Claim: CO2 effects felt on decadal time scales, rather than centuries

But, why if that is true, why are we in a pause, when there’s been an increase in CO2 the last decade and no correlation with temperature?


From the Institute of Physics:

CO2 warming effects felt just a decade after being emitted

It takes just 10 years for a single emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) to have its maximum warming effects on the Earth.

This is according to researchers at the Carnegie Institute for Science who have dispelled a common misconception that the main warming effects from a CO2 emission will not be felt for several decades.

The results, which have been published today, 3 December, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, also confirm that warming can persist for more than a century and suggest that the benefits from emission reductions will be felt by those who have worked to curb the emissions and not just future generations.

Some of these benefits would be the avoidance of extreme weather events, such as droughts, heatwaves and flooding, which are expected to increase concurrently with the change in temperature.

However, some of the bigger climate impacts from warming, such as sea-level rise, melting ice sheets and long-lasting damage to ecosystems, will have a much bigger time lag and may not occur for hundreds or thousands of years later, according to the researchers.

Lead author of the study Dr Katharine Ricke said: “Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration.

“A lot of climate scientists may have an intuition about how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of CO2, but that intuition might be a little bit out of sync with our best estimates from today’s climate and carbon cycle models.”

To calculate this timeframe, Dr Ricke, alongside Professor Ken Caldeira, combined results from two climate modelling projects.

The researchers combined information about the Earth’s carbon cycle–specifically how quickly the ocean and biosphere took up a large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere–with information about the Earth’s climate system taken from a group of climate models used in the latest IPCC assessment.

The results showed that the median time between a single CO2 emission and maximum warming was 10.1 years, and reaffirmed that most of the warming persists for more than a century.

The reason for this time lag is because the upper layers of the oceans take longer to heat up than the atmosphere. As the oceans take up more and more heat which causes the overall climate to warm up, the warming effects of CO2 emissions actually begin to diminish as CO2 is eventually removed from the atmosphere. It takes around 10 years for these two competing factors to cancel each other out and for warming to be at a maximum.

“Our results show that people alive today are very likely to benefit from emissions avoided today and that these will not accrue solely to impact future generations,” Dr Ricke continued.

“Our findings should dislodge previous misconceptions about this timeframe that have played a key part in the failure to reach policy consensus.”

From Tuesday 3 December, this paper can be downloaded from


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 3, 2014 9:05 am

One useless model was not enough, so we used two, and we get the answer we wanted.
It’s an honour to live during the new normal science and see it descend into farce

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  IanH
December 3, 2014 10:00 am

It’s models on top of models, all the way down into the abyss of of non-critical junk climate science.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 3, 2014 12:24 pm

In other words….”loopy science.”

Chuck L
December 3, 2014 9:06 am

In the real world this should confirm that CO2 is far from the main climate control knob but in the bizarro world of “climate science” this study shows that “it’s worse than we thought.” Stunning and appalling.

Reply to  Chuck L
December 3, 2014 2:40 pm

I love these kinds of studies! If surface temperature fails to rise in the next decade we can all look back and laugh. PS they got all bases covered though. Warm now or warm later they win.

December 3, 2014 9:12 am

Yes, It would seem two photons with identical frequency would have double the heating effect.

Reply to  Richard111
December 3, 2014 11:01 am

Hi Richard. I think this is what you meant,
The line by line, monochromatic subtraction of opposing radiation vectors integrated over the entire spectrum yields the net radiative flux in Watts per square metre. (The only radiative energy lost from the warmer surface).

Reply to  nuwurld
December 3, 2014 12:04 pm

Spot on nuworld, (I think). If I spoke those words to my neighbours I would get blank looks. 🙂

Reply to  nuwurld
December 3, 2014 2:32 pm

I think I would earn blank looks from mine as well :-).
The point is that a few hundred years of experiment has taught us that with radiation, although the complexities perplex, we know the rules of engagement. In order to describe, diffraction, refraction and interference we are required to view radiation as an electromagnetic wave. As such it is a vector quantity and equal but opposite therefore cancel upon addition. As such the notion of every surface emitting ‘photons’ of energy that can only be additive leads to inevitable misconceptions and evades reality.
A simple experiment to concentrate by optical convergence the ‘photons’ from a large emitter onto the focus at a small target at the same temperature yields the illusion. The re converged and supposedly concentrated packets of ‘energy’ we suppose are emitted and have concentrated, fail to heat the smaller target. The radiation equilibrium temperature represents the kinetic distribution of the emitter.

Mike Maguire
December 3, 2014 9:12 am

“Lead author of the study Dr Katharine Ricke said: “Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration.”
Amazing, isn’t it………until this research was done. Now we know that this exclusive and profound research was worth every penny of the funding.

December 3, 2014 9:24 am

“To calculate this timeframe, Dr Ricke, alongside Professor Ken Caldeira, combined results from two climate modelling projects.”

Mark Bofill
December 3, 2014 9:25 am

Well, this does need to get sorted out. For too long now people I argue with have used the ocean as a dodge. Oh, we’re warming just as predicted, only the energy is in the deep ocean. Really? If it is, and if that’s how it’s going to work going forward, why should I care about it? On the other hand, if you expect to see some surface warming, and lest we forget we live on the surface of the planet and not in the depths of the ocean and we care about surface temperatures and not hundreths of a degree 700 meters down, how much, when and why?
Clarify the claims, so I can either verify or refute them with observations. I’m all for that.

Al McEachran
Reply to  Mark Bofill
December 3, 2014 9:44 am

You are forgetting about the giant burp!!

Mark Bofill
Reply to  Mark Bofill
December 3, 2014 10:10 am

Hi Al,
By giant burp I take it you mean El Ninos. Well, that needs to get sorted out too. Otherwise mainstream science might as well be talking about giant burps for all the good it will do anybody except the progressive politicians and grant seekers.

December 3, 2014 9:26 am

Ahhh, so now we know why the pause in global warming has happened for the last 18 years – the greenhouse effect of CO2 reached its peak effect in 1996 and we have nothing to worry about from now on. Brilliant, I must say.

michael hart
December 3, 2014 9:26 am

“CO2 warming effects felt just a decade after being emitted.”
Unless it’s playing hide-and-seek in the oceans. Or perhaps the class of 2004 heat has found some new place to hide (along with the feedbacks).

Mario Lento
Reply to  michael hart
December 4, 2014 10:05 pm

Wait – it’s hiding in the magma…

Richard G
December 3, 2014 9:28 am

I saw the word “models” and I stopped reading.

December 3, 2014 9:32 am

Yes, the warming goes on exactly as scheduled and agreed upon at the last IPCC meeting. I can feel it in my models. And the computer gets hotter all the time, since I learned from Al Gore how to turn off the AC. Very gratifying.

