UAH Global Temperature Report: September 2014 temperature up from August

August global temperature was 0.19C, September is 0.29C

Sept2014grafGlobal climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade September temperatures (preliminary)

Notes on data released Oct. 6, 2014:

There was some warming in the tropics in September as an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event apparently tries to get its act together, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

During the 1997-1998 El Niño, the September 1997 tropical temperature anomaly was +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms, while in the 2009-2010 El Niño the September 2009 anomaly was +0.56 C, or about 1.01 F warmer than seasonal norms. That could indicate that this El Niño — if it fully develops — might be somewhat modest.

Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in September was in northern Canada of the northern coast of Prince Charles Island, where temperatures were as much as 2.73 C (about 4.91 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in September was in the western Antarctic, along the eastern edge of the Ross Ice Shelf. Temperatures there were as much as 5.35 C (about 9.63 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

Sept2014map

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Global composite temp.: +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 C (about 0.34 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.40 C (about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Tropics: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

August temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.20 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.24 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.06 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

— 30 —

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Nick Stokes

Is there an error here? At the top it says 0.19°C for September, but below the map, it says 0.29°C. I believe the latter is what is on file.

I corrected the typo. Sorry about the delay.

DavidR

Bob,
Will you be correcting to reflect the published UAH data for both months (from the link, this is 0.20 for August and 0.30 for September)?
Thanks.

DavidR

That’s a ‘no’ then.

August global temperature was 0.19C, September is 0.19C ????

Alex

anomaly

TimTheToolMan
DavidR

UAH official data says September 2014 was 0.30C for global: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

It is interesting to see that the largest anomaly, up to +4.5 degrees is in the Antarctica. Meanwhile, The Antarctic ice sheet set 9 new absolute records in September and nineteen days in record territory since measurements begun
http://lenbilen.com/2014/10/03/twenty-one-days-in-record-territory-for-antarctic-ice-in-2014-nine-new-absolute-records-set/

A C Osborn

Sorry I didn’t see your post.

Neil

I’ve got to admit that the pro-AGW side seems to have a good counter-argument on this one: whilst they agree the sea ice extent is a record, they say (backed up by the GRACE record) that the Antarctic land ice sheet is falling, so there is net ice loss.
I can see the argument, and it makes sense; so it seems that we’re in that strange place where both sides are correct in their assertions. That’s usually when the best science is done (think how the wave / particle duality of light led to quantum physics), so maybe – just maybe – interesting science awaits us?

Jared

Greenland should have made Arctic Ice increase too. Or does it not work the same way in both Hemispheres?

DavidR

It is odd. According to UAH, Antarctica (SoPol) has warmed at the fastest rate of any major region on earth over the past 5 years (currently +0.53C/dec). Most of this is over land areas, though warming over the ocean is also clear (0.15 C/dec): http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Paradoxically, it seems the sea ice has expanded in the face of increasing temperatures in the region.

phlogiston

That’s another of the really remarkable things about global warming – there are quite a number of different regions that are the fastest warming on earth.

Makes you wonder if warmer temperatures lead to increased precipitation, seems reasonable that sea ice can grow from the top down as well as the bottom up.

Joseph Murphy

A few degrees above normal can still be well below freezing. IMO Antartica is pretty useless to use in an argument for or against AGW. Antartica does not care what the rest of the globe is doing. As long as it stays an isolated land mass at the pole, it is going to stay very cold and stable no matter what the rest of the globe does.
On the other hand, I hope it melts. Think of the paleontology waiting to be done!

schitzree

Peter hit the send button by mistake. Those were his notes on how to write his response. 😉

schitzree

See, his full response was everything he promised. Loud, confident, wrong and offensive.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

schitzree: Wonderful!
Mr Grace, why can’t you chat with courtesy? Your usual approach is to respond to other’s comments – not make a comment of your own. It’s always a sniper comment. Why do you feel this is constructive?

Alx

It’s a father’s irritation with fools who think massive global disruption will be fun.

You sound abusive, do you have kids? A good father does not get irritated with his kids to the point he considers them fools. At any rate, whether you have kids or not, you are not my father or father to all of the rest of the world. Should we refer to you as God my father as in the prayers? Rhetorical question, let me just add god-complex to the list.
The globe has been disrupted mightliy in the last 100 years and were certainly not fun, This was mostly due to world wars, colds wars, regional wars, and then throw a few plagues in there along with earthquakes and tsunamis. Since you cannot tell the difference between those painfully real disruptions and your illusions of grandeur fantasies, let me add a third description delusional.
So I up your un-supported “Loud, confident, wrong and offensive” with my fully supported “abusive, god-complex, illusions of grandeur, and delusional”.

Alex

Peter
The fact that you are a father doesn’t give you special rights. None of us are gleeful about the possibility of ‘end of days’. We have all been fed a line of BS for many years. We don’t believe the lies anymore .18 years of no temperature change (average of course) with an ever increasing CO2 level. Nothing but excuses from all the ‘experts’. I’m not 6 years old.

tty

“If the GRACE measurements are correct there is already a melt underway.”
Correction
“If the GRACE measurements and the isostasy model are correct there is an increasing amount of calving underway”
Ice melting in Antarctica is utterly insignificant. The ice either calves into the sea or sublimates.

HGW xx/7

Yeah, Peter, you really showed him and his faux psychoanalysis by doing the same with a political twist to it. As some one who doesn’t vote right-wing, is agnostic, can’t stand Glenn Beck, avoids the Religious Right, and doesn’t watch Fox News, I find you sanctimonious, shrill, and arrogant. Therefore, I’m sure you would accept my opinion, no? Clearly, there’s no possible way you could hold strong political sentiments that happen to sit on the other side of the spectrum from many who are skeptical of CAGW science.

bit chilly
mpainter

Peter
A 300 meter sea level rise by the time your eldest child reaches 40?
You have lost touch with reality. Get a grip on yourself.

phlogiston

Someone help me here.
WHY does the volume of Antarctic ice matter?
Most of it is hundreds of thousands of years old. As it gets fatter, pressure increases and at the bottom this might cause melting. Volcanic activity might be a factor.
But SO THE HADES WHAT? Its climate at the surface that matters.
At the surface Antarctic is showing record cold in the air and record sea ice plus cold anomalies all round the sea ice perimeter. But no matter, we are told – two miles under the ice there is melting.
Just like in the oceans, its the surface temperatures that drive the climate which sustains humans and the biosphere that matters. It is here where warming has stalled. But no matter, we are told – down in the abyssal depth global warming is full steam ahead!
Warming in the unseen deep is not relevant to climate. Its only a fig-leaf for AGW charlatans.
There is evidence that ocean bottom water at least near the Arctic was warmer during ice ages. Does this mean that ice ages are not real? Is this the next big reveal from the CAGW camp? – that they no longer believe in ice ages?

See Peter wringing his hands at one moment and snarling and snapping at the next.
Poor kids.

A C Osborn

So according to that globe the Antarctic is much wamer than normal?????????

Alan Robertson

Why all the trolling?

tty

Nothing very surprising there. Note that the Southern Ocean some distance away from Antarctica is colder than normal. This is where the sea-ice is at record levels. I would guess that the katabatic winds from the very cold high pressure area over Antarctica (a. k. a. “the polar vortex”) has spread a bit further north than usual this winter, thus causing both the slightly warmer temperatures over the continent and the slightly colder ones further north. In short the temperature gradient is a bit flatter than normal. We saw the same effect over the Arctic last winter.

Looks like we had a nice warm September in northern Europe. Let’s have more of it.

Trond Arne Pettersen

For those looking for the September sea surface temperature update, sorry, I haven’t put together one so far this month. The data source I use, NOAA NOMADS, has been down for more than a week. I sent them an email last evening, asking when it would be back online.
Another contact at NOAA provided me a link to another source of weekly and monthly Reynolds OI.v2 sst data, but I’ve yet to figure out how to use it. It’s not cut and dry. Anyone intimate with using the IRI data library?
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.NOAA/.NCEP/.EMC/.CMB/.GLOBAL/.Reyn_SmithOIv2/.weekly/
Then I want to do some cross checking, make sure there are no differences between the two sources, and if there are, that they’re explainable.
Then again, all depends on when NOMADS will be back.
Enjoy your day.

Steven Kopits

“August global temperature was 0.19C, September is 0.19C”
correct to:
“August global temperature anomaly was 0.19C. September is 0.19C”
That would be the title using the style rules of The Economist.

Alex

I think most of us got it. It is an anomaly report that comes out regularly.

The data would still be wrong. Roy Spencer has it right: The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2014 is +0.29 deg. C, up from the August value of +0.20 deg. C.
Specifies the metric, (it was previously established to be the UAH data), the particular portion of the atmosphere, month, year, and value.
Personally, I would have preferred “+0.29 C deg.” to emphasize it’s not an actual temperature but an amount of change.

Alex

That is why it is called an anomaly. The average temperature over 30 years is set as a zero line. Variations from this line , up or down, are referred to as anomalies. It’s just a statistical method

DavidR

According to the official UAH data, the global anomaly for September is 0.30, up from 0.20 in August: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

We are in an interglacial period, during which it warms and continues warming until it doesn’t. Then we are back in another ice age. Why does warming support the AGW proposiiton?

Alex

There is a lot of money involved on that bandwagon.

Steve Keohane

I misread your statement as Why does warming support the AGW prostitution? I must be biased.

Alex

You got it right the first time

Might be interesting to have Lewandowski do a survey to see what Prostitutes, people who are professionaly familair with mankind’s darker, baser side think of AGW and Climatologists; if he could establish enough trust that is.

tty

Actually it has been mostly cooling for the last 8,000 years, like it usually does in every Interglacial. However there is some slight short-term variability in this cooling trend which is for som reason causing a lot of panic just now.

Martin

“Why does warming support the AGW proposiiton?” Probably has something to do with natural forcing would have resulted in cooling the past 50 or so years if not for AGW.

mpainter

Natural *forcing* causes cooling?

