Guest essay by Ken Stewart
Here’s an alternative way to view The Pause. Rather than analysing temperature trends over time, here I compare temperature with carbon emissions and carbon dioxide concentration, and on the way look at a couple of interesting facts that need highlighting.
I use energy data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, CO2 data from NOAA, and Temperature data from UAH.
I need to get two important issues out of the way.
Firstly, total energy consumption. Figure 1 shows global energy consumption from all sources for 2014.
Fig. 1: Global Energy Consumption in Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent
I aggregated coal, oil, and gas into one fossil fuel category. It is plainly obvious that fossil fuels are going to be around for a long time, unless there is a massive multiplication of (a) nuclear energy production, which may not appeal to some environmentalists, or (b) hydro-electricity dams, but that may not appeal either, and are there enough rivers?, or (c) windfarms and large scale solar, with storage, to produce 30 times what they produce now just to meet current demand. Cheap, reliable energy supply is going to depend on technological breakthroughs in the next 100 years and fossil fuels in the meantime.
Secondly, the recent increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is almost entirely anthropogenic.
Figure 2: CO2 concentration as a function of global energy consumption from 1965 to 2014:
99% of CO2 increase can be explained by energy use in all forms.
Now, before Global Warming Enthusiasts drool all over their keyboards, let’s look at how this relates to temperature.
I have calculated 12 month running means of CO2 concentration and TLT anomalies. From November 1979 to November 2015- CO2 concentration increased from 336.6 ppm to 400.57 ppm. What happened in this period to global lower troposphere temperatures- arguably a better indicator of global warming than surface temperatures because they show what the bulk of the atmosphere is doing?
Fig. 3: Tropospheric temperature anomalies vs CO2 concentration:
43.5% of the temperature increase over the satellite era can be explained by/ is associated with the increase of about 64 ppm of CO2. The relationship is anything but linear, however the linear trend indicates, if warming continues at the same rate while CO2 increases by 100 ppm, that temperature anomalies will increase by about 0.63C. By this estimate, doubling CO2 concentration from 280 ppm (what many believe to be pre-industrial concentration) will result in a temperature increase from whatever the global temperature was 250 years ago, of 1.76C. According to HadCruT4, we’ve already seen about 0.8C increase since 1850, so we’re nearly halfway there! Not only that, but we’ll stay below 2 degrees of warming without the need for any emissions reductions!
But the temperature increase is not linear. The next plot shows the tropospheric temperature/ CO2 relationship while temperatures have paused.
Fig. 4: TLT vs CO2, from 363 ppm to 400 ppm:
That, my friends is the true indicator of The Pause: while CO2 has increased by almost 37 ppm (out of 64 ppm), temperature has remained flat. The trend is +0.01C per 100 ppm CO2.
Finally, I’ve separated the record into three phases: before, during, and after the large step change in the 1990s culminating in the 1997-98 El Nino and the following La Nina.
Fig. 5: Temperature vs CO2 during the first phase, when CO2 increased by 20 ppm:
Fig. 6: Temperature vs CO2 during the second phase, when CO2 increased by about 14 ppm:
Fig. 7: Temperature vs CO2 during the last phase, when CO2 increased by about 29.3 ppm:
Therefore I conclude:
Barring a miraculous breakthrough, renewable energy has no hope of replacing cheap, reliable fossil fuels in the foreseeable future- thankfully!
Greenhouse gas increase is anthropogenic;
CO2 increase has probably caused some small temperature increase;
The relationship between CO2 and temperature in the satellite era is weak, with 58% of the CO2 increase occurring while temperatures have paused;
Therefore temperature change is probably caused mainly by natural factors;
Even if the long term “linear” trend continues, this rate is not alarming, and would lead to a temperature increase during a doubling of CO2 of less than 1.8C.
I find it amusing that Global Warming Enthusiasts pin their hopes for an end to The Pause on a strong El Nino- in other words, on natural variability, the very thing that is supposed to have been overwhelmed by greenhouse warming.
And they STILL haven’t defined the ideal climate state. They cling to temperature like the water-logged raft that it is.
Have you? (defined ideal climate state, that is)
That’s not the obligation of the skeptics. It’s the obligation of the alarmists.
Which they have failed.
Sorry, Eustace … it is the obligation of everyone who wishes to engage in banal “Nya, nya, nya … you can’t tell us the optimum, so why should we listen to you?” rhetoric, to counter with something other than the banal. GoatGuy
Nope. If someone tells me the world is in mortal danger, they have to make their case. I’m not obliged to lift a finger.
Burden of proof and all that.
It has been improving for the last 12,000 years, and has improved since the start of the industrial age. Let’s just wait until the climate stops improving before we try to stop it.
You are the one who wants us to do something.
It is up to you to prove that it is necessary to do something.
If you can’t prove that CO2 is pushing the world away from an “ideal climate” into one that is no longer ideal, than YOU have failed in your goal of convincing US to do something.
I would say the ideal climate would about 5 C warmer, or average global temperature of 20 C, because this increases arable land in northern countries of Canada and Russia.
So having average temperature of 15 C and lower [18 to 8 C] has been associated with the ice box climate of Earth for last few millions years. Humans evolve into modern species during this long term cooling climate, but most of earth history with multi-cellar life has been 20 C or warmer.
To become a warmer world, oceans need to have a higher average temperature- not just the surface but entire ocean. This will cause sea level to rise and it’s unlikely this possible within the next 1000 years.
So long term it would nice to be 5 C warmer, but it doesn’t look like it’s possible in the foreseeable
future and the apparent warming of last couple centuries has due to a recover from cooler period
called the Little Ice Age. During the last +10,000 years we have centuries of warming and cooling, and beginning part of the current interglacial period and for thousands of years, Earth average temperature was about 3 C warmer than the present average temperature. This period is called
Holocene Maximum- Holocene climatic optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
So this was during period of ancient human recorded history. One could say life on earth has been adapting to the cooler climate for last few thousands year, but one would not say life been evolving- or the polar bear did not spring into existence. Though one could say that polar bear and humans did evolve a bit during last few million years of the ice box climate. The human which was a tropical creature spreadout to entire world and bear is creature adapted of the Temperate Zone.
