17 years, 3 months with no global warming
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Long Pause just got three months longer. Last month, the RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies showed no global warming for exactly 204 months – the first dataset to show the full 17 years without warming specified by Santer as demonstrating that the models are in fundamental error.
The sharp drop in global temperature in the past month has made itself felt, and not just in the deep snow across much of North America and the Middle East. The RSS data to November 2013, just available after a delay caused by trouble with the on-board ephemeris on one of the satellites, show no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months.
It is intriguing, and disturbing, that WattsUpWithThat is just about the only place where you will be allowed to see this or any graph showing the spectacularly zero trend line through 207 continuous months of data.
CO2 concentration continues to climb. Global temperature doesn’t. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation. Game over, logically speaking.
On any objective test of newsworthiness, the fact of 17 years 3 months with no global warming is surely of more than passing interest to audiences who have been terrified, over and over again, by the over-confident proclamations of the true-believers that catastrophic global warming was the surest of sure things.
Yet the mainstream news media, having backed the wrong horse, cannot bear to tear up their betting slips and move along. They thought they had a hot tip on global warming. They were naïve enough to believe Scientists Say was a dead cert. Yet the spavined nag on which they had bet the ranch fell at the first fence.
The inventiveness with which They wriggle is impressive. Maybe all that air pollution from China is like a parasol. Maybe the warming somehow snuck sneakily past the upper 2000 feet of the ocean so that it didn’t notice, and perhaps it’s lurking in the benthic strata where we can’t measure it. Maybe it’s just waiting to come out when we least expect it and say, “Boo!”.
Anyway, so the wrigglers say, The World Is Still Warming. It must be, because The Models Say So. They say our adding CO2 to the atmosphere is the same as Blowing up Four Whole Atom Bombs Somewhere On Earth Every Second!!!! Just imagine all that HEAT!
Well, it isn’t real. “Imagine” is the right word. If the world were warming, the most sensitive indicator of that warming would be the atmosphere itself. Since the atmosphere has not been warming for 17 years 3 months, an awful possibility is beginning to dawn on even the dimmest of the climate extremists – or, at least, those of them who have somehow found out about the Long Pause.
Maybe natural influences are still strong enough to pull in the other direction and cancel the predicted warming. Maybe the models got the forcing wrong, or the feedbacks wrong, or the climate-sensitivity parameter wrong, or the amplification equation wrong, or the non-radiative transports wrong.
Maybe – heresy of heresies – CO2 is just not that big of a deal any more.
Yet it ought to be having some effect. All other things being equal, even without temperature feedbacks we should be seeing 1 Celsius degree of global warming for every doubling of CO2 concentration.
It is more likely than not that global warming will return eventually. Not at the predicted rate, but it will return. It would be wisest, then, to look not only at the now embarrassingly lengthening Long Pause but also at the now embarrassingly widening Gaping Gap between the +0.23 Celsius/decade predicted by the models for the first half of this century and the –0.02 Celsius/decade that is actually happening.
Meanwhile, Scotland has been enjoying one of the mildest Decembers of recent times. But February is when it usually turns really cold up here. John Betjeman recalled our winters in one of his verses, and raised what has become for climate extremists everywhere the Great Unanswerable Question. Whither went the warmer weather?
Highland Winter
As we huddle close together,
Wrapt about in fur and feather,
Shod in sopping, sodden leather,
Sloshing through the hidden heather
Smothered under feet of snow;
As we curse and blast and blether,
Whither in the regions nether –
Whither went the warmer weather?
Whimpering we wonder whether
Anyone will ever know.
Steven Mosher says:
++++wrong++++
Richard D say …………………You’re right and Mosher was correct….
Monckton of Brenchley says: December 17, 2013 at 10:54 am. The trolls are out in farce again. Mosher……………….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m waiting for your correction an apology……………
Monckton of Brenchly says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/whither-went-the-warmer-weather/#comment-1506157
What am I misunderstanding here? The data in the table do appear to suggest I have a point. I only ask because I want to know.
Henry says
You are on the right track. Apart from some weather noise, obviously the speed of warming in degree K per century is changing over time, naturally. That is what is causing the change in correlation.
I suspected that this was happening. Therefore I determined the speed of warming at separate intervals.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
(please read the notes shown above the tables)
Observe that my results are given in C or K/annum. If you look at the bottom of my tables you will see the 4 results of the speed of warming measured over 4 periods of time.
Provided my sample of weather stations is globally representative, as I believe it is, you can now set out the speed of warming against time, even if there are only 4 measuring points.
