notable periods of warmth around 1630 and 1530. I am indebted amongst other material, to Phil Jones excellent book ‘Climate since 1500 AD’ plus such books as Le Roy Laduries’ Times of feast times of famine’ which confirm that these were indeed warm periods.
The graph below is from my article but to it has been added the official co2 levels. CET is seen by many scientists as a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for Northern Hemisphere and Global temperatures.
Please note that the graphing package somewhat inflates the warmth in the decade around 1540, although my recent research- which will extend CET to 1498-demonstrates that the period 1500 to 1540 does indeed appear to be around as warm as the warm period in the recent CET period ending around the year 2000, characterised by the distinct hump.
Also from a graphing viewpoint it is debatable as to where the CO2 line should be placed. I chose to place it around the black trend line as the CO2 and temperature trend line probably needs to start together at the same place. This also provides clarity and context to the graphic although others might feel the CO2 line should be placed elsewhere.
However these are all nuances and the point I want to put over is that temperature is highly variable throughout the CET record -which is at variance to Dr Mann’s (global) work and the assertions of the Met office. This is despite a constant level of co2 until around 1900. The temperature decline since 2000 as the CO2 line rises ever further is especially intriguing.
Does it demonstrate that once you get to around the 300ppm level that the law of diminishing returns sets in as the logarithmic curve of CO2 versus temperatures takes effect? Does it illustrate nothing and the current downward CET slope is merely a blip that will increase sharply again as more CO2 is added?
The apparent effects of adding additional CO2 was clearly shown in an article by David Archibald several years ago,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
I merely present my research and findings for comment. An apparent decline perhaps as the logarithmic effect ceases to have any real world meaning? Or merely a hiatus in the ever upwards rise of temperatures since the start of the record in 1659 which may or may not be affected by CO2 and radiative physics?
TonyB
Couple of questions:
1. Have you made any allowance for UHI in your reconstruction?
2. You’ve labelled the CO2 curve as Mauna Loa, but I thought that only started in 1958?
To a non-scientist, the information provided by the graph is simply ambiguous. I, having so little other knowledge on the subject matter to bring to bear, would not use it to try to persuade anyone of anything.
…. but, thanks very much for sharing your work, Mr. Brown. No doubt those more informed than I will find it helpful.
WOW — your work reconstructing CET is impressive in itself. Take a bow!
Diverse views are possible about CO2 and temperature being linked or not.
It seems imprudent to accept that pre-measurement levels of CO2 were globally steady at around the accepted 280 pm. Although fossil fuel use might not have varied much in the early part of the graphed period, wood was burned, so one might expect a correlation with human population. Also, at times there were vast animal populations elsewhere like bison on the American Plains, etc. OTOH, the nexus might be too small to be reconstructed.
The methodology of using Mauna Loa CO2, although it might correlate well with Cape Grim, the South Pole, etc, also worries me a little. I’d imagine many pockets of this high density gas at lower altitudes where the concentration might be an order of higher than ML, as in industrialised regions. Others can argue whether these pools of CO2 are candidates for postulated warming mechanisms, or whether the main action is at Top of Atmosphere.
David
The Met office makes a very small allowance since 1976 for UHI. This would not have been a factor in the 16th and 17th century in the central England area which was largely rural and had a very small population.
The co2 figures are from the mauna loa series from 1958. Prior to that it is the general estimate by Keeling and CDIAC that co2 was a constant 280ppm until the industrial revolution (generally considered to commence around 1750) which by 1900 had reached 300ppm and gradually increased to 315ppm by the time Keeling started his measurements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
I suspect the modern ‘hump’ has additional elements of UHI in it as the CET area has becme more urbanised and the stations that are used change.
tonyb
janice
You are right, it is ambigous. CET has dropped sharply in the last decade whilst co2 concentrations continues to rise. It may be that natural variability remains a more potent factor than co2.
However all through the record there is considerable variability despite constant levels of co2. I am hoping someone here has an explanation for this as my first thoughts are that the effects of increasing co2 -once you reach around 300ppm-appear to be limited. This flies in the face of radiative physics theory which is why I wa querying if the logarithmic effect of co2 is showing itself. The answer judging from the last thread also appears to be ambigous.
tonyb
To my mind,almost all of the graphs I have seen can be easily explained by the simple hypothesis that CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature whatsoever. I think this one is no different.
I’d like to see that hypothesis disproved, rather than so much effort trying to disprove the opposite (if that makes sense.
From davidmhoffer on May 8, 2013 at 3:55 pm:
Note how it’s chronically assumed the atmospheric CO₂ concentration is normally controlled by Nature, which prefers it completely unchanging and will self-regulate it to a fixed value for countless millenia. Thus the dead flat line until the purported Industrial Revolution start, around 1850, then there’s a flat continuous linear rise no matter what humans and the world were really doing, culminating with the Mauna Loa records with perfect blending while indicating how humans have suddenly completely screwed the planet with about 3x the CO₂ rise as before.
See how perfectly the three distinct records blend together? What more proof do you need that it’s all true?
Tony Brown,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my low-information post. Just to remove any doubt as to where I stand on AGW:
1) the Pro-AGW Gang has the burden of proof to show human-emitted CO2 affects climate to any statistically significant degree;
2) they have not come up with even one piece of persuasive evidence; and
3) what evidence exists appears to me to indicate AGW conjecture is wrong.
I’m mostly just learning, here, so don’t waste your time with me. Thank you for honoring me with the reply above.
Janice
What it shows me is that there is essentially zero correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures. Temperature is all over the place when the CO2 concentration was essentially uniform for about 3 centuries and now that CO2 is rising rapidly temperatures spiked in the early phase of the increasing concentration then simply stopped rising as the concentration curve turns up. A stock analyst would look at those two plots and toss out the CO2 concentration as being meaningless for predicting the temperature.
” temperature is highly variable throughout the CET record -which is at variance to Dr Mann’s (global) work”
No, it isn’t at variance to Dr Mann’s work. His is a global average, yours is a single location. Global averages are always less variable.
Nick
Thats why I made sure to insert the word ‘global.’ As you well know a variety of scientists believe CET has a global reasonance, or at least some correlation with the Northern Hemisphere which is more akin to Dr Manns reconstruction. As you also know CET is a good match to BEST ‘global’
Have you any comments as to the considerable variability of temperature over the last few hundred years at a constant level of co2, the recent decade long drop in temperatures we can observe , or indeed the centuries long uptick we can note, which makes GISS from 1880 a staging post and not the starting post for rising temperatures?
tonyb
Geoff Sherrington, in the troposphere there is no significant stratification because the turbulent mixing time from convection is many orders of magnitude shorter than the settling time for a density difference. Consider minutes to hours timescales for convection, vs centuries for gravitational settling. Centrifuge separators for uranium processing get tiny variations after hours at thousands of gees, and require cascades to achieve useful separations. So no, CO2 will not settle in low spots, unless high concentrations from other sources (such as volcanic vents or organic decay) deliver to gas the low spots. Even so, convection dissipates such local hot spots within hours to days.
Following on from Geoff Sherrington’s points.
Humans have been influencing CO2 levels for millenia. Cutting down forests, killing the herd grazers,
I find the CO2 levels rising from the start of the Industrial Revolution especially questionable. Coal replaced charcoal as the industrial fuel, and producing charcoal with pre-industrial technology requires a fire that burns for about 3 days (I’ve seen it done). Producing large amounts of CO2, black carbon and organic carbon. Whereas, mining coal produces little CO2.
It’s likely CO2, and atmospheric black carbon and organic carbon all declined around the time of the industrial revolution, as charcoal production declined and forests grew back.
Doug Jones , your post reminded me of this . http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gas-cloud-kills-cameroon-villagers
Tony – Your work on CET is inspiring, and unless Britain has been a climate law unto itself for centuries, you can ignore Stokes. Will buy you a pint someday.
To me the rise of about 2 degrees C from 1695-1730 is of immense interest….
It might be worth doing a re-run of historic instrumental atmospheric CO2 readings which I believe were posted on this site many years ago. I seem to recall the early measurements which off the top of my head (TOMH) go back to a remarkable 1756 show wide variations prior to this century with the C19/C20 textbook level being 400ppm and levels 2 centuries ago being very significantly higher than 100 years ago.