That depends on whether you’re an elephant or a wooly mammoth.
GoatGuy-“it is the obligation of everyone who wishes to engage in banal “Nya, nya, nya … you can’t tell us the optimum, so why should we listen to you?” rhetoric, to counter with something other than the banal.”
You make no sense. Why would someone who “wishes to engage in banal rhetoric” counter with something other than banal rhetoric? And what obligations are you referring to?
Joel Snider
December 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Let’s stipulate better for people, plants and most animals.
The present icy Arctic is such a recent biogeographic zone that most if not all of the organisms there are simply adaptations of species and genera which lived there before the ice. If Earth were to return to the balmy Pliocene climate in which our African ape ancestors evolved, then polar bears would probably be reabsorbed into the grizzly or brown bear populations, Arctic foxes into their still extant, neighboring kit fox populations, Arctic hares into nearby hares, etc. Dunno if bowhead whales interbreed with right whales or not, but ancestors of narwhals and belugas obviously existed before the onset of the Pleistocene glaciations 2.6 Ma. Same goes for plant species.
Little if no genetic diversity would be lost.
The ideal climate state is surely one in which New York, London and other major coastal cities remain above water.
Are you sure?
Seems to me the hysteria is driven by urban myth and urban ignorance of weather.
Perhaps a real deluge would wash the blinders off of their eyes.
Until glaciers sweep Quebec over New York
Were these cities under water during the MWP, or the Roman Warm Period, both of which were warmer than today (at least in the Northern Hemisphere where these cities are geographically located)?
We know that the answer to that, as far as London is concerned is no, because we have historical and archaeological evidence of settlements during these warm periods. .
Where’s all this water coming from?
The Arctic is almost completely sea ice therefore, Archimedes principle dictates that even if it all melted it would not affect sea levels one bit.
The Antartic is a continent which, from ice core data, has never thawed even during earth’s hottest periods so 2 degrees centigrade is inconsequential.
Nigel,
It is not mother earth’s problem that most of mankind is so stupid as to build ‘permanent’ housing and support structures on not so ancient ocean bottom, barrier islands, coral reefs and sandbars. He also has a morbid affinity for creek and river bottoms. In most cultures he has lost any verbal traditions that might have warned him of historic (and therefore future) disasters such as earthquakes, storms etc. I guess the easiest thing to do is just chalk it up to Darwin at work.
Cities can be rebuilt so I totally disagree, ideal state is where equilibrium is met and life is at its optimum for the phase that the earth is in at hat time. Sea level rise is inexorable and we dont know when it will stop and reverse, sometime it is likely that we may have to abandon a city or 3 and move in land rather than get our feet wet. It is not worth spending trillions to save bricks and mortar when the inhabitants can up sticks and move.
I for one would not object to NYC going under.
mwh: Sea level rises are so slow that natural attrition is sufficient to handle the situation.
As buildings near the sea age and need to be replaced, just abandon the site and re-build further inland.
Due to political factors it’s likely New York and London will follow the path of Detroit and Cairo.
And this possible in much shorter time period that a foot increase of sea level in a century.
But despite New Yorkers and Londoner view, they are not critically important to the world.
Human have had cities near the coast during times of 1 meter or more of sea level rise and it wasn’t the end of the world- not even worthy of being considered a problem.
Says who?
Nigel. I think that a few people on the “Green” side would be quite happy if those sources of pollution and depravity were inundated in a great flood. Why, they might write books of scripture about it. Think Maurice Strong, Paul Erhlich, et al /sarc off
I read this at lunch. Great motivation to go back outside and work some horses. Living at 1000 metres AMSL, I am not going to worry much about rising oceans. Now, snow, that’s another matter altogether.
Lots of along the mountain crests from Mexico to the Yukon.
Good article but some premises may be questionable but even granting them, I defer to Alfred E. Neuman.
Not so sure about London. Lots of stupid people live there like PM Cameron but on the other hand Berlin, Canberra, Paris and Washington are away from the coast. Need to find some other way to fix the people there.–thinks! Eccles(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccles_%28character%29) Got it, what about ice. In the little Ice age the Thames in London was frozen. Surely freezing the balls off our stupid politicians might bring them to sense.. I am happy to live close to the coast with warm weather away from politicians.
I keep looking for a simulation chart that gives a projection into the future that excludes the co2. What is the ‘natural’ background? What are the different cycles of the sun and earth dion in the next thousand years. if we are headed into a new ice age in by 2030 don’t we need the warming?
The Jurassic-like climate is certainly on the short list of possible winners of the “what is the ideal climate” sweepstakes. The continents aren’t quite now where they were during the Jurassic, so a Jurassic climate may not now be totally realistic, but, we could that climate as an example of one not fear . . .
John
I agree that everything we know about life on this planet suggests that a far warmer globe would be a good thing.
We ourselves came from Africa. All the large land based animals are in warm climates. The polar bear only survives in the Arctic because it feeds of the sea, not the land. Most animals living in cold climes either migrate to warmer climates for the winter, or if that is not possible then they hibernate because they cannot face the cold. In the Jurassic one can see how large animals can become when conditions are warm and favour life on Earth.
Most bio diversity is seen in warm humid climes such as tropical rain forests. Least bio diversity in cold arid climes such as the plains of Antarctica.
The reason why we wear clothes is not due to modesty, but because the globe is far too cold. Man has to adapt himself with clothes or his environment with shelter in the form of buildings and light a camp fire in the form of central heating, or we die. There are only a few places that man can inhabit in this cold period; basically where the lost tribes are to found, some places in Africa and Australia, but for the main part, the globe is inhabitable for us in our natural state.
It is no coincidence that although man can trace his ancestors back millions of years, and modern man about 200,000 years, it is only during this interglacial that real development and progress has been made, and for the main part only since the Holocene Optimum at that.
The history of civilisations and their rise can be traced by temperature with warmer climes leading the race, Egypt, Minoans on Crete, Greeks, Romans, then northern Europeans. the only advance high latitude civilisation is the Vikings and that was in the Viking Warm Period.