James Strom

“During the 1997-1998 El Niño, the September 1997 tropical temperature anomaly was +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms”
Are the seasonal norms used in 1997-98 directly comparable to the norms used in 2014?

Alex

You need a baseline average over a certain period. A stated anomaly value without the baseline is meaningless. You need to know what the +0.34 C was measured from.

James Strom

Thanks for the answer. The quote is from our host’s post above. My understanding is that a 30 year baseline is used for a lot of climate records, but that the baseline period is updated from time to time as the years progress. Hey, you can’t stop progress! If we’re comparing weather anomalies from 15 years apart it’s worth checking to see whether appropriate adjustments have been made if the baseline has changed. In economics, for comparison, data are routinely adjusted for inflation.
It could be that such adjustments are routine here as well, in which case, sorry for the fuss.

Alex

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
So I would guess ‘yes’. But only if you were referring to the graph above.
I don’t know where your quote came from so I don’t know the baseline.

Alex

No problem.

Gary Pearse

When they say warmer, don’t take your shirt off!! Its -21C on the Antarctic Peninsula, the warmest part of the continent that everyone is so worried about. Forecast for tomorrow -26C. So I guess it must have warmed up from 25-30C before!!!! Ice is being melted by innumberable active volcanoes along the entire west side of the continent and under the sea just offshore.
http://www.yr.no/place/Antarctica/Other/Antarctic_Peninsula/
http://www.livescience.com/41262-west-antarctica-new-volcano-discovered.html

jayhd

How much money is being spent measuring these fractions of a degree (Celsius and Fahrenheit)? And what exactly, is the purpose? I am really being serious when asking these questions, so please don’t dismiss them out of hand.

Alex

Billions. All the meteorological organisations of every country.The satellites/ argo floats and the infrastructure associated with processing the data etc. That’s just for temperature measurement. You could add many more billions for all the grants to study the effects of climate change. Every story and every article you read has cost a lot. I wouldn’t even try to work out the costs. Life’s too short.

Alex

And the purpose? make money

tty

Additional satellites would not improve resolution since the GRACE concept is based on measuring the distance between pairs of satellites. However the current satellites are reaching the end of their life and their performance is deteriorating.

nielszoo

GRACE doesn’t have even remotely enough resolution to do what they say it does now. Run the numbers and then explain to me how it is finding ice and sea level anomalies in the millimeter range while missing whole mountain ranges. Then explain how they decide what the detected gravity anomaly is caused by. It’s a wonderful concept for gravity and may be able to provide useful data for large scale magma displacements and core convection but 10 milliGal ( or even 1 mGal) level “accuracy” of an anomaly in the entire gravity field acting on those two instruments is not useful for seeing ice or sea level changes unless they are massive… and we wouldn’t need the satellites to see them. Stick with RADAR altimeters, boreholes, buoys, soundings and GPS markers for ice and ocean data ’cause they work. GRACE is an experiment that works for a few things but climate data is not one of them no matter what the propaganda from NASA says.

Pamela Gray

Peter, for heaven’s sake. You scare easily. You would have quite 10 minutes into the Oregon Trail, tucked your tail between your legs, and run back to the East Coast. It’s a good thing you waited to be born now.
The circumpolar current keeps Antarctica within its normal range in a manner much more consistent than the invading warm currents that head straight into the Arctic (which explains the much more variable Arctic ice). You can sleep tonight just fine. Your children, their children, and their children will be fine.

marque2

The warmest spots were in Antarctica, look at that big ball of yellow at the bottom of the globe – yet the south pole there had the greatest ice extent ever measured in September. Another case of warming bringing about cooling?

Alex

Not exactly the warmest spots. Just the largest anomalies from the baseline of septembers from 1981 -2010. I still wouldn’t have a pee outside in those conditions. Its just local weather, sometimes warmer , sometimes colder. Don’t stress and remember to wear your warm underwear.

Thanks, Dr. Christy.
I will update your graphic in my Web pages.

Alx

I don’t know the exact figures but the rough argument appears to be that when the temperature goes
from -26C to -21C this causes Antarctic ice to melt, possibly even the ice cream in New Jersey to melt.
Ignoring that bit of “lost touch with reality a while ago” argument, and just looking at the graph, from 1978 to
1998 it was cool relative to the norm or zero point on the graph. From 1998 to 2014 it is above the norm. This looks like an oscillation where temperatures could swing down again by 2018 or so. I note this only for the sake of argument, the whole notion of a global temperature is a fantasy. We need about another fifty years to
not only collect better data, but to also to determine the exact definition of global temperature. All sides can always be wrong and all sides can always right when a key piece of evidence, global temperature, is a moving target with willy nilly definitions popping up ad-hoc as needed to win the day.

Dave in Canmore

re: the exact figures
Here is the temperature data from Davis station, the closest weather station to the Ross Ice Shelf
For this time of year the MEAN temperature is around -12C
So even if it is 5 degrees warmer this month, there is little melting occuring!
see all the monthly means from 1957-2014 here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta89571.dat

Dave in Canmore

oops! wrong station Davis is on the other side! McMurdo is on the Ross ice shelf and its closer to Alex’s guess at -25
see station data here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta89664.dat

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2014/EGU2014-6201-1.pdf
A group of scientists from the UK, France, and NASA claim there was no significant Antarctic mass loss or gain in 2003-2009.

… a challenging task … conflicting results with error estimates that do not always overlap … another source of uncertainty which is hard to quantify. We present a statistical modelling approach that tackles these issues.

We conclude that there was no statistically significant net loss or gain in the seven year period.

richardscourtney

Unbelievable! As Pointman often says, warmunists have no sense of humour.

Coach Springer

So. slight (natural?) warming for 36 years, but no net warming for 18 years. Significantly increased CO2. Missing heat not found. El Nino weak to moderate when it maybe should have been strong given all the “missing heat.” I’m not feeling all that “sensitive” about CO2 or temporary temp swings.

Alex

Join the club

pokerguy

“That could indicate that this El Niño — if it fully develops — might be somewhat modest.”
There’s no way this el nino will be a strong one…weak to perhaps moderate. Bear in mind those living in the eastern u.s. the weaker the el nino, generally the colder the winter…
See “weatherbell”/.

KTM

Perhaps I have not been sufficiently propagandized, but when I look at that global map I do NOT think “The Globe has a FEVER!” It looks like a whole lot of average temperatures with local variability.

tty

Actually GRACE gravity measurements are definitely much more exact and reliable than e. g. satellite sea-level, ice area or air and sea-surface temperatures. The problem is interpreting them in the almost complete absence of good isostasy data in Antarctica. The uncertainty is much larger than is ever admitted.

beckleybud@gmail.com

GRACE calibration algorithms can be verified by comparing the GRACE measurements over Greenland, with the GPS measurements of the isostatic rebound currently occurring there.

tty

No they can’t. It would be about as effective as using a chart of Greenland waters to navigate in the Weddell sea. This is simply not a “calibration algorithm”. Why should the isostatic rebound in Antarctica be the same as in Greenland? It depends both on deglaciation history (fairly well known for Greeenland, almost unknown for Antarctica), and the current change in ice-loading (which is what we are trying to measure, so there is not one but two “X” too many in this equation).

beckleybud@gmail.com

Yes they can. They are calibrating the measurement the satellite is making. They can compare the results of the satellite measurements with the measurements made by ground based GPS.
It’s much the same as using a tape measure to verify the yardstick.
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2010/04/13/grace-gps-ice-melt/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.G22B..08F

tty

I’m afraid You don’t understand the problem. The GPS measurement around the edge of the GREENLAND ice-sheet can be used to calibrate the GRACE measurements of the changes in the GREENLAND gravity field and isolate the part of the change due to isostasy from the part due to the change of the GREENLAND ice-cap. The results can even be extended to the center of the GREENLAND ice sheet (it´s not that far after all) though with increasing uncertainty.
However this does not work in Antarctica. You still have the same yardstick, but unfortunately no tape measure. There are very few GPS stations with meaningfully long measurement series in Antarctica. And what is worse, for the most part there never will be any, because in Antarctica there are millions of square kilometers of ice with no no bedrock exposed, so there is simply nowhere to put GPS stations.

beckleybud@gmail.com

You don’t get it do you.?
The calibration is for the satellite which remains constant whether it is flying over Greenland, Antarctica, or the ocean.

richardscourtney

tty
I write to offer a warning.
You have stated the facts of GRACE calibration. Those facts are clear and indisputable. beckleybud@gmail.com has denied the facts.
On the basis of his previous behaviour in other threads it can now be expected that beckleybud@gmail.com will pretend to be an idiot as a method to assert the facts are other than they are. And he/she/they/it will persist in that pretense.
I strongly commend that you – and all others – ignore any further response concerning GRACE calibration from beckleybud@gmail.com.
Richard

beckleybud@gmail.com

@tty and @Courtney.

Since the two of you are oblivious as to how an instrument is “calibrated” I will give you a down to earth example in simple terms so that the two of you can understand how you can accomplish it.
Suppose you need to measure the length your neighbor’s driveway. You have a trusted yardstick, and a long tape measure. You are not sure of the accuracy of your tape measure, so you use your yardstick to measure YOUR OWN driveway, and you use the tape measure to do the same. When you see the results of the yardstick and the tape measure on YOUR driveway, your CONFIDENCE in the accuracy of the tape measure is enhanced. You then can use the tape measure to measure your neighbors driveway.

Now….just subsititue GPS for your yardstick, GRACE for the tape measure, Greenland for your driveway, and Antarctica for your neighbor’s driveway.
..
See how simple it is?
[But your “calibration standard” (the GRACE “yardstick”) is 35 inches long on side. And 37 inches long on the other. .mod]

beckleybud@gmail.com

MOD

Please re-read my post..

Pay close attention to the part that says “GPS for your yardstick”
..
GRACE is the tape measure…..

