By Dr. Vincent Gray
1. Roy Spencer and Murry Salby
The greatest difficulty facing the promoters of the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause dangerous global warming is the inconvenient truth that it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology. Without this information it is not possible to claim global warming.
In order to make this claim the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR) was fabricated from temperature measurements made at meteorological weather stations.
It did not matter that
· There is no standardized method for making these observations,
· They are unrepresentative of the earth’s surface, and worse the further back you go.
· Their locations are mainly close to cities,
· Only maximum and minimum temperatures are measured,,
· The number and location of stations changes daily
Despite these disabilities, which would have killed the idea in the days when genuine scientists controlled the scientific journals, the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change. They even seem to accept that a change in it over a century of a few decimals of a degree is cause for alarm
John Christy and Roy Spencer in 1979 at the University of Huntsville, Alabama established an alternative procedure for plotting global temperature anomalies in the lower troposphere by using the changes in the microwave spectrum of oxygen recorded by satellites on Microwave Sounder Units (MSUs). This overcame several of the disadvantages of the MGSTAR method.
It is almost truly global , not confined to cities. Although it misses the Arctic, this is also true of the MGSTAR. There have been some problems of calibration and reliability but they are far less than the problems of the MSGTAR record. They are therefore more reliable.
From the beginning the two records have disagreed with one another. This created such panic that the supporters of the IPCC set up an alternative facility to monitor the results at Remote Sensing Systems under the aegis of NASA and in the capable hands of Frank Wentz, an IPCC supporter. It was confidently believed that the “errors” of Christy and Spencer would soon be removed. To their profound disappointment this has not happened, The RSS version of the Lower Troposphere global temperature anomaly record is essentially the same as that still provided by the University of Huntsville. It is also almost the same as the measurements made by radiosonde balloons over the same period
The MSU record has now been going for 34 years. Spencer has recently published a comparison between temperature predictions made by a large number of IPCC climate models and their projected future and the temperature record as shown by the MSUs and the balloons.
at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
It is surely obvious that all the models are wrong and that their projections are nonsensical.
I might also add that the central line is also meaningless.
2. MURRY SALBY
Murry Salby is Professor of Climate Science at McQuarrie Univerity where he has an impressive research programme to be seen at
http://envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/research.html
He has published a book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate”.
He has recently expounded his views on the climate in two Youtube presentations. I have found that it was necessary to see both of them several times before I got a clear idea of what he is claiming. The first one, at
was a presentation at the Sydney Institute on 2nd August 2011.
He begins by showing the paleo record based on ice cores and shows that there is a close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, with temperature coming first. The same applies to methane.
He then attaches it to the more recent CO2 record and plots the Carbon13 figures, which declined over the whole period. Since plant material prefers C12 this means that the additional CO2 comes from plant material. The IPCC claims that the additional plant material must come from combustion of fossil fuels, so this is their “Smoking Gun” that the increase in CO2 is caused by human-derived emissions.
But the extra plant-derived CO2 could be natural. Salby sets out to show that this is true. He shows a satellite map of natural sources of CO2 which come more from the tropics than from temperate regions (but only 6% more)
He then provides data and graphs which show that the additional CO2 results from what happens during a temperature fluctuation, using the satellite (MSU) temperature record since 1978. He shows that the CO2 which is released by a temperature increase is always greater than the CO2 absorbed when the temperature falls, providing a net increase in the atmosphere
The CO2 increase is from natural sources. It is not related to temperature, but to the behaviour of temperature fluctuations.
The second Youtube presentation at
took place at Hamburg 18th April 2013.
It starts with an attempt to clear up the discrepancy of the first presentation, where , carbon dioxide was related to temperature for the ice core proxies and where carbon dioxide was related to a difference between emissions and absorption during a temperature fluctuation for the recent measurements.
He does this by questioning the reliability of the ice core measurements, something that my late friend Zbigniew Jaborowski questioned in 1997.
He points out that the snow that traps air from the atmosphere and then solidifies irons out the fluctuations in temperature which are the real source of CO2 increase, and that some diffusion of the gases must happen when they are buried. By a rather elaborate set of mathematical calculations he restores the fluctuation effect from the ice cores and shows that it is compatible with his other calculations from recent measurements
He then extends his calculations of CO2 from temperature fluctuations by using the instrumental record. When he allows for its low reliability as you go back in the record (only 8% of the earth in 1860) he derives an impressive agreement between carbon dioxide increases and the calculated natural additions derived from temperature fluctuations over his entire range.