The same can be seen with the development of skills, the bronze age to iron age. look at Stonehenge and compare it with the Pyramids. The Egyptians had wonderful building skills because the warmth meant that life was bountiful and skills could be learnt and passed from father to son, whereas the dwellers of Wiltshire had a day to day struggle for survival and only survival skills passed on.
why people fear a warming world beggars all belief. Everything we know about life suggest that it would be a godsend.
The continents were in much the same position as now during the balmy Paleocene, in which the world was largely ice-free. Goes even more so for the Eocene, after the PETM hot spell. Connections between Antarctica and Australia and South America meant the southern continent lacked ice sheets. Open ocean between North and South America permitted global tropical circulation.
Sea level was IMO too high during the Jurassic and Cretaceous to be ideal, due to more volcanism with the break up of Pangaea.
As for CO2 level, true greenhouse conditions are probably ideal, ie 800-1300 ppm.
Cost of moving coastal cities would be offset by much wealthier world from more food production and lower heating expenses.
“but, we could that climate as an example of one not fear . . .”?
Aphan,
Yeah, I left out the word ‘consider’. So the sentence should be:
John
I would question the essayist’s presumption that lower troposphere Temperature is a better indicator of “global warming” than surface Temperatures.
The surface temperatures determine the rate of LWIR radiant cooling of the earth, and the thermal capacity of the surface is much greater than that of the atmosphere.
A warmer atmosphere can’t effectively transport net “heat” (noun) to an even warmer surface.
The fact that Kevin Trenberth’s travestic missing heat isn’t hiding in the deep oceans; because it isn’t missing, it’s just doesn’t exist, explains why we have a hiatus/pause/plateau/stoppage/whatever in global temperature anomaly rise. A warmer atmosphere doesn’t mean a warming globe. A warmer atmosphere means that “heat” (noun) must convect to higher altitudes, where less GHG concentration exists to keep delaying the loss to space by LWIR radiation.
George, you are forgetting that any warming at the surface from more CO2 and other greenhouse gases starts in the atmosphere at the emission level of the particular gas. The emission level rises to a higher, usually cooler level, that reduces the heat leaving the planet. So the atmosphere warms first which reduces the net heat from the surface and the surface warms. This is not true for some other changes such as reduction in cloud cover which first heats the surface. So any surface warming without atmosphere warming cannot be caused by CO2, but something else. Hence the importance of the satellite data.
Much like when Malthusians use the loaded term “overpopulation”, warmunists never seem to be able to answer: what SHOULD the temperature be?
I guess they kinda come close with “2 degrees less than it was before the Industrial Revolution” or whatever they were blathering on about in Paris.
There is no such state. The planet will do what it will and we cannot stop it. Best to adapt, as we have, to any change of any significance.
so far, what I see in all of this , is that as of today , there is not one shred of solid evidence that man-kind has any influence over global climate. None, zip, zilch nottabit, All I continue to see are speculations, poor models, and lots of attempts to indoctrinate an otherwise simple minded public susceptible to ideas that man can save the planet by lowering its output of life giving CO2. ..its ridiculous ..sad really. And honestly, i don’t get it. We are more intelligent than this. I guess the old mantra still applies, : if you keep repeating the same lies over and over, eventually people will believe it., especially when debate or discussion is squelched.
IMO there are demonstrable human effects on local and regional climates. Global, not so much.
Although more plant food in the air has been a good thing for the planet as a whole.
Yes we have a micro climatic impact on a micro regional basis. CO2 has greened the planet faster than man can chop down trees and deforest. Rising CO2 has been very beneficial for the biosphere..
… not one shred of solid evidence … man’s influence over global climate … speculations, poor models … ridiculous
And all I see, especially from the clearly presented results of the above article, is that we have 99% confidence that rising CO₂ is caused by increased fossil fuel burning, at a rate of +1 ppm per 143 MTOE of fossil fuel consumption. Its rare – even in the best statistics – to have over 99% R² confidence. This is now to me a given.
And I also see that there is a weaker correlation (43% confidence) between CO₂ rise and tropospheric temperature rise. Science knows to higher certainty why some of the upward blips and downward wiggles happen in this curve, (El Niño, La Nina, volcanic emissions, some solar variability) … but not entirely. This doesn’t invalidate the fundamental statistical correlation. Its there. Its real.
So, while you’ve got a fine disregard for statistics, I’d say that the author of this paper did a good job neutrally presenting the facts. We can expect +1° temperature rise with +16,400 MTOE of fossil-fuel consumption over our present ≈13,000 MTOE rate. Unless we decide to try our hand at geoengineering.
GoatGuy
43% is no correlation!
Mr. goat: Don’t you also see (such as Dr. Titley’s condescension) that the physics of CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas, known since the 1800’s, requires (under CAGW theory) much more than a “weaker (nice weasel word, ace) correlation, and is debunked by the “weaker” correlation? Accusing others of disregarding statistics by disregarding physics is a good look for you, but don’t let the team catch you admitting to “weak” correlations-you’re supposed to say, “robust.”
Nah, Paul. “weaker” isn’t a weasel word, it is an accurate statement of relative correlation. So far, the only poster here that’s seriously taken my position to task is Richard S. Courtney. I’ll read his paper and get back to the “team”, whatever aggregate that may happen to be. GoatGuy
Goatguy gives the impression that it is obvious there is a ^ CO2 > ^ temp relation.
This is a correlation, yes, but this is far from logically being evidence of causation.
There is one fundamental problem, captured in the word “covary:”
There is no covariance; these two measures do not covary. To covary, they need to rise and fall in conjunction. But there is no fall – ever – in the CO2 data.
So, even though the statistics software will give you a correlation coefficient, the nature of the CO2 data precludes you, logically, from being able to test whether they covary.
If otherwise, mathematically, CO2 could be analyzed and “found” to be “causing” some portion of any other measurable phenomena that has generally been on an upward trend “since the beginning of the satellite record.”