Reply to  ConTrari
December 3, 2014 2:55 pm

“I can feel it my models.” Classic! That ole rheumatism is coming back and it’s going to rain. I can feel it in my knee.

December 3, 2014 9:32 am

Decadal time scales? How about monthly time scales, given the fact that GHG infrared can penetrate surfaces hardly at all and the slow, incremental yearly increases in CO2.

Reply to  beng
December 3, 2014 4:40 pm

“Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration.

So what has the IPCC done? Project it anyway.

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
TS.5.1 Understanding Near-Term Climate Change
…..Previous IPCC projections of future climate changes can now be compared to recent observations, increasing confidence in short-term projections and the underlying physical understanding of committed climate change over a few decades. Projections for 1990 to 2005 carried out for the FAR and the SAR suggested global mean temperature increases of about 0.3°C and 0.15°C per decade, respectively.[10] …..These results are comparable to observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, as shown in Figure TS.26, providing broad confidence in such short-term projections.
Global Mean Warming: Model Projections Compared with Observations
About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions were to fall within the range of the SRES marker scenarios….

It’s been a disaster.

December 3, 2014 9:33 am

Lead author of the study Dr Katharine Ricke said: “Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration.
The IPCC constructed various RCP scenarios for CO2 concentrations ranging from major cut backs over time to “let’s burn everything there is to burn” in order to forecast CO2 concentrations into the future for the specific purpose of using those scenarios to generate global temperature predictions/projections/forecasts into the future. There’s many threads making fun of those results because they got them so wrong!
The IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports both (IIRC) have chapters TITLED “Near Term Projections” or words to that effect. Did entire bodies of literature form the IPCC, not to mention many dozens of peer reviewed papers simply disappear in order to make Ricke’s statement true? Obviously not! Is Ricke a supposed climate scientist who just managed by some extraordinary set of coincidents to not know about this massive body of literature? Or did Ricke know about it an come up with some tortured definition of sensitivity and euilibrium response that is so narrow that her’s is the only paper that falls into that category? What?
Such an obviously “that’s not right, that’s not even wrong” statement ought to get ripped to shreds by anyone with even a passing familiarity with the literature, let alone her peers who have studied to death the very thing she says hasn’t been studied before. Not that I expect we’ll hear any squabble about it in the public, but holy mackeral, what a claim!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 3, 2014 10:11 am

Quoted statements in organizational press releases, unfortunately, are generally meant for consumption of those outside the field and a naive public. Just another Gruberism.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 3, 2014 10:26 am

I just love that graphic. 😉

Reply to  eyesonu
December 3, 2014 4:42 pm

Here is the graphic with confidence levels. Another disaster.

December 3, 2014 9:35 am

a bit of a tsunami of warmist news today – 2014 hottest EVAH in most of the UK MSM and then this from the Institute Of Physics – What is one to do when this is such a one-sided landslide of nonsense when the other side (correct, less wolf-crying) has little main stream voice?? One does one’s best through the comments but 1/2 the time they’re disabled and the other 1/2 the damage is done and the brain-dead proles have once again taken their CAGW methadone.

Nigel Harris
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
December 3, 2014 12:00 pm

Jan to Nov 2014 was the hottest such 11-month period in the Central England Temperature record (which goes back to 1650 or whatever) and December would have to be unusually cold to prevent 2014 being the hottest annual average temperature in the CET series.
So how is the media supposed to present this? Waiting until the December data is in might be a good idea, I agree. But otherwise, how is it crying wolf to point out the fact that England has had its hottest year since records began?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nigel Harris
December 3, 2014 5:22 pm

funny, I seem to recall record grain harvests this year in the UK, abundant rains, and no reports of deadly heat waves. Is regional warming as the UK is experiencing calamitous as the IPCC alarmists would have you believe?

Alan the Brit
December 3, 2014 9:41 am

So, they use information about the Carbon Cycle, which don’t fully understand, if at all, combine it with results rom UNIPCC models, which so far show no predictability or forecasting skills sets, & the answer is taken as gospel! As my dear late mother would say, “& the band played “Believe It If You Like”!

Nigel Harris
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 3, 2014 12:02 pm

What exactly are the scientists supposed to do? Only use information about things that are “fully understood”? If so, we wouldn’t have seen much progress!

Reply to  Nigel Harris
December 3, 2014 3:03 pm

How about not making proclamations presenting as “fully understood” things that clearly aren’t. Quit getting so far out in front of what their data actually says. Quit torturing data until it confesses what is desired. Quit ignoring your own data and observations that don’t comport with your models. Be true scientists and express your doubt.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Nigel Harris
December 4, 2014 10:09 pm

Would you call the IPCC work Progress?
They understand what they are doing. It’s very specific and fools many. Do you?

December 3, 2014 9:42 am

So is this reality or are we playing models again? Just rhetorical we all know th answer.

Alan the Brit
December 3, 2014 9:42 am

Apologies, that should have read ‘which “we” don’t fully understand’!

December 3, 2014 9:44 am

Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago that the global warmists were complaining that the only way to get people to care about global warming was to bring it to the hyperlocal level … then poof …. ask and ye shall receive, here comes the studies that bring it to the hyperlocal level, complete with “feelings” even. No one can “feel” the effect of a particular emission of CO2. Measure, probably not but maybe, but certainly not “feel”. Heck I can’t even “feel” the effect of 5 decades of global CO2 emissions, everything today seems pretty much the same as when I was a kid, as best as I can remember.
Anxiously awaiting “global warming is main cause of impotence” papers.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Scott
December 3, 2014 10:12 am

Oh, I dunno. Energy Leader Debbie Stabenow could feel it when she was flying.
Climate change. Feeling is believing.

December 3, 2014 9:48 am

“It takes just 10 years for a single emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) to have its maximum warming effects on the Earth.”

So, how did they track a single emission of CO2 for ten years? Did they use electronic ear tags like they would on a polar bear?
These people are just making things up! But if you accuse them of doing so, they’ll point to their models as if we’re supposed to believe that the models are independent entities that program themselves.

Reply to  Louis
December 3, 2014 10:05 am

>“So, how did they track a single emission of CO2 for ten years?
They didn’t measure or track any real-world temperatures, which obviously have not increased for the last 18 years. (Instant falsification, if you ask me).
Instead they built a model which ingested other models, which in turn ingested more models, whose input parameters were adjusted (accidently or otherwise) such that the desired warming was clearly observed.
Yes, it’s “models all the the down”!

Reply to  Louis
December 3, 2014 10:31 am

If you accuse them of making things up you will be vilified for not understanding and failure to compromise. Do you not appreciate the Noble Cause?