Reading is fundamental !!!

tty

richardscourtney says:
I guess you´re right: he either is, or pretends to be an idiot.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@tty

Nice ad-hom you posted.

richardscourtney

tty
His behaviour in other threads demonstrates his stupidity is clearly pretended: it is a ploy he uses to destroy threads. And whatever you do, don’t address has daft accusation of an ad hom. because that will result in his dragging you down Alice’s rabbit hole.
Richard

beckleybud says:
You don’t get it do you.?
Out of the thousands — actually, over a million — commenters at WUWT, the one who does not, and cannot seem to “get it”, is beckleybud.
This thread proves my point:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/#comment-1753492

beckleybud@gmail.com

@Courtney

If you are incapable of engaging in a discussion, and must resort to ad-hominem attacks (i.e. “stupidity” ) , I suggest you take your own advice (as posted here…
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/#comment-1755879 )
.
Where you said, ” informing you that I have no interest in further interaction with you”

Try and follow your own advice, or as the familiar saying goes, “practice what you preach”

beckleybud@gmail.com

LMAO ———>@dbstealy….

CO2 follows T except for the past 18 years

BuddyB says:
@tty and @Courtney.

Since the two of you are oblivious as to how an instrument is “calibrated” I will give you a down to earth example…

That is so far away from an example of how real calibration is done that I advise Buddy to start reading ISO 9000 before he looks even more foolish.
I spent my 30+ year career working in a large metrology lab [no, Buddy, not ‘meteorology’]. We calibrated weather-related instruments all day, every day. For an idea of the level of difficulty in metrology [the science of measurement], this site shows what is involved in calibrating a simple stick thermometer. A mercury thermometer is about the simplest possible instrument to calibrate.
Calibration difficulty rises geometrically from there, and I have little confidence in the Grace ice volume measurements.
Buddy also improbably claims that CO2 does not follow temperature, even though there is a mountain of empirical evidence showing exactly that. That relationship: ∆T causes ∆CO2, is seen in ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years [see ‘Note’, in left center of chart].
Some folks are just not cut out to understand science. Beckleybuddy is one of them.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey…

CO2 follows T?

Hasn’t followed it for 18 years.
..
You were the one that has said, “global warming has stopped”
..

D.J. Hawkins

@beckleybud
You assume that by calibrating GRACE for isostatic rebound over Greenland you can now measure Antarctica. This is true if and only if the isostatic rebound for both locations is identical. You have not presented any evidence that this is so. And before you fire back that I haven’t presented any evidence that is isn’t so, let me point out that as the party making the affirmative case, the burden of proof falls on you.

Buddy, take an aspirin and lie down. Watch some 3 Stooges, that’s more your speed. Because you are still not able to understand the most basic science.
For other readers: Global temperature (T) is the same as it was 18 years ago, by some satellite records. That is what is meant when people say ‘global warming has stopped’. It does not mean that temperatures are in an unmoving stasis. Rather, people are referring to the temperature trend.
During that 18 years, T has fluctuated by almost 1ºC. Global T always fluctuates. But the trend is flat. Thus, global warming has stopped. Global T is the same now as it was 18 years ago.
CO2 follows those temporary up/down fluctuations. Thus, ∆T causes ∆CO2. Or conversely: CO2 follows T. There are numerous obsevation-based charts available that show that cause and effect relationship. I posted two above. I have at least a half dozen more that show the same thing: T causes CO2. Not vice-versa. At least, there are no such contrary observations.
But there a re no charts that I’ve found [and I have looked, and asked people to post any they can find]. So all empirical observations show conclusively that changes in T are the cause of changes in CO2. That cause and effect can be clearly seen in charts from years, to hundreds of thousands of years.
The alarmist crowd got their causation backward, that’s all. But they cannot admit it, because if they did, their entire “carbon” scare would be debunked. Readers here already know that, but the public is just beginning to find out.
@DJ Hawkins:
buddy doesn’t understand charts, so he will just run back to his alarmist blog and get his talking points. He only has a high school eduucation, so he is not up to your standards. Good luck trying to ‘reason’ with him, as he is not capable of understanding even simple charts. But he is proficient at getting talking points, so get ready for the alarmist spin.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@ D.J. Hawkins

There are only two types of lithospheres, namely oceanic and continental. Both Greenland and Antarctica are continental, with a density of about 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter. Neither are oceanic at 2.9 grams per centimeter. I would be happy to consider a third type if you can find a way to distinguish or sub-type different types of continental lithosphere areas.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey…

Over the course of the past 18 years, the ∆T has been ON AVERAGE zero. Yes, the actual T goes up and down, but during the entire span of the interval, the T has been constant….and hence you say, “global warming has stopped.” When you say “global warming has stopped” you are saying ∆T is zero. If global cooling had occurred during the 18 years, you would say ∆T is negative. If global warming had occurred during the 18 years, you would say ∆T is positive.

So, according to you, in the past 18 years ∆T is zero.

If ∆CO2 followed ∆T, it also would be zero.

However, we all know in the past 18 years that ∆CO2 is not zero, it is positive, and NOT following ∆T.

BuddyB says:
When you say “global warming has stopped” you are saying ∆T is zero.
No. That’s where you’re confused. But I’ve tried to explain it so many times, on so many different occasions, that I give up. Richard Courtney has tried to explain, and Phil Jourdan has tried. And no one else agrees with your strange view.
So let’s leave it at that, ‘K? You are either deficient, or you do not want to understand — or you are deliberately obfuscating the issue because if you admit to the obvious fact that CO2 follows temperature, your climate alarmism becomes a false alarm. CO2=cAGW is falsified.
It’s tough, I know, to believe something for years, and to have taught your view to others over the years, and to have your ego entirely wrapped up in an explanation — that turns out to be backward and wrong.
But that is not our fault. I believed in MMGW in the 1990’s, when global T was rising fast. But I learned a lot since then. New facts emerged. I was wrong before. I admit it. My interest, and my goal, is more and better knowledge, not in winning a stupid argument that is all politics, and not science.
Now I see that the CO2=cAGW conjecture is completely unsupportable. CO2 does not cause any measurable rise in T. I have asked for measurements showing that it does ad nauseum. But NO ONE has ever posted such measurements. So I must assume they do not exist. But there are plenty of measurements showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. That is now a given.
Sorry about your world view. It turned out to be wrong. C’est la vie.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey

I can make this so simple that even you can understand it.
In the past 18 years global warming has STOPPED. You even said so. Now, there are two key words in that statement that you ought to pay attention to…… WARMING HAS STOPPED

What does “warming has stopped” mean? It means that the average global temperature is not rising, it’s not falling, it is stable.
..
Pretty simple really. I’m sure you understand that part.

Now comes the part you claim. That ∆CO2 follows ∆T. Well, since ∆T is zero (which is another way of saying “warming has stopped” ….it is obvious that ∆CO2 is not following ∆T. Why is that? Because if ∆CO2 was following NO WARMING then ∆CO2 would be zero.

Obviously something other than temperature has caused CO2 to rise 36 ppm in the past 18 years.

If you think temperature was the cause, please show me the rise in temperature in the past 18 years that caused the CO2 to rise. According to you there has to have been a rise in T in the past 18 years.
Sooner or later it may dawn on you what the cause of the rise in CO2 in the past 18 years was.

BuddyB:
Pff-f-f-f-f-ft.
Go away. You’re just trolling.

richardscourtney

D.J. Hawkins
You write

@beckleybud
You assume that by calibrating GRACE for isostatic rebound over Greenland you can now measure Antarctica. This is true if and only if the isostatic rebound for both locations is identical. You have not presented any evidence that this is so. And before you fire back that I haven’t presented any evidence that is isn’t so, let me point out that as the party making the affirmative case, the burden of proof falls on you.

Yes, and you were not the first to point that out to him, a Moderator and tty had each attempted to explain the matter to beckleybud before your attempt.
I remind that I then advised tty

I write to offer a warning.
You have stated the facts of GRACE calibration. Those facts are clear and indisputable. beckleybud@gmail.com has denied the facts.
On the basis of his previous behaviour in other threads it can now be expected that beckleybud@gmail.com will pretend to be an idiot as a method to assert the facts are other than they are. And he/she/they/it will persist in that pretense.
I strongly commend that you – and all others – ignore any further response concerning GRACE calibration from beckleybud@gmail.com.

and

His {i.e. beckleybud@gmail.com} behaviour in other threads demonstrates his stupidity is clearly pretended: it is a ploy he uses to destroy threads. And whatever you do, don’t address has daft accusation of an ad hom. because that will result in his dragging you down Alice’s rabbit hole.

Subsequent events – including the attempts by dbstealey to obtain rationality from beckleybud@gmail.com – have shown my warning to be prescient.
I write to repeat the warning because any response to beckleybud@gmail.com provides him/her/them/it with additional opportunity to disrupt the thread by use of his/her.their/its pretended stupidity.
Richard

beckleybud@gmail.com

@Courtney
..
It is admirable for you to stand up for your sidekick Mr Dbstealey, but unfortunately in this case, his claims have been falsified. I know it is difficult for you to see one of your cherished positions decimated, but as you can tell from Mr Dbstealey, he cannot respond to defend the claim. If you wish to take up discussion of the relationship between T and CO2 in the past 18 years, give it your best shot.