As regards the radiation/radiation issue CO2 produces much less “back radiation” than does thermal/radiation i.e. the net conduction/convection/latent heat of evaporation from the Earth’s surface also produces back radiation which is approximately equal to that radiated out into space from these initially thermal transport mechanisms. Half the net thermal energy picked up by these mechanisms is re-radiated downwards and half is lost to space, this is a much higher fraction than that via radiation from the surface being returned by CO2 which is about 1% (?) (TOMH) which is very inefficient at producing “back radiation” and in consequence most outgoing surface radiation makes it out into space. Interestingly when the surface average temperature goes up the fraction of back radiation to forward radiation from adding together both sources actually goes down (obviously) as more energy leaves the surface as radiation (T^4) than as thermal energy. As in excess of 80% of initial incoming solar radiation is lost from the surface via the thermal route this source of “back radiation” is hundreds of times higher than the other CO2 route.
Note that a domestic CH radiator is a convector heater but if you could turn its temperature up to 2000 centigrade the ratios of heat lost via both mechanisms would switch from about 90/10 to 10/90 (guesstimate). Same thing with the planet as it warms the surface radiation increases faster than thermal loss and therefore back radiation becomes proportionately less.
Why does no one cover this? If back radiation warms the planet as we are told how does reducing the fraction of back radiation (through warming) warm the planet? Looks to me like these two mechanism work as a strong lock (negative feedback).
Climate alarmists are learning a very painful lesson these days. They thought that co2 was a magical gas. It is when younger, then loses it’s muscle power as it gets nearer to retirement. Natural climate variations have exposed it’s charlatan ways. Over 15 years of a global temperature standstill………………………………………and counting. At 18 years or thereabouts the debate should be over as per Santer et. al. and model projection failures at 100% confidence. 🙂 Yet we have a consensus. &^%$#%%^
I meant:
“then loses its muscle power “
Why is ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ such a damned pain in my arse?
eco-geek says:
May 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm
You are right. Ernst Beck collated many atmospheric CO2 measurement series made by various chemists over different periods some of them Nobel Laureates (when it meant something). The values that these chemists produced were well above the 280ppm claimed by the proponents of totally stable CO2. I believe the AGW proponents may have been deceived by the ice cores and lack of understanding of CO2 diffusion in ice which effectively produces an average value in bubbles (that may have formed during drilling) that equates to ~280ppm. as this is useful to their argument (the handle of the hockey stick) they will not research it further and excoriated Ernst Beck despite his work being the collation of other scientists’ reports.
Nick Stokes says:
“” temperature is highly variable throughout the CET record -which is at variance to Dr Mann’s (global) work”
No, it isn’t at variance to Dr Mann’s work. His is a global average, yours is a single location. Global averages are always less variable.”
Nick, which is/are bettter proxies for North American temperatures, the CET record or Mann’s proxies?:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
If your answer is Mann’s proxies, please explain why.
Check out the work of Austrailian Prof. Murry Salby, he demonstrates a clear link between temperature and CO2, with temperature leading all the time and CO2 levels following (definately not constant prior to the Industrial Revolution).
“its’ and ‘it’s’” LOL, Jimbo, its a problem for all of us. Don’t tell anybody, but I didn’t even notice your mistake until you pointed it out! For me, its that bad!
Nice metaphor, BTW (@ 1720).
Re it’s vs. its: Just remember the phrase NEVER POSSESSIVE.
(I.e., it’s is always a contraction of it is.)
Robert L says: “Doug Jones , your post reminded me of this . http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gas-cloud-kills-cameroon-villagers”
Yes, we should remember the 1,700 people who died that day. We should also remember that although warmists claim volcanoes emit relatively little CO2, it was huge amounts of CO2 that killed the villagers. And that there are millions of subsea volcanoes…
In previous threads regarding CO2 emissions, the statement has been made that CO2 is rising exponentially. Note that since 1994, the increase is very close to linear.
“CET is seen by many scientists as a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for Northern Hemisphere and Global temperatures.”
Any time we have a proxy but also have instrumental data it can be interesting to do the formal calibration.
1) You get an offset.
2) You get a bias.
3) You get an error.
That is: “How useful -is- it?”
Jimbo says:
May 8, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Why is ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ such a damned pain in my arse?
The easy way around the problem is to replace (in your mind) “it” with “he”. If it translates to
“his” then use “its”, if it becomes “he’s” (he is) use “it’s”. This should save your buttocks from the attention of the English master with his cane.
Tony, only a question. You say that many scientists see the CET series ‘as a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for Northern Hemisphere and Global temperatures’, and no doubt there are some who do. But the Southern Hemisphere usually seems to be cooler than the North by a degree or two, and there are plausible arguments as to why that should be so.
Did you mean simply that the rise and fall as shown by CET is likely to be mirrored in the Southern Hemisphere as well — or at least that some scientists would think so?
Cheers,
Don
A link to the CO2 curve:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/none
Note how linear the plot has been for the past 20 years.
And about solar cycles, PDOs, AMOs, El Nino, La Nina, Clouds, LIA recovering, Warm-First-Carbon-Later , etc etc
So Tony, how was the CO2 concentration measured from 1540 to 1900 to be that perfectly linear?
thanks
jorgekafkazar says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:20 pm
“Note how linear the plot has been for the past 20 years.”
Yep. That’s because the rate of change of CO2 is proportional to temperature anomaly (relative to a particular baseline). As temperatures leveled off in the past 20 years, so did the slope of the accumulated CO2.
Meanwhile, human inputs kept rising exponentially. When the temperatures start falling, as they already are, in tune with the natural ~60 year cycle, atmospheric measurements will assume an undeniable concavity, which will be in dramatic opposition to the convexity of human emissions. Then, maybe we can finally lay to rest the fiction that humans are having any significant effect on CO2 levels whatsoever.
climatereason says:
May 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nick Stokes, that was a crushing response. Your silence speaks as loudly as Tony’s question to you.
Curious and curiouser the detachment from human CO2 emissions: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi
I say we do away with it’s and always use it is. Hmmmm, but do we always know what the meaning of is is.
Bart- thanks for your insightful comments on several CO2 threads…
Here’s a recent paper published in Nature Climate Change which inadvertently reinforces your points:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html
Nice work Tony
Hockey Schtick says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Nice. I’m no longer a lone voice wandering in the wilderness. Thanks.
I tried to post the following at your link but, for some reason, it does not accept an anonymous posting and I do not belong to any of the other profiles.
Tonyb,
“Thats why I made sure to insert the word ‘global.’”
Yes, but it only underlines the contradiction. Mann ‘s results are not at variance with yours. A global average, of anything, will almost always be less variable than a local. Five legged cats, redheads, whatever.
“Have you any comments as to the considerable variability of temperature over the last few hundred years at a constant level of co2, the recent decade long drop in temperatures we can observe , or indeed the centuries long uptick we can note,”
Yes. No-one said co2 is the only determinant of temperature, or that it caused past fluctuations.
But an increase does cause warming, and we’re digging up huge quantities of carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That’s unprecedented.
I’ll ask the obvious question of a skeptic: In what way does this “[fly] n the face of radiative physics theory”? I assume you have some evidence that climate models with constant CO2 levels don’t show nearly this amount of variability at the local level?
Bart says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:05 pm
“…where k is a coupling constant…”
Please note that k is not necessarily constant. The values of k and Teq will be influenced by the CO2 content of currently upwelling waters, as well as other factors. They could easily vary in time, or even exhibit sudden shifts. However, they appear to have been fairly stable in the modern era since 1958, when reliable, direct measurements of CO2 began.
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:05 pm
“But an increase does cause warming…”
Not necessarily. Although a given quantity will heat the planet above what it would be without it, there is no guarantee that an incremental increase will necessarily result in an incremental increase in temperature.
“…and we’re digging up huge quantities of carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That’s unprecedented.”
A lot of things we do today are unprecedented. It does not mean they are necessarily bad.
Bart says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:19 pm
“…there is no guarantee that an incremental increase will necessarily result in an incremental increase in temperature.”
Put another way, although the secant line necessarily has a positive slope, the tangent line can do whatever it likes, within only the constraint of integrating to a positive measure.
Bart says:
Sounds pretty convincing until you actually look at the data. An exponential looks locally linear…and indeed, you can fit a reasonable line over the past 20 years on this graph of cumulative emissions (which is expected to be proportional to atmospheric CO2 levels) too: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/cumulative_global_1751_2007.jpg
And, in fact, I think the most careful studies has shown that the fraction of CO2 rise in the atmosphere to CO2 emitted has remained stubbornly constant.
Well, we seem to be making progress with you. I believe you used to claim that CO2 levels will start to fall; now you are only claiming the concavity will change. Of course, I could never pin you down or actually get you to bet on future CO2 levels falling!