Tom in Florida
December 3, 2014 9:50 am

It’s simple, Since nobody really seems to care enough about what happens at the end of this century (after we are dead), they had to move the “crisis” into our lifetime in an attempt to create urgency.

December 3, 2014 9:55 am

Actually, when I fit CO_2 directly to HadCRUT4 from 1850 to the present, I include no lag at all. It isn’t necessary. The fit is excellent over the entire set of data.
I spent the last day or two stealing enough time from teaching to see if volcanoes mattered. They don’t. In fact, it is really stunning how much they don’t. Even very large volcanoes — VEI 6 eruptions like Pinatubo — have almost no effect on surface temperature averages even as they have a substantial effect on top-of-troposphere insolation as measured on Mauna Loa! There is absolutely zero question that what little effect they might have is basically lost in the noise plus any other systematic variations around what appears to be CO_2 driven warming.
This is really interesting for ever so many reasons. VEI is a log scale (which I accounted for) so explosions like Tambora (VEI 7, order of 100 km^3 of ejecta) might matter if we had thermometric estimates of global temperature for 1815, which we don’t. HadCRUT4 at least doesn’t go back that far, and it is already a bit shaky back in the mid-1800s.
Let me point out something that silly people who don’t actually understand the mathematics of relaxation seem to forget. Let us imagine that we have two processes working on a mass supported by a spring at some equilibrium height. One of them is like a shock absorber. It governs how long a system takes to exponentially approach equilibrium via relaxation/damping/energy rebalancing. If you “suddenly” increase the acceleration of gravity g \to g + \Delta g, it goes down by 1/e of the remaining distance to equilibrium in each relaxation time.
The other is like a powerful external spring that shakes the system back and forth across both the old and the equilibrium ten or (say) twenty times faster than the nominal relaxation rate of the damping.
How long does it take the system to “relax” into equilibrium now? The correct answer is that it is basically (a fraction of) the period of the faster bounce force. Once you’ve crossed the equilibrium line under its influence the fact that you increased “gravity” and changed the height of equilibrium is completely irrelevant to all future motion. It “forgets” its former disequilibrated state. Indeed, relaxation now perforce drives it the other way back to equilibrium where “the other way” depends on precisely where one is in the randomly driven bounce process, and is almost entirely irrelevant to the motion.
This example isn’t perfect, or truly sufficient to describe the insanely complex system of mutually coupled oscillators and reservoirs that make up the climate, but they do make the point that the relaxation time of a damped driven (chaotic) system cannot naively be ascribed to be equal to the slowest relaxation time in the system, or the fastest. It can be much faster, as fast as the driven oscillatory part. In the case of the Earth’s climate, which oscillates by as much as 0.4C in a single year either way and almost never spends longer than 3 years on one side of its (probable) local “equilibrium” point before going across it to the other side, the paper above is off by around a factor of 3. Yes, heat continues to distribute and redistribute, the oceans slowly warm or cool, and so on. When we use the word “equilibrium” to describe the climate at all, well, we shouldn’t.
But remember that heating and cooling are immediate. The temperature is determined by a balance between incoming and outgoing heat. The rate of heat transport is very, very high, not very low. It warms up by 10 to 20 C every day, the cools by as much every night, depending on location and time of year, and average surface temperatures at many locations vary by this much or more over the course of a year. Most of the Earth’s surface is disequilibrated, sure, but not by radiative balance! That relaxes literally overnight, until the next morning sees it overdriven high once more time.
To put it another way, a car with bad shocks — ones that are overdamped relative to the vibrations produced by the bumps in the road — spends most of its time with the shocks overcompressed, not really at equilibrium. Long before it reaches “true” equilibrium — the equilibrium it would have after a week of being parked — it hits another bump. It hangs out around a partially compressed “pseudo”equilibrium, a dynamic equilibrium, that is in part determined by the rate at which it is getting bumped, in part determined by the strength of the bumps. Nobody cares what the relaxation rate is to true equilibrium, as the car is never travelling over a smooth enough road for it to matter. And if one makes a tiny change in the loading of the car while it is underway, it takes precisely one bump in the road to reach its new dynamic equilibrium.
This is, sadly, just another stupidity in a long line of stupid climate tricks (hey, d’ya think we could sell a TV show of that name?:-). It is right up there on a par with asserting that the average of an ensemble of simulated chaotic trajectories from system A is a good predictor for an actual trajectory of an entirely different and far more complex system B, which almost precisely describes the construction and application of both the perturbed parameter ensemble single-climate averages and worse, the multimodel ensemble superaverage of these averages.
Empirically, the null hypothesis of warming caused “instantly” by CO_2 (in the specific sense of resetting the near-mythical set-point equilibribium for a poincare cycle in some absurd number of dimensions) plus rapid motion of the strange attractor in cycles around this set point is indistinguishable from the data, and while one can propose or demonstrate ad hoc improvements from this or from that, there is really very little reason to pursue them on the basis of the data at hand.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  rgbatduke
December 3, 2014 10:19 am

HadCRU is more than a bit shaky all the way, since it cools the past and warms recent years. It is unreliable at best and cannot be trusted across any portion of its time period.
You could try using the CET, which goes back to the 17th century and has been reconstructed back to the Medieval Warm Period, but it too has been manipulated by the Wet Office.
Better to rely on proxy data than the intentionally rigged data sets. That the adjustments are intentional can be inferred from the fact that they always make the recent warmer and the past cooler. Amazingly, even GISS’ long-secret UHI adjustment algorithm, when finally pried lose, warms rather than cools.
Hadley’s Jones admitted that they warm the oceans to bring them in line with the land temperature “record”, which itself of course has been heavily “adjusted” upwards in the first place. HadCRU is thus not suitable for statistical analysis, IMO.
There is no correlation between CO2 (above perhaps 200 ppm) and temperature, except that hotter seas will give up more of it to the atmosphere (making the gas an effect, not a cause of warming) and the first ~150 ppm are vital to life on earth. At times, the earth has warmed while CO2 rose, as during c. 1977-98. At other times it has cooled as CO2 rose, as during c. 1944-76. Earth can also cool or warm as CO2 falls, or stay about the same temperature for decades as CO2 rises or falls.
On longer time scales, the planet can be cold under very high CO2 (~4000 to 7000 ppm), as often during the Cambrian, Ordovician and early Silurian Periods. And it can be low during hot intervals, although eventually warmer seas will cause it to rise.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 10:45 am

