Gosh, you’d think they’d check the data before issuing a statement like this (press release follows).
It [CO2] was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012. Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
But, the temperature data tells an entirely different story, look at this plot of all global temperature metrics and trends from 2002-2012 – there’s no warming to be seen!
In fact, with the exception of UAH, which is essentially flat for the period, the other metrics all show a slight cooling trend.
Plot from Woodfortrees.org – source:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/best/from:2002/to:2012/plot/best/from:2002/to:2012/trend
UPDATE: here is the same graph as above, but with CO2 increase (a proxy for forcing) added. Clearly, global temperature does not follow the same trend.
Plot from Woodfortrees.org – source:
From the World Meteorological Organization – Press Release No. 991 (h/t to Steve Milloy, emphasis mine)
CO2 concentrations top 400 parts per million throughout northern hemisphere
Geneva, 26 May 2014 (WMO) – For the first time, monthly concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million (ppm) in April throughout the northern hemisphere. This threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are responsible for the continuing increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming our planet.
All the northern hemisphere monitoring stations forming the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch network reported record atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the seasonal maximum. This occurs early in the northern hemisphere spring before vegetation growth absorbs CO2.
Whilst the spring maximum values in the northern hemisphere have already crossed the 400 ppm level, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross this threshold in 2015 or 2016.
“This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving climate change. If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat trapping gases,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Time is running out.”
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Its lifespan in the oceans is even longer. It is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012.
Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141% of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.
Since 2012, all monitoring stations in the Arctic have recorded average monthly CO2 concentrations in spring above 400 ppm, according to data received from Global Atmosphere Watch stations in Canada, the United States of America, Norway and Finland.
This trend has now spread to observing stations at lower latitudes. WMO’s global observing stations in Cape Verde, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain (Tenerife) and Switzerland all reported monthly mean concentrations above 400 ppm in both March and April.
In April, the monthly mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 401.3 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, according to NOAA. In 2013 this threshold was only passed on a couple of days. Mauna Loa is the oldest continuous CO2 atmospheric measurement station in the world (since 1958) and so is widely regarded as a benchmark site in the Global Atmosphere Watch.
The northern hemisphere has more anthropogenic sources of CO2 than the southern hemisphere. The biosphere also controls the seasonal cycle. The seasonal minimum of CO2 is in summer, when substantial uptake by plants takes place. The winter-spring peak is due to the lack of biospheric uptake, and increased sources related to decomposition of organic material, as well as anthropogenic emissions. The most pronounced seasonal cycle is therefore in the far north.
The WMO Global Atmosphere Watch coordinates observations of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases like methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere to ensure that measurements around the world are standardized and can be compared to each other. The network spans more than 50 countries including stations high in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas, as well as in the Arctic, Antarctic and in the far South Pacific. All stations are situated in unpolluted locations, although some are more influenced by the biosphere and anthropogenic sources (linked to human activities) than others.
The monthly mean concentrations are calculated on the basis of continuous measurements. There are about 130 stations that measure CO2 worldwide.
A summary of current climate change findings and figures is available here
|
Preliminary CO2 mole fractions at the GAW global stations (March 2014; April 2014)
|
 * data are filtered for clean sector ** only night-time values are used to calculate monthly mean |
| Legend and data courtesy:ALT: Alert, Canada, 82.50°N, 62.34°W, 210 m a.s.l. (Environment Canada, Canada)AMS: Amsterdam Island, France, 37.80°S, 77.54°E, 70 m a.s.l. (Research program “SNO ICOS-France” led by LSCE/OVSQ (CEA, INSU))BRW: Barrow (AK), USA, 71.32°N, 156.6°W, 11 ma.s.l. (NOAA, USA)CNM: Monte Cimone, Italy, 44.17°N, 10.68°E, 2165 m a.s.l. (Italian Air Force Mountain Centre – Mt. Cimone, Italy)CVO: Cape Verde Atmospheric Observatory, Cape Verde, 16.86°N, 24.87°W, 10 m a.s.l. (Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany)
HPB: Hohenpeissenberg, Germany, 47.80°N, 11.01°E, 985 m a.sl. (Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Germany) IZO: Izaña (Tenerife), Spain, 28.31°N, 16.50°W, 2373 m a.s.l. (Agencia Estatal De Meteorología (Aemet), Spain) JFJ: Jungfraujoch, Switzerland, 46.55°N, 7.99°E, 3580 m a.s.l. (Empa, Switzerland) MHD: Mace Head, Ireland, 53.33°N, 9.90°W, 5 m a.s.l. (Research program “SNO ICOS-France” led by LSCE/OVSQ (CEA, INSU), in collaboration with EPA, Ireland) MLO: Mauna Loa (HI), USA, 19.54°N, 155.6°W, 3397 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) MNM: Minamitorishima, Japan, 24.29°N, 154.0°E, 8 m a.s.l. (Japan Meteorological Agency, Japan) PAL: Pallas, Finland, 67.97°N, 24.12°E, 560 m a.s.l. (Finish meteorological Institute (FMI), Finland) SMO: Samoa (Cape Matatula), USA, 14.25°S, 170.6°W, 77 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) SPO: South Pole, Antarctica, 90.00°S, 24.80°W, 2841 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) ZEP: Zeppelin Mountain (Ny Ålesund), Norway, 78.91°N, 11.89°E, 474 m a.s.l. (Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Norway |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David says:
How is that possible? Water vapor is the primary ‘greenhouse’ gas and I don’t think it’s atmospheric concentration changed much. And CO2 levels only increased about 10%.