In all three cases, of my data sets for maxima, means and minima you will get a high correlation for a binomial curve, for the drop in speed, >0.95 if you set out the speed of warming against time. For maxima, r squared was 0.995 for such a parabolic fit. Eventually I put the latter in a sine wave curve, as otherwise I don’t know where we will end up with the global cooling.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
I think my results are better than most other data sets as I spent quite some time thinking as to how to get a globally representative sample. I also think that a whole class of stats students can easily duplicate my results or even expand it, if you give each student a weather station to analyse.
(I have indicated how the individual black results in the table were obtained)
“Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation”
While the statement will be falsified if applied universally, in the context of the post it is true if a little perverse!
The correlation of CO2 rise with temperature rise is used by Warmists to implicate C02 causally.
Thus it is quite fair, in love and war, to derive the following:
No correlation between CO2 and temperature (Absence of correlation) means, CO2 can’t be implicated (absence of causation)
In the context of the post, If you have a sense of humour and are not too thin skinned it is witty.
It is just a bit too clever perhaps, because it attempts to poke fun at the sleight-of-hand in the Warmist argument, while wielding it (If sarcastically) as a logical weapon!
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 18, 2013 at 6:09 pm
“Phil” doubts whether a zero trend-line is more likely than a non-zero trend-line to exhibit a near-zero correlation coefficient. He challenges me to do the math I had asked him to do.
I didn’t doubt it, I told you that the correlation coefficient is invariant to a linear transformation! That’s doing the math, it means that your statement wasn’t mathematically accurate!
So I have done it. Here are the trends in Kelvin per century equivalent, together with the correlation coefficients r squared, on the RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for periods of 17 years 3 months commencing in September of each year from 1979 to 1996 inclusive:
That’s not ‘doing the math’ it’s just showing some random data and supposing a connection, you haven’t shown what you asserted, i.e. that given two datasets with the same least squares sum, the one with the lower trend would have the lower r.
The table above does seem to suggest that as one approaches a zero trend, one is more likely to get a near-zero correlation coefficient. Now, I haven’t checked the sums of the squares of the residuals in each period, but I don’t suppose they are markedly different from one another. So, as I said earlier in this thread, the r-squared will tend to be less if the slope of the trend-line is less, and particularly where the trend-line is at or near zero.
I suggest you ask that ’eminent professor’ to show you how to prove mathematically that there is a correlation between trend and r, what you have done doesn’t do so.
What am I misunderstanding here? The data in the table do appear to suggest I have a point. I only ask because I want to know.
You’re suggesting that a perfect fit to a near zero trend would not have an r value of one but rather near zero, I don’t believe that is correct. You asserted a mathematical connection, the onus is on you to prove it, particularly as it appears to contradict the mathematical result I referred to above. I look forward to seeing your proof.
It was the first time my readership spiked over a hundred due to one—-this—reblogged article. You have a VERY loyal readership! 🙂
Gareth Phillips says:
So have global temperatures fallen? No? Then they have still risen, what has happened is the rate of rise has flattened, but the long term trend is still up, until there is a reduction in temperature. I would not dance on the grave of majority climate science just yet.
This is an example of the logical fallacy of Excluded Middle. It says there are only two options, rising OR falling temperatures, when there is another alternative, temperatures staying the same, as they are doing, or varying naturally, as they are also doing.
Second, the statement “the long term trend is still up” is false, as it fails to state how long is long term, or what that term is, when EXACTLY it starts and ends. Is the “long term trend” still up if you do not start that trend in 1979, the end of the last ice age scare ( Leonard Nimoy on The Coming Ice Age: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M ), but instead start that trend well before then? You could, say, start it in 1938 when it was so hot that movies became popular simply because the theater was the only place with air conditioning. What if you start it in the middle of the little ice age, what about the middle of the Medieval Warm Period when it was actually warmer then now ( http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/ ), what about the Minoan Warm Period and the two previous similarly warm periods before that that were even warmer? Obvious ‘scientific’ conclusion, Medieval s drove nothing but SUV’s, and Minoans drove nothing but monster trucks. What about the last ice age, the interglacial before that, the time of the dinosaurs when there were no ice ages ever, the…but you get the idea.
If you let me pick the start and end of any “trend”, I can make it go up, down, or sideways at will.
As Mark Twain famously wrote of that kind of extrapolation:
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.