Agreed, or at least mostly agreed. The difficulty is that proxy records are horribly inaccurate as well, and in order to use them one typically has to normalize to an assumption of know temperatures in the present, and if those are corrupt they corrupt the proxies as well. IMO, the only part of the temperature record that is halfway reliable is the last fifty or sixty years, and the only part that is actually reliable on a global basis is the last 30+ years of direct satellite measurement.
But HadCRUT4 is still useful for my purpose, which is to demonstrate that CO_2 is a perfect lovely explanation for post-1850 warming within the acknowledged error bars of the data (which we likely agree underestimate the actual error, possibly by quite a lot). Then the argument goes like this:
* IF one assumes HadCRUT4 is an accurate representation of the global temperature anomaly from 1850 to the present, then
* Is CO_2 a sufficient explanation of its observed variation (in a 1+1 parameter direct fit of the logarithmic form expected from theory)? and
* If so, what is the total climate sensitivity to doubling of CO_2?
My results are then:
* Yes, it is not only sufficient, it works rather well with only two parameters, one of which is irrelevant and only matches up the (arbitrary) two anomaly vertical scales.
* The total TCS the best fit predicts is roughly 1.9 C.
There is some uncertainty in this beyond the uncertainty of lack of human bias in the data. There is a small (order of 0.1C) systematic/harmonic deviation of the temperature from the CO_2-only curve, and allowing for that variation reduces the TCS by 0.1-0.2 C. Volcanoes can explain a tiny bit of the variation relative to this base, maybe, but really not so much. They are omitted from the null hypothesis above and I can find no good reason to include them. Ditto the PDO — when I try using the PDO as an explanation for residual variation it explains almost nothing (yes, there is almost nothing left to explain, but it doesn’t even explain that, it explains less than almost nothing:-).
What it doesn’t leave room for is any possible point or purpose to General Circulation Models. Or to any vastly more complex explanatory model. I can equal or beat each and every one of the models in CMIP5 with an effectively single parameter model based on the assertion that CO_2 is well mixed and that there is no lag at all between adding it and altering the equilibrium temperature.
How much energy is it worth putting into this, given the biases in the data, HadCRUT4’s lack of a UHI correction at all and GISS’s correction that somehow manages to actually cool the past and warm the present (good trick, that:-), given that for the bulk of the record, there are no samples at all of a rather huge fraction of the Earth’s surface and that they use black magic involving white chickens and virgins but not much in the way of defensible statistics to extrapolate, interpolate, infill, and otherwise pretend to correct for the fact that a lack of knowledge is, in information theory, basically pretty much a lack of knowledge? I dunno. My next project is to tackle the CMIP5 mean head on. In doing so, it will be very helpful to have the results of the null-hypothesis CO_2-only one-meaningful-parameter fit if only as ammunition, since it is the thing to beat when constructing a vastly more complex model.
If you can’t beat a one parameter fit to a physics-motivated model, you should pretty much hide your head in shame and admit that you have no idea how anything works. That’s the point of the null-hypothesis. It says: “Hey, dudes, we have no idea how all of this volcanic stuff and aerosol stuff and oceanic coupling works. So let’s just assume that it averages out to zero most of the time and look at how the system responds to just CO_2 before we conclude that we NEED any or all of it to explain the data.”

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 11:32 am

IMO your exercise has value. Please don’t get me wrong. It’s just that the “data” are so bad that they don’t IMO allow any conclusion to be drawn from them about physical reality.
However, using IPCC’s own “data” to draw the conclusions you have is IMO entirely valid. I now agree that for your purposes proxy data lack resolution.
IMO there is evidence that large volcanic eruptions can affect weather, but not climate. That is, the effects are short-lived, on the scale of years at most, not decades. The very biggest events might however have longer-lasting climatic effects, but are too rare to be studied.
If IPCC were to consider your curve-fitting finding, then HadCRU, if not the real world, puts an upper limit on TCS under two degrees C. Or since you go back to 1850, ECS. Even just the period of rapidly rising CO2 since the end of WWII has arguably lasted long enough for equilibrium to be reached, although the rate of gain has perhaps accelerated a bit.
But there are certainly other factors involved than CO2, so climate sensitivity must be lower still. If it’s ~1.2 degrees C, that would imply no net positive feedback, as falsely assumed in GCMs. Less than that, and there is net negative feedback, as IMO is likely.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 11:48 am

I’d like to add that if HadCRU were accurate, it would IMO show no warming from 1934 to 1998 peaks (although with downs and ups in between) and none since then. There was however probably warming from the end of the LIA until the 1930s.
Thanks for your good work fit into so much other work.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 12:01 pm

I mentioned the CET. Here is how well Central England Temperature tracks global CO2 emissions:
Not very well at all.
The article includes a discussion of the data set’s problems, including “adjustments”.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 1:59 pm

Thank you for the CET v CO2 graph….

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 4:08 pm

You are welcome.
Here’s a guy who found somewhat the opposite of Dr. Brown. He matched the temperature record without considering CO2 at all, just by using the time integral of sunspot number for the basic trend, then ocean oscillations for the cyclical wiggles around the secular line.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  rgbatduke
December 3, 2014 10:36 am

Concrete vibrators do exactly what you describe; used every day at concrete construction site jobs. Vibrating the concrete allow the viscous concrete to flow and fill voids (i.e relax) in a physical system. The cement setting time is too short and thus would set long before flowing to voids otherwise. The “driven oscillatory frequency” serves to rapidly induce higher pore pressures, and the concrete is momentarily forced to a liquefaction state.
Earthquake-induced ground liquefaction, with intense shaking driving the water-bearing soil pore pressures to liquify the ground, is also a similar physical representations of a driven oscillatory relaxation to find new equilibrium states.
The diurnal heating-cooling frequency of our planet’s climate is likely a major forced vibratory oscillator on the system.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 3, 2014 10:56 am

Why sure. In fact, I’ve operated them for just that purpose. I’ve also employed an even more primitive version of this system, called “a spoon”, which greatly reduces the diffusive and chemical relaxation time of a system that is very important to me, my “morning coffee” and its cream and sugar.
The point is that systems with multiple dynamical timescales cannot be analyzed in any sort of naive way. Relaxation will be via the fastest available process, and when non-stochastic dynamical timescales of important processes are shorter than the smallest stochastic relaxation times, all bets are off because a whole world of hurt emerges mathematically.
That’s why it is so very funny when people assert shirt, murde, carp, axcrement about how “climate models only work over periods larger than X” where X is very much a moving goalpost, while trying at the same time to claim that it is only CO_2 that matters because natural variation doesn’t. And you know this precisely how, one might ask? Climate models don’t work over any timescale, at least no better than \Delta T = -0.11 + 2.62\ln(cCO_2/311.8) which deviates from HadCRUT4 quite systematically by a single harmonic component with amplitude 0.1C and period of 67 years and which isn’t visible or present in any of the models, which don’t even get the right mean curvature for carbon-dioxide-only warming over most of their range.
And then, we could talk about the fluctuation behavior of the individual runs of the individual models in CMIP5 and the simple fact that it bears not the slightest spectral resemblance to the actual way the climate fluctuates.

