Busted messaging: CFC's cause warming AND cooling

From the make up your freaking minds department comes this oopsy juxtaposition of alarmist messaging.

In an attempt to explain “the pause”, researchers are now grasping for explanations:

Human actions that were not intended to limit the greenhouse effect have had large effects on slowing climate change. The two world wars, the Great Depression and a 1987 international treaty on ozone-depleting chemicals put a surprising dent in the rate at which the planet warmed, says research published today in Nature Geoscience1.

Francisco Estrada, an ecological economist at the Free University in Amsterdam, and his colleagues analysed annual temperature data collected from 1850 to 2010, as well as trends in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — ozone-depleting substances that also trap heat in the atmosphere — between 1880 and 2010.

http://www.nature.com/news/ozone-hole-treaty-slowed-global-warming-1.14134

Only one problem, two years ago, we were being told cutting back on CFC’s “…helped to shield… from carbon-induced warming over the past two decades” as the CFC driven ozone hole heals: 

CFCs_Cause_Warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125192016.htm

The new paper:

Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes

Abstract

The warming of the climate system is unequivocal as evidenced by an increase in global temperatures by 0.8 °C over the past century. However, the attribution of the observed warming to human activities remains less clear, particularly because of the apparent slow-down in warming since the late 1990s. Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations. We show that long-term trends in total radiative forcing and temperatures have largely been determined by atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and modulated by other radiative factors. We identify a pronounced increase in the growth rates of both temperatures and radiative forcing around 1960, which marks the onset of sustained global warming. Our analyses also reveal a contribution of human interventions to two periods when global warming slowed down. Our statistical analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s. Furthermore, we identify a contribution from the two world wars and the Great Depression to the documented cooling in the mid-twentieth century, through lower carbon dioxide emissions. We conclude that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are effective in slowing the rate of warming in the short term.

==========================================================

I don’t think anybody really knows which way it is going.

 

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Heads, we win, tails, you lose…

There was this from late May, which claimed to show a link between CFC levels and warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/30/study-says-global-warming-caused-by-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide/
So now there are at least two papers linking CFC’s with warming. That’s a consensus, right? 😉

Jquip
Pippen Kool

“In an attempt to explain “the pause”, researchers are now grasping for explanations”
Actually, just trying to understand.
For years I have hears that the efforts to close the antarctic ozone hole was causing that area to cool as well. So this should be no surprise to those on the ball. I can’t wait to read the paper.

“I don’t think anybody really knows which way it is going.”
*
Yes they do – badly (for them). Hence their need for excuses.

Joe Public

The BBC on the same subject, shows a graph which states “The recent slowdown in global warming is highlighted by the grey shading”.
The three lines within the grey shading have trajectories which would closely follow that of a participant in the Red Bull Cliff Diving Championship.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24874060

Rhoda R

Frankly, until they can explain why the world goes into and out of ice ages AND then can show that what is going on now is unique, then, and only then, will I buy into man-made climate anything.

Bruce Cobb

Oh look! Bright, shiny new climate control knobs to play with on their dial- o-climate contraption.

milodonharlani

Pippen Kool says:
November 11, 2013 at 4:31 pm
What’s to understand? The science is settled, right? The 97% consensus is unassailable & incontrovertible that humans are causing dangerous global warming, er climate change, er extreme weather, right?

It is intuitively obvious that CFC’s contribute to cooling. Pop open a can of RF12 and you will freeze your fingers. QED.

There is a simple answer for all this: Somehow, someway for every bad event that happens, we are at fault. So now surrender your rights and pay up. P.S. I, the enlightened telling you this, don’t have to pay and will still have full rights.
When you remember that is how environmentalists think, then nothing is a contradiction.
I am reminded of an old saying: “Jesus, save me from your followers.” Although I do not believe in “Mother Earth” or Gaia or anything like that, we could just as well re-word that saying as “Mother Earth, save us from your followers.”

Kevin McKinney

GHGs in the troposphere and stratosphere have different effects. Lapse rate reverses sign, remember…

Jimbo

It’s a bit of a mess really. A few years back they blamed ozone for the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. Then they blamed melting ice. Then wind and currents. Pot Puri science.