The most humorous was when someone noted that the number of Harvard-educated Supreme Court justices is caused by CO2: both have trended upward through the most recent couple of appointments.
My understanding is that of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is around 0.04%. Man’s contribution is around 3% of that equating to anthropogenic CO2 of 0.0012% of all atmospheric gasses. This cannot possibly cause GW or climate change of any sort. It is both counter intuitive and illogical.
In addition, the control of CFC emissions has largely repaired the ozone thereby shoring up the atmosphere which, instead of letting more heat in through the ozone hole, is acting like a protective blanket, therefore, satellite data now tells us tropospheric temperatures are stable. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Furthermore, as far as I can gather, during both the Medieval warm period and the Little ice age, CO2 barely varied, surely if it was the cause of warming it would have fluctuated relative to both those periods?
“This doesn’t invalidate the fundamental statistical correlation. Its there. Its real.”
The correlation is to to the data, it is to a trendline which is an artificial construct. Put the two data sets side by side and run a correlation coefficient calculation. See what that is. And it is not 43%.
Since man-caused CO2 is only a few percent of the naturally introduced CO2, I find it unlikely that the rest of the biosphere has kept its CO2 production rate so constant over the past 100+ years that a small increase in CO2 by us has caused all the net accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially in such a linear fashion. Statistically, this is very unlikely. Until we can measure all the other sources and sinks of CO2 with the level of precision necessary to determine which ones are increasing or decreasing and get a real material balance, this may be the classic correlation is not causation effect.
I am puzzled by this comment, since the article provides NO evidence that fossil fuel burning has anything to do with CO2 levels. Figure 2 shows a correlation between CO2 levels and GDP, not fossil fuel use. It’s suggestive, but that’s all it is. (And if *changes* in CO2 levels are proportional to burning and burning is proportional to GDP then the graph *shouldn’t* be a straight line.) I say this because I have a high regard for Statistics.
“And all I see, especially from the clearly presented results of the above article, is that we have 99% confidence that rising CO₂ is caused by increased fossil fuel burning, at a rate of +1 ppm per 143 MTOE of fossil fuel consumption. Its rare – even in the best statistics – to have over 99% R² confidence. This is now to me a given.”
The author states-
“Secondly, the recent increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is almost entirely anthropogenic.” then shows one chart (Figure 2: CO2 concentration as a function of global energy consumption from 1965 to 2014: Energy vs co2) and concludes “99% of CO2 increase can be explained by energy use in all forms.”
All the article shows “us” is that the author seems 100% confident that 99% of the CO2 increase can be explained by energy use. The author in no way proves that to be statistically true, especially to the point that “we” can have 99% confidence in that conclusion. To say that he does seems to indicate that you have such a high regard for statistics and correlations that you believe they equate with facts.
Except there is that very interesting CO2 satellite taking images of CO2 emissions. It takes such wonderful pictures, that NASA is still working on a method to adjust them.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image0021.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image0041.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image014.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image016.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image018.jpg
Where is the imagery that locks the percentage increases in CO2 percentages to mankind? Until then, any and all statements blaming mankind are belief, not science.
Unfortunately, the Green Industry/Academia continues to preach a man-made CO2 driven apocalypse is coming but, time and again, the evidence for such is either not provided or is very quickly discredited and discounted by subsequent events and investigations.
However, like all true self-interested troughers or religious zealots they then don’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of their stated beliefs but alter tack.They then discredit themselves even further like some suspect being formally interviewed and interrogated by the police: each lie leads to necessary further lies which in turn provides more evidence of on-going inconsistency and contradiction.
Alternatively, they re-define their dogma, the classic being changing global warming – something that inconveniently can be measured and commented on, to climate change – something that is not quantifiable, has no datum for comparison and therefore something that can mean all things to all people.
They have moved the goal posts so many times that the playing field looks like the aftermath of a plague of moles!
Pathetic!
Cassandra, I agree, the day they changed from çagw to climate change was the dày they realised the gaff was up and needed to employ smoke and mirrors
“Hotscot” comments a few blogs back had better do some research. Cfc made no difference to ozone hole. It hss not changed for several years now. Cause and Correlation be damned.
Consider the pre-satellite interval of the post-war rapid CO2 rise. While the “surface” data books have been cooked to a crisp, the fact remains that from 1945-78, Earth cooled dramatically while CO2 increased monotonously.
OK, so you’ve formulated a hypothesis, namely:
“The relationship between CO2 and temperature in the satellite era is weak, with 58% of the CO2 increase occurring while temperatures have paused; Therefore temperature change is probably caused mainly by natural factors”
Now, write a paper, have it peer reviewed and published and let it be falsified if it can be. The “natural factors” need to be hypothesised as well. What has caused the temperature changes if CO2 is not wot did it?
Dicey,
The same forces that caused equal or greater temperature changes during even longer intervals of the Holocene and prior interglacials. There is no need to imagine that CO2 is the cause, ie the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
What about AleaJactaEst actually writing a paper proving beyond doubt that CO2 caused more than 50% of global warming as proposed by IPCC? He/she will have no problem getting it “peer” reviewed and published. The problem is can he/she actually proved it rather than presenting just another hypothesis?
a least Ken Stewart ha produced some factual evidence to back up his hypothesis. This is a new way to present the comparison (at least for me) and it looks worthy of consideration rather than “out of hand” rejection.
And… this paper does the same thing. A little lower correlation (43% R² ), but still … same idea. GoatGuy
no dismissing out of hand, just a nudge towards changing “our” approach (I’m a dyed on the wool CAGW skeptic) to challenging the orthodoxy. Something our alarmist friends throw in our faces regularly. Let’s get published.
I am not a scientist, I am a layman; and I have been fed the catastrophic AGW hypothesis since I was in elementary school. For most of my life, I have believed in AGW, though I always had nagging doubts; but Who am I to judge? They’re the scientists, and the consensus says that AGW is real and dangerous. I came over to the skeptical side because the AGW proponents seemed to be focusing too much on one aspect of the earth’s climate, without taking the climactic system as a whole; and that whenever they were confronted with scientific questions it seems they could never argue the science but simply reverted to name-calling and character assassinations. Talk about “how to win friends and influence people”!
