From the UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AT AMHERST: Climate models disagree on strength of carbon land sink across northern Eurasia
UMass Amherst climate scientist says models underestimate region’s sequestration
AMHERST, Mass. – In a new assessment of nine state-of-the-art climate model simulations provided by major international modeling centers, Michael Rawlins at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and colleagues found broad disagreement in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) annually sequestered in tundra and boreal ecosystems of Northern Eurasia, a vast, understudied region of the world.
Rawlins also identified a trend among the nine models that shows the region’s land carbon sink has been strengthening in recent decades, drawing in more carbon than expected, driven by increases in carbon uptake from plant growth that outweigh respiration increases. But lately, it shows signs of weakening.
CREDIT UMass Amherst
“As a group, the models tend to overestimate carbon emissions from land, particularly in autumn,” he says. “They generally underestimate the present-day carbon sink, in our view. So there is good news, in that the region is likely storing more of the carbon being emitted by human activities than the models depict. But the lack of agreement across the models is a concern.”
He adds, “Given the wide range in sink strength across the models, we are recommending that decision makers not rely on a single model for predicting what the future of the Arctic may be. This could lead to a very biased assessment.” Findings appear in the current issue ofBiogeosciences.
The lack of agreement “is not for a lack of effort on the part of modeling groups,” Rawlins points out, but rather from a lack of available data to improve understanding of key processes. Northern Eurasia is critically undersampled, with much less field study than other parts of the Arctic.
For this model intercomparison supported by NASA, Rawlins and the team examined simulations from nine land models participating in the Model-Integration Working Group of the Permafrost Carbon Network (PCN). Group members from each center conducted retrospective simulations from 1960 to 2009, producing current best estimates of the flow of CO2 between the land and atmosphere. They compared the model data with satellite and land-based measurements to establish model credibility.
Rawlins and colleagues also found that residence time of carbon in soils is decreasing in response to warming temperatures that enhance both carbon uptake from plant growth and carbon emissions from soil litter decomposition. “In essence, carbon is moving through northern ecosystems at a faster rate,” he points out.
This study and others from the PCN are helping modelers to refine representation of carbon fluxes and storages across permafrost regions, Rawlins says. The best climate models constantly evolve, adding multiple interacting variables over time. However, the simulation of terrestrial ecosystem processes is currently inadequate. “Models do a good job at simulating some elements of the climate system, but they disagree on key aspects of the land-atmosphere CO2 exchange, and in particular the amount of carbon being sequestered,” he explains.
Statistically speaking, the range in model estimates of net productivity, which closely approximates the net CO2 sink, is twice the multi-model average. “This speaks to the level of uncertainty in sink strength,” the climate scientist says.
Rawlins and the team point out the need for new field data on vegetation and soil characteristics for model parametrization and validation. “Comparisons with the few available tower-based measurements suggest that the models tend to overestimate land carbon emissions in spring and autumn. However, the lack of data across this large area limits our confidence in this bias. There is an obvious need for establishment of more research sites. Additionally, soil measurements at new locations must be made at several depths, and during autumn, winter and spring,” he notes.
They also provide additional recommendations to improve model simulations of Arctic carbon cycle process, writing that investments must be made to develop new benchmarking datasets from measurements and remote-sensing observations and to support coordinated model intercomparison studies using standardized driving variables.
###
Continuing the huge waste of time, effort, funds – that could be applied to real problems. Just what the world needs – more frigging Models.
Three Legged Stool of CAGW: 1) Anthropogenic 2) Radiative Forcing 3) GCMs
Leg the 1st
Anthropogenic CO2 added to atmosphere between 1750 and 2011
Atmosphere
Dry Air…5.14E+18 kg…….996,943 ppm
Water….1.27E+16 kg………..3,980 ppm
CO2……..3.05E+15 kg…………..390.5 ppm (2011)
CO2 per IPCC AR5 Chapter 6
1750………….…278.0 ppm……2.17E+15 kg (How do they know? No MLO!)