Abstract
Dr. James Hansen et. al – PNAS – August 15, 2000
Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change….
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long

—————–

Nature News – 13 October 2013
Ozone loss warmed southern Africa
Antarctic ozone hole’s effects may have spread much wider than thought.
Ozone loss over the South Pole might be the reason for a two-decade rise in early summer temperatures across southern Africa, according to research published today in Nature Geoscience1.
http://www.nature.com/news/ozone-loss-warmed-southern-africa-1.13938

Jimbo

Anthony, see my last reference.

ROM

This is what you get when the inmates get to running the climate change mental asylum.
Or as an old saying goes and this is ever more applicable to climate change science and scientists.
“Some minds are like concrete. All mixed up and set hard”.

It is about time climate scientists took a long walk on a short pier. What use are they in this world, would anyone miss them if they did not exist?

Jimbo

Pippen Kool says:
November 11, 2013 at 4:31 pm
“In an attempt to explain “the pause”, researchers are now grasping for explanations”
Actually, just trying to understand.
For years I have hears that the efforts to close the antarctic ozone hole was causing that area to cool as well. So this should be no surprise to those on the ball. I can’t wait to read the paper.

Have you been gulping the cooooool aid again. If they are “just trying to understand” then they should do just that, but instead they constantly produce speculative drivel
http://www.nature.com/news/ozone-loss-warmed-southern-africa-1.13938

Pat Frank

So, let’s see: Estrada & co., are using statistical methods to find associations and then concluding physical causality. Right. Someone needs to explain to these guys how science works.
I also enjoyed Ken Carslaw’s view that his “research highlights the value of today’s state-of- the-art models … that enable such unexpected and complex climate feedbacks to be detected and accounted for in our future predictions.
State of the art climate models that cannot reproduce ordinary climate are nevertheless touted as able to detect unexpected and complex climate feedbacks. Truly bizarro-world.

Richard M

A better correlation is with the PDO.
http://tinyurl.com/kzmzd8y
Every upward segment is a warm PDO and every downward segment is a cool PDO. I suspect this correlation whips the one they found.

Jimbo

By the way Pippen Kool, how do you know the Ozone hole hasn’t always been there? The hole was discovered in 1985.
Here are a few articles to cheer you up.
Closing ozone hole may heat up Antarctica – researcher”
Ozone loss warmed southern Africa

geran

Based on the abstract, this might be the funniest paper ever submitted.
“Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations.”
Can you imagine examining the methodology in that?
And we thought slap-stick comedy was gone….

milodonharlani

Jimbo says:
November 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Does that mean we can bring back the CFCs?
http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-the-hole-in-the-ozone-over-antarctica.htm

Wastingyou'retaxdollars

Every 500 years we go thru mini warm/cold climate phases in between big ones and we are in the peak of a mini warm age which the late 90s were it.
Right now it’s trending downwards slowly so there will again be a lot of fluxing going on with global temps in various areas. The East Coast for the next 5-10 years will have a few very scary heatwaves until we lose the heating we gained in the 90s.
Dad back in the 70s who studied these warm/cold cycles knew that it would warm up again in the 90s while everyone else either thought it would be an ice age.
First the scam scientists thought by the 1990s there wouldn’t be enough food to go around then when they couldn’t blame that they blamed the O-zone then after that failed they came up with Global Warming then even after that failed they came up with *Climate Change* to get big money out of you’re tax dollars.
If there is any other scandals I missed feel free to chime in!

I hate how this article makes it look like I can make a name/email without logging in and I lost all of my article about the different scams these scientists have been doing to us for the last 60 years.
Never mind then. Darn!

If anything during WW1 and 2 factories would be at full power!

Bryan A

Must be the latest “Hypothesis de-jour”
They did need something to explain the Antarctic ice extent increase that would blend in with the Global Climate Scare MEME

Jimbo

Did you know there is a Tibet ozone hole?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023496/full

milodonharlani

Lewis P Buckingham says:
November 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Your points are well taken, however CFCs have been around since the 1890s, although of course not in the masses of the 1960s. They were used in WWII.

TimB

Clouds are now a cooling forcing? Or just the bright ones in cold places?

Theo Goodwin

How long will so-called scientists do time series analysis and call it science? Can they not read their own writing. Look at the phrase “time series analysis.” See that word ‘analysis’ in there. That should tip off everyone that the technique is not science.
Time series analysis can be a wonderful thing when used by greatly experienced consultants in advising corporate planning on looming decisions. It can be very valuable. But it is not science. As in the case of models, predictions cannot be based on time series analysis. No predictions means no science.