The problem I have, as a layman, with the hypothesis of AGW/CC on account of man’s CO2 emissions, is that it seems to refuse to take into account the reality that the climate of the earth is part of an incredibly intricate system which is impossible to control: Ocean currents, solar radiation, the relative gravitational pull of the Moon, as well as Cruthne and other quasi-satellites, water vapour and clouds, etc.; and even the likely possibility of urban heat-island effect affecting the terrestrial temperature record to show a false rise in temperature. There are simply too many variables to my mind to be able to pin the cause of climate change solely on CO2, whether Anthropogenic or not. To my mind, the Climate Change Alarmists have become like a new breed of geocentrists: Anthropocentrists. They think that man is in charge of Nature, and that we are the ones that determine the fate of the planet; the fact is, we aren’t. The climate was changing before Modern Man appeared on the scene, and will continue to change long after we’re gone.
The proponents of AGW via CO2 quite simply cannot see the forest for the trees: they’re so concerned with one tiny facet of the situation that they cannot fathom the situation as a whole and recognize other elements.
G. Maximus does not need to write a paper in the peer-reviewed literature on that topic; many have already done so.
+1
As a layman I came to the same conclusion you did and mostly for the same reasons. Why are we so quick to dismiss the known natural factors that affect climate: volcanism, clouds, cosmic radiation (not just solar cycles), ocean oscillations, etc. and blame a majority of the recent warming on CO2? It simply does not make sense to me given what we think we know about how the climate behaved prior to industrialization. Somewhere I read that there have been something like 100 studies using different proxies that confirm the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Periods. So if we have high confidence in those studies, and we believe that those warming periods were indeed global phenomenon, and we accept that the average global temp was slightly higher during those periods than it is today – and we don’t have good explanations for what caused those warming periods – then how on earth can we be sure that CO2 is the primary cause for the recent warming? It makes no logical sense to me.
“The proponents of AGW via CO2 quite simply cannot see the forest for the trees: they’re so concerned with one tiny facet of the situation that they cannot fathom the situation as a whole and recognize other elements.”
They are concerned with that tiny aspect because it leads them to a predetermined conclusion – controlling cheap, abundant power to the masses. People with access to cheap energy don’t need authoritative governments, they don’t need government handouts, and they don’t need government “redistributing wealth”.
The root of government power is the power to manage the day to day lives of the serfs, control their education, their health care and their food, housing and wealth.
The Global Warming crowd is all the same people as the One World government crowd. Funny how that works.
@Henry.
I am also a layman and have fluctuated between scepticism and moderate belief in AGW.
My abiding principle is that’s both counter-intuitive and illogical to blame man’s contribution of CO2 for global warming as it represents 0.0012% of all atmospheric gasses, an issue glossed over by the GW zealots. It is also logical that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, that even if the Arctic melted entirely, being largely sea ice, Archimede’s principle dictates that sea levels would not rise at all. The Antarctic is a continent, however, ice core data proves it has not thawed even during earth’s hottest period so sea rise is not a problem at all.
As the planet is pretty well at the coldest in its history before descending into an ice age, I certainly find the prospect of a warmer planet infinitely preferable to the alternative. Nor should warming be considered particularly bad. Ignoring any CO2 rise for the moment, a warmer planet would see areas currently unable to support crops transformed, and currently productive areas enjoying longer growing periods. There would undoubtedly be areas which would suffer from crop loss in the warmer areas, however, the ability to irrigate these areas counters the inability to irrigate anything when it’s frozen.
Melting permafrost would be likely to raise sea levels, but certainly not at the rate, or with the ferocity GW zealots would terrorize us with, their visions are largely derived from Marvel comics, which is where they should remain.
If CO2 does rise further, crops will get a double whammy with longer growing periods and the benefits of more CO2 which encourages growth, suppresses weeds, increases resistance to pests and reduces the need for water, allowing growth in hotter areas.
Being that fossil derived energy is the single most influential development of the human race which has moved most of the western world from breadline subsistence, if not abject poverty, to wealthy, healthy nations with declining populations. If we deprive third worlds of the ‘right’ to use fossil fuels, any subsidies we grant them will mostly line the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats with a small portion reaching those it was intended for. Furthermore, humans, in general, despise handouts and would rather be taught how to fish. Without the benefit of fossil derived energy poverty will prevail and millions will die but populations increase as larger families become more vital for geriatric care. Nor will there be access to the sophisticated medical care, education and opportunity westerners enjoy, and now seem intent on keeping to themselves.
Civil unrest will continue and terrorism, wars, etc. flourish, perhaps not on the scale of WW1 or 2, but nevertheless persistent and endless. Poverty, dissatisfaction and envy cause wars, deprive the third world of the ability to ascend from that situation and we will rapidly discover that it’s not GW that encourages ISIS and their ilk but restricted access to energy. As the saying goes, ‘Idle hands are the devil’s workshop; idle lips are his mouthpiece.’
Despite what the GW zealots would have us believe, climate change, which we can’t avoid but at best forestall, is more than a series of mathematical calculations, it is a humanitarian opportunity and certainly not the doomsday scenario they predict.
But what must always override all this is that scientists are not Gods, they can no more tell the future than you or I can, indeed, they have comprehensively failed to predict future global temperature rises, with satellite data now revealing the tropospheric temperatures have remained stable for over 18 years, probably attributable to the banning of CFC’s and the consequent ozone improvement. This also seems to suggest that more atmospheric gasses in good, acting as they do, as a reflective covering for the planet. Hoisted by their own petard, methinks.
If you ever doubt your conviction just watch this video: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013030153#start=613&stop=5958
Aleajacta how many times we gotta tell you – the peer review system for climate science is broken. THAT is a self evident truth to anyone who has not been brainwashed by the Church of CAGW.
Hotscot should stop refering to CFCs. The ozone hole is not any smaller……
I love the way the warmunists actually claim that unless you can up with an alternate explanation that they are willing to accept, then it must be the CO2 that is causing the temperature to rise.