What I find amazing is the direct correlation between strong and weak solar cycles shown in this graph.
The Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645 to 1715 and there is a very steep drop in CET temperatures during that time. Conversely, when the strongest 63-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred between 1933-1996, there is definite spike in temperatures.
When the strong solar cycles ended in 1996, the global warming trend ended, too. We’re now into the 17th year of no statistically significant warming trend. The current solar cycle started in 2008 and is the weakest since 1906. Since the start if this weak cycle, 4 out of the last five Winters have been brutal in the Northern Hemisphere and this Winter doesn’t seem to want to end.
The next solar cycle, which starts around 2020, is predicted by some scientists to be the lowest since the Maunder Minimum, that ended in 1715. According to Penn & Livingston’s research, when the Sun’s Umbral Magnetic Field (UMF) falls below 1500 gauss, there will be insufficient magnetic force to hold sunspots together. The UMF is currently at around 2000 gauss and falling at a rate of around 50 gauss/year, so around 2023, it seems likely it’ll fall below this critical level, at the same time a weak solar cycle will just be starting.
It’s also interesting to note that around 2020, the AMO will enter its 30-year cooling cycle and the PDO already entered it’s 30-year cooling cycle in 2008. I also find it interesting that when the PDO entered it cooling cycle in 2008, the Arctic Ice extent on the Pacific side started setting records. It’s also interesting that when the AMO entered its 30-year warming cycle in 1996, that’s when the Arctic Ice started to decline. Accordingly, when the AMO starts it cooling cycle around 2020, it seems logical that the Atlantic side of the Arctic will also start gaining ice again.
The Antarctic is already setting record ice extents so when both poles are gaining ice, Earth’s albedo will increase, creating an additional cooling effect.
As a side note, there are usually about 3-4 major volcanic eruptions per century, so it’s highly probable a large eruption could take place around 2020 since we really haven’t had a big one this century…. and yeah, I know my laws of statistics, but hey, we’re “due” for one, OK?
A lot of potential cooling events will all be happening around 2020. It’ll be interesting to see if the mighty CO2 molecule is up to the task of overwhelming all these cooling effects… Given that there hasn’t been any warming into the 17th year, despite roughly 40% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been emitted over the past 16 years and 4 months, it seems like CO2 is all tuckered out…
Is what we deal with today really a matter of climate in the end?
Think about it…………………
Minor comment: It is better to use a logarithmic scale for plotting CO2 when plotting against temperature since the response of temperature to CO2 is conjectured to be logarithmic.
Like others, I am a bit puzzled about the flat line CO2 up to the 18C. Is this an assumption, or is there solid evidence for it?
Now we have sorted out “its” and “it’s”, can we go on to the spelling of “lose” and the punctuation of subject clauses?
People with the habit of spelling “lose” as “loose” are probably the same people who would (wrongly) put a comma after “loose” in this sentence.
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Yes. No-one said co2 is the only determinant of temperature, or that it caused past fluctuations.
================================
Ha ha – you do stand-up comedy too ??
LOL, all you kind, helpful, posters above re: “it’s” and “its” — IT’S WORSE THAN THAT (for me). I know the two meanings like I know my dog’s name. It’s just that I DON’T THINK ABOUT IT and my brain sends my fingers flying across the keys and on to more important words before my short-term memory has a chance to realize the typo happened. THEN, I fail to proof-read….
I would NEVER make a good scientist — too impatient. THAT’S (another reason) WHY I ADMIRE ALL OF YOU PEOPLE SO MUCH!
jorgekafkazar says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:12 pm
And that there are millions of subsea volcanoes…
=======
CO2 forms lakes at the bottom of the ocean due to the combination of pressure and temperature. No one has any idea how much is down there. These lakes make a nonsense out of the claims of “ocean acidification”.
joeldshore says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:21 pm
“…and indeed, you can fit a reasonable line over the past 20 years on this graph of cumulative emissions.”
No, you cannot. One way to lie with graphs is to plot on a scale which masks the detail. Thank you for demonstrating.
“And, in fact, I think the most careful studies has shown that the fraction of CO2 rise in the atmosphere to CO2 emitted has remained stubbornly constant.”
It is not a good fit, and whatever vague similarity exists is presently diverging. Watch and see what happens.
“I believe you used to claim that CO2 levels will start to fall.”
Don’t know or care what you believe. I’ve been singing this tune for several years. Ever since I happened on the obvious temperature relationship which explains the CO2 level in its entirety, without any room for significant anthropogenic additions, and at least one reason for it based on physical first principles.
It is quite plain: atmospheric CO2 is determined by temperatures, and human inputs are handily sequestered by natural systems. I don’t expect you to believe me right now. But, you will.
Nice link, OssQss (@ 7:34PM) — GO, MILTON FRIEDMAN!
Yes, the Cult of Climatology leaders and high priests are CLEARLY in it for either: 1) power and prestige; or 2) money. Wealth creates a truly green, healthy, environment. Wealth lifts the poor to the highest level possible. Enviro-socialism suppresses the truth of science to promote its agenda.
Even if, yeah, Phil in California, they look like clowns doing it. WUWT scientists earnestly hold up the mirror of reality before their faces, day after day, but, blinded by greed and lust for power, the Climatology Gang can’t see how ridiculous they look. Offer them enough power (or money) and they will do anything. Anything.
Bart says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:19 pm
A lot of things we do today are unprecedented. It does not mean they are necessarily bad.
========
bravo! we’ve managed to provide a couple of billion people with a lifestyle that rivals that of any king or queen throughout history. Never before have so many lived so well for so long.
Now I’m perfectly happy if folks like Al Gore give it all up and live in a cave to cut their CO2. But of course Al and Co aren’t about that. Al wants you and I to cut our CO2 so that he can continue to live high on the hog, devouring the fattened calf like some Freakish Sideshow Frankenstein Glutton.
All the while telling us to cut back, do with less, while he continues to shovel everything he can find into his gaping maw. Come one, come all, see the incredible Gore. Women will scream in terror and strong men will faint dead away.
Hi Janice Moore –
See my post on the new established religion on the Open Thread.
Nick Stokes;
Yes. No-one said co2 is the only determinant of temperature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yikes. You’ve been around long enough to know that isn’t true Nick. Various climate “scientists” have made the claim that ALL of the warming of the last century is due to CO2 and none of it due to natural variability. When various studies came out showing definitively that the climate models could NOT account for natural variability, the response became that CO2 was dominant. Now that warming has gone completely absent in the face of exponentially rising emissions, the response is now that it is being masked by natural variability? LOL.
But an increase does cause warming, and we’re digging up huge quantities of carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That’s unprecedented.
Well we’re producing an unprecedented amount of food and eating it too. Should we stop that as well? It is, after all, unprecedented, who knows what untold harm we are doing to the earth by producing so much food. See how silly your argument is when you simply isolate something and don’t bother attaching any actual cause and effect data to it?
Go, Ferd Berple!
Nick: “His is a global average”
Hardly. His is a global average that shows nothing for most locations in the world, but with a very few locations that were cherry picked from a few western bristlecones (Graybill), or turned upside down (Tiljander), or based on one tree (Yamal) being used to produce a hockey stick. These few samples were then weighed so as to overcome all of the data from the rest of the world that showed nothing alarming and called “global”. What a joke.
Since CET is one location, one would, in fact expect more variability than a global trend. However, if there is a global trend, then even CET will reflect that trend. Not in any one year, but certainly in a number of years taken together. And one would expect that the trend would cause CET to show higher highs today than it did around 1540 – if there really is a man made warming trend.
Janice Moore, and anyone else, I invite you to check out Tony’s site climatereason.wordpress.com , it is a link in one of his replies above. He has contributed here for years, with the history perspective, often empirical observation, usually ignored or glossed over by the CO2 cult.
My dumb question: is Mauna Loa the only place where C02 is being measured? It is the only current record I have seen here. WUWT?
Hi, Chad Wozniak — I responded to you at 9PM (but it’s currently “in moderation”!) on the Open Thread.
Hi, Steve Keohane, I just took your advice. I found an intriguing and enlightening post about sea levels (only skimmed it — too late at night for me!), but, I couldn’t figure out how to access anything else! Other than the sea levels article, all I found was a Nov., 2010 “Hello, world!” post. I LOVE the beautiful photo on the Home page. Thank you for caring enough to help me learn more of the truth.
From Tony B’s above article, I’m sure that he is well worth reading.
Nick Stokes says:
“But an increase does cause warming, and we’re digging up huge quantities of carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That’s unprecedented.”
I call B.S. on that.