OssQss

I will ask again, since I can’t seem to find anything on this research past this article date.
What happened with this ?
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

Magicjava

Unfortunately, this kind of curve fitting infests science. Combined with lack of publicly available data and computer code, the average person should just assume that *anything* a scientist says, regardless of what field they’re in, is just an attempt to get grant money.
I’m not saying that’s all science is, but the situation is bad enough that this should be the default assumption.

pat

12 Nov: SMH: Reuters: UN tweaks carbon emissions tally
The United Nation’s panel of climate experts revised estimates of historical greenhouse gas emissions, made in September, both up and down on Monday but said the errors did not affect conclusions that time was running out to limit global warming…
The panel had hoped to avoid more corrections after an embarrassing error about Himalayan ice-melt in its 2007 report.
“I don’t see it as a significant change,” IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told Reuters on the sidelines of a Nov. 11-22 meeting of almost 200 nations in Warsaw, Poland…
Among changes, the IPCC revised down the cumulative amount of carbon emitted since 1860-1881 to 515 billion tonnes from 531 billion given in September, and revised up the amount emitted since 1750 to 555 billion tonnes from 545 billion…
“Errors in the summary for policymakers were discovered by the authors of the report after its approval and acceptance by the IPCC,” it said in a statement.
It did not say how the errors had been made…
When asked if the correction would affect the credibility of the IPCC, Pachauri said, “I don’t think so.”
(Bob Ward): “Climate change ‘sceptics’ will no doubt desperately seize on these corrections and falsely allege that it undermines the whole report, but the public and policy-makers should not be fooled by such claims,” he said in a statement.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-tweaks-carbon-emissions-tally-20131112-2xd4g.html

p@ Dolan

@Rhoda R says:
November 11, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Frankly, until they can explain why the world goes into and out of ice ages AND then can show that what is going on now is unique, then, and only then, will I buy into man-made climate anything.
Applause! Well said!
@geran says:
November 11, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Based on the abstract, this might be the funniest paper ever submitted.
“Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations.”
Give ’em props, man: they DID, after all, try to do it WITHOUT the Great and Powerful Oz. The rest of their ilk are programming their own prejudices and liberal self-hatred into computer models and then statistically measuring their results against similar idiotic programs, and claiming that their conclusions have some basis in reality…obviously never heard the old computer term GIGO…
@Jimbo says:
November 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm
By the way Pippen Kool, how do you know the Ozone hole hasn’t always been there? The hole was discovered in 1985.
Way to GO! I’m amazed at all these folks who assume that CFCs actually caused something they only discovered a short while ago, have no idea when it first occurred, or if it had been there since the dawn of time for all they knew, and THEN have the audacity to claim that their treaty to reduce CFCs is what’s responsible for it’s reduction in size, when they have yet to prove that’s the cause!
I’m reminded of the Red Spot storm on Jupiter, in existence at least since man first saw the planet through a telescope. I’ve heard various explanations for it’s longevity, all related to fluid mechanics—i.e., wind effects. Given the circumpolar nature of wind and currents around the Antarctic, isn’t it a strong possibility that the ozone hole is an artifact of the weather, NOT CFCs? I’ve yet to hear a proven explanation of how CFCs managed to accumulate in sufficient quantities in the Southern Hemisphere to have such an effect, but truth to be told, I haven’t paid all that much attention to the arguments either way since the one side kept saying, “We need more research” (which seemed both obvious and worthless, since the only people getting research money are using it to try to prove that mankind is responsible for every natural occurrence with a dire outcome—searching for actual facts, whether they support your favorite pet conclusion or not, is just not in style, ever, it seems) and the other side kept repeating with increasing shrillness that it didn’t matter, because the answer, when found, would mean that MAN was responsible (except the enlightened few—of course! h/t to @axelwade!), and it DOUBLY didn’t matter, because even if they were completely wrong, pauperizing the world’s economy and causing people to starve and die in developing nations would be worth it because we’d be saving the earth for posterity (of the rats and cockroaches, perhaps)—thank you, Tim Wirth, a ratbag of particular virulence, and if you love the Rainforests to much, buckwheat, why doncha trade your limo and condo to some poor farmer who only wants for his children what you take for granted, and YOU can live with malaria and pestilence and short life-expectancy while looking after your precious rainforest (which doesn’t need you) and he and his can enjoy the benefits of the modern world, and we’ll ALL be much happier!
The most valid CAGW alarmist statement about the current State of Climate Research was made in Climategate 1.0, years ago…when Kevin Trenberth made his famous comment about travesty.
Some things never change…
“Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.” –Robert A. Heinlein