OK Alea, I’ll respond to your request, but only after you come up with an explanation for what has caused the half dozen or so other warm periods during the last 5000 years. Until you can positively identify the causes of those warm periods, it’s impossible to prove that what ever it was, is not in action presently.
AleaJactaEst-
First, you seem to have a common affliction where peer review is concerned. The article linked to below reveals this affliction: “Right now, many people think peer review means, ‘This paper is great and trustworthy!’ In reality, it should mean something like, ‘A few scientists have looked at this paper and didn’t find anything wrong with it, but that doesn’t mean you should take it as gospel. Only time will tell.'”
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/12/09/the-magic-of-peer-review
But if you stubbornly cling to your idea about what peer review/publishing means then here’s a list to just some of the peer-reviewed, published articles that establish a variety of things that could be responsible instead of CO2.
http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
Falsify them if you can.
Why?
Until the alarmists convince Earth to participate, we can wait.
So long as there’s no increase in global temps, Gavin et al will just keep on bringing out new versions of the temperature record to show that there has. Until the msm starts publicizing that fact, we’ll be stuck with COP+ ad infinitum.
Like the M. C. Escher picture of the man climbing a circuit of steps that ascend forever and ever.
Unfortunately, there is a glaringly large, undeniable error in all your hard work above….You made no mention of Fairy Dust !! How can you expect the liberal GreenFreaks to accept anything that you said without mentioning Fairy Dust at least once ?? Sorry……
Beautiful summary of the variables at play. And a brilliant primer for students at all levels. You have elegantly reinforced the reality that while there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, the former is not a driver of the latter.
I think your analysis is pretty much spot-on, sir. I might have stated it in a more brief way:
• [1] Atmospheric CO₂ rise tracks fossil fuel comsumption to a 99+% statistical surety (1 ppm per 140 mtoe at R²=⁰.993). It is man-made.
• [2] Tropospheric temperature rise is less well correlated; at about 44% confidence, the trend is for +1° per 150 ppm increase in CO₂.
• [3] 85% of all energy used by mankind is CO₂ generating (fossil fuel – coal, gas, petroleum)
• [4] The world’s economy is poised to grow, to increase both demographically and economically.
• [5] Unless massive increases in nuclear and renewable energy are planned, we can expect CO₂ production to rise in the future. The economic growth of [4] will require it.
Therefore… as a net, with 43% confidence, we can expect CO₂ increase of +1° rise per 150 ppm CO₂ atmospheric increase, and with 98% confidence, that will occur when oil consumption has risen +16,400 MTOE to a yearly burn rate of 29,400 MTOE.
I cannot say (for the numbers aren’t here, but elsewhere) when this point will occur, but it cannot take another 100 years. Somewhat less. Like you, I also do not expect a massive increase in nuclear power generation, nor do I see renewables taking over the heavy lifting that all fossil fuel combined is performing.
It is inevitable then that CO₂ will rise due to Man’s burning of fossil fuels at an increasing rate, tracking civilization’s prosperity and economic performance.
GoatGuy
Actually, if I remember correctly, added CO2 does not increase temperature linearly…
The amounts which have been added so far will nominally look linear due to the small range added. Even logarithmic scales look linear if viewed over a small interval. Think of looking at a perimeter of a large circle with a magnifying glass. It’ll look ever so slightly curved, perhaps even straight. GoatGuy
Wouldn’t looking at ANY logarithmic scale “look linear” if you look at a small enough scale?
I might also point out, “looking linear” and “being linear” are not the same thing.
Where you are on that linear scale when you look at it is important, as well. At very low levels of CO2, an increase looks flat on the y axis. At high levels of CO2, an increase looks flat on the x axis.
GoatGuy:
You assert
True. And equally true is the assertion
• [1] Atmospheric CO₂ rise tracks human population (sic) so breathing to a 99+% statistical surety). It isman-made.
Both your claim of fossil fuel consumption by humans and my claim that human breathing is causing the rise are equally untrue: correlation is NOT evidence of causation .
Richard
Yes, Richard. Apologies for the typo. Its roughly 50°F in the house and the fingers – ironically for this discussion! – are numb. Of course correlation isn’t necessarily related to cause. I assert it is likely, you assert either that it isn’t, or that you don’t care to believe that hypothesis. Got an alternate? 0.99+ R² either points to an almost certain direct causation, or an extremely tight coupling of MTOE fossil fuel use and another hidden factor tightly coupled to it that is directly causal. I’ve not heard of any theories for that, have you? If so, please … illuminate, dear old spud. GoatGuy
GoatGuy:
Of course I have ” Got an alternate? “: I stated it in the post you are replying.
If you were able to read you would have
(a) read that “alternate”
and
(b) read that I provided that “alternate” as an example of an equally untrue assertion to yours.
As I said, correlation is NOT evidence of causation.
Also, as we explained in one of our 2005 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
overloading of CO2 ‘sinks’ is NOT the probable cause of the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2. It seems that something has altered the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium.
The anthropogenic emissions may have caused the alteration to the carbon cycle system but it is much more likely to have been caused by the temperature rise from the LIA over recent centuries.
Richard
Richard, I took your “because humans are breathing, and there are now more of them” as a spoof. Quantitatively it doesn’t make even first-approximation sense.
Better though is your reference to a paper. Thank you. Would you happen to have a link to the PDF of the paper? I can’t seem to find it directly online. Google gives a number of blogger articles referencing the PDF, but insofar as I can find … no PDF. It would be much appreciated.
Also, I offer my apologies for being snarky. Well, you met snark-with-snark ‘if you were able to read…’, so let’s get that behind us. Respect-for-respect. I’ll read the paper if you kick up a link. From summaries of others, it looks interesting.
GoatGuy
“The anthropogenic emissions may have caused the alteration to the carbon cycle system but it is much more likely to have been caused by the temperature rise from the LIA over recent centuries. ”
Makes sense since historically temperatures have risen (or fallen) followed by CO2 rising (or falling).
Of course, as we’ve seen, making sense and being in support of the CAGW meme often does not go together.