@Becklybud You’re analogy only works if both driveways are fixed (no variations over time) and they both share the same characteristics (both flat, or both same type of surface curvature, both same bedding, etc).
I think that’s what people are trying to point out to you.

tty says of Buddybeckley:
He either is, or pretends to be an idiot.
He’s not pretending. buddy cannot even understand a simple series of charts. He has been confused so often that it’s clear he is incapable of understanding.
buddyb cannot face the fact that Planet Earth herself is busy debunking the alarmist cult’s pseudo-science. He reacts by falling back on his cognitive dissonance, refusing to face the reality that CAGW has been so thoroughly debunked that only trolls still try to push it.
All other commenters have tried to educate buddy, with no success at all. He has only a high school education, and he is incapapble of understanding simple charts. He can’t grasp the concept of cause and effect. He believes that global T has been completely flat and unchanging by even a hundreth of a degree for the past 18 years. Many commenters have tried sincerely to help buddy, but he is not capable of being educated. I have helpfully suggested that he read the archives, keyword: CO2, so he can try to get up to speed.
Nothing works. He simply trots back to his alarmist blogs for talking points to use in trolling the thread in the hope of sowing confusion. Clearly that doesn’t work. Readers can see that buddy just doesn’t have the mental horsepower to understand simple causation, so he certainly cannot understand that his world view has been falsified: CO2 does not cause measurable warming; CO2 is the result of warming.
If buddy could understand that one point, everything would fall into place for him. The scales would fall from his eyes, and he would see reality. Alas, buddy does not seem capable of basic understanding. Not everyone is up to the high standards of the commentary here. Buddy makes that obvious. Because he can’t understand, he trolls the thread. Really, he should read the archives, and at least make the effort to understand what’s happening.

richardscourtney

dbstealey
Sorry, but we now have a consistent pattern of behaviour by beckleybud on three threads.
It is clearly the case that beckleybud is pretending to be stupid as a ploy to disrupt threads.
Since you still doubt this I ask you to consider the troll’s response to my above post addressed to D.J. Hawkins. The troll made a reply that has no relation of any kind to the content of my post. If the troll were as intellectually challenged as it pretends to be then it would have not tried to change the subject as a method for continuing disruption.
Richard

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey
..
You have a choice.

1) Post a chart that shows the ∆T of the past 18 years that caused the 36 ppm rise in CO2 or…
.
2) Admit that something other than ∆T has caused the 36 ppm rise in CO2 these past 18 years.
..
Your choice.

tty

“Warm layer water will not be ‘below’ colder water above it”
It is actually possible if the warmer water is much more saline than the surface water. But then of course salt water will erode ice faster than fresh water irrespective of temperature. Ice-shelves are always slowly melting from the bottom even though the sea-water in Antarctica is usually well below zero. In a dead flat calm (very unusual in itself in Antarctica) I have actually seen snow fall on the sea-surface and not melting for several minutes.

perhaps this tidbit from the yahoo news feed is a bit off topic, I couldn’t help wanting some feed back from all you guys here… check this out: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/06/arctic_sea_ice_melt_truth_and_inevitable_denial.html I hope this link works, George

Letelemarker

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/10/06/arctic_sea_ice_melt_truth_and_inevitable_denial.html
I saw this earlier, the guy that wrote it is an astronomer..and he only talks what has happened in the last 10-30 years, I’m no climate scientist, but i doubt that the short time scale he basis his article on has any relevance at all to any long term climate patterns or trends.
The whole article seems a bit wishy washy and there is a lot of personal opinion in there, which is never a good thing.

TRM

The link works. The satellite era of sea ice measurements are as accurate as we can get. They started doing them in the late 70s. That was the when the cold phase of the PDO was wrapping up and the oceans started warming. The PDO cold phase has a lag time between when the PDO changes and when the temperatures do of about 10 years. That is just my SWAG. If you want some in depth knowledge of the PDO / ENSO I’d highly recommend Bob Tisdale’s electronic book “Who Turned on the Heat”. Best $5 I’ve spent in a long time. Very educational about the basics. The PDO and AMO have a huge impact on the sea ice.
In a nutshell the entire satellite record for ice has been during the warm phase of the oceans. The average is the average for the warm phase not the complete cycle.
It will be interesting to look back in 20-25 years and see what a full cycle looks like. Dr Easterbrook called the PDO swing in 2001 so sometime around 2011 I was expecting to see the oceans start to cool. It isn’t exact but then again nothing in climate is. How the PDO & AMO and other ocean events are related is still a great area of study.
Hope that helps.

My query is in reference to the statement in the head or title of the post, how data is used to lie……

Kenneth Simmons

I read the article with a chuckle. Perhaps man’s blip-of-time on Earth causes him to consider 40-100 years a long time to use as a start point for their panicked climate reports, when in actuality the time is invisible on a time line (even peering through the Hubble Telescope from 5 feet away). True climate history is not measured in decades:
http://swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/press/77-a-warmer-arctic-ocean-during-ice-age-times

Kenneth Simmons

The temperature is higher in September than in August-so what! I could start a headline that reads temperatures were cooler in August than in September. I’d say again -so what! Nothing is constant, including air/sea temperatures. The real surprise is people trying to put normal or permanent status to climate. People who want a place where the atmospheric characteristics are nearly constant are living on the wrong ball-try the moon!

Chris

“Already salt water is moving upstream in the Mekong.”
*If* salt water is moving upstream in the Mekong River, it sure isn’t because of a few mm sea level rise.”
It’s not an if, it’s happening now. I don’t doubt that damming is part of it, but clearly drought is as well. I agree that the impact of sea level rise is probably minor at this point relative to that due to drought and damming.
http://en.vietnamplus.vn/Home/Mekong-Delta-stems-drought-saltwater-intrusion-impacts/20143/47836.vnplus
http://uqinvietnam.com/2014/04/25/floods-drought-salinity-and-rising-sea-levels-threaten-the-mekong-delta/

DavidR

Good to see Anthony has corrected the typo in the first sentence to this post.
Alas, the current first sentence is also incorrect. It’s odd, because Anthony even mentions in his article that the August UAH temperature was revised from +0.19 to +0.20 C; yet the first sentence still says the August global temperature was 0.19C. Puzzling.
To add to the confusion, it appears that the UAH September data has also already been revised, as the officially published record shows +0.30 for September, not 0.29C. So the (current) correct intro for this post should really be:
“August global temperature was 0.20C, September is 0.30C

Richard Barraclough

Furthermore, the dataset created by Dr. Spencer, and published at
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
differs from the summary of 2013 and 2014 anomalies at his own blog at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/
Several months have a difference of one or two hundredths of a degree. You’d think it would be a simple job to tell us which version he considers to be correct (if either)

Terry - somerset

Why is it that both sceptics and converted cannot actually accept that the science is far from settled, and that what is not known may be greater than that which is established. We only need look at the new “science” reported on this site to appreciate the probable inadequacy of current knowledge, and our inability to explain convincingly large scale climate changes pre-history.
The lack of warming for 18 years certainly moves the odds towards the sceptic camp, but may only be a function of our lack of knowledge. There is a huge depth of knowledge demonstrated by some posters, sadly offset by simplistic, trite and sometimes unpleasant posting from many.

sabretruthtiger

Well if that’s the case then the alarmists cannot claim certainty and the need for destroying economies and pushing austerity. Let’s face facts, it has nothing to do with man made global warming and everything to do with economic control, destroying economies as part of their divide and conquer ‘order out of chaos’ world government strategy and a sinister population reduction agenda.
Ebola has been released right on cue as well as a virus that’s killing children in Canada.
Regarding CO2 the data all shows a much lower climate sensitivity than the GCMs. There’s time to phase in alternative energies even if temperatures continue to climb and there’s no guarantee that that will happen, in fact we may be at the peak of a Holocene Climactic optimum ready to descend into an ice age according to some.

Is it just me….
I seem to remember that back in the 90’s we were told how hot it was then, and how the past was blue, but the ‘present’ (of the ’90s) was firey hot (and very very red…). Then the 1998 ‘blip’ up and we were all gonna roast (and the drop after was welcomed, but still red … i.e. above the normal line.
Now I look at that top anomaly graph and, golly, the 90’s have gone all blue! The 1998 spike is still red, but the relaxation after it is now blue too! OMG, the ’90s are rapidly cooling! Much more of this, it will have been snowing in the ’90s and starting a new ice age glacial….
I sure hope I had a good coat on back in the ’80s and ’90s, ’cause it’s getting darned cold now, then.
only 1/2 /sarc; and the other 1/2 pity …. I’m so tired of the past changing….

Nick Stokes

“Now I look at that top anomaly graph and, golly, the 90’s have gone all blue! “
If you look at the bottom, it says:
“All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) “
The ’90’s are cool relative to that base, which they weren’t using back then.

LordCaledus

I love WUWT’s articles, but these things that measure global temps…I have no ****s to give.
This is why.
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-strange-death-of-the-themometers
Why should we trust these readings at all, warm or cold, when they’ve been rapidly killing the very same thermometers used to measure the planet’s temperature, thereby giving us smaller and smaller pools of data to use?

LordCaledus

Add: I realize that a lot of the temp data is also coming from satellites, but still…if the death of thermometers is any indication of how things are going.

I suppose that it is not so easy to measure the temperature outside with an accuracy better than 0.1 °C. It is not enough to take a thermometer reading but you have to calibrate your thermometer. A weather station is rather complicated apparatus. The influence of land-use on the data has to be taken into account. On the other side, the measured temperatures between nearby weather stations are highly correlated. So I think there is no advantage to have many weather stations.

Mary Brown

I’m not convinced I can measure the temperature in my own yard within 2 deg F without going to a great deal of trouble.

I made following test. I have at home 5 digital thermometers with 0.1 °C resolution. I put them close together and compared its readings. They differed by 1 °C. I hope your thermometer is better.