And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Third, you say “until there is a reduction in temperature”, OK, I’ll give you some. Before certain, um, “adjustments” to the temperature sets, 1938 was the hottest year in the last 100 years, it then got cooler (it is cooler than that right now), that’s a temperature reduction right there, and right now. “But”, you might say, “that’s before 1950, when industrialization really took off!” OK, lets go with that (at which point we must also assume the Medieval and Minoan industrial ages), now explain “Leonard Nimoy on The Coming Ice Age” which happened after that. For that matter, if we assume industrialization equals warming, we still haven’t explained 1938. We also cannot explain the warming after the little ice age which happened well before industrialization on any scale and which accounts for most of the warming between the little ice age and now. In short, there have been many reductions in temperature, as well as increases, which are not explained and cannot be explained by “majority climate science”, unless you want to go dig up those massively fossil fueled Minoan cities which must surely be buried under the sands somewhere.
And lastly “majority climate science” ??? You can have majority, or you can have science, you cannot have both. You can have a majority, such as the majority of “scientists” who believed that the sun went around the earth, or you can have actual scientists like Galileo who actually went out and observed to see what was what before they made up their minds. You can have “majority”, such as the “majority” of almost 12,000 scientists who 97% agreed with warming when 64 of them sort of agreed with it (the math seems a little off to me…). You can have “majority” imposed, as seen by climategate, where we see “scientists” colluding together to fire and blackball anyone who dared to publish anything that does not agree with warming, you know, like they did to Galileo, who we all know couldn’t have been a ‘real’ scientist, since he refused to go along with the majority. Majority?!? Only dead fish always go with the flow.
“The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
Let us be clear. Logically speaking, absence of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation – unless, that is, anyone really believes that the monotonically-rising CO2 concentration is the cause of the zero trend in global temperature over the past 17 years. Since causation necessarily implies correlation, the contrapositive is true.
Monckton of Brenchley wrote: “Since causation necessarily implies correlation, the contrapositive is true”, this is not correct, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, if there are confounding factors that can temporarily mask the effects of the causal relationship. In this case, the expected rise in temperatures due to GHGs is fairly small compared to the short term effects of sources of internal variablity such as ENSO, so it isn’t unduly surprising if you get occasional periods where there is no correlation between CO2 and surface temperatures (c.f. Easterling and Wehner http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037810/abstract). Foster and Rahmstof (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022) show that if you control for the effects of ENSO, the hiatus dissapears and there is once more a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Of course I pointed this out earlier in the thread (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/whither-went-the-warmer-weather/#comment-1504689) but Monckton of Brenchley is more interested in rhetoric and childish insults in order to evade discussion of the scientific evidence. I have learned over the years there is no point in discussing science with anybody who will stoop to such behaviour, if the science is on your side, there is no need for insults or rhetoric.
Legatus:
Very well said. I’ve place a bookmark in my “quotable” folder.
Monckton of Brenchley: “Since causation necessarily implies correlation, the contrapositive is true.”
If causation necessarily implied correlation, its contrapositive, that absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, would be true.
I don’t believe that causation necessarily implies correlation, but I haven’t been able to formulate a compelling counterexample. (The attempt by dikranmarsupial certainly falls flat.) Part of the difficulty is that the meaning of the proposition itself is not clear to me. For example, the Mandelbrot set’s range values are absolutely and exclusively determined by the respective domain values: causation clearly exists. But what does correlation mean in that context? I don’t know.
To give a concrete example, let f(x) = x and g(x) = sin(x), and h(x) = f(x) – g(x). Clearly there is a causal relationship from f(x) to h(x). However if you plot h(x) you will see that there is little or no correlation between f(x) and h(x) between approximately x = 6 and x = 7, even though h(x) is causally dependent on f(x). This is because g(x) is a confounding factor that temorarily masks the effect of f(x) on h(x).
http://graphsketch.com/?eqn1_color=1&eqn1_eqn=x&eqn2_color=2&eqn2_eqn=sin%28x%29&eqn3_color=3&eqn3_eqn=x%20-%20sin%28x%29&eqn4_color=4&eqn4_eqn=&eqn5_color=5&eqn5_eqn=&eqn6_color=6&eqn6_eqn=&x_min=0&x_max=9.4248&y_min=-2&y_max=12&x_tick=1&y_tick=1&x_label_freq=5&y_label_freq=5&do_grid=0&do_grid=1&bold_labeled_lines=0&bold_labeled_lines=1&line_width=4&image_w=850&image_h=525
dikranmarsupial: “you will see that there is little or no correlation between f(x) and h(x) between approximately x = 6 and x = 7”
This is a good example of why I’m disinclined to put any real effort into a discussion of the ultimate question of whether causation necessarily implies correlation. The discussion would quickly deteriorate into what the different interlocutors mean by the terms. In this case one wants to restrict the determination to a range and ignore the known effects of the “confounding factors.” In another, an interlocutor may want to use some transformation of one of the variables to take various system-dynamics effects into account.