There is a logical error in GoatGuy’s assertion that a strong correlation is evidence of causation.
Suppose the concentration rises 200 ppm and the total CO2 emitted by AG sources is enough to account for five of it. The correlation could be 99.9% because what is being compared is two pretty straight lines. So what? If the quantity emitted from fossil fuel burning is only 2.5% of the rise, the correlation is spurious and the asignation misplaced.
The total AG mass is far more than the rise in concentration. The same argument applies. The rates happen to correlate but the rise is not nearly matching the emission.
There follows a claim that ‘half of it is missing’ because of sinks blah blah blah. It is said to be going into the oceans, which are claimed to be heating up and emitting MORE CO2. Huh? Now we need a partial pressure argument about the ocean absorbing more in spite of warming up. Well, oceans can’t both emit more and absorb more. Based on the AG emission rate, the atmospheric concentration should be rising at twice the observed rate.
The correlation is spurious. The correlation between AG CO2 is junk. Not fundamentally different from a random guess.
GoatGuy, for the last thirty years or so, atmospheric emissions have been increasing at about 5% per decade. Thus it will take about 14 decades to double them.
Bones-“increasing at about 5% per decade”….meaning what exactly? 5% of what?
as the increase in co2 is nearly linear and the tailing off of greenhouse effect logarithmic, it would seem to me as a layman that expecting the two to have a direct linear correlation is illogical and absurd, the 2 cannot by their nature correlate in this way.
Or have I missed something
the correlation of course being with temperature rise
“43% confidence”? Since when has a correlation coefficient or “43.5% of variation in this explained by variation in that” been “confidence”? (In another comment here I misread the X axis of figure 2, but the conclusion that there *shouldn’t* be a straight line if the causal story is right is not invalidated by that error.)
GoatGuy likes to conflate the two. He sees a 43.5% correlation between two things and declares that “we” then have a 43.5% confidence in that correlation! He doesn’t seem to understand how statistics work or what they do and do not “prove”.
Can anyone tell me how the climate models handle water vapor???
It is my understanding that water vapor is by far the most abundant GHC but I never see any mention or plot or graph or chart of water vapor vs.,… well, really anything.
Thank you in advance for your help.
By the way, if you plot the S&P 500 from 1965 to today (or from 1975 to present; or 1990 to present, or …), or really any 20 to 30 year period up until today you will find that, despite it’s many bumps along the way, it has gone up JUST LIKE CO2 !!!!
Clearly, the rise in CO2 has been caused by the rise in the S&P 500.
Not included !!!
BusterBrown@hotmail.com, your are NOT a funny guy. Just a stubborn ignorant that pretends to know, stressing patience of people and sending them out of mind.
A 1/-1 r do not imply causation any more than 0.9 r imply being 90% of the causes or being the cause in 90% situations.
That’s usually n°1 caveat, and n°2 point, just after definition, in any elementary statistical course regarding correlation. To miss it, you must have had no course, read no handbook.
You DO proclaim your ignorance. And, doing so after being proved wrong several time by several people, you DO deserve being pointed at your stupidity. Now, that’s easy for you to prove otherwise : just ask anyone else, any where else (but do ASK, not just read things you may misunderstand), with some knowledge of stat, and ask if perfect correlation implies causation. Then when she will have say “no it doesn’t, it just hints at some common cause” (and she will), come back and apology : that’s the way you’ll prove you can learn, that is, prove your are not a stubborn stupid guy unable to recognize he’s wrong.
apologies, wrong place for this ; see below
Actually John, your tongue-in-cheek analysis of S&P 500 from 1965 to today, and its correlation to the rise in CO₂ is quite apt. It is my (and most eco-statisticians) view that CO₂ rise is strongly correlated to economic progress. Minus inflation, the total value of the S&P 500 is a good proxy for this nation’s true economic growth. Color me “not surprised”. GoatGuy
GoatGuy:
You yet again demonstrate your ignorance of what correlation does and does not indicate about causation. Color me “not surprised ”.
I write in hope of removing some of your ignorance.
Correlation and coherence can each and both provide information pertaining to causality.
Correlation is a mathematical relationship between two parameters. If the correlation is known over the length of the data sets, then their correlation indicates the magnitude of a change in one parameter that is expected when the other parameter changes by a known magnitude.
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relation between two parameters.
Coherence of two parameters indicates that when one parameter changes then the other parameter changes later.
Coherence can disprove that change of one parameter causes change in the other; i.e. if change in parameter A follows change in parameter B then the change of A cannot be the cause of the change of B (because a cause cannot occur after its effect).
So,
1.
absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relationship
and
2.
when there is a direct causal relationship then coherence indicates which of the two parameters is causal.
Furthermore, coherence in the absence of correlation is strongly suggestive that both parameters are affected by another parameter (or other parameters).
For example, leaves fall off trees soon after children return to school following their summer break.
The coherence is great; i.e. both effects occur each year.
But the effects do not correlate; i.e. the number of returning children is not indicative of the number of falling leaves.
In this example, the time of year is the additional parameter which causes children to return to school and the leaves to fall off trees.
Another example is that global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration cohere such that atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to global temperature at all time scales. This indicates that if there is a causal relationship between them then the temperature is causal of the CO2. However, except at very short time scales, global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration do not correlate: this is strongly suggestive that both parameters are affected by another parameter (or other parameters) .
Richard
Richard, thank you (and now please put away the ‘counter-snarky’ phrase-o-matic unit! It isn’t necessary.) for attempting to clarify the difference between correlation and causation with the fillip coherence added to the mix. I understand parametric Nth order partial derivative time series fairly well, even if at times they are not strictly differentiable. Engineering and all that. Your term coherence lives within these derivative maths.