So where does the 34% number come from?
And remember, the formulas the warmists use to convert the increase in CO2 concentration into radiative forcing are logarithmic. So the radiative forcing increases much slower than the CO2 concentration.
Yes….fully understand. It created the radiative forcing….which forced nothing at all. Which means that the quantity of forcing is utterly miniscule, or the natural forcing is AT LEAST as much. Either way, anybody with common sense will see that alarming language is alarming language.
“Time is running out”, “Urgent”, “Wake up call”
Offer ends on monday
So the greater CO2 level is in the Northern Hemisphere. But the Northern Oceans have had minimal heat uptake. So that the Southern Oceans with less CO2 have warmed more.
Therefore CO2 must have a cooling effect.
They are desperate to drum up fear. They must be in a near state of panic that it isn’t happening. Our fear, that is. Oh, and the warming. And the gravy-train slowing to a halt. And – for some at least – their plan for world domination spiraling down the drain. I’ve never known a bunch to sooo want worldwide destruction and unrest.
How loud and how crazy are they going to get, do you reckon?
“I recommend to readers that you do NOT click the link above, the free hosted website he uses pops up all sorts of parasitic nastiness, and won’t let you back out of it. You have to close the browser”
If so on your computer and whatever browser you are using, that would be curious, as my Firefox just gets one readily-closed ad from the imagevenue hosting site referenced in my tinyurl link. (If you get popup ads on many new website visits, you might need to google and use malwarebytes, not for imagevenue in particular but for a pre-existing problem in general).
However, I also posted the image now at the well-known ad-free WebCitation website as an alternative, with the image appearing small but enlarging on further click:
http://www.webcitation.org/6PsOoxWKN
Thank you, J. Philip Peterson!
Re David says:
How is that possible? Water vapor is the primary ‘greenhouse’ gas and I don’t think it’s atmospheric concentration changed much. And CO2 levels only increased about 10%.
So where does the 34% number come from?
==================================
David, I think this…”Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” may mean anthropogenic forcing, but certainly cannot mean 34% of the estimated affect of all earth’s GHGs. But I do not know. I do know those climate scientists can get very “Alice in Wonderland” like.
Once again its worth remembering that ‘value’ of the message is not in its fact, but in the impact it has despite the facts . To be fair the one area where climate ‘science’ is a leading force is the ‘science by press release’ one .Which given it does not required, good data , honesty nor good scientific pratice is ideal for the norms and standards of this area.
Minitruth says we have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.
That graph shows cooling. They must have blinkers on, big time. But we knew that, silly me.
” It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012.
Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”
During the first half of that period it “caused” 0.1 degree C of warming the second half it caused no warming.
That means either it is an irrelevant factor and has no effect on climate , or there is a natural variability of at least equal magnitude that is currently counter acting it.
This should act as yet another wake up call to WMO and alarmists and failed climate modellers.
Janice Moore says:
May 26, 2014 at 9:42 pm
Janice, you left out the real balance…
Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr
Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources
Native sinks don’t balance native sources, native sinks were always larger than native sources over the past 50+ years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
where 1 ppmv = 2.13 GtC.
Thus the net contribution of native sources and sinks is negative over the past 50 years.
Human emissions are now over 9 GtC/year and still increasing while the increase in the atmosphere is following with 50-55% of human emissions. The huge variability in rate of change (in fact uptake) of CO2 is caused by the huge variability in year-by-year temperature, but the trend is not caused by temperature. It is caused by the human emissions.
The alternative theories like these of Salby fail one or more observations and thus are proven wrong.