Mark Luhman

Paul In what world is nearby weather station the measured temperatures are highly correlated. Were I grew up was on the prairie, twenty miles away the forest started from the bottom of the valley seventy miles away the weather would warm faster in the spring and cool slower in the fall the trees would be about two weeks different in leafing and leaf lose. Twenty miles east again at least a weeks difference. The biggest difference was the elevation changes and we are talking 300 feet between the bottom of the valley to my home town and then another 300 to 400 further east where the forest started. The climate for each were different and noticeable different. At any one time there can be a twenty to thirty degree temperature difference across all three sites for days on end without them getting in sync. What a thermometer would read at each site and how it would read between all three site will be significantly different those differences would also change with the seasons. Just like native prairie warms slower than farm land in the spring the difference would be frost leaving the field days to weeks before the native prairie.
I was going to comment on thermometer accuracy, but that one could write a book on and still not cover all the areas that error will creep in regardless how well calibrated the device is. Let alone having two device trying to measure the same thing and expecting them even in close to each other come even close to .1 C agreement across the entire 100 + degree variation most of us will live through in a year, it even worst where I grew up since -40 was no uncommon and +100 F was not uncommon all though they still see the -40 but there has not been much +100 F in the last 30 years. I left off the F on the -40 far a reason, since it is moot between C and F at that point.

Jeef

Is beckley bud somehow related to the common stoat, William Connelly? Same characteristics of low-grade troll.

Jeef,
Not only a troll, but he posts throughout the work day, all day long. I suppose as long as his EBT card is charged up, he can pay his electric bill and emit his strange version of reality here.
I doubt that buddybeckley is the same as the Stoat, who is very intelligent and evil. They’re both trolls, but Buddy is pretty deficient in the IQ department. He’s the only commenter who can’t understand charts.

Chris

DB Stealey, for someone who criticizes beckley bud so roundly, it’s surprising since you did not address one of his main points. You say 1) CO2 follows temperature, and 2) the temperature has not changed in the last 18 years. It doesn’t matter if T has moved up and down slightly during that time, the temperature at this point in time is the same as it was 18 years ago, and yet CO2 is 33 ppm higher now than it was then. How does a rising CO2 and no temperature change over 18 years explain your CO2 follows temperature claim?

richardscourtney

Chris
dbstealey linked to the previous thread where he had provided graphs which showed his point. If you intend to support the troll then you should at least get your facts right.
Richard

Because OHC has been increasing this century. But also higher SST is the origin of more atm. CO2., not the air temp . It is suspected that the rate of ocean circulation (overturning, etc.) has increased as well.

Chris

Richard,
I did look at his graphs. Most are over periods of 10s of thousands of years, so not relevant for an 18 year discussion. The only link he posted that goes through 2014 that I could find is this one: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
Tell me, how does that graph of CO2 at Mauna Loa vs RSS prove his point?

richardscourtney

Chris
You are posting anonymously in support of a troll and you write of dbstealey saying in total

Richard,
I did look at his graphs. Most are over periods of 10s of thousands of years, so not relevant for an 18 year discussion. The only link he posted that goes through 2014 that I could find is this one: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
Tell me, how does that graph of CO2 at Mauna Loa vs RSS prove his point?

Clearly, you did not look very hard. He provided that graph – as he said – as an example of overlays which do not inform of the lag.
The first of his series of graphs in that thread which show the lag over the last 18 years was here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/#comment-1754445
and his immediately following post in that thread linked to another chart.
There is above normal troll infestation of WUWT at present. Can you say if ‘troll central’ has initiated this?
Richard

beckleybud@gmail.com

@Courtney

The graph you posted is not comparison of T versus CO2. It compares “rate of change” versus “rate of change” which is an exact copy of the WFT graph comparing the noise versus the noise using the “isolate” function.

Chris says:
Tell me, how does that graph of CO2 at Mauna Loa vs RSS prove his point?
Chris, you don’t seem to be paying much attention. The only chart of Mauna Loa was posted by beckleybud. The chart I posted that included ML was only to provide an example of what an overlay is. That was the “point” of it.
By not paying attention, you probably didn’t notice that I have repeatedly demolished buddy’s absurd claim that temperature has not moved at all for 18 years.
In fact, it does matter that T has fluctuated, because those fluctuations were followed by CO2. Can you also not understand that?
Just because T is the same now as it was 18 years ago does not mean it hasn’t changed in the mean time. That is like saying it is daytime now, and we had daylight yesterday, so it could have never been dark in the mean time.
You really need to use a little thought before posting.
As for buddy’s fixation on the isolate function, that point has been asked and answered. It means nothing in the context of cause and effect. But since it’s all that beckleybuddy has, he keeps throwing it out there. It is irrelevant. Noise is irrelevant in cause and effect. What matters is what came first, and what followed. T came first; CO2 followed. Never the reverse. Case closed.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey

You posted: ” T is the same now as it was 18 years ago ”

Since you also claim that CO2 follows T, how come CO2 is not the same now as it was 18 years ago?

richardscourtney

Friends:
It is possible that some onlookers have been misled by a spurious point made by the troll in its continued attempt to destroy this thread. The troll wrote to dbstealey

Since you also claim that CO2 follows T, how come CO2 is not the same now as it was 18 years ago?

I write to provide an explanation for onlookers of the fallacy being asserted by the troll’s question.
The question confuses coherence with correlation.
Correlation and coherence can each and both provide information pertaining to causality.
Correlation is a mathematical relationship between two parameters. If the correlation is known over the length of the data sets, then their correlation indicates the magnitude of a change in one parameter that is expected when the other parameter changes by a known magnitude.
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct a causal relation between two parameters.
Coherence of two parameters indicates that when one parameter changes then the other parameter changes later.
Coherence can disprove that change of one parameter causes change in the other; i.e. if change in parameter A follows change in parameter B then the change of A cannot be the cause of the change of B (because a cause cannot occur after its effect).
So,
1.
absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relationship
and
2.
when there is a direct causal relationship then coherence indicates which of the two parameters is causal.
Furthermore, coherence in the absence of correlation is strongly suggestive that both parameters are affected by another parameter (or other parameters).
For example, leaves fall off trees soon after children return to school following their summer break.
The coherence is great; i.e. both effects occur each year.
But the effects do not correlate; i.e. the number of returning children is not indicative of the number of falling leaves.
In this example, the time of year is the additional parameter which causes children to return to school and the leaves to fall off trees.
So, if it is known that there is a causal relationship between two parameters then the coherence between the parameters indicates which is causal. In response to dbstealey pointing out the coherence, the troll is saying the equivalent of “Ignore the coherence and look over there”.b>
Richard

mebbe

Peter,
Judging by the maturity and sophistication of your comments, your eldest son will be 40 in about 45 years’ time.
Many of us are daddies and we all got the same medal you will get.

Mary Brown

The latest stats from our model has these estimates….
Wood For Trees Index = WTI = average of Hadcrut, GISS, UAH, RSS
Jan 2014 +0.24
Feb 2014 +0.07
May 2014 +0.30
Jun 2014 +0.27
Jul 2014 +0.23
Aug 2014 +0.24
Sept 2014 +0.27
Oct 7 2014 +0.24

Becklybud… no one here (that I can find) has said that increasing temps is the ONLY thing that can cause C02 to rise…and that’s where your argument seems to fall apart. So temp trend is flat, and C02 rose. So what? Your theory has already been disproven because temps did not follow C02.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@jimmaine

At no point have I made the claim that temps follow CO2.

His claim that CO2 follows T has been falsified by the past 18 years.

Mr Dbstealey needs to acknowledge that something else besides T has caused the 36 ppm rise. He seems unable to do that. It’s not that hard to do, and it is pretty evident what the cause is. But for the life of me, I don’t understand why he finds that to be so difficult to make the admission.

richardscourtney

jimmaine
Please, please, please don’t feed the troll.
Richard

beckleybud@gmail.com

Richard
.
Please, please, please, mind your own business

richardscourtney

beckleybud
I am always willing to an answer a request when I can so I will fulfill yours.
CLEAR OFF, TROLL.
YOU ARE WASTING SPACE ON THE THREAD WHICH COULD BE USED BY SOMEONE WITH SOMETHING INTERESTING AND/OR INFORMATIVE TO SAY.
Richard

How old are you, becklybud?

beckleybud says:
Mr Dbstealey needs to acknowledge that something else besides T has caused the 36 ppm rise. He seems unable to do that. It’s not that hard to do, and it is pretty evident what the cause is.
I don’t “need” to acknowledge anything. It is true that I’m unable to state definitively all of the causes of rising CO2. One major cause is the warming of oceans, which outgas CO2. There is no disagreement on that [except maybe from buddy].
Oceans cover more than 70% of the planet. Therefore, their contribution to atmospheric CO2 is enormous. But there are other causes, such as the annual ≈3% contribution from human emissions. This is a net benefit to the biosphere — but the conversation is not about that.
To say that I am “unable” to identify each source is nothing but bluster. buddy lives on bluster. It’s what he’s got. But I prefer to identify only those sources that I am certain cause rising CO2. Everything else is conjecture.
Again, the debate is not about CO2 sources. It is about cause and effect: which is the net cause, and which is the net effect: CO2 or T? Empirical evidence on all time frames confirms that ∆T causes ∆CO2.
But beckleybud constantly attempts to re-frame the debate to his liking [AKA: ‘moving the goal posts’]. That’s because he has lost the cause and effect argument.
buddybeckley appears to be ignorant of basic science. He is unable to understand what charts say. He constantly confuses an overlay chart with a chart showing cause and effect. That is the root of his misunderstanding.
So far I’ve posted a half dozen charts, covering time frames from years to hundred of thousands of years, all showing conclusively that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. I’ve repeatedly asked buddy if he can post even one chart showing the reverse: that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. But he has never posted such a chart; he has never even responded to that request.
Cause and effect go to the heart of the global warming debate. The alarmist crowd must produce verifiable measurements showing conclusively that rising CO2 is the cause of global warming. But they have never been able to produce any such evidence. Yet buddy asserts: it is pretty evident what the cause is. Really, buddy? Then tell us what it is.
The result of the complete absence of any measurements quantifying the claimed effect of human emissions is that, at this late stage of the debate, trolling by people like beckleybud appears. It is the last stand of the scientific illiterates.
Science is nothing without measurement; every significant physical process can be measured. Since the “carbon” scaremeisters cannot produce any evidence to support their false alarm, they produce whatever they can. beckleybud is their product.
It’s all they’ve got left.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey
..
” but the conversation is not about that.”

