Guest essay by David Archibald
President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.
The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:
The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.
This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:
Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.
We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Reference:
Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?
Eli Kintisch
Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 4:55 pm
..
“Antarctica is increasing its polar ice”
..
Not according to GRACE and CryoSat
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 at 2:04 pm
“CO2 is not following T at all.
Yes, it is.
Bart
August 26, 2014 at 5:12 pm
…
No it is not…..
..
For the past 17 years……
∆C —– http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend
∆T —– http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/plot/rss-land/from:1997/trend
Note the trend lines
dbstealey wrote:
“Strange, isn’t it, that you the UN/IPCC only showed half of the carbon cycle? Where is the other half — the carbon sinks.”
> Go ask the UN/IPCC.
Unlike you, the IPCC includes *all* of the carbon cycle — sources AND sinks. The planet is taking in more CO2 than humans are emitting (for now, at least). That’s why CO2 is building up in our atmosphere, and why your “3%” number is deceptive.
“Last time I looked, the land and the oceans were absorbing *more* CO2 than they emit”
> Which should reduce your false alarm panic.
It directly shows where you went wrong.
PS: There are no guarantees that sinks will continue to be greater than sources. It could reverse. Science’s understanding of the carbon cycle contains significant unknowns.
Sonicsguy,
I use the Woof For Trees databases — all of them. Both sides of the debate use WFT, therefore that is a credible site acceptable to all. I use RSS because it is satellite data; the most accurate kind of data [and before you try the debunked ploy about inaccurate satellites, be aware that RSS and UAH are direct competitors. When have you ever heard of competitors not badmouthing the competition? The fact is that RSS is universally accepted data, and it is paid for. Therefore it is acceptable for the purpose of recording global temperature trends]. So stand by your ‘criticism’. If you haven’t noticed, you are standing all alone.
++++++++++++++++++++
Edward Richardson says:
dbstealey says:
“CO2 followed temperature for the past 17 years”
…
It didn’t
According to you temps have not increased in the past 17 years. ( ∆T = 0)
CO2 has risen from 365 ppm to 400 ppm. ∆C = 35 ppm
CO2 is not following T at all.
Edward, take your Prozac and lie down. It’s time for your nap.
I posted verifiable, testable, measurable empirical evidence showing conclusively that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. All you posted was a simple overlay. An overlay does not show cause and effect. The charts I posted do.
Your response? You made a baseless assertion: “CO2 is not following T at all.”
Do you actually believe that posting your baseless opinion can score any debate points??
Edward, this is the internet’s Best Science & Technology site; the winner of the internet’s last 3 consecutive Weblog Awards. If you haven’t noticed, unlike the alarmist blogs WUWT has articles and comments by numerous climatologists, physicists, chemists, geologists, and many others in the hard sciences.
Those highly educated folks don’t give much credit to baseless assertions from the Peanut Gallery. You need to post testable, measurable scientifc evidence backing up your point of view. But so far, with you it’s been assertions all the way. Your opinion, that’s all. You’ve got to do better than that to be credible, Edward…
…and still waiting for you to man-up and acknowledge my empirical evidence showing conclusively that CO2 follows temperature. Your baseless opinions don’t cut it Edward, and you are still not manning up.
dbstealey wrote:
“And if the oceans — 71% of the planet’s surface — are absorbing CO2, that means they are cooling, because that’s what cooling oceans do.”
Bad science. What matters is the difference in the partial pressures of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean. The former is increasing, so the ocean takes up more CO2, even as it warms.
“I posted verifiable, testable, measurable empirical evidence showing conclusively that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.”
….
Again, I posted verifiable, testable, measurable, empirical evidence showing that for the past 17 years ∆T = 0 and ∆CO2 rose 10%.
Here is the “evidence” (Evn you use the Woof For Trees databases )
…
∆T
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/plot/rss-land/from:1997/trend
∆CO2
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend
..
From these two graphs you can see that ∆T is not the cause of ∆CO2
Edward Richardson:
You say that “I posted verifiable, testable, measurable, empirical evidence showing that for the past 17 years ∆T = 0 and ∆CO2 rose 10%.” However, it is the change in the temporally averaged global temperature over the past 17 years that is approximately 0. Thus, your ∆T must be the change in the temporally averaged global temperature over this period. Over this period, the global temperature varied and, as I understand it from a post in this thread, the change in the CO2 concentration followed the change in the global temperature rather than preceeding it. Thus, the change in the CO2 concentration cannot have caused the change in the global temperature, by the definition of “cause.”
dbstealey wrote:
“Finally, you never responded to the fact that Antarctica has almost 90% of the ice on the planet. You wrongly claimed it is less. Antarctica is increasing its polar ice, which easily makes up for the Arctic.”
The wrong part was Richardscourtney’s claim that Antarctic ice was increasing. It is not.
The Antarctic, Greenland, and the Arctic are all, net, losing ice.
dbstealey wrote:
“Changes in CO2 result from temperature changes.”
Changes in CO2 can also come from volcanoes, forest fires, land use changes, melting clathrates, and more.
Oh yeah, and by animals of any species who dig up fossil fuels and then burn them.