He shows that for the MSU record, carbon dioxide is completely unrelated to temperature,
We already know from the first part of this newsletter that climate models based on the assumption that carbon dioxide increases influence global temperature are fundamentally wrong so it does not matter much whether it comes from human-related emissions or from natural sources.
I vociferously object to science by Youtube. In the old days any new theory from a recognised academic would be welcomed by the journals, but nowadays any disagreement with the IPCC orthodoxy would have difficulty finding a place in a scientific journal.
All the same, this material from Salby needs to be properly documented before it could be considered seriously
Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand
Brooks Bridges,
For an index to WUWT see Ric Werme’s Guide to Watts Up With That All the discussions on arctic sea ice are listed here and the discussions on the Antarctic here. (On the left is a listing of catagories you can click on to get links to those articles)
Bryan A says:
June 22, 2013 at 8:54 am
It would seem to me that a simple empirical test could be set up to replicate Ice Field layering…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dr Jaworowski wanted to do further research on CO2 in ice cores but those with a vested interest in the CAGW scam and lots of political clout were not about to let him…
Ram says:
June 22, 2013 at 9:23 am
Can anyone tell me how much dishonest scientific activities is there ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can give you lots of links.
peer reviewed paper: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Scientific fraud and the power structure of science
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Retraction Watch
Top Science Scandals of 2011
Scientific American – Dr. No Money: The Broken Science Funding System
Science Fraud: Highlighting Misconduct in Life Sciences Research
Faked data that makes the headlines:
NY Times: A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
Guardian UK: False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research, High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope
10 Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World.
Fox News: Oops! 5 retracted science studies from 2012
Fox News: One in Seven Scientists Say Colleagues Fake Data
Telegraph UK: Scientist jailed for faking medicine test results
http://medcitynews.com/2011/07/fda-says-cro-cetero-faked-trial-data-pharmas-may-need-to-redo-tests/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57357036/red-wine-researcher-flagged-for-fake-data/
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20111103193525126
WUWT discussion of Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers that made the AP news service.
In reply to:
Steve says:
June 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Didn’t Dr Salby claim that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was proportional to the integral of the temperature anomaly?
This was in contrast to the models assumptions that temperature behaved in almost direct proportion to the CO2 concentration.
William:
Let’s summarize and clarify the warmists’ assumptions and clarify how Salby’s observation and Spencer/Christy/Lindzen/Choi’s observations and analysis challenge or disprove the warmists’ assumptions.
The warmists scientists have two assumptions:
Warmist Assumption 1 – The increase in atmospheric CO2 caused almost 100% of the observed planetary warming in the last 70 years. As noted in my comment above, observations and skeptic analysis supports the assertion that the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be 0.3C rather than IPCC predicted 1.5C to 6C warming. If the skeptics analysis is correct then roughly 0.45C of the warming in the last 70 years due to something other than the rise in atmospheric CO2.
It appears, the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by the increase in solar magnetic cycle activity. A prediction to validate that assertion would be planetary cooling. Planetary cooling is possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was physically caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds as the solar magnetic cycle has abruptly slowed down.
Planetary cooling is not possible if the warming in the last 70 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, as the CO2 forcing remains 24/7, it is not reversible.
Warmist Assumption 2 – The observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans burning hydrocarbons and carbon to provide energy for human activity and to increase the standard of life for humans. Salby presents observation evidence, concerning the rise in atmospheric CO2 that does not have a physical explanation. Salby notes an observation fact not a theory. It is unlike the measurement of CO2 change year by year is incorrect. What does not make sense is why atmospheric CO2 increases linearly when human emission of CO2 has quadrupled.
Assumption 2 and Salby’s observation is a different problem than the increase in atmospheric CO2 did not cause the warming in the last 70 years. Salby is asking what caused the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Salby notes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 (until equilibrium is reached) tracks the integral of temperature; looking at the current data and past data. Salby does not provide a physical explanation as to why that observation is correct; what is the mechanism that is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2, to correlate with the integral of temperature. What he state is the increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the integral of temperature.
Now if planetary temperature suddenly drops due the solar magnetic cycle change, then the level of atmospheric CO2 should also drop. Perhaps something related to the solar magnetic cycle change is causing both the change in planetary temperature and the change in CH4 that released from deep sources in the planet.