Yes it is

No, you are still attempting to re-frame the argument. That is because you will not face the fact that ∆T causes ∆CO2.
If you acknowledged that fact, your entire catastrophic AGW belief would collapse.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey

The past 18 years is proof that you claim that ∆T causes ∆CO2 DOES NOT APPLY TODAY

I will repeat what I have steadfastly maintained.
..
Something other than ∆T has caused the rise of CO2 in the past 18 years.

JohnB

“So far I’ve posted a half dozen charts, covering time frames from years to hundred of thousands of years, showing conclusively that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. I’ve repeatedly asked buddy if he can post even one chart showing the reverse: that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. But he has never posted such a chart; he has never even responded to that request.”
I believe that is called “the fallacy of the excluded middle”, or something like that.
beckleybud is not claiming “that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature”, merely that you have not shown that “changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature”, and he uses the case of the last 18 years to illustrate that it is not, at least not always, the case that “changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature”.

JohnB,
Welcome aboard. Since you are interpreting what buddy is trying to claim, maybe you would be so good as to answer this question, which buddy cannot answer:
Can you produce a chart [like the numerous charts I’ve posted], showing that changes in temperature are caused by changes in CO2?
Thanx for playing, and I’ll wait here for your answer.

John B says:
I believe that is called “the fallacy of the excluded middle”, or something like that.
John, buddybeckley is employing the fallacy of the excluded middle, when he asserrts that since temperatures now are the same as temperatures were 18 years ago, then claiming that in the mean time [the ‘excluded middle’], temperatures could not have changed. That’s nuts.
[I know that’s not really the fallacy of the excluded middle, but it goes to the heart of buddy’s absurd argument.] And buddy falsely claims that during the past 18 years, CO2 has not followed temperature.
That is flatly contradicted by real world measurements. Really, you are both asserting facts not in evidence. The charts I posted show conclusively that ∆CO2 follows ∆temperature. CO2 follows T like a dog on a leash, but for some strange reason neither of you will admit what everyone can clearly see.
Furthermore, you apparently cannot produce any evidence showing the reverse causation: that changing CO2 levels are the cause of changing temkperature.
This is the real world, folks. You can deny what is right before your eyes. People do that all the time. But it doesn’t win you this argument. Your position on this is nonsense, and you have picked the wrong battle. You will die on this hill if you persist, because the evidence contradicts you.
Then we have buddyb’s next load:
The past 18 years is proof that you claim that ∆T causes ∆CO2 DOES NOT APPLY TODAY
buddy needs to take his nap. He’s getting cranky. ^That^ is simply a baseless assertion. So now we have a claim that for some unspecified reason, reality has been altered, and the forcings and feedbacks changed at a point 18 years ago… I’m all for “proof”, so let’s see it, buddy.
And:
Something other than ∆T has caused the rise of CO2 in the past 18 years.
“Something”, eh? And what might that mysterious “something” be?
Make sure any answer is measured and quantified. There has been far too much baseless speculation from the alarmist side. Mere assertions like that mean nothing.
Post verifiable measurements, please. Show us how everything changed 18 years ago.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey
..
” CO2 follows T like a dog on a leash ”

Please post a chart of T versus CO2 for the past 18 years Not “rate of change” and not “isolate” a simple T versus CO2 chart for the past 18 years that shows the change in T that caused the 36 ppm change in CO2.

Becklybud what you fail to understand is that CO2 is playing catch-up. In a few hundred years CO2 rise will level off, that is, if the present cooling trend continues. Or, if the cooling trend intensifies, CO2 could catch up sooner. But first, OHC will have to go down. It’s that darned hidden heat, you see.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@mpainter.

Are you saying the heat is hiding in the oceans?
..
You do realize a lot of people are looking for it

Jim Ryan

dbstealey, Buddy is pretending that he believes the following proposition:
P: If A-type events cause B-type events, then every B-type event is immediately preceded by an A-type event.
If someone claims that falling from 1,000 causes death, a troll will retort that he knows someone who died without falling from 1,000 ft and pretend that he takes this to be a reasonable objection to the claim. Now others are faced with the task of ferreting out P which underlies the troll’s argument. Of course, in the case of the last CO2 rise, it could have been caused by something other than a rise in temperature. Or it could have been caused by the rise in temperature that ceased about eighteen years ago. But buddy knows that.
Trolls include more than the name-calling, mudslinging variety. There is also the willfully obtuse troll. These trolls like to feign obtuseness in order to annoy others. They try to lure others into the pointless and laborious task of ferreting out their mistaken assumptions. It’s a pointless task because the trolls don’t really honestly make these assumptions but merely pretend to do so. The thread being ruined, they achieve their goal.

Jim Ryan,
The term “willfully obtuse troll” defines buddy exactly.
Buddyb says:
Please post a chart of T versus CO2 for the past 18…&blah, blah, etc.
I’ve posted those charts repeatedly. Quit pestering me. If you can’t understand, just give it up. Go practice TicTacToe or something.

beckleybud@gmail.com

buddybeckley says:
From that chart, you can see how CO2 follows T
That is flat wrong.
beckleybud simply does not have the mental acuity to understand the difference between an overlay chart and a chart showing cause and effect. He keeps confusing the two. His comment above proves that beyond doubt.
The chart above posted by buddy is exactly the same chart that I used upthread to demonstrate an overlay chart. CO2 was simply overlaid on top of temperature. buddy cannot understand this, but just about everyone else can. When you take two different charts and combine them into one, it does not show which is the cause, and which is the effect.
Contrast my overlay chart example [the one buddy copied above] with this chart, or with this chart, or this chart [I have plenty more; just ask].
Those charts all show clearly that the temperature changes occurred first, and the subsequent CO2 changes followed. There is ample evidence across all time frames, showing the same cause and effect between temperature and CO2: first temperature rises or falls, then CO2 follows. Never vice-versa.
Despite my constant requests, buddy cannot produce any charts showing the reverse causality. So any rational reader would conclude that changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2.
The entire CO2=CAGW narrative has been built on the foundation premise that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. I am willing to accept that, PROVIDED that buddy, or someone, posts verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that rising CO2 is the cause of global warming.
But so far, no one has ever posted any such evidence. They make constant assertions that human emissions cause global warming. But as Willis says, ‘Where are the bodies?’ IOW: where is the scientific evidence? Where are the measurements??
There are none. There never were any. The whole man-made global warming conjecture is based on measurement-free assertions. And because there are no measurements, at this point it looks like they have made up the whole scare.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey

1) The chart I posted disproves causation.
.
2) Your first chart uses the “isolate” function.
I suggest you review the WFT page that describes what it does
http://www.woodfortrees.org/help
Pay close attention to the words, ” subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise’ ”
..
3) The second chart you posted does not show CO2 at 400 ppm, in fact, if it did, the line would be several inches above the top of your computer screen. (Not to mention that it does not have enough resolution to show the past 18 years)
..
4) The third chart does not compare T to CO2. It is comparing the “Rate of change” to the “Rate of change”. It suffers from the same problem the WFT graph, namely it’s graphing de-trended data.
..
5) Keep posting your charts. I want to see your chart that graphs T versus CO2 for the past 18 years.
..
6) You should stop deflecting, I am not, and have not asserted that T follows CO2. All I have done is shown that your claim of “CO2 follows T” does not apply to the past 18 years.
..
7) You post: “So any rational reader would conclude that changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2”

A rational reader would conclude that in the past 18 years, CO2 has not followed T and that something else has caused the 36 ppm of CO2 rise.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@Jim Ryan

No, it’s more like this…..

1) falling from 1,000 causes death
2) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/skydiver-survives-14000-foot-fall-3699030
3) Therefore item #1 is not always true

Don


Paul Berberich
October 8, 2014 at 10:41 am
I made following test. I have at home 5 digital thermometers with 0.1 °C resolution. I put them close together and compared its readings. They differed by 1 °C. I hope your thermometer is better.”
Well you know what to do, use the warmest temp thermometer as the only reliable one, the rest throw out. Easy science. LOL

DavidR

Doesn’t matter which ones he chucks, as long as he picks one instrument and sticks to it. It will still provide him with a record of temperature ‘change’ over time whether or not the instrument is precisely calibrated to actual temperature.

buddybeckley,
You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. Every single point you posted is flat wrong. You say:
The chart I posted disproves causation.
That is the same chart that you copied from me, which I first posted to demonstrate a chart that does not show causation! George Orwell would have a field day with you: Black is White, Ignorance is Strength, etc. First, you claimed to show causation, then you claimed the chart does not show causation. You are simply trolling; moving the goal posts to obfuscate a simple situation.
Next you misdirect by saying:
Your first chart uses the “isolate” function.
Which I keep telling you, does not have anything to do with causation. The isolate function addresses nboise, not causation. But you just can’t get that fact to sink in. Can you? Either that, or you are one despicable troll.
Next, you say:
The second chart you posted does not show CO2 at 400 ppm…
There’s buddy again, digging, digging…
But, SO WHAT?! CO2 amplitude has nothing to do with causation.
It says right in the chart: Note: TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2 CHANGE And that was the point… which clearly flew right over your head.
Then you say:
The third chart does not compare T to CO2….
Once again: the point of the chart was to show causation, not to compare amplitude! Are you really that dense? Or are you being a despicable troll? And ‘de-trending has nothing to do with any of this.
And this nonsense:
I want to see your chart that graphs T versus CO2 for the past 18 years.
I have posted charts covering the past 18 years numerous times here. Look upthread, you will find them. Quit deflecting. The charts are there. Stop your incessant trolling.
More evidence of your mendacity:
I am not, and have not assert (sic) that T follows CO2. All I have done is shown that your claim of “CO2 follows T” does not apply to the past 18 years.
Wrong, as always. Are you blind, in addition to being a troll? You asserted that CO2 does not follow T, so stop misrepresenting my comments. Your continued false assertion that “CO2 follows T does not apply” is directly contradicted by the extensive empirical evidence I and others have posted. Either you’re ignorant, or you are a lying troll. I don’t see a third possibility. Does anyone?
A rational reader would conclude that in the past 18 years, CO2 has not followed T…
After posting numerous charts of empirical observations showing beyond any reasonable doubt that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, why should anyone not conclude that you are either a completely dishonest troll, or that you are incredibly dense? Maybe both… probably both.
One thing is certain: you are digging a hole that is so deep it is impossible for you to climb out of now. So I suppose you think your only recourse is to keep digging, even if it means deflecting, lying, misrepresenting, and in general, trolling the thread.
Better start learning Chinese. That hole you’re digging is getting real deep…