Reply to  rgbatduke
December 3, 2014 3:13 pm

Springs and shocks are paired together to keep tires of a certain pressure, pressed against the uneven surface they encounter.
Traction, temperature, abrasion, weight transfer speeds, wind flow, driver attitude, all effect the ultimate performance of the vehicle.
They try to model NASCAR, the results are verified every weekend. 🙂
I love watching the results of the inputs.

Reply to  rgbatduke
December 3, 2014 6:14 pm

You will upset Dana. 🙂
‘Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown’

Mario Lento
Reply to  rgbatduke
December 4, 2014 10:14 pm

rgbatduke December 3, 2014 at 9:55 am:
To put it another way, a car with bad shocks — ones that are overdamped relative to the vibrations produced by the bumps in the road — spends most of its time with the shocks overcompressed, not really at equilibrium.
You mean, over damped rebound, which causes the springs to pack down. Really bad shocks usually implies under damped and worn out which allows the spring to over oscillate. Just sayin’.
The rest of what you are saying suggests you see CO2 correlate over time with increasing temperatures right? Just trying to understand what you are getting at.

Doug Proctor
December 3, 2014 10:01 am

The “discovery” here is a backhanded attack on the IPCC models. No warming model can be run without a specific idea of the time interval between emissions and warming. At a minimum, the work deep sixes all scenarios that have excessive delays.
Each modification of action parameters should reduce the range of scenarios. Why do we not see the range of outcomes falling?

Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 10:01 am

Since there has been no significant warming for well over ten years, the decadal effects of steadily rising CO2 apparently don’t include warming. That means the authors must be falling back on the supposed effect of CO2 to make weather more extreme, which of course it can’t, even if it did warm, which it hasn’t.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 12:48 pm

CO2 – the magic gas that causes climate disruption, without ever actually any warming.

more soylent green!
December 3, 2014 10:15 am

If this is correct, doesn’t that make the pause in warming an even bigger poke in the eye for the entire AGW theory?

Reply to  more soylent green!
December 3, 2014 11:06 am

No, because there are other things that cause the temperature to vary besides CO_2, some of them rapid and powerful, others slow and weak (but cumulatively quite strong). It is our lack of understanding of the dynamics on all timescales that is the fundamental problem. One can — as I can easily demonstrate — fit the post-1850 thermometric record, for whatever it is worth, with a model that suggests nearly all of the 0.8C of warming observed from that time is due to increased CO_2 plus around 0.1-0.2C of unbiased/symmetric fluctuation around the CO_2-only curve. However, due to the miracle of fitting five parameter elephants and their ability to wiggle trunks, as soon as you start adding ad hoc terms to mess with that “fluctuation”, you discover that you can almost certainly fit the data with a model where nearly all of the warming is due to something besides CO_2, with CO_2 a comparatively small correction, or you can fit it with a model where the CO_2 driven warming is 2 or 3 times as great but has been fortuitously cancelled by large and also systematically growing terms.
All of these are big players in the IPCC game. If you want more extravagant claims of disaster, all you need to do is employ a model where CO_2-only warming is much stronger but where aerosols plus uncomputable natural cooling have for some reason cancelled most of it. Then you turn off, or just limit the growth of, the aerosols in the future, you assert that the natural cooling period is ending, and boom, off takes CO_2 driven like a rocket. Or one can play the exact opposite game and assert that more CO_2 makes more water vapor, which makes more clouds, which makes more albedo, which prevents it from having as much of an effect (and make up any differences with unprovable trunk-wiggling terms).
Everybody just hopes/prays that as the future evolves, their model will be the big winnah, and they will collect the prize, Nobly. Or is that Nobelly, I can never remember the spelling.
But remember — CO_2 only with no relaxation time at all works damn well to explain the data, no wiggle room at all, for a trunk or otherwise.

more soylent green!
Reply to  rgbatduke
December 3, 2014 1:16 pm

Not seeing how your answer contradicts my premise. You’re saying they will just continue to make things up as they go and claim they’ve always been right all along.

Mario Lento
Reply to  rgbatduke
December 4, 2014 10:19 pm

rgbatduke December 3, 2014 at 11:06 am
No, because there are other things that cause the temperature to vary besides CO_2,
You are changing what the claim of the IPCC and warmists! They say that they are 90% certain that all of the warming from the 70’s through 1998 is due to CO2… in other words, the climate is essentially at some stasis without CO2 as the knob. That is what they are saying. We KNOW the climate varies… and it varies much more than any signal can be found from CO2 as the cuplrit. You’re sort of arguing a strawman here, me thinks.

JK Islander
December 3, 2014 10:29 am

Silly layman question but doesn’t the increase in atmospheric CO2 lag an increase in temperature? As I understand the basics, CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by man is miniscule vs. the natural release of CO2. So if an “emission of CO2” (assuming the author meant man made emission of CO2) is followed by an increase in temperature in 10 years can that temperature be measured? If it can be measured so what? I would think the temperature increase caused by the man made release of CO2 would be so small as compared to the natural release of CO2 it wouldn’t matter at all.

Nigel Harris
Reply to  JK Islander
December 3, 2014 12:15 pm

There is a huge amount of CO2 that is released by nature every year but there is also an equally massive natural absorption of CO2 every year. That’s why it is called the carbon cycle. However, in recent years, consumption of fossil fuels has added a small, but significant extra amount of CO2 into the system. The natural uptake of CO2 into the oceans has increased as a result, but only enough to absorb around 50% of the additional emissions. So the total of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily, as evidenced by the Mauna Loa (and many other) observations.
The useful analogy is a bucket with a small hole in the bottom, being filled by a constantly running tap. The bucket fills to a level such that the water coming out of the hole in the bottom equals the water coming in from the tap, and stops there. Equilibrium. Lots of water coming in, lots coming out, but no net change. Now you start pouring a much smaller additional quantity of water into the bucket. What happens? The water level must rise until the amount of water exiting the bucket through the hole is equal to both the tap’s input and your additional input.
Fossil fuel combustion has created the additional supply of CO2 into the atmospheric bucket. Disposal of CO2 into the oceans has increased, but the water level is still rising and will continue to do for many decades so as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels in huge quantities.