2011…………….390.5 ppm……3.05E+15 kg
Difference.….112.5 Δppm
Difference………………………..8.78E+14 Δkg
What was the source of the increase in ppm and kg between 1750 and 2011? How does anybody know what these values were? Could be oceans outgassing as the oceans warm. Could be limestone weathering. Lots of possibilities. Permafrost melting. Forest fires. But how to lay all of this at the feet of industrialized man?
Per IPCC AR5 – 1750 to 2011
Anthropogenic carbon contribution, PgC: 555 (How do they know?)
Not CO2, Carbon. To convert to carbon multiply by 3.67, 44.01/12.
Some CO2 is absorbed in various natural sinks. (How do they know? Wag?)
Anthropogenic carbon atmospheric residual, PgC: 240
Percentage residual: 100*240/555=43.2%
Institute for Green and Sustainable Science uses 1850 to 2000 and 40% residual.
World Bank 4 C report uses 45% residual.
Some use PgC. PgC = E15 g = E12 kg
Some use GtC. GtC = E9 tonne = E9 * E3 kg/tonne * E3 g/kg = E15 g = PgC
Some consensus.
CO2 residual, kg…….2.40E14*3.67 = 8.81E+14 kg
Residual as percentage of 1750-2011 delta…….100.3%
How fortuitous! How coeenkadental! How convenient! How totally dry lab-bed! These numbers are all made up! 150 of the 260 years have zero reliable data. Wags, estimates, approximations, somebody’s judgment call! The uncertainty on these must be a barn door wide! However they clearly were selected and adjusted to match the foregone conclusion! Anthropogenic = 8.81E+14 kg.
Forget LWIR, SWIR, CO2 molecular oscillations, sea levels, ice caps, warming. Dismantle this highly dubious leg and that’s one done and down.
My three legs:
1. Warming is bad
2. Warming is “unprecedented” and “controlled”” by CO2
3. Humans are at fault by adding a tiny bit more CO2
Chop anyone of them off and the hoax should fall over but even with all three cut to ribbons the political machine keeps it alive like the Black Knight in MP’s Holy Grail
It’s only a flesh wound!
Yes ….. Black Knight = AGW Hoax
Nicholas:
1750………….…278.0 ppm……2.17E+15 kg (How do they know? No MLO!)
Ice cores:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_000_3kyr.jpg
The emissions is something different. In the early days estimated from industrial activity (like steel manufacturing), later from taxes on sales, thus probably more underestimated than overestimated…
BTW, your first leg is made from weapon grade steel, will need a lot of effort to cut down. Shouldn’t use much time to try that, as all observations point to a human source… Better attack the other legs…
Frerdinand:
Ice cores as direct indications!?
I see you have run out of real arguments yet again.
Richard
Richard,
Any indication that ice cores don’t reflect the real CO2 levels of some period, be it smoothed over 10-40 years in the above graph depending of the accumulation rate for an individual ice core?
In other words carbon is the fuel that drives life. More carbon means more life.
Under the tender care of our Lodger, our garden has gone gangbusters in the last three or four years.
And I think – anecdotally – that is true of much of the UK countryside.
Shrubs and bushes and trees are doing very – very – well.
Is the CO2! concentration a clue?
And if it improves crop yields, is this a bad thing [outside the minds – sensu latu – of a few humanophobic watermelons]?
I suggest – No.
It is a good thing.
Auto
I agree Auto … it is anecdotal only, but I have said for the last 3 or 4 years our hedgerows are booming … there seems to be a massive increase in foliage along fields and roads !!
So, more CO2 is being taken up and circulated at a faster rate due to an increase in plant growth due to an initial increase on manmade CO2? Sounds like nature has solved the problem for us.
What problem?
The concern, then. Or worry if you want a term with negative connotations
Cut down that “additional wood” and make more things from wood, instead of steel, plastic and concrete, and “capture” more CO2, then plant more trees, in a virtuous circle. Whatever is causing the rise in CO2, we should all be grateful for that !