Observational evidence the planet has started to cool.
There is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for all months of the year. That is a step change which would indicate the polar see-saw was flipped. There will be significant cooling in both Northern and Southern hemisphere (revising the warming of the last 100 years) and there will be record sea ice in the Arctic and record cold temperatures in the Greenland Ice Sheet.
The Antarctic continent will warm slightly.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
The reason for the sudden and abrupt change to the planet’s climate is of course the sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle.
If the planet starts to cool, the media will suddenly become very interested in the climate of the Little Ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Kasuha says:
June 22, 2013 at 7:33 am
Those were nice and evenhanded thoughts. However, you go astray when you say: ‘…they provide very good evidence that CO2 is not driving temperatures but temperatures are driving CO2 concentrations. What is however NOT his conclusion is that “The CO2 increase is from natural sources.”’
If temperatures are driving CO2 concentrations, then anything other than temperature is not a major contributor. When a piece of fruit is an apple, then it is not an orange.
Donald L. Klipstein says:
June 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
“Although there is a large flux of CO2 among the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere, the hydrosphere and biosphere are *net removing* CO2 from the atmosphere despite warmer global temperatures. The carbon budget:”
The “carbon budget” is not something measured. It is something drawn up based on a particular paradigm – basically, how the authors think the bins should be filled. It is not evidentiary.
You first sentence smacks of the fallacious “mass balance” argument, which so may people ignorant of feedback systems have latched onto. Here is a discussion which explains why it is in error.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am
Please see above. You are completely wrong.
Village Idiot says: @ur momisugly June 22, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Let’s all just remember that IT IS OK to use the (manipulated) data when it suits:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That just shows that DESPITE all the manipulation they STILL can not show warming. It also means the earth has probably been cooling.
Alternate info:
Record snowfall in HP revives 2,000 glaciers
Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year
Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year
Peer reviewed paper discussed above.
A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier
Dr. Alley (NOAA) Holocene snow accumulation graph
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Graphs
Oct 2012
Nov. 2012
Dec 2012
Jan 2013
Köppen climate classification
Köppen Map US mid west
In reply to:
Neil Jordan says:
June 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Re William Astley says: June 22, 2013 at 11:49 am
In reply to: Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am
“…and GCR creates C14 that decays into C13…”
Carbon-14 decays by beta(-) emission, to produce Nitrogen-14.
Reference: “Chart of the Nuclides”, 12th ed., 1977
William: Your comment is correct. My belief has incorrect. Thanks Neil, I assumed that C14 decayed to form C13. C14 is created by GCR from Nitrogen. C14 decays to form N14. I could not find the source of C13. I believe essence of my comment is correct, that intensity and the magnitude of GCR determines the level of C14 in the atmosphere. As GCR is modulated by the strength and the extent of the solar heliosphere when there is a very active solar magnetic solar cycle, GCR is reduced, inhibited by the strong helisosphere which results in less C14 production. As the solar magnetic cycle activity was the highest in 8000 years C14 production is reduced.
The second mechanism question is what cause the variance of atmospheric CO2 current observations and on geological times.
As noted there is increased evidence the source of planetary carbon, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and water is deep source CH4.
The following is a summary of some of evidence to support that assertion.
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Are%20Coal,%20Natural%20Gas,%20and%20Crude%20Oil%20Really%20Fossil%20Fuels%20and%20Is%20There%20Really%20Any%20Oil%20Shortage%20of%20Oil.htm
The “conventional wisdom” today is still that our vast petroleum reserves in the world are fossil fuels. How this came about is interesting. Dr. J. F. Kenney is a Western geophysicist who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin oil and gas fields. [5] Kenney, in 1996, wrote the paper, Considerations About Recent Predictions Of Impending Shortages Of Petroleum Evaluated From The Perspective Of Modern Petroleum Science. [6] In it he explains that the fossil fuel idea originated from a 1757 paper by the Russian, Mikhailo V. Lomonosov. To this day there has been no real proof of the theory, but it was cited and repeated over the years, until it was considered actual fact. [Such things have been a most unfortunate occurrence in various branches of science on a number of subjects over the years.] The biotic theory of oil was actually discarded by the Russians in 1956, when another Russian, Professor Vladimir B. Porfir’yev, senior petroleum exploration geologist for the U.S.S.R, published a paper concluding: The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.