Otherwise, please explain where the carbon that we are digging up came from in the first place!
Louis Hooffstetter says: May 8, 2013 at 5:35 pm
“Nick, which is/are bettter proxies for North American temperatures, the CET record or Mann’s proxies?”
North America? Where did that come from? Tony was talking about global.
To illustrate the variance issue, since 1850 CET has varied over a range of about 3.4°C. Hadcrut4 has varied over about 1.4°C. That doesn’t mean either are wrong. A wider average is just more stable.
Peter S says: May 8, 2013 at 9:47 pm
“Otherwise, please explain where the carbon that we are digging up came from in the first place!”
It was buried long ago, when the world was indeed very warm, and there were no humans.
Markus says: May 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm
” is Mauna Loa the only place where C02 is measured?”
Here is just one network, Scripps. But it’s even measured from space.
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:06 pm
I wouldn’t take anymore geology lesson from Al Gore, Nick. Probably not helping.
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Gosat says different. Your map does not differentiate seasons.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Still awake Nick? Could you answer my question please?
Should we cease producing and eating record amounts of food because they are unprecedented and hence a danger to us all?
davidmhoffer says: May 8, 2013 at 10:31 pm
“Still awake Nick? Could you answer my question please?
Should we cease producing and eating record amounts of food because they are unprecedented and hence a danger to us all?”
Mid-afternoon here, David. 25°C, and six weeks to midwinter! Sorry if I’ve been inattentive.
I’m sure some of us would benefit from eating less. But the thing is, the earth has been bouncing along climatically with about 1500 Gt C in circulation in biosphere and atmosphere. CO2 hasn’t caused much change because nothing has been driving it.
But now we’ve been putting fossil C directly in the air – about 350 Gtons so far. That’s a new situation. Should we stop? We’ll have to decide. But there are plenty more Gtons to go.
Stokes said:
Stokes you of all people should know better. Without knowing what the feedback magnitude and sign is nobody can know what a +- change of CO2 will bring. And we don’t know the magnitude or sign of the feedbacks. All we are certain of is the feedbacks that are the love child of climate science and politics to not match observed over any period where predicted and observed coexist.
A doubling of CO2 in a laboratory environment can increase the heat density of a gas mix containing CO2 for a known heat input. Add all the rest of the gases and water vapor and tornadoes and seasonal changes and huge oceans and all the rest and the certainty falls to zero even as faith in the AGW crowd for a positive sign with statistically significant magnitude goes up. Science is not based on faith and you know this.
Thanks everyone for your comments. The post appeared around midnight in the UK and I stayed around for hakf an hour or so befiore I turned in for the night. Sorry I missed most of what turned out to be a lively discussion. Those intersted in my articles-mostly on historical climatology subjects such as Sea surface temperatures and Sea levels should visit here.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Missing from the list is one carried recently at climate etc on the 1929/1940 arctic warming
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
There is a new feature on my site where a variety of graphs are now available.
It was a particular pleasure to see Mosh, Joel Shore and Nick Stokes turn up, all people I have jousted with over the years but have a high regard for.
Reverting now to various comments. How do we know the constant level of co2 in the atmosphere through history? Science tells us of the relative stability through such things as ice cores. I wrote about the alternative view that it varied hugely (See link above) I remain to be convinced either way.
Is CET useful as a wider temperature proxy? Yes. Within ‘The long slow thaw?’ I mentioned a number of well known scientists who saw the link. Space prevented me adding another half a dozen. IF Cet is a good proxy it does allow us to concentrate on one small area (which incorporates a number of stations within it) and by using the unfashionable science of historical climatology discover the climate in that area from before instrumental records began.
This requires examining observations from the time (not always reliable) and marrying them up with crop records, changes in tree cover, glacial changes (Cet is a reasonable but not perfect proxy for glacier movement ) and science papers etc. In due course I will get back to the 11th Century but every decade you go back the records become scarcer and harder to unearth.
Someone who is properly funded should be doing this work on CET as it is as good a proxy as any other out there and probably better than most.
I admire people who argue the case for radiative physics, Of course we should warm up as more CET is added. But we don’t appear to be doing so. Natural Variability is much greater than perhaps is thought and PERHAPS it will continue to overwhelm (apparently) the co2 factor. In other words, perhaps co2 is not the main driver or even a significant one once you get past a certain level which appears to be around 280/300ppm. The logarithmic curve showing itself ? I do not know.
Perhaps in due course we will see our current down turn or ‘pause’ in temperatures take a sharp turn upwards which will reignite the debate.
Was the MWP warmer? I do not know as I havent got that far back in my research. I am looking for the transition between the LIA and MWP as that should be pretty obvious. Hopefully that will be part of ‘The Long slow thaw part two.’
I am going for Breakfast now and will then try to answer any specific questions I have missed
tonyb
.
Last time I looked, one of the CET temperature sensors, was outside the engine run-up bays, in the middle of Manchester International Airport (one of the busiest in the UK), where all the aircraft taxy past, and where engines are run for extended periods to test them. The run-up bays have a series of baffles behind them, to deflect the noise (and the heat) back towards the airfield. Is it still there?
Another CET sensor was 50 m north of the runway at Blackpool airport, which is a regional airport but does handle jets in the summer. Is that still there too?
Has anyone looked to see if the CET is now in synch with the flight departures schedule from Blackpool and Manchester??
.
ralfellis
I made the point about the CET record likely being affected by modern urbanisation in my reply to David Hoffer early on in the thread.
I asked the Met office about the degree of uhi they factor in and it is smaller than I would have thought. I am inclined to think the modern hump in CET obvious in my graph has an element of exaggeration to it but working that out on a scientific basis is problematic.
tonyb
Good work Tony, no computer models, just hard work extracting data from contemporary records.
The CET is a good proxy for both the N. Hemisphere’s and global temperature trends
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CGNh.htm
with proviso that the CET has greater year to year variability, but longer trends are absolutely identical. I see no reason why this can not be extrapolated back to before 1880s.
Vuk
Cet appears to be a reasonable proxy and has many benefits over other less certain proxies such as tree rings. I see great value in being able to reconstruct CET as far back as is possible whilst still retaining a reasonable degree of accuracy. Your graph is most interesting.
tonyb
TonyB
‘CET is seen by many scientists as a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for Northern Hemisphere and Global temperatures.’
It is claimed that CET shows links to the AMO and NAO for seasonal weather in Europe but it does not reconcile with the data from the Central Europe record. Do you have a comment on this? Can it be that these different anomalies reflect differences in precipitation, hence convective cooling as shown by Clive Best and in the following paper on wheat yields that are sensitive to soil moisture?
http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Atkinson_2005_AFM.pdf
And to widen that query, are differences in precipitation and consequent soil moisture the reason for the 30 % of cooling stations found by BEST in the GHCN record and why cooling and warming stations in SE USA are intermixed in an area subject to cyclical changes in precipitation due to ENSO switching from El Nino to La Nina. In fact is the global temperature series not confounded with precipitation effects that vary from year to year?
The Central European temperature is an average of records from Prague, Vienna, Hohenpeissenberg, Kremsmünster, Paris, and Munich.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/fourier-analysis-reveals-six-natural-cycles-no-man-made-effect-predicts-cooling/
peter azlac says: May 9, 2013 at 1:35 am
It is claimed that CET shows links to the AMO and NAO for seasonal weather in Europe but it does not reconcile with the data from the Central Europe record.
I always look for controversial elements in data. As far as the CEuropeT and CEnglantT here is my observation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVp.htm
so they the two CETs could ‘reconcile’.
Nick Stokes says: May 8, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Tonyb,
“Have you any comments as to the considerable variability of temperature over the last few hundred years at a constant level of co2, the recent decade long drop in temperatures we can observe , or indeed the centuries long uptick we can note,”
Yes. No-one said co2 is the only determinant of temperature, or that it caused past fluctuations.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you sure?
Vuk
Thanks. I thought you had done some work on the Central Europe record.
I think there is reasonable but not perfect correlation. It is useful to remember Lambs point about historic temperatures in as much ‘we can understand the tendancy but not the precision.’
We can not know to tenths of a degree the prevailing temperature over a wide area but we can certainly see the general direction of travel. Your graphs are most useful in illustrating this
tonyb
mpainter says: May 9, 2013 at 1:49 am
“Are you sure?”
Well, OK, “that it caused past fluctuations” could be better phrased. CO2 may have given a positive feedback boost to Ice Age termination, for example. CO2 ppm changes somewhat with sea temp. And maybe it did more many millions of years ago, when concentrations were much higher. But it hasn’t recently been a driver of change, because nothing has been driving it. Until now.