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey
..
This chart: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

Shows clearly that CO2 is independent of T, or that T does not cause CO2. It shows that the behavior of CO2 is independent of T.
The “isolate” function in WFT that your chart strips out the trend, and leaves “noise” That’s is what the WFT help page says. Comparing noise to noise does not show causation. All you chart shows is that you do not understanding what the “isolate” function does.
..
Comparing the “rate of change” to a “rate of change” on your
..
You post: “Digging, digging… SO WHAT?!” I will tell you “what”………you need to post a chart that shows T versus CO2 for the past 18 years You know what that chart does not show? It does not show the change in T that produced the 400 ppm reading of CO2.
“to compare amplitude! Did you know that the first derivative (rate of change) destroys the amplitude?
…no?….you would know that if you ever took a course in Calculus.
..
” ‘de-trending has nothing to do with any of this.” …..no, trends have EVERYTHING to do with this.

“Wrong, as always” ….. I challenge you to post a link to my claim that T follows CO2. That’s not the issue I brought up, it’s a deflection you have made. I have simply shown that your “CO2 follows T” does not apply to the past 18 years.
When someone asserts that CO2 does not follow T, that does not mean that T follows CO2. You tried to make a joke about the “excluded middle” and this is a perfect example where you’ve committed the fallacy.
..
Empirical evidence shows that in the past 18 years CO2 has not followed T. CO2 has risen 36 ppm in the past 18 years, and “global warming has stopped” (as you have said). Obviously, something other than T has caused CO2 to rise in the past 18 years.

BuddyB,
This chart shows… &etc.
*sigh* It is an overlay of two different charts. But you still cannot understand that concept — or you are being a despicable troll. There is no cause and effect relationship in that chart. None.
I don’t recall ever interacting with anyone so dense and/or mendacious in my life. And I’m 66. Buddy, you sound like an immature kid. How old are you, anyway? Even a juvenile could understand the diference between a chart showing cause and effect, and an overlay chart overlaying two different measurements, one on top of the other. But you either cannot grasp the concept, or you are being disingenuous. Maybe both. Probably both.
buddiboi, you are wrong, as always. You say:
…no, trends have EVERYTHING to do with this.
That is still another false assertion. It is flat wrong. My condolences if you are the imbecile you seem to be. But this debate is about causation. How many times have you been told that? Only an imbecile would fail to understand — or a troll would pretend to not understand.
The entire climate alarmist argument is that the rise in CO2 causes global warming. ‘Causation’, see?
No, you don’t see. Or you are deliberately misrepresenting everything, in the hope of prevailing in an argument that you cannot possibly win. That’s how losers act. That’s how trolls act. The whole discussion from the beginning was about causation. Not amplitude. Not trends. Cause and effect is the debate. And you lost the debate. Planet Earth is debunking your beliefs.
This chart is the same kind of chart that you copied from my post. It is also an overlay chart.
Listen up: neither chart shows cause and effect. They are both overlays. But the other charts I posted do show cause and effect: they show that temperature precedes CO2. ALL of them show that. NONE of them show that CO2 causes T. Only a simpleton cannot understand that concept. Or a troll will continue to argue incessantly.
Next, I see you’re still fixated on the completely irrelevant “isolate” function. It has zilch to do with the debate, but for some reason you seem to think it matters. It doesn’t. You are either deliberately trying to muddy the waters, which doesn’t work with me, or you are a troll. Maybe both. Probably both.
Next, you say “I challenge you to post a link to my claim that T follows CO2. ”
Puppies don’t get to challenge the big dogs, troll. If you ever respond to any of the many challenges I’ve made to you upthread, then I will consider entertaining yours. But I note for the record that you have never posted any evidence showing that temperature follows CO2. None. You have no such evidence. All your evidence-free claptrap leaves out the one essential element: measurements.
Without verifiable, testable measurements — like the ones I have posted repeatedly, proving that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — you are just talking through your hat. You’re good at that. But you suck at basic science and logical thinking.
You sound like a mentally disturbed individual, constantly demanding the same evidence that I have posted repeatedly. Your last sentence is just more of the same nonsense: baseless assertions, which you cannot support. You have zero empirical evidence to support your wacko beliefs. And despite my numerous requests, you have never produced even one measurement to support your alarmist nonsense.
If there was ever a poster boy for Cognitive Dissonance, it is you. Leon Festinger would have a field day with you. The flying saucer will be here any day now, buddyboi. Get ready. They reserved a seat for you. It’s in the Troll section.

richardscourtney

Friends
The troll is deliberately confusing correlation with coherence as a method to ‘rope’ dbstealey.
For any who fail to understand this, I provided an explanation of it in this thread here but it may not have been seen as a result of the threaded form WUWT now uses.
Richard

richardscourtney

dbstealey
You say to the troll

No, you don’t see. You are deliberately misrepresenting everything, in the hope of prevailing in an argument that you cannot possibly win. That’s how losers act. The whole discussion from the beginning was about causation. Not amplitude. Not trends. Cause and effect is the debate. And you lost the debate. Planet Earth is debunking your beliefs.

Sorry, but that displays complete misunderstanding.
The troll is NOT attempting to win an argument. The troll is – with much success – attempting to destroy rational debate by deflecting the thread from its subject. And that is why the troll is “deliberately misrepresenting everything”.
Whether or not the troll won or lost the “debate” is not relevant; at least it is not relevant for the troll. Destroying the thread is the troll’s intention and the troll is clearly winning at that.
As Jim Ryan wrote above

Trolls include more than the name-calling, mudslinging variety. There is also the willfully obtuse troll. These trolls like to feign obtuseness in order to annoy others. They try to lure others into the pointless and laborious task of ferreting out their mistaken assumptions. It’s a pointless task because the trolls don’t really honestly make these assumptions but merely pretend to do so. The thread being ruined, they achieve their goal.

I remind that you agreed buckleybud is a “willfully obtuse troll”. He/she./they/it is winning.
Richard

beckleybud@gmail.com

CO2 has not followed T in the past 18 years.

Facts are your biggest problem.

Buddy wouldn’t know a scientific ‘fact’ if it bit him on his a-a-a… nkle.
I’ve asked that cognitive dissonance-afflicted puppy a half dozen times now to give us just one (1) fact:
Post a measurement showing the quantity of global warming attributable to human emissions.
But the child can’t do it. He is getting mauled in this debate because he can’t even understand a simple chart. His response is to troll the thread with his anti-science. That’s why he’s losing the debate.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@Courtney
..
I am successful in debating dbstealey because the fact that CO2 has not followed T in the past 18 years cannot be disputed.

richardscourtney

beckleybud@gmail.com
Stop trolling. You are being a pest.
And you are being plain daft when you write

I am successful in debating dbstealey because the fact that CO2 has not followed T in the past 18 years cannot be disputed.

You have lost that debate repeatedly but – like the ’round bottomed man’ on the floor of a birdcage – each time you are knocked down you bob back up to be knocked over again.
But that is your intention; i.e. to destroy the thread by use of interminable and repetitive nonsense. And you are having success with that trolling.
You have repeatedly been shown that CO2 follows temperature. It always has and it always will at all time scales.
The shortest time scale was first reported in 1990 by Cynthia Kuo, Craig Lindberg & David J. Thomson who published their paper titled ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’ in Nature 343, 709 – 714 (22 February 1990).
Several others have found the same since.
For your information I provide an outline of the carbon cycle as we assessed it in one of our 2005 papers.
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Mechanisms of the carbon cycle
The IPCC reports provide simplified descriptions of the carbon cycle. We considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be:
Short-term processes
1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).
2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.
3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.
4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.
5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.
Longer-term process
6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).
7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.
8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.
Natural processes that add CO2 to the system:
9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).
10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.
Anthropogenic processes that add CO2 to the system:
11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).
12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).
Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.
At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.
The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.
The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.
Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.
Modeling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations. However, some things can be stated from the empirical data.
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.
The above qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2. However, the system could be quite sensitive to temperature. So, our paper considered how the carbon cycle would be disturbed if – for some reason – the temperature of the atmosphere were to rise, as it almost certainly did between 1880 and 1940 (there was an estimated average rise of 0.5 °C in average surface temperature).
It is that temperature effect I have been reporting in this thread.
Richard

beckleybud@gmail.com

@Courtney
..
No, I haven’t lost the debate.
You post: ” it always will at all time scales.”
But it has not followed it in the past 18 years.
CO2 does not follow T in all cases as evidenced by empirical data from the last 18 years.

Deal with that fact. The past 18 years proves it true.
Just tell your wingman dbstealey to admit that CO2 does not follow T in all cases and this discussion will be terminated.

BuddyB:
Pff-f-f-f-f-ft.
Go away. You’re just a troll.
You know where you can stick your ‘choice’.

beckleybud
2014/10/09 at 5:23 am | In reply to dbstealey.
@Courtney
..
I am successful in debating dbstealey because the fact that CO2 has not followed T in the past 18 years cannot be disputed.