Now that I’m retired I no longer have to argue when there’s so little chance of really joining issue.
Joe Born says
Now that I’m retired I no longer have to argue when there’s so little chance of really joining issue.
Henry says
Don’t do that! Being retired is no excuse for anything! If that is your attitude you might lose the opportunity eternity which is there, just for people like you and me! The battle for good has already been won.That happened 2000 years ago…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
We will win!
Don’t worry about those who are not really interested about the truth, for their own evil or egotistical purposes. We all know that Big Money is invested in this green nonsense energy business.
Just write your own Christmas story, like I did
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/12/10/my-own-true-christmas-story/
and stick with it, if that was the outcome of your own investigation.
henry@all
let us please not go into these stupid semantics about cause and effect
We all know that more warming causes more CO2
I have explained that this is simple 1st year chemistry
What we do not know for sure is whether more CO2 causes more warming or more cooling.
My data and the data quoted by LMoB suggests that the effect is zero or close to zero
live with it
Let us be clear. Logically speaking, absence of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation – unless, …………….
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The correct answer is …………………..wrong
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
“… -unless, that is, anyone really believes that the monotonically-rising CO2 concentration is the cause of the zero trend in global temperature over the past 17 years”
Deductively, that is a very good point!
Inductively, I do believe the monotonic rise in CO2 concentration and the zero trend in temperature can be correlated. At geological time scales CO2 has been shown to lag temperature. Many instances in the past show temperature flatten then turn negative while CO2 continues to rise only to turn and follow temperature back down, long after!
In the past, temperature has been the cause rather than the effect and the decoupling over the last 17 years only bolsters this position!
Perhaps the relationship, though clearly correlated, is acausal!
“No, there is another” (Cause?) 😉
Scott says
No, there is another” (Cause?) 😉
Henry says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/whither-went-the-warmer-weather/#comment-1505547
HenryP, I agree!
Ever since I heard, from a climate modeller, that clouds also take up CO2 and rain bicarbonate ions, i’ve worried about the fact that the grid cells are too big to model them!
Dikranmarsupial quotes
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037810/abstract
where it says
All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
henry says
well, in my [means] data set I also get 0.014 from 1974 and 0.013 from 1980, so my figures there compare generally well.
I have made a compilation of the 4 best sets that I believe in and you can also add my own which all show a warming trend from 1979 and a cooling trend from 2001.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2002/trend
so we have 5 data sets that all see a global cooling trend from 2001.
Looking at this graph, we can begin to rubbish the report that Dikranmarsiupal is quoting
First of all, you cannot “adjust” data. The data are what the data are. You leave them alone. You must not start fiddling with the data/
Clearly 2009 and 2010 were not the hottest years, showing more cracks in the report!
now, obviously I knew that the negative trend was going to happen, because I had first analysed all the data from maxima, where we can see that around 1995 we saw the end of warming and we see it turned to cooling- something that changed from outside to inside.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Now true enough, only my own data set looks at maxima and minima. This is a failure on all of climate science and I blame them all, not only the people quoted by D.
Clearly maxima tells you what trend to expect. I knew that there would be a a little time lag of 5-6 years from 1995 before we would see a general cooling trend because looking at maxima is like energy in which is not the same as energy out (means).
But most of all, for those who honestly believe in AGW,, is the lack of interest in looking at minimum temperatures. Namely, AGW theory proposes that there is a delay in (radiative) cooling due to more GHG. That means a something changes from inside to outside.That would mean that we should see an increase in minimum temperatures, pushing up means. That is not simply happening, which you can clearly see from my own data set and which everyone would be able to see if they would just get off their butts.
So, Dikranmarsipal, I hope you will finally see how silly your quoted researchers are.
\
Another particularly odd piece of information is that my data set
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
compares well all other data sets from 1980 but the negative trend from 2001 that I get seems a bit more then what they are getting….
I wonder why…..
Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
December 21, 2013 at 1:00 am
HenryP, I agree!
Ever since I heard, from a climate modeller, that clouds also take up CO2 and rain bicarbonate ions, i’ve worried about the fact that the grid cells are too big to model them!