Nick
So you appear to be arguing that co2 hasnt been a major driver in the past but will be so in the future?
I can respect that position, but do wish that so many scientists who push the notion of lack of variability in the past would argue the case for radiative physics instead of coming up with all sorts of studies that distort climatic history.
I also wish they would be more circumspect with the data they use. Sea ice data prior to the satellite era and such things as historic SST’s and sea level data are not robust enough for them to be used in supposedly scientific studies that influence national policy.
tonyb
I would like to know what proxies were used to go back to 1530 since thermometers were not around until 1650’s and no thermometer with an accurate scale until 1680’s. It was not until the mid 1700’s that a standard scale was decided and even then two were in use.
Also where are the atmospheric CO2 readings from and what proxies were used to calculate these.
some have attributed the PETM to a CO2 influx from …somewhere. There are other examples in the scientific lit. of such flimsy attributions to CO2.
Over time the swings from hot to cold are reducing and the warmer periods are increasing but there is not a large increase in the maximum temperatures. It’s just warm for longer. The climate is becoming more friendly. It’s getting less cold and not a lot hotter.
I can remember when I was young we often used to get summers with really uncomfortable hot periods when it was difficult to breath and get comfortable. These periods would end in violent thunderstorms. I can’t remember any thing like it in recent years.
Nick Stokes says: May 9, 2013 at 2:09 am
…………… CO2 may have given a positive feedback boost to Ice Age termination, for example. CO2 ppm changes somewhat with sea temp. And maybe it did more many millions of years ago, when concentrations were much higher. But it hasn’t recently been a driver of change, because nothing has been driving it. Until now.
Time is rapidly approaching when the climate scientists may have to get of their magic CO2 flying carpet and come down to the ground, or even better dive into depths of North Atlantic and look at Mid Atlantic Ridge.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVa.htm
The far north end of the MAR moves the ocean currents around Iceland, affecting atmospheric pressure in the area (summers to the north, winters to the south ),
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CB.htm
resulting in shifts of the polar jet stream, changing the weather/climate of the whole of N. Hemisphere Since most of the records are from NH, global data will follow suit.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CGNh.htm
About climate change talk to geologists not statisticians and computer modellers.
John Marshall
Please read my article ‘The long slow thaw?’ linked to above, as many of your questions will be answered. In addition there is a link from within the article which contains methodology, sources and references-it is here;
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf
The second part of your question I have more difficulty with. I have used ‘official’ co2 figures so that part can not be contested by people such as Nick Stokes. There is another school of thought-generally riduculed- who suspect that co2 concentrations was more variable in the past and rose to a similar level to today as recently as the 1940’s. Generally the historic records at 280ppm are said to be derived from ice cores. I wrote about the subject here.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
As I said on the thread I remain to be convinced as to whether the modern or historic co2 record are the more accurate. If it were more variable than it appears it might explain the comsiderable historic temperature variation.
Whenever this topic comes up on WUWT there is always a heated debate!
tonyb
Tony Brown, you mentioned the first two peaks of temperature at 1530 and 1630, but this happenned about every hundred years right through. The peak in 1830 was the least. Also there was another rise at about the 80 year mark in each century with the one in the 1980 mark being outstanding. Are these significant, and do they correspond with planetary movements. If the sun affects our tides as it does, can an alignment of the planets have a tidal effect on the sun.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2013 at 1:44 am
‘I always look for controversial elements in data. As far as the CEuropeT and CEnglantT here is my observation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVp.htm
so they the two CETs could ‘reconcile’.
As always, your graphics are interesting and informative and do show a parallel trend between CET and CEuropeT records for most of the time. But the claim that it is due to conversions from oF to oC is negated, to my mind, by the fact that the two records agree in magnitude around 1810 to 1860 but then markedly diverge only to come together around 1976. It is the differences in the magnitude of the anomalies that I am interested in and this could well be linked to precipitation and surface water capacity.
Frank Lasner with his Ruti project has demonstrated that there are three major types of climate zones – coastal, inland plain and inland at altitude with the first and last most affected by SST: he shows these effects for the CET area. CET mixes these zones and so averages out the anomalies – the two stations at Ringway and Squires Gate are both in a zone with a high level of precipitation: I can say that from experience as a grew up mid way between them! They are also both at airports and subject to high changes in UHI. Malvern, in a hill area, has now been substituted by Pershore which is on a plain, as is Rothamsted These differences can be seen in the Meteo records:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/regmapavge.html
Except for Malvern they have also been subject to a UHI effect as shown in the UK heat maps:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/wmo03318-blackpool-squires-gate/#more-7845
And if we compare the data from the latest CET stations, we see that a large part of the uptick shown in the CET record comes from Tmin values at Rothamsted that is in a dry area away from the coast and subject to high changes in UHI.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004438.html
These comments are not intended to diminish in any way the work carried out by TonyB, which I find to be very informative and useful. Rather more of a stimulus to him and others to break the CET and other records down into the climate zones from which they are made up and to evaluate the changes in these zones with local data on temperature, precipitation, surface TSI and paleo data which I believe will lead to a greater understanding of the drivers behind climate change than can be obtained by using averaged global or regional data.
I should add that I consider that climate science will only make real progress when it abandons land surface temperatures and concentrates on atmospheric and ocean heat flux, as proposed by Pielke Sr., and solar affects.
Peter W Whittaker
Yes, those hundred year and 80 year peaks are interesting arent they? Generally speaking the Met office promote their version of CET (with daily rather than monthy records) to 1772
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Consequently the warm points in the 1730′ 1630’s and 1530’s (the last 2 being my reconstruction) don’t stand out as there is limited data for researchers if the 1772 record is used.
I have heard all sorts of theories but I am not aware of any detailed professional (i.e funded) objective research into the reasons behind this apparent periodicity in CET.
tonyb
Peter
I am no believer in the notion of a ‘global’ temperature and have great sympathy with the comment by Marcel Leroux;
“They well know that the world has many climates.’
I suspect that CET is representative in general terms of some of these climates and at times most of them as worldwide circustamces converge, for example during the MWP when most (but not all of the word) probably warmed. So in that respect CET is about as close as we can get to a ‘global’ figure whilst accepting that such a thing is an academic premise and whose pursuit blinds us to the myriad reasons for our ever changing climate that occur on a more ‘local’ basis.
For example, we know that throughout the spell of rising ‘global’ temperatures there were many places that were actually cooling. I wrote about it here with Verity Jones.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
So yes, breaking down the data into climate zones to a standard that would be accepted by the climate community is something on my agenda (as is determining the amount of UHI in the recent CET record)
Unfortunately these are big tasks beyond the resources of such as myself who are still waiting for that promised cheque from Big Oil to drop through the letter box.
tonyb
Just in from Railtrack, it is the wrong kind of CO2
Nick Stokes says:
May 9, 2013 at 2:09 am
But it (C02) hasn’t recently been a driver of change, because nothing has been driving it. Until now.
That’s what the climatists claim, with very little evidence to support it. Climate change before was natural, and now it isn’t. Pathetic. It’s a Belief, nothing more.
Nick Stokes;
But now we’ve been putting fossil C directly in the air – about 350 Gtons so far. That’s a new situation. Should we stop?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Big numbers sound scary. New situation sounds scary. There’s 6 billion people on the planet. That’s a new situation. Should we stop making people? They are growing and eating more food than ever before. Gigatons and gigatons of biosphere being digested every day. Unprecedented!
Once again you have avoided the question, which is to produce any evidence of ill effects. You just shout words in a manner to make them sound ominous. That’s fear mongering.
Say, what do you see in CET ?
U C lots of temperature variation
and precious little CO2 correlation.
Nick Stokes says: May 9, 2013 at 2:09 am
But it hasn’t recently been a driver of change, because nothing has been driving it. Until now.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Chronic alarmism. Driver of change, you say? What change, pray tell?
The original entry and most of the comments are undermined by the facts and known science. Only eco-geek, Ian W and Geoff S seem to understand that CO2 levels are highly variable. Geoff imagines that CO2 concentrations would be higher in industrialized areas. However, the reality is that the human effect on CO2 is negligible. Some facts:
1. A study from Germany found that there is no CO2 dome over cities, even highly industrialized cities.
2. CO2 levels varies greatly (geographic, local fauna, wind conditions).
3. Plants are fed when a lack of wind allows CO2 to settle, greatly increasing CO2 levels at ground level.
4. CO2 is not a static quantity, but is in constant flux, since it is part of 2 main carbon cycles.
5. Like the water cycle, CO2 rises from and then “rains” down into the oceans again, according to Henry’s law.
6. Hot equatorial waters expel CO2 while cold water absorbs it. Segalstad has determined that the time period is only 5 years.