More CO2 is a win-win scenario. We have more wood, and can thus save on plastics (oil), Concrete (de-gassed limestione), and steel (mining, furnace, transport, manufacturing). We save vast amounts of fossil fuels by using more wood for products, and can thus extend the life of fossil fuels even further. We can burn “waste wood” too, as a fuel don’t forget, and so unlike other fuels and processes, where there is always some useless waste product that must be disposed of, Trees can be totally utilised and replaced several times in a Human lifetime.
Personally I planted over 500 trees in my lifetime so far. Many of them are now over sixty feet tall. I didn’t yet cut them all down, but I shall leave more than 75% for future generations. Many trees I planted were in wild lands, and I never saw them again. If everyone did this, then the planet would be thick with trees !
Carry a pocket full of acorns, beechmast, pine cone kernels, hawthorn berries, apple pips or whatever, when you are out in the wilds, and every now and then plant one or two in a suitable spot. I have been back to some of those spots decades later, and amazed to see, for instance twenty foot trees laden with hundreds of apples, or a grove of ash trees in a previously barren valley. Mostly people have allowed them to grow, and very few had failed to survive. On one occasion a local man invited me for lunch at his house, when I told him that I was the mystery guilty party who had turned the borders of his field into an apple and pear orchard. The appearance of these trees had mystified him for years.
Cool idea! (no pun intended) As an ancient proverb of “your people” says, Wun Hung, “The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.”
Every Biologist that is “worth his/her salt” ….. knows that the Refrigerator-Freezer Law of Microbial Decomposition of Dead Biomass …… is a science fact of the natural world.
What ever happened to that CO2 satellite they tossed up there? I saw one plot in December and radio silence since then (after it did not show what they wanted it to show)
The same happened a few years ago when Jaxxa (the Japanese space agency) produced some pictures of what their satellite had measured. There was a short topic (believe here on WUWT) and then everything vanished into thin air. Guess the truth was rather inconvenient.
Both OCO2 and Jaxxa showed the same thing. The industrial countries are net carbon sinks. The net sources are the tropics. If your country is already a net sink, why should you have to pay any carbon taxes? You should be getting a big fat check from the rest of the world. The problem is none of the countries in the tropics that are net sources are in any position to pay $30/ton.
What OCO2 and Jaxxa showed is that CO2 due to industrial activity is small in comparison to natural forces and the supposed villains (humans) are not villains at all.
Up in BC Canada they have carbon credit system why I have never been able to figure out I believe the population is around 5-6 million, a province covered with forests (mostly year round evergreens on an area that is larger than France I believe), Canada as such with only 37 million people (most within a hundred miles of the US border is the second largest land mass on the planet COVERED with carbon sinks left right and center. I can see why their Prime Minister is a “denier”. ( and the tar sands are organic).
That’s right. The Tar Sands are a massive natural “oil spill” that was caused by the uplifting of the Rocky Mountains. Canada should bill the USA for polluting their lands. Wait a minute though, Canada will benefit from oil, that rightly should belong to the USA, and was stolen from the Rocky Mountains by evil plate tectonicians or something.
Extracting oil from the sands, is effectively an environmental clean-up job, and so called “greens” should be praising the effort on these grounds alone. Getting a fuel supply out of it is a bonus to this “clean-up effort” surely. What other environmental clean-up effort actually makes money and provides valuable resources as a by-product ?
Winnipeg Boy commented: “What ever happened to that CO2 satellite they tossed up there? I saw one plot in December and radio silence since then (after it did not show what they wanted it to show)”
+1 The initial earth CO2 snapshot I remember showed high CO2 levels in places that were none industrialized and the gas is not more evenly distributed like you would expect. Now the site requires a password to access and there’s no way to get one! Obviously a cover up for an inconvenient truth. We won’t see anything more until they’ve tortured the data into submission is my guess.
You mean this type of alarmist bol lox from NASA ?
In this video (and note the scary color scheme … red=bad)
we see a year of CO2 concentrations in the World from ….
MODELS – Bah !
It is important to understand that this is NOT measurements, but models. The narrator tells us that more than half of the CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere for years, and then watch as it all disappears in the Summertime as the plant life awakes and starts growing again. The narrator even says this, and cares not that this is a contradiction to his earlier remark. Note the color scale (best view video full screen) and see that the colors are picked for best panic effect.