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 5:28 pm
…
“Edward, take your Prozac and lie down. It’s time for your nap.”
.
This should clear up your confusion
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/scale:10/plot/rss-land/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/trend
dbstealey wrote:
“The proof is irrefutable: ∆T causes ∆CO2.”
But many other things also ’cause’ CO2.
If you think only a change in temperature causes a change in CO2, you have to explain this: why has 0.8 C of modern warming “caused” a 120 ppm increase (so far) in atmospheric CO2, when about 8 C of warming after an ice age glacial period caused only about 100 ppm increase of CO2?
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 5:28 pm
…
This too, it has a better scale factor on RSS
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/scale:10/plot/rss-land/from:1997/scale:10/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/trend
Ah, and we have yet another baseless opinion from ‘sonicsguy’:
It directly shows where you went wrong.
Your opinion shows no such thing.
And “Edward Richardson” appears again like Whack-A-Mole, posting another opinion. Edward, here on Earth, empirical evidence always trumps opinion. Notice here the latest measurement of global ice [the red chart line].
Global ice is above it’s 30-year average. That’s another alarmist prediction falsified.
Note that you can aloways find an opinion to support your Belief. That is why I always defer to real world measurements. They trump all opinions. You should try it.
Finally, Edward, look at Bart’s link above. There is a mountain of similar empirical evidence showing conclusively that CO2 follows temperature. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Your mind is already made up, and any contrary evidence is rejected. Typical alarmist. No wonder your conclusions are wrong.
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 5:47 pm
….
“Notice here the latest measurement of global ice”
Correction: Notice here the latest measurement of global SEA ice.
…
Your graph shows SEA ice, not the ice mass sitting on top of the land mass of Antarctica and Greenland.
..
Sea level is rising 3 mm/yr. Half of that rise is from melting ice, and half from thermal expansion. CyroSat and GRACE both show ice mass decreasing.
dbstealey wrote:
“Your opinion shows no such thing.”
It’s not my “opinion” that carbon sinks are currently greater than sources, it’s a scientific finding.
“Global ice is above it’s 30-year average.”
Ice is 3-dimensional, not two. And the world is now losing a huge amount of it every year — over 500 km3/yr, according to a paper that just came out in “The Cryosphere”
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539/2014/tc-8-1539-2014.pdf
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 5:47 pm
“You just refuse to acknowledge it.”
…
Yes, and I wll continue to refuse to acknowledge that CO2 follows temperature as this graph clearly shows.
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/scale:10/plot/rss-land/from:1997/scale:10/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/trend
From the graph you can see that CO2 is rising and Temperature is flat, therefore CO2 is NOT following temperature.
dbstealey wrote:
“The proof is irrefutable: ∆T causes ∆CO2.”
That doesn’t explain this…..
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png
You would have to have a pretty big increase in T to get up to 400 ppm.
dbstealey August 26, 2014 at 9:21 am
Sonicsguy,
Yes, pressure broadening exists on Venus, but it is far too small of an effect to explain away the fact that Venus is near the sun and thus hot, and Mars is farther from the sun, and thus cold.
That’s a dumb comment even for you, here’s part of the spectrum of CO2 at 1 atmosphere:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2-1atm.jpg
and here it is at 93atm:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2-93atm.jpg
Pressure broadening in the Venusian atmosphere is a major effect, as shown, even more so at elevated temperature.
Terry Oldberg wrote:
“Thus, the change in the CO2 concentration cannot have caused the change in the global temperature, by the definition of “cause.””
More silly logic.
Surface temperature depends on MORE FACTORS than atmospheric CO2. Many more, that are themselves changing with time.
This is so obvious I can’t understand why many people here can’t get it.
Mr Terry Oldberg
….
I am not arguing that ∆CO2 caused ∆T.
I am refuting the following statement made by dbstealy…..
.
dbstealey wrote:
“The proof is irrefutable: ∆T causes ∆CO2.”
Edward Richardson:
Thank you for the clarification. dbstealy errs in stating that “∆T causes ∆CO2.”
SonicsGuy:
In your attempt at refutation of the argument that I make in my Aug. 27 at 7:22 pm post you make a couple of logical errors. First, you try to reach a conclusion by characterizing an opposing argument as “silly.” Logic does not contain principles by which one can do so. Second, that the global surface temperature may depend upon more factors than the concentration of CO2 is irrelevant in relation to Mr. Richardson’s argument that the change in the global temperature cannot have caused the change in the CO2 concentration. As the change in the global temperature preceeds the change in the CO2 concentration, the change in the former can have caused the change in the latter. On the other hand, the change in the latter cannot have caused the change in the former as claimed in my post.
Terry Oldberg
August 26, 2014 at 7:51 pm
“. As the change in the global temperature preceeds the change in the CO2 concentration”
…
This is not true in the past 17 years.
Something other than global temperature is causing the CO2 concentration to rise.
Edward Richardson
I’d like to call you attention to the fact that the quantity that has not risen over the past 17 years is not the global temperature but rather is the temporal average of the global temperature. Your argument conflates the global temperature with the temporal average of the global temperature.
Edward Richardson says:
The AGW hypothesis…
AGW is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is able to make consistent, reliable and accurate predictions. The AGW conjecture has never been able to make any accurate predictions. At all. They even failed to predict the amazing halt to global warming for almost two decades. Not one AGW prediction saw that one coming. Thus, AGW is merely a conjecture. An opinion.
If someone is unable to understand basic scientific terms, such as the difference between a conjecture and a hypothesis, they are certainly not qualified to discuss this subject. And we see how unqualified Edward Richardson is. It is clear that he runs back constantly to his alarmist blog sto get new talking points. I, for one, do not do that. I’ve been immersed in this subject for almost twenty years, from when I believed that CO2 caused gloabl warming. Yes! That long ago! But facts changed, and my view changed along with increasing knowledge. Now I just shake my head at the noobs who pop up here, pretending to be competent. They aren’t.
======================
Phil. You are sure a dumb cluck. The proximity to the Sun is the main reason for Venus’ temperature.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Edward Richarsson,
Thank you for posting yet another chart that shows global temperatures leading CO2. Sorry about the bullet hole in your shoe…
Edward continues digging:
Sea level is rising 3 mm/yr. Half of that rise is from melting ice, and half from thermal expansion.
Thank you for yet another assertion. Half and half, eh?
Edward, the only debate is over whether sea level rise is accelerating. That is/was the endless prediction of the global warming cult. Skeptics know that the sea level has been rising since the last stadial. But so what? It is not accelerating. Chalk up another major alarmist prediction FAIL. They are still batting 0.000.
_________________________
sonicsguy says:
But many other things also ’cause’ CO2.
Do you ever stop your endless nitpicking? Of course there are other CO2 forcings! So what? The question is this: does ∆T cause ∆CO2? Or vice-versa?
There is no measurable, testable, empirical evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. Now, that may possibly be the case. But there are no measurements quantifying the amount/fraction of global warming resulting from rising CO2. There are no data-based charts showing that CO2 leads temperature. So if that is the case, any such effect is simply too minuscule to measure.
Science is nothing without measurements. There are ample and numerous measurements showing that changes in temperature cause changes in CO2. But none show the opposite. Thus, AGW is simply a conjecture; an opinion, nothing more.
See, your Belief is based entirely on an unproven conjecture. Furthermore, you are ready to change the direction of Western civilization, based only on your ridiculous Belief. That is INSANE.
But then, the entire alarmist belief system is insane. Fortunately, their nonsense is finally being dismissed by the public. And none too soon. The crazies almost got the U.S. headed down the road to ruin. That would leave China, India, Russia, and other rational countries as top dogs. That is what those fools almost accomplished, with their insane anti-science nonsense.
We are very fortunate to have the best science site on the internet, right here. Unlike censoring alarmist blogs, WUWT lets everyone have their say — even the mental cases. Then readers can sift the wheat of truth from the chaff of pseudo-science. What is left standing is as close to scientific truth as we are likely to get currently. And the truth is that AGW, if it exists, is a non-problem. It simply doesn’t matter.
Terry Oldberg,
Explain this:
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/co2-temperature-roc.png
dbstealy:
Though the change in the temperature preceeds the change in the CO2 concentration one cannot conclude that the change in the temperature causes the change in the CO2 concentration. One can conclude that the change in the CO2 concentration does not cause the change in the temperature. The latter conclusion is significant for regulation as a causal relation from the change in the CO2 concentration to the change in the temperature underlies the EPA’s argument for regulation of the CO2 concentration.
Though a change in the CO2 concentration cannot cause a change in the temperature such a change may provide information about a subsequent change in this temperature. Past climatological research addresses this issue inadequately.
Terry Oldberg wrote:
“As the change in the global temperature preceeds the change in the CO2 concentration, the change in the former can have caused the change in the latter. On the other hand, the change in the latter cannot have caused the change in the former as claimed in my post.”
Your attempts to impress and bamboozle with logic lack substance.
Temperature and CO2 are in a mutually reinforcing loop. A change in either can cause in the other. The warming from recent glacial to interglacial periods (about 8 C) are only about half explained by Milankovitch forcings. The rest is the feedback from the increase in CO2.
There are natural changes — like the above, volanoes, forest fires, etc — and there a manmade changes. Man is digging up fossil fuels and burning them, and this not a function of temperature. Those fossil fuels produce CO2 when burned, which goes into the atmosphere and ocean.
Presto – a change in CO2. That then causes a change in T.
The argument is a simple one.
SonicsGuy:
Your claim that “Your attempts to impress and bamboozle with logic lack substance” lacks a basis in logic. In logic, one refutes an argument by proving that a premise to this argument is incorrect or that the manner in which the conclusion is drawn from the premises lacks a logical basis. You have done neither.
Data presented by dbstealy are inconsistent with your claim that a change in the CO2 concentration causes a change in the global temperature. They do not eliminate the possibility that a change in the CO2 concentration provides information about a subsequent change in the global temperature. Climatological research performed to date is inadequate to the task of determining whether this provides information or does not.