7. Mauna Loa is downwind and just north of the equator. Like any single point of data, it’s meaningless.
8. The idea of a “global CO2 level” is just as meaningless as a “global water vapor” level or a “global temperature”.
9. Segalstad has determined conclusively that man’s effect on the CO2 flux is on the order of .2%.
10. CO2 is soluble in water, so ice cores will always show a CO2 hockey stick, which only confirms Henry’s Law.
11. CO2 is not reflective, so the “greenhouse” analogy is invalid. The missing 33 degrees can be easily explained.
12. CO2 micro effects (so called “radiative physics”) cannot contradict macro thermodynamics.
13. Thermodynamics is driven by delta T, mass and energy storage of the various components.
14. The mass of Earth’s crust dwarfs the mass of the oceans, which dwarfs the mass of the atmosphere.
15. Thus, the energy flow is: Sun heats crust and oceans, and the temperature of the atmosphere is dependent on them.
16. The mass of the atmosphere is negligible, so one could not heat the ocean/crust by heating a small fraction of the atmosphere.
17. Heat is transferred away from earth by radiation from the top of the thermosphere. There is almost no CO2 above it.
18. Heat is transferred from crust/oceans to the top of thermosphere by various methods, but radiation is negligible.
19. Some other heat transfer mechanisms are convection, conduction, evaporation, precipitation, physical transport.
20. The atmospheric temperature is largely determined by the air pressure: PV = nRT.
21. The temperature on Venus (96% CO2) is similar to that of earth, at the same atmospheric pressure.
>> But an increase does cause warming,
No, it doesn’t.
>> and we’re digging up huge quantities of carbon and putting it in the atmosphere.
Actually, .2% says that man’s impact is teeny tiny.
>> That’s unprecedented.
What’s unprecedented is man’s conceit and his ability to believe so strongly in a myth:
Picture an arena with 20,000 people in attendance, where each person represents a molecule. The change in CO2 reported from ML is equivalent to one extra person entering the arena.
It’s truly unprecedented that people’s idea of science is to believe without evidence that this extremely negligible change could magically override many scientific laws, including Henry’s law and the laws of thermodynamics.
***
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:56 pm
But now we’ve been putting fossil C directly in the air – about 350 Gtons so far. That’s a new situation. Should we stop? We’ll have to decide. But there are plenty more Gtons to go.
***
Gee, modern greenhouses have been raising CO2 levels to “unprecedented”, 1000-1500 ppm levels — never experienced by plants in MILLIONS of yrs.
Why would they do that, and what are the results?
„The curious case of rising CO2 and falling temperatures”
It’s a hoax.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down3.gif
Went to the curious case of solar system:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/hadcrut4_minus_oni_1960a.gif
V.
Congrats to Tony Brown for the depth of his cross – referenced research
into the climate historic record…So much more reliable than climate models
with their discrepancies and ‘creative’ methodologies. certainly more reliable
than tree rings as a proxy for temperature. And its kind of reassuring to
have your farmers’ almanac records and other real world records to back
up the science too.
If you look at the variance in the Mauna Loa CO2 data and the variance in the Hadcrut temperature data, you will see that the is an excellent correlation and that temperature leads. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1960
Tony
Your graph is very interesting.It shows an island region that was quite cold through the entire period since 1560. Except for 4-5 brief warm periods , the overall impression is below average temperatures most of the time . It also shows some new cold periods that I had not recognized like 1560-1630,1720-1820,1830-1880. These were not solar minimums , so ocean temperatures could be the only cause plus some major volcanic eruptions . The oceans were quite cold during this time .The temperature dips through the four solar minimums show up very clearly.
“Went to the curious case of solar system:”
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/moberg_1530_ghi5.gif
Best
V.
‘I can respect that position, but do wish that so many scientists who push the notion of lack of variability in the past would argue the case for radiative physics instead of coming up with all sorts of studies that distort climatic history.”
Agreed.
You dont need to know anything about climate history to understand that dumping c02 at will into the atmosphere is not a wonderful risk free idea
Herkimer
I think you have made a perceptive comment in as much Britain is a pretty cold country which at various times gets less cold. These periods of brief warmth get incorporated into folk lore and are seen as the norm, think of the ‘endless’ Edwardian summer to which can be added a few brief Warm years that ended a decade ago.
Our seaside resorts are predicated on the notion of hot summers but all too frequently the tourist is disappointed at the reality. That is not to say that we don’t have good years but I remember now why my parents gave up holidaying in Britain in the early sixties, it was because the weather was often cool and unreliable and often wet.
Tonyb
herkimer says:
May 9, 2013 at 11:01 am
………..
Just to add to Tony’s comment, strongest ever sunspot cycle was SC19, 1955-1965, but then as Tony says I remember now why my parents gave up holidaying in Britain in the early sixties, it was because the weather was often cool and unreliable and often wet.
Sun is an obvious choice to explain climate change, but its direct radiative input as described and measured by the TSI (total solar iradiance) is relatively constant.
Fact that many ignore:
The CET 350 year long record shows that summer temperatures (Jun-July when the insulation is at its highest) show no perceptive long term trend rise, while it is the winters (December-January when the insulation is at lowest) which are responsible for the uptrend:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
It then stands to reason that the in the long term CET trend is governed by the nearby Atlantic’s currents.
(see also my earlier comment )
vukcevic
You said
“It then stands to reason that the in the long term CET trend is governed by the nearby Atlantic’s currents.”
Ocean sst also govern in the short term . Ocean temperatures will over-ride solar effects as they did during the high solar max in 1957 . Both North and South hemisphere SST were in a declining mode 1940-1960.. Both had temperature dips in that period around 1955 and 1965. Also AO was negative much of the period .
In reply to Louis Hooffstetter:’s question May 8, 2013 at 5:35 pm, ““Nick, which is/are bettter proxies for North American temperatures, the CET record or Mann’s proxies?” Nick Stokes said:
North America? Where did that come from? Tony was talking about global.
Yes, but last time I checked, N. America and England were both in the Northern Hemisphere. If this has changed recently, please let me know. Tony was talking about global, but to make it simple for you, lets limit our discussion to the Northern Hemisphere. Now, stop dodging my question and answer it: Which are better proxies for (either North American or) Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the CET record or Mann’s proxies?:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
Once again, if your answer is Mann’s proxies, please explain why.
tonyb
I think the role of major volcano eruptions during 1500-1800 is often under estimated. There were about 28 eruptions level 5 or over during this period including some level 6 and 7. During 1600 there were 12 . So they must have had some effect to cool global temperatures further.Things have been rather quiet recently.I wonder if they will also be more active as we get into the next cooler climate cycle between now and 2030.
Steven Mosher says:
May 9, 2013 at 11:42 am
You dont need to know anything about climate history to understand that dumping c02 at will into the atmosphere is not a wonderful risk free idea
By which you mean, the less you know about climate history, the better able you are to swallow the notion that somehow we are risking something by “dumping” C02 into the atmosphere.
Thanks, Tony.
Yes, CO2 continues to climb while temperatures don’t.
A strong indication of failure for the greenhouse warming hypothesis.
Bart says:
That was the graph that was available. Your graph still doesn’t show that much curvature over a 20 year period. And, you conveniently haven’t shown the atmospheric CO2 levels on the same graph so one can see if there is really any significant difference in the amount of curvature.
What you happened upon was a feedback that had been known about for quite some time. However, only a few of the most extreme believe-what-they-want-to-believers actually think this means the rise in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution began is not anthropogenic.
herkimer says:
“It also shows some new cold periods that I had not recognized like 1560-1630,1720-1820,1830-1880. These were not solar minimums, so ocean temperatures could be the only cause plus some major volcanic eruptions.”
It is actually possible to track most stronger CET monthly deviations from average temperatures solely from (repeatable) heliocentric planetary configurations through the whole series. In that respect, CET can be seen as a useful proxy for short term solar magnetic activity.
It’s not as if local SST’s did anything to mitigate the cold in Dec 2010 and March 2013, both very cold even by Maunder standards. That was down to the short term solar signal giving a very negative AO, at the two weakest places in the solar cycle, just after minimum and at around maximum. I think you’ll find most of it is down to where the jet stream is sitting.