Reply to  Nigel Harris
December 3, 2014 4:34 pm

Your water-bucket analogy fails on several levels.
Mankind-created Land use changes are more likely to induce regional climate changes than any global increase in CO2 trace gas from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000.
Destruction of fisheries and pelagic food chains by over-harvesting the seas is far more likely to disrupt marine ecosystems than any minor regional temp increases, where fish can migrate and marine mammals do migrate, and marine ecosystems and reefs can and do adapt with new species as waters change temperature, as they have for tens of thousands of years, on abrupt time scales,
Even the great deglaciations into interglacials sea rises of the Pleistocene can and have been adapted to, that is self-evident.
Increased CO2 will help green the ecosystem, making more robust food crop production and ecosystem recovery after disrupting events (fires, floods, tree harvesting). More CO2 (if you accept that the GHG effect is real) will buffer the planet from devastating mini-ice age like cool downs as happened 1350-1850 AD.
The pluses of more CO2 still outweigh any negatives of more CO2.
And by your CO2-water bucket analogy…then please tell us what is the Earth’s ideal pCO2 level?

JK Islander
Reply to  Nigel Harris
December 4, 2014 12:36 am

Thank you very much for your informed response. When you state “50% of additional emissions” are you referring to man-made emissions or natural variability? As I understand the current estimates, 50% of man-made emissions would be 1 – 2 ppm CO2. Obviously higher if it includes natural variations in CO2.

December 3, 2014 10:43 am

Because human CO2 release greatly increased after 1950, of course decadal scale response was needed in models in order to claim that the warming after 1975 was due to CO2. These researchers seem to have merely detected the rapid response which was programmed into the models, not detected a behavior in the actual climate systems.

December 3, 2014 10:49 am

“Our findings should dislodge previous misconceptions about this timeframe that have played a key part in the failure to reach policy consensus.”
That is the money quote, in other words there is no time to lose ‘we must act now ‘
That is before the political will and cash has moved on because the whole thing is BS

Billy Liar
December 3, 2014 10:53 am

Some of these benefits would be the avoidance of extreme weather events, such as droughts, heatwaves and flooding, which are expected to increase concurrently with the change in temperature.
The logic of climate science: if we do this, we san stop some things that were never going to happen anyway.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Billy Liar
December 3, 2014 10:54 am

san = can

December 3, 2014 11:35 am

In a truly shameless attempt to discredit the above post and attached commentary and all the other posts/commentary appearing here at WUWT, Victor Venema–he whose surname will not be bandied about in ribald jest!!!–has cobbled together a post at his pathetic, loser blog, “Variable Variability” (Note: “V”ictor “V”enema and “V”ariable “V”ariability. “VV”=”VV”–Get it? Pretty snappy, huh? I mean, like, that’s just the sort of geek-ball, Mr. Smarty-Pants word play that really appeals to the the ivory-tower eco-flakes who flocculate, in risibly small numbers, at Vic’s sorry, nerd-pit excuse for a blog!) entitled “The quality assurance system of WUWT”.
SPOILER ALERT!!!: VV’s post consists entirely of a single page with the words “This page was intentionally left blank”. Get it?!!! Finished slapping your knee, yet? Jeez…look, VV desperately needs a “sense of humor” and so I’m basically sympathetic with his attempt at a little eco-creep joke, even if VV’s unwonted try for a giggle-booger is, in the final analysis, a big, fat, laughing-at-you-not-with-you, frankly-I’m-embarassed-for-the-guy, spastic-dork, showing-his-ass failure.
But the one thing I can’t forgive VV for is how he so managed to “blow” his idiot zinger-stunt. I mean, like, if you write “This page intentionally left blank” on an otherwise blank page, then that page cannot be factually described as “intentionally left blank”–indeed, IT’S NOT BLANK, AT ALL!!! I mean, like, can’t VV see that for himself, even?–what a doofus, f#ckstick screw-up!!!

Reply to  mike
December 8, 2014 4:19 pm

If you go to VV’s “Variable Variability” blog, you might be astonished to find that VV has re-produced my above comment as the 7th comment in the thread attached to his post “The quality assurance plan of WUWT”.
Curious, it seems to me, that my above comment, embedded in a matrix of indifference–possibly studied indifference–here at WUWT, and seemingly lost amidst the snicker-snack of yet another of this blog’s typical, work-a-day, comment-thread de-capitations of yet another of the hive’s endless, ever-morphing, hydra-head scare-boogers, should be plucked from obscurity by a big-gun hive-worthy–Victor Venema, no less!–and treated to huzzahs (“beautifully written and funny comment”) of the sort normally only reserved for the gas-bag, ex cathedra utterances of brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie hive-biggies, like Al Gore, who, in addition to their mouth-piece duties, serve Gaia as inexhaustible sources of that brown material (the “fresh-stuff” forming the top-most stratum, of course) that perpetually hangs off the calloused nose-tips of the hive-bozo flunky-elite.
And even more “mind-blowing” (hippy-freak talk, for you young’uns), VV appears to extend an invitation to me (and others like me) to “jerk his chain”, with further comments, on his very own blog. Superficially, it doesn’t get any better than that–really! I mean, like, I’d love to mix it up with VV on his own blog–brings back memories of BBD et moi goin’ at it in the threads of “Climate, etc.” (before I got banned) and Deltoid (again, before I got banned). But sorry, VV, I must decline your kind invitation (if that’s what it is) since I caught that “transgressions” business, in an earlier WUWT comment of yours, that precipitated a “cull” of one of my better zingers. I mean, like, I don’t know just how the laws work, in terms of “transgressions”, beyond the good ol’ USA’s free-speech lovin’ borders, and so, out of an abundance of caution, I am currently resolved to limit my comment activity to American blogs, only (pardon my paranoia).
And of further interest, immediately following my above comment, as reproduced at VV’s blog, there appears a trenchant, dazzling, technicolor take-down of the same by an improbable dude sporting the “handle” Steve Bloom, who, in his dismissive critique, brilliantly explores the heretofore unsuspected and endless possibilities of the word “dull” (Steve uses the word twice, within his four-sentence review (“How very dull” and “Double plus dull.”) and as his only adjective, referring to my above comment–not through a lack of imagination on Steve’s part, mind you, but rather, we can be sure, in order to give a minimalist, emphatic edge to his expression of disgust and contempt). All this putting Steve’s evaluation bravely at odds with the expressed and obviously uncouth pleasure VV derives from my “well-written and very funny”, failed attempt at eco-drollery. But then that’s why we need literal-minded, humorless, mind-numbingly tedious, goofus-gadfly, that-creep-out-pest-again!, judgmental, privileged-white-dork contrarians, like Steve.
P. S. Interesting the zeal with which Steve, in particular, but even VV to a degree, defend as legitimate and acceptable the use of the phrase “This page was intentionally left blank” to indicate a page is left blank when the “de-blanking” phrase, itself, on its face, impeaches its own words. And their rationale? Well, it appears that if you Google this or that hive-approved authority, then you’ll find that the use of this “BIG LIE” (see Tim Ball’s post on this subject elsewhere at this blog), party-line-compliant, “blank-page” convention is O. K. for use, despite what your “lyin’ eyes” and common-sense might counsel to the contrary. Sorta like how rational empiricism in the real world has been rejected by the hive-toadies in favor of a climate-model-based, self-serving, gravy-train, parasite-friendly alternative-reality, right? I mean, like, no wonder you lefty, lickspittle sell-outs are so partial to and comfortable with “pretend” blank pages that are NOT, as a matter of fact, blank pages, at all. Comrade Lysenko would be so proud!