Henry Clark, what is the source of that jpg?
Is it a web page somewhere of did you put it together?
A PDF would have been easier to deal with.
Thanks
It seems that the scientific method is dead. We have a hypothesis that CO2 causes warming on the planet earth. So mother earth runs an experiment for us. We have a great increase in CO2 while at the same time we have no warming or even cooling on the planet — that according to the cheaters “adjusting” the data upwards. In the old days, we would say that we have a falsification of the hypothesis. But in these modern times of “climate science” (post-modern anti-science to me) we have faith in warming even when it gets colder.
This WUWT post is just one more data point among all the others.
(note: CO2 always follows warming in the distant past which should have told us all something as well)
The farce is strong with the CAGW-tribe. No wonder they have developed their skillfullness in farcical forcings lately both in terms of farcical modeling of forcings of all things climate (like the one pointed out in this post: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fi/2014/05/new-paper-shows-cloud-radiative-effects.html ) but also in terms of farcical forcing of the faith of those who do not believe in the farce (like Nick above, the Bengtsson forcers, and W.C. Connolley in the comments of this thread: http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/19/spiegel-sees-shaken-science-collapsed-consensus-in-the-wake-of-the-lennart-bengtsson-mobbing-scandal/ )
[NOTE: I recommend to readers that you do NOT click the link above, the free hosted website he uses pops up all sorts of parasitic nastiness, and won’t let you back out of it. You have to close the browser – Anth–]
FWIW:
I opened it in a new tab and had absolutely no problem. Firefox on max recure browsing, no cookies and with addblock active, as I always browse. (The only sensible way?)
Sorry, ‘max secure browsing’, not recure…
REPLY: Oh, bullshit, you left out this part: “the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012″. Nick Go obfuscate the truth someplace else. Now I’m SURE you are a paid troll. – Anthony
Sadly, although Nick and Mosher are intelligent people they have been indoctrinated by the money and the fame.
The figure titled: “Preliminary CO2 mole fractions at the GAW global stations (March 2014; April 2014)” shows numbers for CO2 around 400. A MOLE FRACTION is the ratio of the moles of a certain species to the total number of moles. The sum of all mole fractions =1. At least that’s what it means in chemistry. So, what do they mean in this chart?
Salby’s hypothesis and Humlum et al paper phase relationship CO2 – The majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 70 years was due to an unknown mechanism rather than anthropogenic emission.
If there is unequivocal cooling we will have a chance to see by observations if Salby’s hypothesis that a significant portion of the CO2 rise in the last 70 years was due to a change in natural emissions rather anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/10/dr-murray-salby-on-model-world-vs-real-world/
if I understand the mechanisms and based on cycles of similar warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes roughly 90% of the warming (90% of 0.8C which is 0.7C) in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover.
The following is Humlum et al’s paper that supports Salby’s hypothesis.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyzes suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
William Astley:
At May 27, 2014 at 2:07 am you say
Well, not really.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 70 years was due to any one or a combination of some of many mechanisms one of which may have been the anthropogenic emission.
Salby says little which was not in one of our 2005 papers.
I refer you to the thread on a recent paper because it discusses these matters. And I especially point to this comment in it.
Richard
William Astley says:
May 27, 2014 at 2:07 am
William, Salby (and others) make the fundamental mistake to assume that the year-by-year variability in CO2 increase rate (in fact the variability in natural sink rate) and the longer term trend both are caused by the same mechanism.
That is proven wrong: the short term variability is the direct effect of temperature changes on (land) vegetation, while the long term increase is not caused by temperature: vegetation in general grows harder (and over a larger area) with higher temperatures and more CO2. Thus is not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. For the short term:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
which shows that the short term influence of temperature gives more CO2 but less δ13C, which is the case if less CO2 is taken away by vegetation and/or more vegetation decayed.
For the long term: the uptake of CO2 by the biosphere increased over time:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Oceans are not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere either: any substantial increase of CO2 emissions or throughput from the oceans would increase the δ13C level in the atmosphere, but all we see is a firm decrease…
What the WMO are actually claiming is that a decade of heat has gone into the system, but not in the form of atmospheric warming, or sea ice melt (global sea ice has been largely above average for a year and a half now), nor in the top 700 metres of the ocean. That means a decade of heat mysteriously ended up in the only place left that has never been measured accurately – 700m-3000m deep ocean. Or, they have to admit they were wrong. Tough call.
Was it not some Swiss fella called Bert Onestone who said “A scientific consensus can be undone by a single fact!” So far the theory is at the “throw through window!” stage.