The postscript in Tony’s excellent article gives very good descriptions on variabilty:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
joeldshore says:
May 9, 2013 at 6:39 pm
“Your graph still doesn’t show that much curvature over a 20 year period.”
You’re probably looking at the top graph. That is the rate of emissions. It is greater than linear. That integrates to total accumulated emissions in the bottom graph to greater than quadratic. That’s lots of curvature.
Unfortunately, it only goes to 2006. I do not have a source for updated data. The CDIAC site seems not to provide it anymore. But, I have seen the plots, and the emissions rates have not decreased at all in the last 5 years. Quite the contrary, they have increased worldwide. Measured CO2 rate has completely stalled and the appears to be turning down in lock step with the temperatures. The divergence is getting to be very pronounced.
“What you happened upon was a feedback that had been known about for quite some time.”
Nice try. It isn’t a feedback. It is the basic relationship. And, there is no room in it for significant anthropogenic contributions.
What happened to my post? I asked Tony about his sentence: ‘ CET is seen by many scientists as a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for Northern Hemisphere and Global temperatures.’ Since Southern Hemisphere temps seem to be a degree or two lower, is it the rise and fall that makes CET a good proxy? Anyway, what does he think about the other hemisphere?
Oops! I saw it on the third run-through…
Don Atkin
Sorry for not replying to your post. I should have done a fresh read through after my morning coffee.
Yes, it is the direction of travel that makes CET useful. I am sorry for quoting him again but Lamb summed up the problems with virtually all temperature data sets and especially historic reconstructions when he said ‘we can understand the tendancy but not the precision.’
The world has many climates and the Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere do not ALWAYS march to the same tune, so direction of travel, generally (but not always) yes, precision , no.
The southern Hemisphere few hisatoric records (ie pre 1850) either instrumental or anecdotal so whilst the ideal would be to construct its own temperature narrative that would be difficult to do.
Tonyb
Tony
You say:
‘Yes, it is the direction of travel that makes CET useful. I am sorry for quoting him again but Lamb summed up the problems with virtually all temperature data sets and especially historic reconstructions when he said ‘we can understand the tendency but not the precision.’
The world has many climates and the Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere do not ALWAYS march to the same tune, so direction of travel, generally (but not always) yes, precision , no.’
Your article is about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and land surface temperature i.e. climate sensitivity over land for which you claim that the CET record is a reasonable proxy. The IPCC gave a global value in AR4 with a mean of 3 oC which has since been lowered by several IPCC scientists to a mean of 1.6 oC. Both of these values depend on a positive feedback from water vapour but Lindzen and Spencer among others have presented empirical data showing this is net negative and as a result find a climate sensitivity of 0.3 to 0.7 oC. These values, however, depend on latitude with the low values in the tropics.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/25/climate-sensitivity-in-ar5.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%C2%B0ccentury-for-agw/#more-44052
Schmittner found differences in climate sensitivity by zone: Arctic, North Temperate, Tropics, South Temperate, and Antarctic, with a large difference between the Arctic and Antarctic. In fact the graphic in his poster shows that there are multiple climate sensitivities – five for oceans and two for land. This means that there is no mean value as claimed by the IPCC, it is local and changes with ocean heat flux and cloud cover:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/18/co2-sensitivity-is-multi-modal-all-bets-are-off/
Data presented at Columbia University show distinct zonal differences in the patterns of ocean temperature anomalies by latitude: Arctic, NH Mid, Tropical, SH Mid and Antarctic ocean areas http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/zonalT.pdf
And these fit with zonal differences that show up in UAH temperature anomalies:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/uah-global-temperature-down-significantly/#more-85587
These zonal differences are reflected in differing warming/cooling patterns in ocean basins
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/#more-81892
And the disparity in heat content in the oceans of the SH and NH:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/tisdale-on-ocean-heat-content-anomalies/#more-47656
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000-meters-why-arent-northern-hemisphere-oceans-warming-during-the-argo-era/#more-85514
Clive Best has slinked these differences in sensitivity over land to surface humidity:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3258
As has Byrne in this reference given recently by Mosher at ClimateEtc.
http://www.mit.edu/~pog/src/byrne_land_ocean_warming_contrast_2013.pdf
“Surface temperatures increase at a greater rate over land than ocean in simulations and observations of global warming. It has previously been proposed that this land-ocean warming contrast is related to different changes in lapse rates over land and ocean because of limited moisture availability over land. A simple theory of the land-ocean warming contrast is developed here in which lapse rates are determined by an assumption of convective quasi-equilibrium. The theory predicts that the difference between land and ocean temperatures increases monotonically as the climate warms or as the land becomes more arid. However, the ratio of differential warming over land and ocean varies non-monotonically with temperature for constant relative humidities and reaches a maximum at roughly 293K.”
And Mosher also pointed to studies showing differences between land and sea in this reference from Rowan e al.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028164/abstract
Given these data, can we really say that the CET record is a useful proxy for global climate sensitivity, albeit it gives useful information about past temperatures in the UK and some surrounding areas that disputes the hockey stick claims of Mann, Marcott and Pages2K.
It is not whether warming and cooling occurs, it does in regular cycles. Rather, it is where it occurs and the consequences. A large increase in temperature in the Arctic zone in winter, as proposed by Arrhenius, where the temperatures are – 30 oC, has little consequence for the bulk of mankind (personkind!). But a drop in temperature of a few degrees in Europe, the USA and Canada has real consequences – as we see this year in the late start to the grain growing season. We need to monitor the changes in the boundaries of these zones since, in the NH, a 1 oC reduction in temperature causes a retreat south by about 170 km in the areas where grains can be produced – for which CET is probably useful for Europe but what about the N America and China and the SH. This is the reason I consider climate science should concentrate on climate zones rather than regional or global evaluations.
@climatereason.
I can understand reports from the time can give an idea of the rough temperature but this is no way accurate. London’s UHI effect is far higher now than in the 14-1600’s for instance. CO2 concentrations from ice cores are not as accurate as hoped as recent research has shown due to contamination. (An internet search should source this. I have seen it but have no record of it now). CO2 concentrations from Victorian times were measured, using the same chemical methods as today, at up to 500ppmv in various places round Europe, Germany, Italy, England. CO2 concentrations are difficult to average given the changes diurnally, seasonally and hemispherically.
Peter said
“This is the reason I consider climate science should concentrate on climate zones rather than regional or global evaluations.”
I agree. Average Global temperatures obscure the fact that some places warm whilst others are cooling or static. We have the same example for average ‘global’ sea level rise which in some places is dropping whilst in others it is rising sharply whilst it is static in the third example.
The futility of trying to get everything into a convenient ‘average global’ straightjacket is nowhere better illustrated than the ‘global economic growth rate’. Those countries seeing a huge contraction in their economies would find the idea that average global growth was 3% to be completely meaningless.
As I mentioned upthread trying to sort places into climate zones and assesing the temperature trends would be an interesting exercise, but one that needs to be done by a research team with the proper resources.
tonyb
JohnMarshall
I use ‘official’ co2 concentrations through the centuries in order that this aspect is uncontroversial to those who believe co2 has a serious affect on our temperatures.
I referenced earlier the article I wrote on ‘historic variations in co2’. I think the subject warrants further examination and an audit of the pre 1958 co2 measurements which would sort out the controversy one way or the other. I remain to be convinced either way as to whether past co2 variability was greater than currently officially believed.
tonyb
One part of Maunder minimum period that I found interesting is that the reconstructed North Atlantic SST Anomaly shows a steady warming from about 1600 to about 1690 which was the latter 45 years of the 90 years of warming through the early part of the Maunder Minimum and then dropping after 1690 until about 1720. This was happening as the solar cycle in terms of sunspot activity was dropping to zero from 1600 to 1645. So the solar minimum was not affecting the Ocean sst.The reconstructed CET was rising from1620 to1650 and then dropped [ even while North Atlantic SST was still warming] and stayed below average until 1720. It perhaps showed another period when solar cycles and ocean sst cycles seemed out of sync like during 1940-1960. I think it may have also been the 10 major volcanic eruptions between 1640 and 1680 that may have partly caused CET to start dropping before the North ATlantic SST started to drop unless the solar minimum which was fully underway by 1645 was the prime cause?
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.ca/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html
herkimer
You pose some interesting concepts there.
If I can use an analogy, I live in a coastal village that has just had a flood defence wall built. The village has never been flooded but I welcomed it because it could have been many times IF;
The river (we are on an estuary) had been in substantial flood due to prolonged rain
It was an exceptionally high spring tide.
It was no more than an hour either side of the spring tide.