Stephen Richards
December 3, 2014 11:42 am

If it’s true what is the CO² doing during the intervening 10 years ? dancing around and missing the incoming radiation and the sideways kinectic forces.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 3, 2014 6:18 pm

The CO2 limbo?

Stephen Richards
December 3, 2014 11:44 am

JK Islander
December 3, 2014 at 10:29 am
Yes. CO² has no demonstrable affect on climate temp. Therefore, as temps rise co² follows .

JK Islander
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 3, 2014 1:38 pm

Thank you.

Stephen Richards
December 3, 2014 11:53 am

Even very large volcanoes — VEI 6 eruptions like Pinatubo — have almost no effect on surface temperature averages even as they have a substantial effect on top-of-troposphere insolation as measured on Mauna Loa!
Willis Ech found no signal from volcanos as well. Interesting n’est pas ?

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 3, 2014 12:22 pm

Willis claimed that the response to a late 18th century Icelandic eruption wasn’t “unusual”. That’s not the same as no signal. The years after it were however the coldest but one for the 75 year period between the end of the Maunder Minimum and start of the Dalton, ie 1715 to 1790. The only colder year was the famous 1740 event, apparently caused by a super-blocking high.
To me, that’s unusual. There were colder winters during the Maunder and Dalton Minima, no surprise.
Big volcanic eruptions (VEI 6 & 7) do affect weather, but not climate. Pinatubo shows up in weather records. So did Tambora, Krakatoa, et al. The effect depends upon the amount of sulfur dioxide and sulfate aerosol released, where the volcanoes are located and other factors.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 12:50 pm

Essay Blowing Smoke in Ebook of same name delves into transitory volcanic temperature influences in some depth. Built around the dissection of a pretty good paper that received much media attention for things it did not say, resulting from a grossly misleading university press release about the paper. In the end, debunks a lot of the aerosol ‘adjustment’ used to cool GCMs that run too hot because they have the water vapor and cloud feedbacks wrong. Explained in other essays in the book.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
December 3, 2014 2:18 pm


Greg Woods
December 3, 2014 12:06 pm

‘The researchers combined information about the Earth’s carbon cycle–specifically how quickly the ocean and biosphere took up a large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere–with information about the Earth’s climate system taken from a group of climate models used in the latest IPCC assessment.’
I have Googled it, I have Yahoo’d it, I have Binged it. But I have yet to figure out how much a ‘pulse’ is. Is this some newly invented scientific term for ‘a whole bunch’? If so, is CO2 emitted in bunches? I rather thought that it was a continuous process, the man-made stuff, anyway. (I am sure that women do their part, too)

Nigel Harris
Reply to  Greg Woods
December 3, 2014 12:22 pm

Of course CO2 from fossil fuel burning is emitted in a continuous process. But if you want to know how quickly CO2 takes effect, and how long that effect lasts, you need to feed your model with a “pulse” of CO2, in other words, a significant quantity that is instantaneously injected into the atmosphere. Then you can track the impact that it has.
As with most issues in climate science, it would be nice if we had a spare world that we could do such an experiment on physically, but we don’t. So scientists construct models that follow the physics of the real world as closely as possible and see what happens when they are subjected to this sort of abuse.
There is, of course, a massive real physical experiment under way right now to see what happens to an earth-like planet if a large quantity of CO2 is added into the atmosphere in a very short period of time. Unfortunately, though, this involves a gradually increasing quantity of CO2 over a period of several decades, not a single instantaneous pulse. So that makes it difficult to see exactly how large the impact of an individual emission is.

Reply to  Nigel Harris
December 3, 2014 2:08 pm

If the response to a sudden change of CO2 (a step function) is known, than the response to a slowly increasing amount (a ramp function) is simply the sum or integral of many small step functions each slighly delayed from the previous one. This assumes a linear response of final temperature change to CO2 change which is already assumed by the concept of climate sensitvity (given temp change for 2x CO2).

Reply to  Nigel Harris
December 3, 2014 4:42 pm

My goodness. So observations can’t tell us what is happening, but if we look to our models we can see the things that reality can’t. Holy cow!

Robert W Turner
December 3, 2014 12:50 pm

Or maybe they’re right and the heat is hiding. I read a headline this morning that said the Earth has broiled in 2014, BROILED! I’m not sure what you can broil at 14.5 degrees — maybe tofu? — but everyone be careful not to overcook yourselves when you step outside today.

December 3, 2014 12:54 pm

“But, why if that is true, why are we in a pause, when there’s been an increase in CO2 the last decade and no correlation with temperature?”
The final temperature of the earth is due to the SUM of ALL forcings.
so, if C02 goes up, and other forcings go down, you get a pause.
Pretty simple.
If I have a bank account my balance is the sum of all deposits and withdraws, additions and substractions.
My deposits went UP this month, but my balance stayed flat.
Can one conclude that deposits dont make my account go up? nope they do… all other things being equal.
So my deposits went up and my balance stayed flat.. That must mean my withdrawls went up.
So, I check. Yup the increase in deposits was offset by the increase in withdrawls.
C02 went up. all other things being equal that means it should get warmer.. but it didnt?
What’s the explanation?
1. Check the bank records, did the balance really stay flat. The bank record in this case is the temperature
series.. Checking that record, we see that Cowtan and Way might have a point about missed warming
in the arctic.
2. Check the withdrawls. In the climate there are NEGATIVE forcings that can offset the C02
a) Aerosols
b) heat sequester in the deep ocean.
Are these explanations valid. For example, 2a. there is evidence of more volcanic impact than we though.
2b) yup it could be hiding in the ocean.
Are these explanations the final answer? Nope.
There is nothing suprising about a pause. If c02 goes up and everything else is held equal, then it will warm. However, we have evidence that everything was not held equal. And just like you look at your bank statement to find where the money went you have to look at the forcings to see which one went down.
Also, maybe you over estimated the impact from c02.. instead of 3C sensitivity, maybe its only 2.
Just as we cant be certain that how much warming c02 causes, we cant be certain when increases in c02 are followed by no warming.. because the theory is… when you hold everything else constant and increase c02 it will warm..
When you increase c02 and other stuff changes.. well you have more science to do