Clouds do take up some CO2 but they don’t rain bicarbonate ions in any significant amount, at the pH of rain dissolved CO2 concentration is 3 orders of magnitude greater than bicarbonate.
Dikranmarsupial quotes
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037810/abstract
where it says
All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
henry says
well, in my [means] data set I also get 0.014 from 1974 and 0.013 from 1980, so my figures there compare generally well.
I have made a compilation of the 4 best sets that I believe in and you can also add my own which all show a warming trend from 1979 and a cooling trend from 2001.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2002/trend
so we have 5 data sets that all see a global cooling trend from 2001.
Looking at this graph, we can begin to rubbish the report that Dikranmarsiupal is quoting
First of all, you cannot “adjust” data. The data are what the data are. You leave them alone. You must not start fiddling with the data/ that is breaking all the rules.
Clearly 2009 and 2010 were not the hottest years, showing more cracks in the report!
now, obviously I knew that the negative trend was going to happen, because I had first analysed all the data from maxima, where we can see that around 1995 we saw the end of warming and we see it turned to cooling- something that changed from outside to inside.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Now true enough, only my own data set looks at maxima and minima. This is a failure on the part of all of climate science and I blame them all, not only the people quoted by D.
Clearly maxima tells you what trend to expect. I knew that there would be a little time lag of 5-6 years from 1995 before we would see a general cooling trend because looking at maxima is like energy in which is not the same as energy out (means).
But most of all, for those who honestly believe in AGW, is the lack of interest in looking at minimum temperatures. Namely, AGW theory proposes that there is a delay in (radiative) cooling due to more GHG. That means that something changes from inside to outside.That would also mean that we should see an increase in minimum temperatures, pushing up means. That is simply not happening, which you can clearly see from my own data set and which everyone would be able to see if they would just get off their butts and do some work.
So, Dikranmarsipal, I hope you will finally see how silly your quoted researchers are.
\
Another particularly odd piece of information is that my data set
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
compares well with all other data sets from 1980 but the negative trend from 2001 that I get seems a bit more then what they are getting.
I wonder why…..
Just so we are all clear on this, I never said anything about it raining bicarbonates.
I said this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/whither-went-the-warmer-weather/#comment-1505547
I only talked about the oceans. Coldness is a sinc for CO2,
i.e. in the arctic and antarctic seas, CO2 gas dissolves to form bicarbonate/
Interestingly, the global cooling trend that I see coming could eventually bring CO2 down:
CO2 (g) + 2H2O + (more) cold => (more) HCO3- + H3O+
we all know that the antarctic is already getting cooler now,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
so I was interested in seeing some CO2 data from the south pole
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/spo/images/spo_ccg_full.png
Together, note with me the lack of red squares (representative data) from 2005 onward, yet the trend line keeps going up…There is whole series in 2003 that is way below the trend line! There is only one square mark in 2007 at 360 ppm? The only other data they have past 2003 all seem below 320….. .Clearly it seems to they are not believing their own results anymore and are looking for other areas on earth to keep showing an increasing trend.?
The missing data from 2011 is also puzzling.
I think I will query Pieter on this. But I fear NOAA is all politics….?.they don’t know anything about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature?
HenryP says:
December 21, 2013 at 10:42 am
we all know that the antarctic is already getting cooler now,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
so I was interested in seeing some CO2 data from the south pole
That’s extent which is significantly effected by the winds rather than the temperature. As I recall it’s been unusually warm at the SPole lately.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/spo/images/spo_ccg_full.png
Together, note with me the lack of red squares (representative data) from 2005 onward, yet the trend line keeps going up…There is whole series in 2003 that is way below the trend line! There is only one square mark in 2007 at 360 ppm? The only other data they have past 2003 all seem below 320….. .Clearly it seems to they are not believing their own results anymore and are looking for other areas on earth to keep showing an increasing trend.?
The missing data from 2011 is also puzzling.
Try here: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/mlo_spo_record.pdf
Phil. says
Try here: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/mlo_spo_record.pdf
Henry says
you only confirm to me what I already suspected: they need to bring the results from all 4 stations to show an ever increasing CO2 concentration.
I just wanted to see the trend in the actual south pole data….
But I will send an email to this Pieter asking him about it.
Phil. says
That’s extent which is significantly effected by the winds rather than the temperature.
Henry says
right.
As the people in Alaska have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1
Also due to the wind?
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers there that it is not going to get any better.