Oooerr, the supercomputer model didn’t exactly match
up with the reality measured by their new satellite though.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/mainco2mappia18934.jpg
What does this all mean ?
See the so called NASA CO2 Center.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/
Looks like a real money spinner for hundreds of technicians and support staff, and a great way to explain missing billions from National Budgets, or is that too cynical maybe. Do we really need to have all those satellites measuring CO2, and to what purpose ?
Wun Hung Lo ,
Careful, look at the simulation for the same dates as the OCO-2 satellite and compare them for different scales (as there is 16 ppmv more CO2 in the atmosphere in 8 years time) and the fact that 2014 was already a would-be El Niño year, thus even with much warmer equatorial waters and dryer Amazon (releasing more CO2)…
Further human emissions are 4.5 ppmv/year, that is 0.01 ppmv/day. Even with the new satellite which can focus on hot spots, it will be a hell of a job to detect the momentary human contribution.
That doesn’t “prove” that the human contribution is negligible, but one need at least a full year of satellite data to know the total balance between sources and sinks and what happens over the seasons…
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen
Actually that is the only video that NASA provides of their so called “Supercomputer model” at their CO2 website, and it is completely spurious in reality. The model is no more than a programmed psuedo-random variation of what they thought should be happening to global CO2 over a season. The model if run today would show exactly the same pattern, because it is not time sensitive, unlike reality though.
We aren’t likely to see any more of these videos from NASA anytime soon I believe, and they particularly chose the “2006 model run” so that they could use that as some kind of excuse, ie. that the image is not directly comparable because of the time difference. Still if the same model was run with today’s date, then we ought to see no difference, because it is the same made-up model, and not actual reality. There is no globally measured CO2 modelling reality, because until JAXA’s IBUKI and NASA’s OCO-2 it was never done.
The actual measured results have been very embarrassing, and prove that CO2 is not being emitted by industrial Nations, but that most CO2 comes from non industrialised and equatorial regions. This is entirely baffling to the alarmists.
Wun Hung Lo ,
Not so fast, NOAA also has a moving graph showing the change of CO2 over the seasons 2001-2013, based on (ground station and flights) measurements:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/co2/co2_intro.html
If you compare that to the OCO-2 data for October-half November, that is the only period in the year that the CO2 levels near the equator are higher than in the NH.
The film with the Mauna Loa and South Pole data added is here:
The rest of the year, there is an increase in the NH which is followed by the SH with a 6-18 months lag, depending of latitude and altitude. The increase in the NH is not from vegetation (that is a net sink), neither of the oceans (too high 13C/12C ratio) or any other known CO2 sources (the other sources are much slower and/or smaller and/or have the wrong 13C/12C ratio).
They made a mass balance for North America: about 20% of human emissions in that continent are absorbed by vegetation in the same continent. That is not what you see in 6 weeks of OCO-2 data…
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/index.php#exec_sum
What is known is that 90% of all human emissions are in the NH and that these are higher than what is measured as increase in the atmosphere and drop in 13C/12C ratio. That the satellites can or can’t detect the human emissions is a matter of resolution, as human emissions are only 6% of total CO2 movements over the seasons. So let’s wait and see for a full year of data, before jumping to conclusions…
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen
What I said holds true, ie. “Actually that is the only video that NASA provides of their so called “Supercomputer model” at their CO2 website”. The graph you have shown is not a simulation of the model distribution of global CO2. The so called “pump handle” effect is no indication of the global distribution of CO2. Extrapolation from Mauna Loa & South Pole data and even if we add some other point measurement sources, is not sufficient to create a Global CO2 seasonal distribution map.
So this is why, firstly the JAXA “IBUKI” and NASA OCO-2 staellite were launched, so as to confirm or refute what models had predicted. Obviously they did not confirm what was expected. They both show that industrialized Nations are not wher most CO2 is being injected into the atmosphere, but that most CO2 arises from non-industrialized areas and around equatorial regions. This is a surprise, and totally refutes the so called “model” predictions. Your graphical “proofs” are meaningless in that respect.