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 3, 2014 3:29 pm

Steven Mosher says:
C02 went up. all other things being equal that means it should get warmer…
I agree that when CO2 goes up, so does global T.
But at current CO2 concentrations of ≈400 ppm, any rise in T is so very minuscule that it is unmeasurable. Even an additional 25% rise in that trace gas from here would not cause any measurable rise in global T. Almost all the effect has already happened, at around 20 – 100 ppm.
As Willis points out, CO2 is only a small, 3rd-order forcing — which is swamped by 2nd-order forcings. Both of those are swamped by 1st-order forcings. First-order forcings are all that really matter.
Current CO2 levels are inconsequential. They simply don’t matter, except to rent seeking scientists who benefit from the carbon scare. If CO2 mattered, then we would have seen a measurable rise in global T due to the addition of ≈40% more to the atmosphere. Instead, global T has stagnated at around 2001 – 2002 levels.
Yes, global T has risen as a result of more of that trace gas. But the amount of warming is just too small to measure with current instruments, and higher order forcings obscure any ∆T from more CO2, which is also beneficial to the biosphere.
If things were different I would not argue with what the real world was telling us. If global T was rising along with CO2, I would re-assess, and change my mind. Since it’s not, your side should re-assess. Why don’t you change your mind?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 3, 2014 5:16 pm

Except that the models didn’t predict a plateau, let alone one lasting so far almost as long as the late 20th century warming cycle.
Therefore, the models are wrong, & their assumption that CO2 is the control knob on climate is also thereby yet again falsified.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 3, 2014 5:33 pm

Love your bank account record example.
So when you increase CO2 other stuff changes so the temperature no longer increases. Why do you want to cancel CO2 increase NOW? Have you ignored the great beneficial effects of CO2 and that the temperature increase maybe, just maybe, due to it has been so low? Yes, go and do more science for as long as you want.
It is like your boss giving you a salary increase, but yet your monthly bank account does not increase as predicted by the modeler. The modeler calls your boss and tell her she did not make you a favor and she should cancel this increase NOW. The modeler will get back to her once finding out why your bank account did not increase as predicted, this will take a while. Never mind that this salary increase may have had some beneficial effects!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 3, 2014 6:35 pm

In the bank records analogy, the effect of CO2 on temperature is similar to the effect the amount of interest one might earn on savings accounts is nowadays. For all the good our CO2 does warming things, we might as well stick it under the mattress.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2014 7:19 pm

I agree with you first sentence. Nicely said.
Your second sentence I also agree as long as you stick to “CO2 does warming things”. I am OK with this.
But I don’t want to stick CO2 under the mattress when it comes to favorable increases in food production and reforestation. I want CO2.
As for the bank analogy, as long as the modeler calls to stop the salary increase to the one person suggesting the analogy I am fine with it. However, if the modeler wants to stop the salary increase to everybody, forget it, I want mine.

December 3, 2014 1:01 pm

I can’t make sense of this;
“…specifically how quickly the ocean and biosphere took up a large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere–…”
How does the ocean “take up” CO2 to the atmosphere?
Shouldn’t it read;
“…specifically how quickly the ocean and biosphere compensate for a large pulse of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere–…”
…Can anyone help me out on this? The whole article seems like doublespeak.

December 3, 2014 1:53 pm

And as the oceans warm, evaporation will increase and its latent heat will be transferred to the atmosphere when clouds form, increasing the heat radiated to space. This is a larger negative feedback than that of positive water vapor feedback and will substantially reduce the now expected warming.

December 3, 2014 2:23 pm

This is the type of “science” that just makes me angry! Using two failed models to predict a new model. These people should be prosecuted for fraud and have the wages they received for doing this study taken back in fines for the crime!

December 3, 2014 4:22 pm

As the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years. There is not much left 10 years out. And, as our emissions are such a small part of the annual global budget of CO2, our emissions will have no detectable effect, no matter how you cobble the GH ability of GHGs.

Reply to  higley7
December 3, 2014 7:02 pm

You can cite evidence that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years?

Reply to  rd50
December 4, 2014 9:57 am
December 3, 2014 5:09 pm

Short term variances of CO2 are purely a delayed reaction to surface warming of the Southern ocean (best match) — For us colour blind people; upper line is temperature.

December 3, 2014 8:02 pm

Professor Lindzen has shown that a high climate sensitivity implies a long response time, while a low climate sensitivity implies a short response time. If a pulse of CO2 reaches its maximum effect in just 10 years, that is a case for a low CO2 sensitivity.

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
December 3, 2014 8:32 pm

Nothing in this article provides you with such a response.
This article states that a 100 Gt-C emission pulse added to a constant 389 ppm CO2 will create havoc.
Where does this article gives you the CO2 concentration expected over and above the 389 ppm now recorded from this pulse injection?. Nowhere. And for how long? Nowhere.
At a minimum, this article should give a graphical presentation of the CO2 concentration vs time after the pulse injection. None is given.
The authors are not willing to tell us what will be the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as a function of time of their pulse added CO2.

December 4, 2014 2:11 am

I think it is time to start calling it what it is: This is a halt in warming (if you think the prior reported ‘data’ is accurate). Or it is the early stage of a longer term decline if you use the more nearly ‘raw’ data that didn’t show any real warming prior to ‘adjustment’…

December 4, 2014 5:41 am

This looks and smells like the PoS it undoubtedly is.

December 4, 2014 6:14 am

Fix the page title
[done -mod]

Brandon Gates
December 5, 2014 8:28 pm


Claim: CO2 effects felt on decadal time scales, rather than centuries
But, why if that is true, why are we in a pause, when there’s been an increase in CO2 the last decade and no correlation with temperature?

No correlation with temperature huh? Well, I can pick cherries too:
In addition to the last 20 years of temperatures lagging CO2, there are two 20 year periods of declining temps going the opposite direction of CO2 concentration. As we go back in time, each curve is lower than the previous one. It’s almost as if every 50-70 years or so temperatures decline or flatten out a bit. The really curious part is that after each slowdown cycle, the next one occurs at a higher temperature.
Well I guess 2.4 °C/doubling CO2 shown at the top of the graph could be a positive correlation. Turns out there is even a basic 1st year physics explanation for why that’s happening. But I don’t know, maybe it’s pixies wot diddit. What’s your hypothesis?

Reply to  Brandon Gates
December 5, 2014 8:36 pm

Found you
Tell more about this idiotic “two-way latent heat”. I need the amusement please and thank you.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  mpainter
December 5, 2014 11:42 pm

mpainter, I replied in context here:
And yes for cripes sake, latent heat goes both ways.

%d bloggers like this: