Those that want to make today’s weather seem like the “worst ever” often make ludicrous claims trying to link weather to high CO2 levels. For example, that extra CO2 gives the weather “personality“, or even more extreme linkage, like this:
Climate change means increased severe weather and asthma attacks. See what it means for your state: http://t.co/Pe9mOTVAro
— US EPA Research (@EPAresearch) July 1, 2013
and this
Climate Depot has a headline from Goddard that touts all the weather (not climate) issues of 2013 in the context of the highest ever reported CO2 concentration in modern times. Unfortunately, the link contained no proof, only claims. I decided to provide the proof.
First, about that 400PPM of CO2:
Unfortunately, they backed down from the claim later saying:
‘Carbon dioxide measurements in the Earth’s atmosphere did not break the symbolic milestone of 400 parts per million at a Hawaiian observatory last week, according to a revised reading from the nation’s climate observers.
The current level as of this writing is at: 395.50ppm and has actually gone down since the announcement of breaking the 400 ppm mark:
![co2_weekly_mlo[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/co2_weekly_mlo1-e1376168771698.png?quality=75)
Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Next: let’s take each of the claims below and provide the context for proof:
- Coldest summer on record at the North Pole
- Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006
- Record high August Antarctic ice extent
- No major hurricane strikes for eight years
- Slowest tornado season on record
- No global warming for 17 years
- Second slowest fire season on record
- Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008
Coldest summer on record at the North Pole:
Easy to prove, as we’ve covered this issue recently here. The DMI plot of Arctic temperature for 2013 (at the end pause of this animation) hasn’t gone above the climatic normals since this dataset began in 1958:
Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006:
Plausible, but is debatable, depending on what data you look at, for example, this plot from DMI:
![icecover_current_new[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/icecover_current_new1.png?quality=75)
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Others on the WUWT sea ice page suggest it could go either way. What isn’t debatable though is that there has been a dramatic slowing of loss of Arctic ice extent in the past couple of weeks, as shown below, and that the current extent is well within the +/- 2 standard deviation.
Source: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Record high August Antarctic ice extent:
That’s easy to show, at the end of July starting into August, as Paul Homewood demonstrates:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
Since then, Sunshine Hours puts it in context with other years:
After taking a small jog sideways and downwards, Antarctic Sea Extent is back to moving up.
Day 221 is in 2nd place. 2010 holds the daily record. Can 2013 catch the 2010 record pace again? Wait and see.
No major hurricane strikes for eight years:
As we pointed out at the beginning of the hurricane season on June 1st, Hurricane season begins with a new record hurricane drought for the USA
The graph above provides an update to data on the remarkable ongoing US “intense hurricane drought.” When the Atlantic hurricane season starts next June 1, it will have been 2,777 days since the last time an intense (that is a Category 3, 4 or 5) hurricane made landfall along the US coast (Wilma in 2005). Such a prolonged period without an intense hurricane landfall has not been observed since 1900. – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr
It is now at 2847 days since Hurricane Wilma (the last Cat3 hurricane to strike the USA) on Oct 24th, 2005 as of August 10th, 2013.
Slowest tornado season on record:
Easy to prove, just look at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center Data, which shows we are near a record low for tornado activity in the USA:
![torngraph-big[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/torngraph-big1.png?quality=75)
![torgraph-big[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/torgraph-big1.png?quality=75)
Source: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data
No global warming for 17 years:
This statement gets a number of people riled up, but it is clear that global warming has slowed to a crawl. Even the New York Times has at last been constrained to admit this.
Last year we had this:
Now a year later:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
and
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend
Slight cooling in the troposphere, slight warming at the surface, both virtually flat.
Of course after the latest HadCRUT4 “adjustments” are added in, some can claim it is actually warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend
Second slowest fire season on record:
Actually, just for this record set. The National Fire Information Center says:
2013 is actually lowest in the last decade for the number of fires, and second lowest for acreage.
Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008:
Rutgers snow lab shows this clearly.
![nhland_season1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nhland_season11.gif)
1978 was tops, followed by 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2008.
Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
We live in interesting times of nearly 400ppm of Co2 concentration in our atmosphere.
It’s still not too late to get t-shirts:
Order yours here on your favorite garment, mug, or bag here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You just wait til it actually hits 400ppm. It will be a calamity. Meanwhile during a part of the Ordovician ice age co2 was at 3,000ppm! Climate science is Alice in Wonderland science. Up is down and down is up! Co2 is a heat trapping gas, unless it is not isnot. It’s now the main climate driver at 300ppm.
Or I should have said:
Makes no difference anyway.
I cannot find an answer:
Is there a pro-AGW website that explains how CO2 is warming the oceans below 700m? Is there one that explains the mechanism? Anyone? Thanks.
Does HadCRUT4 say that 1998 was NOT the hottest year on the record?
Alexander Feht says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:43 am
1) The CO floods and CA fires are more visual.
2) Talking about cold when everyone “knows” the world is warming will confuse readers and viewers.
3) It’s kinda chilly elsewhere. This AM’s low near Concord NH was 50F (10C). Nowhere close to a record (39 in 1974 – 4C).
Hmm, there was one colder Aug 11 in my records:
Anthony, for perspective you might want to show some of the climate extremes during the Holocene. I have listed a few of them here. All occurred when co2 was below the safe level of 350ppm. We had mega droughts, ice free Arctic Ocean and other abrupt climate changes.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Goebbels (according to http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_goebbels/)
The corn, soybean and wheat crops have been treated to favorable weather conditions recently. Tomorrow, we get the USDA August crop report, which will estimate yields for 2013 based on their latest data.
As you know, the US had a drought at this time last year. Fortunately, the increase in CO2 lessened damage to the crops during the growing season of 2012.
Heavy rains early in 2013 ended that drought in the Cornbelt but ironically, the cool and wet Spring caused big planting delays, especially in the Western Cornbelt. The weather dried out enough to get the crops planted in June. Recently, we’ve started to get too dry in several regions but thanks too unusually cool weather and high CO2 levels, the crop ratings have remained high.
In fact, the amount of corn and soybeans rated good and excellent went up 1% in last weeks crop rating report which is a bit unusual at this time of year.
Both crops are rated 64% good to excellent which is above average for early August.
My forecast for the next 2 weeks is for the weather to turn much drier in the key growing regions/Cornbelt with temperatures climbing closer to normal…….leaning warmer west and cooler east/south vs average
Good subsoil moisture will assist corn, which pollinated(2 weeks late in the WCB) with almost ideal weather and will continue filling kernels now. Dry weather the rest of this month, however, will keep national corn yields from breaking a record this year.
Soybeans are entering their key developmental phase, pod filling. A dry August will cause the crop to deteriorate slowly even though the final crop size will still be decent. A huge world demand base for beans mean we need near record crops here in the Northern Hemisphere and also in the South America.
Speaking of South America, a July freeze severely damaged Brazil’s sugar crop and the coldest air mass since 1994 threatened the Coffee crop. Only far southwest/minor parts of coffee(higher latitudes in SA) saw frost damage, meaning Parana. Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais dodged the frost bullet as the cold air mass stalled in Parana.
Numerous frosts in the 1970’s resulted in the coffee growing region of Brazil shifting farther north, closer to the equator. The last major frosts(2 of them) were in 1994.
The last major freeze to damage the US corn and soybean crops was in 1995. In any 1 year, the chance of a September freeze causing significant damage is around 5%. This year, with the cool weather/late planting, delayed maturity and long lived weather pattern featuring upper level ridging to the west of the growing regions and troughing to the east(steering cool, Canadian air masses in) the chance of September freeze damage is at least 30%.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 11, 2013 at 4:26 am
“I cannot find an answer:
Is there a pro-AGW website that explains how CO2 is warming the oceans below 700m? Is there one that explains the mechanism? Anyone? Thanks.”
Jim’s Ghost: I’ve been asking the same thing for months now. No reasonable explanation from either side of the fence has been offered. I recommend placement in the “Pure Fantasy” file.
One thing I’ve noticed that I haven’t seen discussed is the apparent shift in the Arctic melt season. Where, according to a 1979-2006 baseline, the average ice maximum occurred March 5-10th. Looking at the last six years, it appears this maximum is now March 16-27th, some two weeks later. The minimum, the end of the melt, appears to have shifted later as well by half that amount. It is easier to see in the NORSEX chart herewith 1/3 monthly increments:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
The US drought of 2012 came after setting a record for going the longest in recorded history without a widespread drought in the US Cornbelt……..24 years.
The previous one was in 1988.
Midwest droughts are much more frequent during La Nina’s(less frequent during El Nino’s).
As we know, La Nina’s are also more common when the PDO is in the negative/cool phase and El Nino’s when the PDO is in the positive/warm phase. La Nina’s have a cooling effect on global temps and El Nino’s a warming effect.
The recent shift to the negative PDO, is causing more La Nina’s than in the 80’s/90’s and the US Cornbelt is at a higher risk to see a couple more droughts this decade because of it.
Of course this will be blamed on climate change but ironically, global warming/El Nino’s effect on growing season conditions in the Midwest is positive/favorable.
Global cooling/La Nina’s and a negative PDO correlate with an increase in droughts.
george e. smith (August 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm) “If we place the total excess CO2 at 120 ppm (400-280) over the supposed “equilibrium” level of 280 ppm, then all of that would be removed in 120 / 3.5 months , if the CO2 contributory mechanisms, were all shut down.”
Smoking Frog (August 11, 2013 at 2:35 am) is correct. The george e. smith scenario assumes that we would have permanent summer in the NH and if that happens, that trees in the NH could just keep growing indefinitely (require no seasonal cycle for continued growth). The other problem is that the equilibrium is going to be higher than 280 thanks to manmade CO2. Maybe not a lot more, but 300 or more seems reasonable. The correct calculation is to look at the annual rise and the percentage of CO2 above equilibrium that gets removed each year. Then assume an exponential decay with that delta. It means that in less than 40 years we would be half way back to equilibrium.
Eric1skeptic:
At August 11, 2013 at 7:04 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1386926
you assert
Well, you may be right, but you are probably wrong.
You are assuming the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is entirely caused by the emission of CO2 from human activities. Your assumption may be completely right or completely wrong.
On of our papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
produced six carbon cycle models. Three assumed the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration had an anthropogenic cause and the other three assumed the rise had a natural cause.
Each of the models in the paper perfectly matches the available empirical data (to within the measurement error) for each year without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of this paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
Hence, using the available data it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 11, 2013 at 4:26 am
I cannot find an answer:
Is there a pro-AGW website that explains how CO2 is warming the oceans below 700m? Is there one that explains the mechanism? Anyone? Thanks.
=====================================
I’m Sure Santa Claus will leave that in your stocking this christmas.. 😛
Assuming you still believe in Santa Claus, that is…..
Presumably the CO2 levels are falling because it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which is the season of growth for most plants? Summer in the Southern Hemisphere does not have the same effect due to the much lesser surface area of land.
I am surprised the warmists have not banged on about that the same way they bang on about everything else AGW.
Here in the UK we have had a heatwave, which predictably has ended, currently 16 Celsius, showers and grey skies. I want to know when to plant the grape vines that I was told would flourish here when CO2 levels rose?
Most plants don’t do well when CO2 is less than ~185 ppmv, and at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it was at ~285 ppmv, giving them about 100 ppmv of “breathing space”.
Now CO2 is ~400 ppmv, which more than doubles the amount of utilizable CO2 plants need by giving them an additional 115 ppmv.
This anthropogenic augmentation of CO2 is the best thing we’ve ever done for plants. And since plants are at the base of our food chain, it’s a win-win situation for us humans, too.
RockyRoad:
re your post at August 11, 2013 at 7:48 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1386939
I refer you to my post at August 11, 2013 at 7:22 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1386929
Richard
Where are the Arctic-ice town-criers? Is this going to be their summer of discontent?
Mr Watts, The great attraction of your site lies in the fact that you go to great lengths to prove, with existing scientific facts, how wrong these silly statements by the warmists are. How you have time for such research on so many subjects in the GW field is a mystery, but it is certainly what puts your site head and shoulders above all others, and gives us lesser mortals the ammunition we need to refute the endless stream of silly statements put out by people who call themselves scientists and supported by a poodle press. Thank you for the fantastic job you do for those of us who like to feel we live in a world of sanity.
Is there a pro-AGW website that explains how CO2 is warming the oceans below 700m? Is there one that explains the mechanism? Anyone? Thanks.
—————
Why not.. A few warm years in the 1980s caused so much warming that it heated the ocean well below the 700m mark.. Its basic thermodynamics where you carry the one (Al Gore) and then multiply it by 25 000 (University educated grant seekers)..
Its a very complex formula that requires the progressive secret spy ring to fully decipher..
In order to get one you must provide proof that you have never watched Fox News or held a job that pays an hourly wage.. You must have rich parents willing to support you right up to, but not including actually giving you a job..
RIchard Courtney: I’m accept for sake of argument (probably incorrectly) that all the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.
Why?
Because when a Warmista makes that claim (and they always will), I refute their scaremongering with my assertion that CO2 is great for plants and eventually humans and, according to this thread, has no negative impact on weather, and hence climate.
Your comment is correct when arguing against an all-anthropogenic origin for the additional CO2, but conceding the blame game on the human vs natural argument makes it easy to cut them off at the knees–even if ALL of it was anthropogenic, it’s a no-brainer: They lose the CO2 argument 100% of the time–we humans win and Warmistas lose.
If they accepted your argument (again, which I do), it would make pressing the point more difficult and less productive Remember, these aren’t logical people–they “think” with their emotions, much like children, or they’ve been brainwashed. But if you take their “toy” away AND give them something better, they’re happy.
Bottom line: It doesn’t really matter where the additional CO2 came from–it’s a benefit.
Surely the most egregious lie in these claims is the global average temperature.
So now it is 14C?
Was the IPCC not using 14.5C? 3rd or 4th report?
Other teams members 15C at one time?
These anomalies are wonderful tools of misinformation.
Especially when the reference point is carefully undefined and subject to constant correction to suit the cause.And quoted as accurate to 1/10th of a degree.
This is the heart of this anti-humanist religion, it also is the key indicator of systemic fraud.
Intentional misdirection with intent.
I like the preview feature.
RockyRoad:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 11, 2013 at 8:58 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1386970
in reply to my post at August 11, 2013 at 7:54 am.
For clarity, I point out that
(a) I was responding to the science and not political argument
and
(b) I completely agree with you when you write (pertaining to practicalities and not science of the carbon cycle)
Richard
PS I must now rush to fulfill some duties so please don’t be offended if I fail to reply to any response for several hours.
george e. smith says:
August 10, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Wake us all, if the upper troposphere does start warming faster than the surface.
================
One of the predictions of CO2 GHG warming is that the troposphere will warm faster than the surface. This warming is a result of the increase opacity of the atmosphere to outgoing LW radiation, which will then raise the surface temperatures because the troposphere and surface temperatures are bound by the Lapse Rate. Hand in hand with this prediction is the prediction of the tropical “hot spot” predicted by all climate models.
The spectacular failure of this central prediction of GHG warming is the smoking gun that GHG warming theory is wrong. It makes no difference in science how plausible and explanation is, nor how well it matches known scientific law, nor how many scientists believe a theory is correct.
If a theory makes a prediction and that prediction differs from observation, then the theory is wrong. No ifs, buts or otherwise. The theory that surface temperatures will rise DUE TO CO2 is wrong. Not simply because surface temperatures for the past 16 years have failed to rise in line with CO2 theory prediction, but because the predictions for the warming mechanism do not match observations.
For the surface to warm faster than the troposphere requires that the warming NOT be due to something in the atmosphere, otherwise the warming would first manifest itself in the atmosphere. You cannot increase “back radiation” to the surface without also raising the effective temperature of the troposphere.
As CO2 molecules absorb outgoing LW radiation their kinetic energy is increased, which must raise the temperature of the atmosphere locally according to statistical thermodynamics, because there is a lag time before the energy can be re-radiated. As well, some of the captured LW radiation will be conducted to neighboring molecules, further delaying re-radiation. Thus, for increased CO2 to warm the surface, there must first be a warming of the Troposphere. Since this warming is not occurring, the surface warming CANNOT BE DUE to increased CO2.
In re the NYT piece – they still aren’t conceding anything. Warming is “slowing,” not reversed as we know it to be. The “plateau” (translate: downward progression of temps) will end soon, and then the heating will resume. (Of course it will, maybe 30, 50, 250 years from now – and starting from a lower point than it did after the LIA ended, and probably stopping again well before 1997 temps are reached.) The Sun doesn’t lie, but the NYT does.
We could actually enter another LIA – or even a full-blown re-glaciation – and these gastropods will still claim the globe is warming. Fanaticism cannot be overcome by contrary evidence, because the first tenet of fanatical belief systems is that you do not listen to or acknowledge anything that contradicts your meme – for you, anything contrary simply doesn’t exist even if it slaps you upside the head. Two plus two will still equal -minus three to them, no matter how many times you show them it ain’t so.