Why does NASA not release the data in six weekly blocks like the sole existing public image? We can only surmise that it does not match with the propaganda that they have been peddling to date. Persons such as yourself, who fret over natural seasonal variations in the global distribution of CO2, as though this is some catastrophe are to be pitied, People who rely on point measurements of CO2 as a datum on which to extrapolate for the entire planetary atmosphere, at myriad altitudes and locations are deluded. The satellites are our best chance so far of showing the true picture, yet NASA deny the public these images. We therefore conclude that they are afeared to show the truth, lest they be ridiculed and de-funded to a degree as a result.
data is available. go fetch it.
[why not tell people WHERE instead of barking at them -mod]
Steven Mosher: “data is available. go fetch it.”
I presume you’re referring to Mannipulated data, Mosher.
For some reason most sentient organisms have problems with that variety.
Can you guess what it is?
Maybe here
I have been looking for new graphics similar to the one presented in December 2014 – But have not been able to find one. Please don’t tell me that I am supposed to make my own graphic. This is not at all prudent by NASA. NASA should regularly present graphics that are directly comparable with the previous one(s). Another thing which will not be prudent is if they eventually presents adjusted results based on ad hoc hypothesis or altered definitions. Changes that has not stood up to rigorous testing. I suspect they will. The results must be inconvenient. How can you else explain that NASA do not present the results?
No wonder you are a failure as a salesman !!
but what else do you have.. oh well 🙁
English major / fake scientist / computer hack tries to tell others where to find computer data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html
I was wondering the same thing.
perhaps it reveals an inconvenient set of facts that must be hidden until after Paris.
Energy & Environment 26: 457-463 is a paper that analyzed CO2 data from the GOSAT satellite and it’s obvious why we haven’t heard about it. The inconvenient truth is “..the top net emitting continent is Asia, followed by Africa and Europe,” that “North America is also emitting significantly, while South America is net sequestering and Antarctica has a net flux close to zero.” Most notable of all, however, was ….Australia, which they found to be “the top sequestering continent.”
[Snip. Fake screen name for beckleybud, Edward Richardson, David Socrates, Tracton, pyromancer, and at least a dozen other sockpuppet names. ~mod.]
How can this be when we are repeatedly told that the science is settled and the time for debate is past ?
All IPCC reports indicate that THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF THE SCIENCE has large uncertainties.
what is settled?
c02 is a ghg
ghgs warm the planet.
The planet is not warming though, according to the devices which measure the whole planet.
Some disagree.
In my lexicon, that counts as “not settled”.
Both noncontroversial and, by themselves, consistent with no problem at all.
Steve, True, but as they say, the devil’s in the details.
How much, what it’s effects are, and the effectiveness of efforts to reduce it are all quite important and well up for debate.
What is settled is that CO2 is a radiative gas. The rest is moot as the present ‘pause’/’hiatus’ is beginning to make patently clear.
Given that there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature in any of the data sets, it cannot be known whether in real world conditions (taking into account the present composition of the atmosphere) whether CO2 is a ghg (in the sense used by you, ie, warming the planet0.
The fact is simple; presently using our best measuring devices we are unable to extract the signal to CO2 (if any) from the noise of natural variation and the restraints imposed by the margin of error in our best measuring equipment.
There is no second order correlation between CO2 and temperature in any of the data sets since we lack the necessary data say for aerosols pre the 1970s, and that is why aerosols are used as a fudge factor in the Climate Models.. Until we know absolutely everything there is to know about natural variation, what it consists of, each and every constituent , the upper and lower bounds of each constituent forcing, we will never be able to measure Climate Sensitivity to CO2, and until then matters will simply be guestimates.
As usual;, you over play the hand.
“ghgs warm the planet.”
But not for the past couple of decades…
And what, that’s it? My radiator warms my room. Is my room then forever warm? No. So what’s your point?
@ Steven Mosher – July 29, 2015 at 10:39 am
Really now, ….. and H20 vapor is a ghg also and we know for a fact that it warms the planet.
But iffen CO2 warms the planet then why doesn’t NOAA’s National Weather Service also publish a Heat Index Chart for CO2 …… like so, to wit:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/heat/ht-images/heatindexchart.png
Isn’t there a “simple” reason why there is no HIC for atmospheric CO2?
ghgs slow down the cooling of the planet. a small ,but important distinction.
@Steven Mosher,
?? I don’t understand. You just said the other day:
Here I was quoting your last comment, and you switch it on me.
Mosher:c02 is a ghg – singular; ghgs warm the planet – plural
So you’re not sure which of the GHGs is responsible, in relative terms. Can you really argue that such a small increase in the very small proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for all the warming? And if it’s not, then you have to figure out the relative effects on T by GHGs (plural). Yet the developed world is being ripped off for trillions (name currency) because of hubris of scientists (cough) and politicians who blame it all on CO2.
Wrong link to Mosher’s previous comment. This is the correct one: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/ocean-heat-new-study-shows-climate-scientists-can-still-torture-data-until-the-data-confess/#comment-1993819
@Samuel
@ D.J. Hawkins
But, …. but, …. but, ….. “DUH”, …..they sure nuff do “exhale” CO2 in order to maintain homeostasis.
So what was the “point” you were trying to make?
@Samuel
The heat index is an attempt to quantify human physiological response to heat discomfort which is predicated on how efficiently the human body rejects heat to the environment to maintain 98.6F or thereabouts. Since humans sweat to remove heat by evaporative cooling, it matters how much moisture is in the air since natural variation is from nil to saturation. At saturation, no evaporative cooling can take place and you can be subject to heat stroke/exhaustion in short order. You don’t get “saturation” with CO2 unless you’re trying to commit suicide. CO2 does not have much effect on human comfort anywhere from 0 (middle of a cornfield on a sunny day with no breeze) through 1,000 ppm (ASHREA guidlines for indoor air quality) to 8,000 ppm (nuclear submarine, typical). That’s why no one bothers with an “HIC” for CO2.
Keith. The science will be settled once again as the data are examined and then edited, changed, homogenized and published as the “real data”. Meanwhile back at the Ministries of Truth the original date will be shredded, deleted, and destroyed in every way possible. Then the crooked and misleading data will become the new truth, it will support ACGW, and the science will once again be settled. That is the way every large data set paid for, and belonging to, the taxpayers is being treated.
Garbage in garbage out
Is the usual equation,
But those with an agenda
Are prone to persuasion!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/computer-models/
It would seem that the models are useless unless and until some actual experimental data is obtained. Why use a model at all? Do an experiment, so to speak.
David. Because the real data cannot be trusted to support ACGW. The data must be changed and tortured until it matches what the models have been predicting. Then the tortured data are released as the truth.
I detest the lazy use of the word CARBON when it is CARBON DIOXIDE we are talking about. Subtle or not so subtle persuasion by the alarmists.
Funny, I was just complaining about the same thing in regard to shopping for a new gas range, The specification sheets of some manufacturers state “BTU” and some others state “BTU/hour”. I told my wife that I refuse to buy from a manufacturer who cannot even bother to get that one right.
But of course in the case of the CO2 versus carbon designation we aren’t buying anything … we’re being ROBBED!
tom s,
carbon is used throughout the scientific community for good reasons: in the atmosphere it is CO2, in the oceans it is 1% CO2, the rest is bicarbonates and carbonates. In plants it is sugars, starch, cellulose and a host of other carbon containing chemicals.
To make a comparison possible, everything is reduced to carbon, whatever the form in which it is incorporated.
We are talking about the carbon cycle, not the CO2 cycle, especially in the case of vegetation…
Friends:
The above article reports Rawlins as saying:
NO! That is ridiculous!
When
(a) “the lack of agreement across the models is a concern”
because
(b) there is a ” a lack of available data to improve understanding of key processes”
then it is right to recommend
(c) “decision makers not rely on a single model”
because
(d) each and all of the models provides GIGO and so is wrong.
Richard
Lack of agreement is green-speak for lack of funds. More funds = more agreement.
+1
WARNING: Model inconsistency is alarmist speak for “OMG, we’re not really sure, so it may be even worse than we thought, and we must increase funding for further research”
climan: we must have some sort of Jungian connection. Wierd
It appears to me that there is a pause in the uptake which correlates with the pause in temperature. I believe that this is Dr. Salby’s hypothesis.
Pure distraction, as if a small adjustment would correct the models and alarmism resume. All 1,200 models were and are wrong. Therefore the underlying premise is flawed.,increasing or decreasing the carbon cycle does not change the faulty CO2 to temperature correlation that these models are predicated on.
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Rules!!!
He persisted stressing “land use” implications in the models are incorrect.
It isn’t really a weakening, it is just the same hiatus period seen in temperature records. just apply the same adjustments that was made to the NOAA Pause Buster Surface Record using Algae Blooms detected in Ships Bucket measurements
Looking at the graph indicates stability since 1985 – not 2000 as stated.
The models have incomplete, inaccurate and missing data therefore they are incomplete and inaccurate when it comes to predicting the climate.
In a free society, why do we have “decision makers?” !!!
Gamecock:
Decision makers are needed to maintain a free society. The Rule Of Law – so all freedom – is lost when mobsters successfully replace decision makers. I suggest you ask a grownup to explain it to you.
Richard
Thank you.
I’ll make my own decisions.
Gamecock:
Really?! You will make your own decisions?
I look forward to seeing your ability to decide how much tax you will pay for employment of the military.
Richard
“Decision makers are needed to maintain a free society.”
Self contradictory.
“Ask a grownup” Wow, there’s a powerful argument.
Gamecock:
A free society is not possible in the absence of the Rule Of Law.
That fact is a reality – indeed, a truism – and it is not “self contradictory”.
It is a reality because ‘War Lords’ and other forms of mobster will always take everything you have (including your freedom) if they are not constrained by the Rule Of Law.
As I said, when you grow up you will be able to understand these matters for yourself and – until then – you need to ask an adult to explain them to you because adults protect children and the childlike from the horrors of these matters. This is not an “argument” (“powerful” or otherwise), it is a statement of reality.
Richard
http://www.nature.com/news/el-ni%C3%B1o-monitoring-system-in-failure-mode-1.14582
Hmmm,,
There seems to be a problem with the Argos Buoys, almost half of them were off line in Jan 2014. and NOAA sold off the fix it ship. Needed the “Grant money” I suppose. I wonder how their doing on the repairs, and how the remainder are holding up.
Oh that’s right, seems that some folks really don’t care for the Buoys and are vandalizing them,oh dear.
Also it seem fishing boats are catching some.
Hey Bubba LOOK what I just landed! You may be redneck if…
https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/mmop/JCOMM/OPA/DBCP/vandalism/vandalism-en.pdf
Hmm how can you figure out the oceans temp if a bunch of your buoys are busted?
Can any ocean temps be trusted at this point.
michael
none of the ocean temps can be trusted at any point. best test is swim in the north sea this week, then tell me how many degrees the met office stated surface temps for the area of the north sea you froze your bollocks off in were out by 🙂
in many areas the met will be out by 4 degrees c.
Has anyone considered or seen any studies done on if the growing urbanization around the globe over the last 30 years could in any way have upped the lower ground level temperature averages? Is there any articles on this site that says anything about this? If by chance urbanization can up the average global temperatures, could it start an upward spiral or would the temperatures go up so far and stop based on the square area of urban areas (roads, house and building roofs, driveways, parking lots, AC units & chimneys)?
It’s too small an amount to matter. What it has done though, is skew the temperature record upwards.
More computer game rubbish.
Anyone who claims that an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we can’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to inter alia extreme sensitivity to initial conditions – is capable of making meaningful predictions over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman or both.
Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.
You can add as much computing power as you like, the result is purely to produce the wrong answer faster.
Nice work if you can get it though…
Yes this is correct, the new satellite data has failed to comply with the predictions of their model’s certainty. See for instance this famous Fractal images series (over three million views), and whilst watching, try to predict how the pattern will develop next. I predict that you will fail. The “model” inside your noggin is too feeble to predict how it will go, and yet these are all simple mathematical formulae at the back of these patterns. Much simpler than the complex Climate and CO2 parameters which vary in ways we still are not sure about. How much harder then to accurately predict the yearly evolution of CO2 concentrations.
The new satellite showed how embarassingly wrong NASA can be with their asinine predictions. see
my post above for comparison images at the same scale between satellite and model.
Meantime watch the kaleidoscope and try to predict how it will go !
‘Rawlins and the team point out the need for new field data on vegetation and soil characteristics for model parametrization and validation.’
and while the underpaid field workers fill out the gaps in basic scientific field data, 20+ ys, Rawlins and team do a spread sheet on unengaged modellers structured days.
sigh.
“They compared the model data with satellite and land-based measurements to establish model credibility”
Sorry, I had to laugh.
They compared satellite and land-based measurements to establish credibility to the model data.
There fixed
Their “model” is a farce, and embarrassingly proven to be wrong by their new satellite, oooerrr
Interesting to see the ‘Pause’ in sequestration in Northern Eurasia! Guess it might even be that warmer weather is good for plant growth, as well as CO2, and that the pause is working its magic there. Did someone say ‘negative feedback’?
I note with interest that Steve Mosher didn’t respond with any link to the satellite CO2 data. I guess mother nature really is off-message.
The following looks fairly promising, though I didn’t install the special software they wanted so I could download data, so I don’t know if there are gotchas down the line.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/#mission=OCO-2
R.
RERT:
You rightly say
Yes. But the issue is not the raw data because – as you say – raw OCO-2 data can be downloaded from here.
The issue is that only the first month of the data was provided as this plot which shows there is no correspondence between ‘high’ levels of atmospheric CO2 and sites of emissions of CO2 from human activities. But that plot was only for one month.
If the lack of correspondence exists throughout a year then that would disprove the claims of the rising atmospheric CO2 being caused by human emissions of CO2 overloading the natural sinks of CO2.
The software to provide the plots exists; at very least, it existed when the first month of data was released. This poses the question as to why the use of that software was discontinued immediately when it was noticed that the plot of the first month of data seemed to provide an inconvenient indication.
An annual plot would provide definitive evidence before the COP in Paris in December, and I predicted that such a plot would not then be provided.
Richard
Richard: I suggest there should be a full post about what has happened to this plot/data. I went to the data site and figured it was designed to put users off. We need similar plots/graphics to those that MoB supplies in his posts.
@RichardCourtney,
Your link (“this plot”) doesn’t show the full global OCO satellite initial image, but it’s available here from the original WUWT article about it. Three scenarios for the future of NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory
How perceptive of Ronald Voisin: He listed three options that would happen (Note option #3):
MRW:
Yes. Thankyou.
Richard
@RichardCourtney,
What do EH, TH, and FH, mean on your plot? Thx.
MRW:
The points EH, TH, and FH are sites of significant volcanism.
It is not my plot and for explanation I refer you to the original WUWT article by Martin Hovland that provided the annotated plot.
Richard
The present delay in presenting the OCO-2 data does not inspire confidence, and it is not surprising that it leads to conspiracy theories.
I consider that option 3 listed by Ronald Voisin was a cynical remark given that the data first presented (which was a snapshot and did not cover a full annual cycle) was obviously not particularly supportive of the countries which have been singled out as heavy polluters who should pay carbon compensation to countries that have been selected as least polluters who should receive the carbon compensation.
The OCO-2 evidence turned the selection on the head and showed that whilst the heavy manmade CO2 emitters may be emitting manmade CO2, some of those countries are sinks, or at any rate are not as heavy emitters of CO2 (including the combination of manmade and natural) as countries in the developing world.
What I find strange in all of this is that there is no official word on why the next 2 tranches of data have not yet been produced. It seems that no one at high level is asking for the data and therefore NASA need not say anything for the time being.
I consider that Americans should be writing to their (Republican) Congressmen asking them to request the data and an explanation as to why NASA has not published the data every 3 months as was initially indicated.