Kenny’s article states that in 1968, another Russian petroleum expert wrote a paper presenting further evidence:
Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration. [Emphasis added]
Also, by 1994, the Russian and Ukrainian scientists were responsible for the discovery and development of “eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields … in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned [based on the fossil fuel theory] as possessing no potential for petroleum production” using the new science on origination of oil, and where it might be located. Because of this new abiotic source technology, fields are being developed at depths much deeper in the earth than fossils could be expected to have ever existed. The actual evidence today is all contrary to the fossil fuel theory. Kenney states:
That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.
Using its technology on abiotic oil, and where it might be found, Russia has developed huge reserves of the three main hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. It is now the largest oil producer in the world.[8] And America, crippled by radical environmentalists, and the resulting restrictions on developing and using our natural resources, lags far behind and complains about the shortages, and cries about high gasoline prices. The only shortages that we are faced with are solely caused by these radicals and the influences they have on the Democrats and our President Obama, who is one of them.
I guess it’s not that important that the global temperature can’t really be measured. Whatever is being measured is communicated to the world as being 0.7C higher than it was. Okay, take it down to 0.4C or 0.5C after re-correcting the distortions produced by the NCDC and GISS but it is what it is.
The Oceans are warming but the numbers are so small. It is just a tiny absorption of heat even though when charted, it looks a big scary rising line. It is, in fact, small enough to call it unimportant in my book.
Then there is the flatlining temperatures. CO2 is having such a big impact that there is no recent warming to be concerned about.
The issue is, there are so many people that believe in this theory. No matter how broken it is and no matter how tiny or flat the actual climate is, they don’t want to see anything other than global warming and the disaster created by CO2.
We make statements containing facts. We plot data and crunch numbers and show how wrong it is. For doing that, we are called deniers. They publish papers about how we are psychologically damaged.
It’s about philosophy and psychology and the human desire to believe in something and be part of a movement and be on a team and defend what they believe in. To be on what they think of as the politicall-correct side.
How do you fix a movement when it has gone off the rails and is acting irrationally. In the past, time eventually corrects it but, at other times, war and violence has been required. How can we change it from a movement and a belief system is the question. When that part is gone, we talk real observations again but we have to have to make it a non-politically correct movement first.
“””””…..Dr Burns says:
June 22, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Vincent, You have misspelt your late friend’s name. It’s Jaworowski not Jaborowski……..”””””
Well I happen to know a real Jaworowski; as in a Polish one. He just happens to be the best damn technical fly caster I know of; he’s a fly casting genius.
And he absolutely insists that his name is pronounced Jaborowski. I suspect that the spelling is not original Polish anyway. I have no problem with spelling Jaborowski in a manner that will get it pronounced correctly. We Anglicize everything for our ease of communication.
So there !
Kudos to
Lance Wallace says: Your first point about temperatures makes no mention of the problems with the satellite datasets, which Christy and Spencer have recorded and attempted to correct, but satellite decay and failure of instruments have continued up to the most recent months.
and
Gail Combs says:That just shows that DESPITE all the manipulation they STILL can not show warming. It also means the earth has probably been cooling.
I am still saying the same thing–something must be wrong from Cristy’s data (its been so cold in so many places, I want to know how cold it has to get before we get a neutral or cooling anomaly from Spencer and Cristy?) and Gail, we have to keep pointing out that they MANIPULATE the data constantly–so it does mean there has has probably been cooling. I want to know why the satellite datasets don’t reflect what we see on the surface? Is it overcompensation by Cristy and Spencer because they don’t want to appear biased when they have to correct things and make up for decay of instruments?
Great post, thinks all for a great post and for the informative comments.
·They are unrepresentative of the earth’s surface, and worse the further back you go.
Their locations are mainly close to cities,
Only maximum and minimum temperatures are measured,,
It is unlikely to be true that they are worse the further back you go. The quality of the thermometers themselves is not that different from a calibration of a few historic ones I have seen comparisons for. The locations were in those days very much in the gardens of big houses an in towns that were by current standards scarcely villages.
Current measurement are often as you say in cities where the USCRN shows clearly there is a temperature differential greater than the supposed global warming. that this is ignored is a measurement of the lobby power of the renewable energy industry which has the big name political families behind it much as big oil did in its heyday cowboy industry era.
As you say merely max and min are recorded but equally importantly there is a very significant effect of the clean air acts which raised max temperatures by nearly half a degree according to tests by the same people who gave you the data that resulted in the clean air and SO2 information. That was before they were dumped by the climate scientists and told to “go back to fixing washing machines or whatever engineers did these days as a response to rejecting the idea that any positive feedback was possible.” Of course these test used boxes with light transmission sensors to measure particle levels and not fancy computer models because the scientists were getting the big budgets and engineering the hand me downs as is even more true now.
William Astley says:
June 22, 2013 at 11:49 am
C14 is created by GCR and is hence inversely related to solar magnetic cycle activity.
Yes, that is what the wiggle matching tables of carbon dating with calendar dating are based on. But since about 1870, the solar activity based carbon dating didn’t match reality (older appearance), because of the “thinning” of the 14C levels by 14C-free CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
The other possibility is a significant portion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural emissions.
Not possible: the human emissions alone in average are already twice the measured increase over the past 50 years, so any extra release from a natural source must be compensated by an equal extra absorption by a natural sink. Further, the only low 12C source on earth (besides minor CH4 and oil releases) are from the biosphere, which is currently a net sink for CO2…
Gail Combs says:
June 22, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Most of what you linked at about ice cores is based on the misinterpretations of the late Jaworowski. I had some personal correspondence with him about the “artificial” match of the ice cores with the Mauna Loa data. According to him, there is no difference between the average age of the CO2 in the bubbles and the surrounding ice at bubble closing depth. Even if there are years of open connection of the pores with the atmosphere. Quite remarkable for an ice core specialist.
But what closed the door for me is that he insisted that CO2 levels would migrate from lower levels to higher levels. Sorry, that is impossible (and there is no reverse osmosis at work between the ice pressure at 2000 m depth or 1999 m depth…).
See my comment on Jaworowski at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Gail Combs says:
June 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm
I think this says it all:
Gail, you are dishonest. As I have said already in the past, you are comparing the data of two stations where one is in the middle of a forest, completely unsuitable for “background” CO2 measurements and the other a current “background” measuring station.
If you want to compare the raw data and the “cleaned” data, then do that for Mauna Loa or any of the other “baseline” stations. They show no difference in average or trend outside 0.1 ppmv over a year.
The actual data from chemical testing for CO2 GRAPH 1
As said before, many of the historical data are completely unreliable, as they were taken in the middle of towns, forests, between leaves of growing crops, etc. The data that were taken over the oceans or at the seaside are all around the ice core data for the same period.
World data/maps from Japanese satellite:
So what? What you see is seasonal differences which locally can go to +/- 10 ppmv. That doesn’t matter on damn for the effect of 100+ ppmv CO2 increase over a period of 160 years, as far as there is an effect…
Gail Combs says:
June 22, 2013 at 3:05 pm
You might try reading http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
You may try to explain why at the very moment that humans start to emit larger amounts of fossil fuel CO2, the natural sources start in lockstep with human emissions and influencing the 13C/12C ratio’s in complete fixed ratio with human emissions. Not seen for 800,000 years in ice cores or over the past 600 years in the ocean surface by coralline sponges or any other proxy…
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Bart says:
June 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm
You first sentence smacks of the fallacious “mass balance” argument, which so may people ignorant of feedback systems have latched onto. Here is a discussion which explains why it is in error.
As no matter can be destroyed or created from nothing, the “mass balance” argument still stands strong, no matter what the real fluxes are.
All what you – and Salby – have done is curve fitting with an arbitrary baseline. That is not based on any real physical process. To the contrary, it violates near every observation done.
If some natural process increased CO2 releases over time, that must be compensated with an equal or larger natural process that absorbs the extra input + half the human input in total CO2 mass, or the increase in the atmosphere would be larger than from the human input alone. All what is done in such a case is that the throughput increased, for which there is no proof.
If GHGs truly trap heat, and if there truly has been little variation in the levels of CO2 during the Holocene but for the recent rise from about the 1800s onwards, which I understand to be the warmists’ contention, why and how has planet Earth cooled from the Holocene optimum? We need to begin to understand this cooling before we can begin to understand the present day warming.
In fact, I would say the same about the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. Where and how has the heat been lost from the system?
The only temperature data of any real and scientific importance is that of the oceans, and there is no quality data on ocean temps pre ARGO. ARGO is too short a duration to know what is happening still less to extrapolate trends.
Globally, there are only two climate states, namely glacial and inter glacial. We do not have high resolute data of previous inter-glacial eras, we have no idea whether what we are seeing at this stage of the Holocene is not normal still less unusual and something to be concerned about. We really need high resolution data from many glacial/inter-glacial cycles before we can draw any relaible conclusions.
All we know is that based upon observational data and proxy evidenced there is no first order correlation and temperature and CO2 has not driven the past changes into or out of glacial and inter glacial eras. We can be reasonably certain that, even if CO2 is a driver (and there appears no observational evidence supporting that it is a temperature driver), CO2 is not a strong a driver as natural variation.
The first sentence of the final para of my above comment was missing a couple of words. It should have read:
All we know is that based upon observational data and proxy evidenced there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature, and CO2 has not driven the past changes into or out of glacial and inter glacial eras.
William Astley says:
June 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Salby notes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 (until equilibrium is reached) tracks the integral of temperature; looking at the current data and past data. Salby does not provide a physical explanation as to why that observation is correct;
Salby and Bart both use an arbitrary zero baseline for the temperature integration. That is curve fitting, indeed not based on any physical process.
The point is that a natural cause of the increase violates near all observations that have been known from past and present:
– the mass balance:
As humans emit about 9 GtC/year as CO2 and we see an increase of only 4 GtC/year, some 5 GtC/year is absorbed somewhere. The amounts did double over the past 50 years of accurate measurements, but in every year of the past 50 years, the increase in the atmosphere was less than the emissions. Thus if e.g. an increase in temperature of the oceans was the main cause, then the estimate of the ocean emissions would have increased from ~90 GtC/season to ~180 GtC/season over a year. But at the same time some of the sinks (oceans or vegetation) should have increased from 92 GtC/season to 184 GtC/season over a year. All what happened is that the throughput doubled in the past 50 years and that the total increase still is due to the human input.
But there is not the slightest observation that the throughput doubled in the past 50 years.
– the oceans have a too high 13C/12C ratio.
Any substantial increase of ocean emissions would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, but we see a steady decline in ratio with fossil fuel burning.
– vegetation is a net CO2 sink.
As can be calculated from the oxygen balance.
– vegetation is an increasing sink with higher temperatures (and higher CO2 levels).
– the oceans show a limited CO2 response to temperature changes.
According to Henry’s Law, the response is some 16 ppmv/K. As vegetation reacts the other way out, the short term response (seasons to years) is 4-5 ppmv/K. On (very) long term (decades to multi-millennia) the response is about 8 ppmv/K. That is all.
There is no way that the oceans can provide a continuous increase of CO2 for a sustained difference of a few tenths of a K over time. That violates Le Chatelier’s Principle, that any system in equilibrium tries to counteract a disturbance of the equilibrium. In this case: any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce the outflows from the oceans near the equator and increase the inflows into the oceans near the poles. Thus if the temperature of the oceans increases with 1 K, a new equilibrium will be met with maximum 16 ppmv increase, reinstalling the previous CO2 fluxes.
Bart says in part, on June 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm:
“Donald L. Klipstein says:
June 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
‘Although there is a large flux of CO2 among the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere, the hydrosphere and biosphere are *net removing* CO2 from the atmosphere despite warmer global temperatures. The carbon budget: (link)’
The “carbon budget” is not something measured. It is something drawn up based on a particular paradigm – basically, how the authors think the bins should be filled. It is not evidentiary.
You first sentence smacks of the fallacious “mass balance” argument, which so may people ignorant of feedback systems have latched onto. Here is a discussion which explains why it is in error.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am (link)
Please see above. You are completely wrong.”
Sorry, this does not negate the fact that fossil fuel usage is fairly well known, and growth of atmospheric CO2 is well known. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding to it, despite warmer temperatures. And atmospheric CO2 is a lot higher than it was the last couple times the world was this warm, so natural regulation does not explain why we have about 395 PPMV rather than around 280-300 typically resulting in the past few hundred thousand years from temperatures like we have now.
FerdiEgb says:
June 23, 2013 at 3:27 am
“As no matter can be destroyed or created from nothing, the “mass balance” argument still stands strong, no matter what the real fluxes are… If some natural process increased CO2 releases over time, that must be compensated with an equal or larger natural process that absorbs the extra input + half the human input in total CO2 mass, or the increase in the atmosphere would be larger than from the human input alone.”
No, no, no, no, no. This is not how a feedback system works. Read the link I provided. Please. I really do hate seeing such a nice guy make such a fundamental error, and keep making it time and time again without giving it proper thought.
Donald L. Klipstein says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:53 am
Same error. Read the link. Feedback systems do not work according to simple accounting.
Allow me to simply paste the contents of the link again here. The fundamental problem with the “mass-balance” argument is that, though “natural sinks” are natural processes, they accept inputs from both anthropogenic and natural sources. The sinks are a dynamic feedback element. They expand in response to both anthropogenic and natural forcing.
Those portions with respond to anthropogenic forcing, indeed, which exist wholly in response to anthropogenic forcing, are in reality artificial sinks. They are created and maintained by anthropogenic inputs, and they would shrink away if anthropogenic inputs ceased.
Thus, the “mass balance” equation has two unknowns: the natural sinks, and the anthropogenic sinks. Two unknowns, one equation. It is elementary that there is not a unique solution.
So, without further ado, here is a mathematical explanation of how the feedback works, and why it renders this “mass balance” argument null and void.
——————————————————————
Let me give a very simple example. This is not precisely how the real-world system works, but it will do to show how dynamic feedback works, and how it invalidates their static-analysis, pseudo-mass balance argument.
Suppose atmospheric CO2 labelled “C” progresses according to the differential equation
dC/dt= -a*C + N + A
where a is an inverse time constant. The first term is the action of “natural” sinks, which respond to the total level of C in the atmosphere. The second term is natural forcing. The third term is anthropogenic forcing.
The rate of change of C is less than A. Thus,
-a*C+ N .LT. zero
The ridiculous pseudo-mass balance argument then says, voila! Nature is a net sink.
But, the solution of the above equation is the convolution integral of N + A with the exponential term exp(-a*t). In Laplace operator form
C(s) = (1/(s+a)) * (N(s) + A(s))
The left side of the above inequality then becomes
-a*C+ N = (s*N(s) – a*A(s)) / (s + a)
Thus,
[dN/dt – a*A] .LT. zero
where the square brackets indicate the quantity is evaluated over an exponentially weighted integration window. I.e., the derivative of N is, in an exponentially weighted sense, less than the scaled value of A. This says nothing about the relative magnitudes of N and A.
Again for emphasis, this says NOTHING about the relative magnitudes of N and A. It only constrains the rate of change of N with respect to A, in an exponentially weighted, average sense, and that constraint is not particularly harsh. “A” can be tiny, and “a” huge, and thus N can be very large and rapidly increasing, and still the “mass-balance” “says” that “nature” is a net sink. But, in this case, it is N which is overwhelmingly driving the output.
I am surprised that very little discussion takes place on the influence of water through the good old ‘Rankine Cycle’. I reckon that for every kilogram of water that evaporates off the earth’s surface and later returns as rain, sleet, ice or snow some 680 wattHrs of energy are dissipated into space via the atmosphere.
The reason for this lies in the large Latent Heat of Evaporation of water; where huge transfers of energy take place AT CONSTANT Temperature.
The second reason is the non-intuitive fact that moist air is lighter than dry air and therefore rises. This is evident when one observes the Cirrus clouds up there some 40000 ft above, nudging the Troposphere, way way above any CO2 and as very cold ice crystals. How did all that water get there and where has all that energy gone? One may well ask.
The Rankine analogy may appear simplistic but I suspect has some validity within the highly complex process going as all this water cuts through the CO2 envelope.
The evaporation phase is the Boiler operating at the prevailing partial pressure of water.
The rising phase is the work done against gravity [as on a piston] whereby energy is converted to potential energy and also dissipated to the surroundings.
The condensation phase is the dissipation aspect, as above, together with radiation to space.
Finally we have the feed heater and pump phases where gravity takes control and increases the pressure using the potential energy lost during descent whist absorbing energy from the surrounding atmosphere.
The simple calculation being that 1 Kg of evaporated water has at least circa 700 WattHrs of energy in it. However when it returns to earth it only has about 10 WattHrs.
So Where has all that energy gone?
Alasdair the question arises as to how does that energy get to space? The only available path is through radiation because convection and conduction require mass transfer, and space is a vacuum. Your argument simply transfers the level at which the Earth radiates from the surface to cloud level at least for cloud covered areas. No one will argue with you about that step.
Somewhat minor point, but Eli always thought that Spencer and Christy figured out how to use the MSU data considerably after the launch and were not the instrument scientists on the NOAA satellites that carried the MSUs.