pat

lots of insinuations in this “inevitable” NYT piece:
11 Nov: NYT: Typhoon in Philippines Casts Long Shadow Over U.N. Talks on Climate Treaty
By HENRY FOUNTAIN and JUSTIN GILLIS
The typhoon that struck the Philippines produced an outpouring of emotion on Monday at United Nations talks on a global climate treaty in Warsaw, where delegates were quick to suggest that a warming planet had turned the storm into a lethal monster…
Naderev Saño, the chief representative of the Philippines at the conference, said he would stop eating in solidarity with the storm victims until “a meaningful outcome is in sight.”
“What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness; the climate crisis is madness,” Mr. Saño said. “We can stop this madness right here in Warsaw.”
His declaration, coupled with the scope of the disaster, moved many of the delegates to tears.
Yet scientists remain cautious about drawing links between extreme storms like this typhoon and climate change. There is not enough data, they say, to draw conclusions about any single storm.
“Whether we’re seeing some result of climate change, we find that impossible to find out,” said Kerry A. Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at M.I.T. …
Analysts say the likeliest outcome of the Warsaw negotiations is a weak pact that essentially urges countries to do what they can to cut emissions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/world/asia/typhoon-in-philippines-casts-long-shadow-over-un-talks-on-climate-treaty.html?_r=0

Craig

Francisco Estrada, an ecological economist at the Free University…
You get what you pay for.

ChristoperPL

What pause?
I thought they didn’t believe there was a pause at all. The pause was just more skeptic mumbo jumbo.
Now not only do they accept the pause, but they have already have a reason for it.

Mike Jowsey

Here in New Zealand our arrogant National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been using dubious, unpublished methods to adjust the temperature record thereby showing warming of nearly 1 deg. C over the last century (http://www.niwa.co.nz/node/82418). As your graphic of the ozone hole shows, NZ is firmly underneath this hole (at about long. 180), so, yeah I agree make up your freaking minds.

Here we analyse radiative forcing and temperature time series with state-of-the-art statistical methods to address this question without climate model simulations.
What? No models?
I believe the standard operating procedure is now for Kevin Trenberth to have a hissy fit. To calm him down, the editor of the journal must resign while insisting that there isn’t actually anything wrong with the paper, but that climate modelers should have been consulted.

Gary Pearse

Ozone is diamagnetic (repelled by a magnet), O2 is strongly paramagnetic (attracted by a magnet) so ozone is pushed away from the pole and O2 is attracted so there will always be an ozone hole. Note the “collar” of elevated ozone around the hole, like a roll neck sweater. What will they say when the hole expands again as it surely will. Also, since all the other gases are diamagnetic there should be a nitrogen hole, carbon dioxide hole, methane hole, and noble gases holes to go along with the ozone hole. A simple test: measure the concentration of atmospheric gases above the equatorial band and compare with above the south pole (the north pole air is subject to considerable mixing because of “weather”). There never was a need for CFCs to explain the ozone (and all the other coincident) holes above the south polar area.

Gary Pearse

Re last comment: If no one wants it, I guess we could call it the Pearse effect!

Jack Hydrazine

The Sun is acting a little funny. Maybe that’s the real cause of the problem.
Strange Doings on the Sun
Sunspots, Which Can Harm Electronics on Earth, Are Half the Number Expected
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183940409194498

At least as far back as the 2001 IPCC TAR there were pretty well established forcing numbers for various halocarbons. Probably in the FAR and SAR as well, but I don’t have copies of those to check.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/221.htm
As far as climate effects of ozone depletion goes (a different issue than direct forcings from CFCs), the research I’ve seen has mostly focused on Antarctic temperatures.

Actually, here is a 1992 article by Ramaswamy modeling both direct CFC and indirect ozone loss climate forcings: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v355/n6363/abs/355810a0.html

gopal panicker

yeah… given the standard explanation of ozone formation as a result of solar radiation…one would expect an ozone hole to form every antarctic winter

Arno Arrak

There are two distinct themes here that I want to separately analyze. First of all there is still an ozone hole in the Antarctic despite the Montreal Protocol that is touted as the most successful international agreement on the environment so far. In 2012 they had their twenty-fifth anniversary celebration during which they boasted that they have eliminated 98 percent of all the substances banned under the treaty. I hate to tell you guys, but the existence of the ozone hole today means that those substances were not the cause of the ozone hole in the first place and were banned for nothing. Your success in eliminating them tells me this. The Montreal Protocol is an environmental treaty based on false science and should be voided. Next, here is what your “new” paper ventures to say: “We show that long-term trends in total radiative forcing and temperatures have largely been determined by atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations…” That is quite impossible because laws of physics do not permit it. We are talking here of greenhouse warming by addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Lets start by looking at temperature history from the beginning of the twentieth century. The first ten years of the century were actually cooling, not warming. Then, suddenly in 1910 warming started, kept on going for thirty years until 1940, and then equally suddenly stopped.We have good information on how the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide changed over time, The Keeling curve starts in 1958 but earlier years are also well represented from an analysis of ice cores. From this we know that there was no change in atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 when the warming started. Why is this important? It tells us that this warming cannot possibly be greenhouse warming because in order to start a greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. And this did not happen. The reason for this requirement is that the IR absorbance of carbon dioxide is a property of the gas and cannot be changed. To start a warming you must add more gas molecules to air. And the way this warming ended also rules out the greenhouse effect because in order to put a stop to warming you would have to remove all the absorbing CO2 molecules from the air, an obvious impossibility. There are three other points in time where warming suddenly started and 1960 is not one of them. The first was the climb out of the deep World War II cold spell in the second part of the forties. The second was in 1976 when a short temperature increase raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees. It has been attributed to a phase change of PDO and is hence of oceanic origin. It was all over by 1980. And the last one was the step warming caused by the warm water brought over by the super El Nino of 1998. In only three years It raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. A third of a degree is almost half of the 0.8 degrees attributed to the entire twentieth century and has observable consequences.This takes care of the warming but what is even more important are the no-warming periods. Right now these is more carbon dioxide in the air than ever before but there is no warming at all. And there has not been any warming for the last 15 years. As I have pointed out elsewhere there was also an 18 year no-warming period in the eighties and nineties that was cleverly covered up by a fake warming in official temperature curves. I discovered that doing research for my book “What Warming?” and put a warning about it in the preface of the book. Nothing happened for two years but then last fall GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC decided in unison to stop showing this fake warming. What they did was to secretly align their data for that period with satellites. It required cross-Atlantic cooperation and no explanation was given to anybody. If we now add these “liberated” 18 years to the 15 years of the current standstill we get thirty three completely greenhouse-free years. Knowing this, is it possible that there might still have been some greenhouse warming that happened more than 33 years ago? I think not. We have enough observations to conclude that greenhouse warming simply does not exist. And with it dies the last hope that AGW is real.

gopal panicker

the lead author on the paper is an ‘ecological economist’…there seems to be a lot of these ‘social science’ guys writing garbage papers on this issue

“Both world wars and the 1930 depression”. I thought it was some kind of concensus among the warmists that the CO2 did not reach levels high enough to be affecting climate until the 50:s. It is strange if the lower production or whatever before then affects downwards, if it at the same time did not affect upwards.
— Mats —

Leon0112

This paper is a positive event. It asserts that the science is NOT settled. It asserts there is a pause. It asserts that the IPCC GCMs do not explain the pause. And time series analysis does better than GCMs. Perhaps the time series analysis is simply picking the naturally occurring ENSO, AMO, PDO and other factors.
They sound to me like they are not sure what is happening. To listen to them, they are part of the 3%!

Cooling by CFCs may be largely confined to south of 50-60 degrees S. latitude – 6.7 to 11.7 % of the world’s surface. Meanwhile, warming by CFCs is global.
Also, there is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which affects north-south heat balance. It also affects global temperature, since the northern hemisphere north of 35 degrees N has greater surface albedo positive feedback than the southern hemisphere south of 35 degrees S. North-warming by AMO means global warming by AMO.
AMO seems to have peaked around 2005-2006 or so. I expect the Arctic to have lag of a couple to a few years, in part from the strong local positive feedback causing recycling of effects through a mechanism that has lag. However, I would have expected the Antarctic to start warming within a few years after 2005-2006 … Maybe they are having a rut of cold weather, and I have seen lots of multiyear ruts in weather.