The wind was blowing gale force from the east (heaping up the waves)
There was a low pressure system sitting in the ‘wrong’ place.
If only a few of these factors are in position there is likely to be no problem
Similarly, I think that for extreme conditions such as the little ice age periods to occur we would also need a coincidental set of circumstances-if they dont happen all around the same time the impacts are lessened. They include;
The jet stream stuck in the ‘wrong’ place
A corresponding high pressure feeding in winds consistently from the North or East (in winter)
SST’s at a low temperature
The ‘gulf’ stream to be either diverted or weaker than normal
The AO at a certain stage in its cycle
Solar cycle at a certain stage (few sunspots?)
A substantial La Nina or El Nino
Numerous other factors we know of (such as Volcanoes)
Numereous other factors we don’t know of.
I suspect this last factor is at least as big as all the other factors listed added together.
How all these climate factors interact with each other is nowhere near as certain as the factors that could cause flooding in my village.
That we may discover WHY temperatures rise and fall-sometimes for long enough periods to create an MWP or LIA -I have no doubt we will figure out one day but I think we are an awful long way from that point and your post is as good an explanation as any.
tonyb
tonyb
Good comments . I have been looking into the behaviour of AMO during these solar minimums and it behaves totally different in each case assuming that all our data is correct. In the case of Maunder , AMO was rising during much of the early minimum[for 45 years ] and then dropped for the latter part[1690-1720]. During Dalton , AMO went cold in 1780 or 10 years before the start of the Minimum and then stayed cold well through the minimum all the way to 1850. During the 1880-1910 Minimum it only went negative after 2 low solar cycles or about 20 years after 1880 starting in 1990 to 1926. There appears to be a lag AMO cooling effect that seems to kick in after the solar minimum proceeeds long enough that makes the AMO turn cold or extend longer as we saw with the Dalton case
herkimer
I don’t think I have seen you writing a piece here so I would encourage you to put your thoughts into an article and get some input here.
There is no doubt that sometimes things happen in climate in ways we dont expect. I put CET into 10 year and 50 year anomalies and it is surprising how much the climate shifts up and down sometimes by quite large amounts. Why?
Here is a link to my graphs;
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/
The first few graphs show glacier advances and retreats and they are there in order to provide some context to warming and cooling periods.
Of course the glaciers don’t abruptly retreat or advance in the manner the vertical lines suggest, so the graphic needs to be refined, but it illustrates that it takes time before the glaciers have definitively moved. It may well be that one of the graphs may give you some more clues to the various things you have observed.
tonyb
herkimer says:
May 10, 2013 at 7:46 am
“So the solar minimum was not affecting the Ocean sst.”
If you look in much finer detail you can see many places where the North Atlantic SST’s drop when CET is high, and rise when CET is low: http://1.2.3.13/bmi/i36.tinypic.com/wld5kl.jpg
Probably a southerly jet stream position transports more warmer sea water further north than a northerly jet stream position can. Though incursions of Arctic air may damp the response.
I should imagine that it is seasonally variable, and may correlate better with winter temperatures rather than annual CET, for example the cold winters though the 1770’s where the North Atlantic SST’s are rising, but CET annual is not that cold: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
Take a look at temperatures in the 1570’s at the big spike in the reconstructed SST’s:
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1500_1599.htm
URIC LYONS
I appreciate your comments.There can be short term exceptions My comments referred to. a relatively long period or trend of 1600-1715 when solar activity was dropping and went to zero sun spots by 1645 and this continued until 1715.The North Atlantic SST was rising from 1600-1690. CET was mostly in a cold mode except about 1610-1650 when it had a brief warm period .. The Atlantic continued to be in the warm mode after solar sun spot activity went to zero 1645 and never was in the cold mode during Maunder Minimum.but was so after 1720..
@herkimer
The short term behaviour helps explain the long term, that’s why it is worth examining finely. And I’m sure with an general increase in frequency of cold events and decrease in warm events through the 1600’s the trend in N. Atlantic SST should be upwards, and show why SST’s are warmest in the 1670-90’s.
So a few threads back, we were warned about graphing 2 data sets on the same graph without having a proper known relation between the 2 sets. What I’d like to know is why so many insist on using temperature and CO2. Yes, I know they are related….but the relationship isn’t 1:1 it’s logarithmic. So, shouldn’t proper scaling on the right hand side of all these graphs be logarithmic?
Maybe I’m just thinking too much. But then, if you showed CO2 on that kind of scale..there wouldn’t be much to see..
Serendipity
herkimer says:
May 10, 2013 at 7:46 am
“So the solar minimum was not affecting the Ocean sst.”
‘If you look in much finer detail you can see many places where the North Atlantic SST’s drop when CET is high, and rise when CET is low:
http://1.2.3.13/bmi/i36.tinypic.com/wld5kl.jpg‘
Today at WUWT we have a post by Bob Tisdale on Specific Humidity and SST and global land + sea temperatures showing apparent direct linkage. What is interesting is to watch the animation covering the La Nina and El Nino periods especially in the CET versus N Atlantic and Europe area. This shows, at least in this period, that the CET area often responds differently such that we would expect during these times a different temperature. It also shows that using global average data is misguided.
If you look in much finer detail you can see many places where the North Atlantic SST’s drop when CET is high, and rise when CET is low.
One of the NAO’s consequences.
There is a chain of natural variability in the N. Atlantic illustrated here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm
-Tectonic activity in the N. Atlantic for some unknown reason correlates with sunspot count
– tectonics continuously varies balance of warm and cold currents to the north and south of Iceland.
– where there is strong sea-atmosphere interaction, several hundred of W/m2 of heat is released into atmosphere, cooling warm currents before their down-welling.
– released heat changes atmospheric pressure around Iceland (principal NAO component), altering path of the polar jet-stream.
– the effect of the jet-stream meandering is well understood.
The one climate factor that behaved consistently during the period noted on the graph of this post was Greenland temperatures . During every minimum, the temperatures dropped as measured by oxygen isotope records per Don Easterbrook studies .. In the case of Maunder Minimum, the temperatures started to drop about the same time as the minimum started in1640 and except for 2 very brief warm spikes , it was colder than normal until 1740.. So with the Arctic colder than normal, the solar suspot cycles at zero and a series of at least 8 major volcanic eruptions during the Maunder , the CET tempertures had to drop.. Why AMO or the North Atlantic stayed postive until about 1890 is not clear.?It clearly has its own tempearture driver and cycle . This could have signifigance for us today as the AMO is also still positive, the sunspot cycle is predicted to go to zero or to a lower level and the Arctic is just starting to signs of cooling .I look to the Arctic for cotinued cooling to drive this next cooling cycle from now to 2030.and many more years of negative AO.
herkimer says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:18 am
Why AMO or the North Atlantic stayed positive until about 1890 is not clear.?
It is again to do with Iceland.
AMO is controlled by Suppolar gyre (SPG) , which is driven by mixture of cold and warm currents. The SPG is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean, it is a region of the intense ocean – atmosphere interaction. Cold winds remove the surface heat at rates of several hundred watts per square meter, resulting in deep water convection. These changes in turn affect the strength and character of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) and the horizontal flow of the upper ocean, thereby altering the oceanic poleward heat transport and the distribution of sea surface temperature (SST). The SPG’s northern section is made of cold and warm surface currents, follow images in reverse order in this link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DStr.htm
Warm current is split by Reykjanes ridge, the larger part loops westward, while minor turns northward via shallow Denmark Strait.
By far strongest part of the cold current is the Arctic outflow along the Greenland’s coast, the route for the southwards drifting icebergs. An iceberg 10-20m above surface would be 90-180m below surface.
Back to the Maunder Minimum; at first many icebergs would be cluttering Denmark Strait, which eventually could have been partially or completely frozen, currents flows in both directions would be impeded to depth of several tens of meters; result:. more warm and less cold currents into the SPG, keeping the AMO high.
VUKCEVIC
Many thanks for the clarification. I like your CET graphs as well and refer to them quite often.
@vukcevic
Considering the influence of the trade winds on ENSO phase, I would suggest that the jet stream latitude is very influential in Atlantic circulation patterns. And given the short term solar forcing on the AO/NAO, the jet latitude should lead the changes in regional SST’s.
Steven Mosher said @ May 9, 2013 at 11:42 am
You dont need to know anything about climate history to understand that feeding the plants c02 at will is not a wonderful risk free idea… They might become angry if we stop 🙂
I still say its just changes in the jet stream, the rising temperatures were going their way for awhile but natural changes will now lower them and make them look foolish. THanks for the graph