No, you are (deliberately) confusing as many issues as possible by repeatedly “arguing” a statement that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: Worse, you seem to feel that statement proves something. But it is meaningless. It proves nothing, and establishes no “truth” that matters.
So, let us back up a bit. The CAGW religion holds the following string of arguments as their Bible and Chapter and Verse. Their religious compass, so to speak.
Man is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
The CO2 that man is releasing is heating the atmosphere.
If man continues to release CO2 – the atmosphere will catastrophically heat up …
… and many bad things will happen.
DBStealey and Courtney have presented several times compelling and accurate proofs that show NOT ONE of those strings, those much-feared results will occur even IF the assumed precedent occurs.
– CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, and no atmospheric heating resulted.
– Man’s contribution to today’s CO2 levels are only 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The remaining 97% is natural origin. And today’s atmospheric CO2 is going back into natural sinks faster than before.
– Co2 has gone up before (to levels higher than today’s levels) and has gone down before – to levels almost fatal to life!
– Across all known times, global average temperature proxies have gone UP about 800-900 years BEFORE CO2 rose. Thus, an increase in CO2 can be proven – on a global level – to cause NO change in global average temperatures.
Over much shorter periods of time (800-1000 years), global average temperatures has risen and fallen significantly while CO2 levels remained steady. Again, on a global scale over a known periods of time, a rise in temperature CANNOT be blamed on a change in CO2.
– On smaller time scales (20 – 30 years), CO2 has been constant.
Temperatures rose over a short a period of time.
Temperatures were steady.
Temperatures fell over a short period of time.
Recently, CO2 levels have risen about 20%
Temperatures rose over a short a period of time.
Temperatures were steady.
Temperatures fell over a short period of time.
Continuing this pattern, CO2 rose significantly during the 18 years between 1996 and 2014.
Global average measured temperatures remained steady.
Thus, the 23 year 1973 – 1996 slight increase in global average temperature CANNOT be blamed on ANY increase in CO2 caused by ANY mechanism.
Further, the 30 year 1945 – 1973 slight DECREASE in global average temperature CANNOT be blamed on the simultaneous increase in CO2 during that period!…
Now …
You are obsessed with your claim that “CO2 increased for 18 years while temperatures remained the same.”
So what? Ferdinand regularly summarizes considerable information that indicates some portion of today’s increase in CO2 levels are due to man’s production of CO2. If natural process released CO2 from the ocean over many past tens of thousands of years, those same natural processes will release CO2 from the ocean in the future tens of thousands of years. So what? A warming ocean is EXPECTED to release CO2 into the atmosphere!
If man is releasing additional CO2 today over a short 18, 36, 54, or 154 year period, that extra release of CO2 does not affect past levels of CO2 release. It changes TODAY’S levels of Co2. And, since global temperatures do NOT respond to any past changes in CO2 levels, and they do NOT respond to today’s change in CO2 levels, we don’t care about your numerous repeats about any 18 year period.
It is as relevant to global warming political policy and the continued funding of the CAGW in politics and the academic industrial political complex as the color of my granddaughters’ school restroom walls.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@ RACookPE1978
” It proves nothing, and establishes no “truth” that matters.”

Actually, you are wrong. It shows that something other than a change in T has cause the rise in CO2 in the past 18 years. It shows that the statement proffered by dbstealey that “CO2 follows T” is NOT true in all conditions.

Stiop deflecting and bringing up the CAGW argument, as it does not apply in this case

When Dbstealey admits that CO2 does not follow T in all cases, this discussion will end. The evidence for this is clear, and he needs to acknowledge reality.

buddybeckley:
The only ‘success’ you are having is in trolling this thread. You constantly deflect and misrepresent, never answering the one simple question I’ve constantly asked: post just one (1) simple measurement: a measurement showing the specific quantity of global warming caused by human activity. Either that, or an admission that you cannot produce that measurement.
That measurement, or the lack of it, is the central point around which the entire debate centers. So either produce it, or you lose the debate. Simple as that. Everything else is buddybluster.
In a scientific discussion like rthe rest of us are having, someone who has no facts is regarded as no more than a bystander who is interfering with the conversation. I’ve repeatedly shown you the difference between an overlay chart and one showing cause and effect; we know you either can’t, or you stubbornly refuse to understand the difference, despite the many examples posted to help you. Everyone else understands the difference. I think you are being basically dishonest when you pretend to not understand. A 5th grader could easily understand it.
Now, quit constantly changing the subject. Enough with all your misrepresenting, and with your constant attempts to re-frame the argument away from what you can’t answer, and with your deflecting, and enough of your constant blustering. Just post a simple measurement, showing causation — or admit it if you can’t. Either one would make you a stand-up guy.
Personally, I don’t think you’re a stand up guy. I don’t think you want to be. Prove me wrong.

RACook,
Thanks for that easy to understand explanation. Of course, it will fly right over buddy’s head.
You are right that buddybeckley is “obsessed”. That is the correct term. He’s picked a losing argument, but now he is fixated, and he cannot let go. He cannot admit that he is on the wrong track. He cannot man-up and do what a skeptic would do: simply say that since the facts have changed, his view has changed. Instead, he looks for the most outlandish ways to ‘explain’ his weird outlook.
The result: he comes across as a stubborn lunatic, and every new comment puts him deeper in his hole.
Thanks again for the clear explanation. No doubt every one except buddy will understand it.
As for when this debate will end: it will end when buddy admits that although global T is the same now as it was 18 years ago, in the mean time it has fluctuated constantly — and those fluctuations are consitently followed by CO2. Simple as that, and that is what all the evidence shows.
buddy could put an end to this, by simply admitting the obvious. But being a troll, he will not do that. I’ve got his number. I know him like the back of my hand. I know buddy better than he knows himself. And I know what he will do, and what he will not do.

richardscourtney

Friends
The troll has been fully answered repeatedly, but the troll has achieved its objective of destroying rational debate of the thread’s subject by deflecting the thread onto repeated refutations of the troll’s irrelevant nonsense.
The best policy now is to allow the troll to write whatever it wants and to ignore it.
Richard

@Obtuse Troll,
Of course you’re not a stand-up guy. I already knew that. Your first two sentences are your usual inane, pointless bluster. You’re good at bluster. Best I’ve ever seen. If I wanted to learn how to bluster, you would be the go-to guy.
Yes, global warming has stopped. It is the same now as it was 18 years ago. We agree on that. And that fact deconstructs your “carbon” scare. But you seem to believe in the preposterous notion that between 18 years ago and now, global temperatures have remained absolutely flat, with zero fluctuations of any kind. That’s crazy.
If you really believed that, I would say you are completely nuts. Insane. Certifiably.
But no, you are just doing your usual trolling. Anyone who looks at a simple chart like this can see at a glance that temperatures fluctuate non-stop above and below trend. The trend is zero, that’s all. It is flat; there is no global warming.
But it is obvious that T fluctuates constantly. And that single fact debunks your argument:
To “fluctuate” means to rise and fall. Each temperature rise and fall is followed by a subsequent rise and fall of CO2.
Thus, your idiotic claim is easily falsified. Even the most casual observer can see that.
Next, you keep pointing to “36 ppm”, as if it is relevant to this falsification of your True Belief system. It is not, because amplitude has nothing to do with it. You have been told this repeatedly, but you are far too stubborn to let it sink in. It could be 360 ppm, or 360,000 ppm, and it still would not matter. Because it has zero to do with the issue of cause and effect. It is just more of your misdirection, deflection and bluster.
As for your final delfection, there isn’t much in science that is always true 100.0% of the time. But conversely, it is never true that temperature consistently follows CO2 — while it is always true that CO2 consistently follows temperature.
Thus, you are wrong in every one of your arguments. Par for the course with you.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey.

Since ∆T is zero for the past 18 years (global warming has stopped)
..
What is the cause of the 36 ppm of CO2 rise in the past 18 years. (∆CO2 = 36 ppm?)

Please show us the ∆T of the past 18 years that has caused the rise in CO2
….
Additionally

Your “chart” uses the WFT “isolate” fuction. It is comparing noise to noise.
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/help —> “Isolate ……Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise’

buddyboi, as usual you didn’t answer anything, you just changed the subject.
Here’s another question that probably won’t be answered: How is it that you can post non-stop, throughout the work day, day after day? Most folks, unless they’re retired, are either working or looking for work. But not you. What’s Up With That?
I’ll add that to my measurement question, which buddy is still desperately avoiding.

Mark Bofill

I know I shouldn’t enjoy things that derail the discussion of the thread’s official topic.
That was entertaining though.
Thanks Richard, DB, and RACook. 🙂

Mark Bofill,
Isn’t the Obtuse Troll entertaining? He is so easy to deconstruct.
He still can’t understand that ‘noise’ has nothing to do with cause and effect. But he clings to that deflection like a drowning man clings to a stick.
Once again buddy is trying to re-frame the debate, because he lost this one.

beckleybud@gmail.com

@dbstealey.
..
Post a chart that shows the ∆T that caused the 36 ppm rise of CO2 in the past 18 years.
..
Here’s ∆CO2 for the past 18 years http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend

Show me the ∆T

Mark Bofill

The monomania exhibited is almost a little spooky. 🙂
Regards Stealey.

Mark Bofill,
The OT [obtuse troll] can’t get it thru his head that he is still trying to re-frame the argument into something he believes could be more in his favor.
It’s not, but at least it isn’t as damning as trying to post a non-existent measurement.
And yes, he is more than a little spooky — but it’s the right month for that, no? ☺

beckleybud@gmail.com

[Snip. ~mod.]

Hey, the Obtuse Troll is deflecting again! Changing the subject! Trying his hardest to avoid admitting that the debate is about cause and effect charts, not CO2 amplitude.
I predicted this. As I said upthread, I know buddy like the back of my hand. I know him better than he knows himself. I know what he will do, and he’s done it again. More misdirection! ☺

beckleybud@gmail.com

[Snip. Threadjacking. Take some time off. ~ mod]

beckleybud@gmail.com

[Snip. Threadjacking. Take some time off. ~ mod.]