It is easy to come up with obvious real correlations that point to fictional causation … populations of forest rodents dropping in advance of the decline in Winter temperatures and so on (“so rodent die offs cause winter temperatures to drop!”, being silly, etc.) … and as you clearly say, lack of correlation does pretty much deny a link to causation. But strong correlation doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a link. (Children returning to school, falling of autumnal leaves – great example)
Wouldn’t it be fairer though to say, Richard, that “really strong correlations ought to at least cause the investigator to contemplate the physical system that might mathematically link the measured and highly correlated factors”? I am most certain that is fair: embraced, it causes the sociologist who notices that deciduous trees drop their leaves in abundance around the time when kids go back to school, to explore HOW that apparent causation might work. Sure enough … she determines that the link is only anecdotal, as the returning schoolkids have no substantial physical (or mathematical) link to mechanisms within the trees that would result in dropping of leaves as they prepare to comport to school.
I look forward to read your paper, if you are kind enough to provide a link to the PDF. At this point, being a not-that-simple man, I entertain the idea that there could well be a coherent link between the complex environmental system with all its varying time-dependencies and the return from the LIA.
GoatGuy
Mr. goat: “CO2 rise is strongly correlated to economic progress.” Thus we must cut emissions. Perfect logic (for an “eco-statistician”). Color me green (on outside).
GoatGuy:
I am not providing “snark”.
I am indicating disdain for an anonymous internet popup who is providing disinformation in a blatant attempt to mislead onlookers. And I have no intention of giving false credibility to your disinformation by discussing it.
I again refute it. Correlation does NOT indicate causation.
In the unlikely event that you do have the statistical knowledge you claim to possess, then that emphasises the malign intent of your repeated attempts to pretend the falsehood that a correlation indicates a causation.
Richard
Certainly not, BusterBrown.
r =1 or r = -1 correlation indicates that they have a common cause which may, or not, be one of them.
r=1 between CO2 and H20 in the exhaust of a (complete) burning of CH4, but you wont increase H2O by injecting more CO2 in this exhaust
BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
You say to me
NO! They do not!
For example, any – yes, ANY – two straight lines will fulfill your criterion of r =1 or r = -1.
The reality of correlation indications pertaining to causation is as I explained in my above post. As I said there:
Correlation is a mathematical relationship between two parameters. If the correlation is known over the length of the data sets, then their correlation indicates the magnitude of a change in one parameter that is expected when the other parameter changes by a known magnitude.
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relation between two parameters.
Richard
Even perfect correlation is evidence of causation, all it indicates is for the time period measured, two variables moved in lock step with each other. It could be that both variables are being controlled by a third variable, or it could still be random chance, and had you added a few more data points to your observations, the linkage would have broken down.
BusterBrown@hotmail.com
You make the strange and astonishing assertion
I don’t know what gave you that idea!
The definition of causation means making something occur, or being the underlying reason why something happened.
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters. Please see e.g. this.
Richard
BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
Please explain or link to whatever has caused you to think
(a) The definition of causation does not mean making something occur, or being the underlying reason why something happened.
and
(b) A correlation coefficient of 1.0 or -1.0 indicates a causal relation between two parameters.
When you explain your misunderstandings then I will try to correct them for you.
At present, all I can do (as I have) is to refute your errors and provide a link to a textbook explanation of the reality you are disputing.
Richard
BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
That explains your problem: i.e. you read an explanation on wicki and misunderstood it.
The quotation you provides says nothing – n.b. NOTHING – about causation.
A description of a relationship is not an assertion of causation between the the parameters of the described relationship. And that is true whether or not the description is “perfect”.
Indeed, the item on wicki that you link does not mention causation.
In reality,
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relation between two parameters.
Richard
BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
Your link does NOT say, suggest or imply what you claim it states.
Either you really are as thick as you say you are or – as I suspect – you are deliberately wasting space on the thread.
The definition of causation means making something occur, or being the underlying reason why something happened.
Correlation is a mathematical relationship between two parameters.
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relation between two parameters.
Take an elementary course in statistics if the concepts of causation and correlation are really as misunderstood by you as you claim they are.
And that is the end of my attempt to help you because it is not possible to inform somebody who chooses to believe nonsense as you say you do.
Richard
BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
I told you I would not address any more of your time-wasting bollocks because you have ignored all the help I have tried to give you.
Come back when you have taken an elementary course in statistics.
Richard
BusterBrown@hotmail.com:
If you want to persist in proclaiming your ignorance and stupidity then I suggest you try bothering him with it because I have lost patience with you.
Richard
BusterBrown@hotmail.com, your are NOT a funny guy. Just a stubborn ignorant that pretends to know, stressing patience of people and sending them out of mind.
A 1/-1 r do not imply causation any more than 0.9 r imply being 90% of the causes or being the cause in 90% situations.
That’s usually n°1 caveat, and n°2 point, just after definition, in any elementary statistical course regarding correlation. To miss it, you must have had no course, read no handbook.
You DO proclaim your ignorance. And, doing so after being proved wrong several time by several people, you DO deserve being pointed at your stupidity. Now, that’s easy for you to prove otherwise : just ask anyone else, any where else (but do ASK, not just read things you may misunderstand), with some knowledge of stat, and ask if perfect correlation implies causation. Then when she will have say “no it doesn’t, it just hints at some common cause” (and she will), come back and apology : that’s the way you’ll prove you can learn, that is, prove your are not a stubborn stupid guy unable to recognize he’s wrong.
********
Isn’t it interesting that some articles bring on behavior in certain posters who, while claiming to understand the arguments, and claim to be well read on the subject, completely and continuously display what I have come to refer to as “foot petard hoist syndrome”. That is, while standing on a petard, they shoot themselves in both feet, set off the petard, and hoist themselves skyward.
Hint: That behavior, while blustery and claiming to “win” the argument, completely devastates their position. To the astute reader, it is plainly obvious that their position is completely without merit.
I’m not going to engage in tit-for-tat responses with them. There is no need to. Others have skewered them thoroughly. But for the fence-sitters, it sometimes makes sense to, while laughing, point out some of the self-petard-hoist-syndrome-behavior.
So, looking back up thread, at “December 16, 2015 at 10:55 am” we see from one of these blustery and busy posters: “That is by definition “causation””.
The claim is that a high correlation “defines” causation. While quoting wiki-pedia. Funny!
At “December 16, 2015 at 12:12 pm” we see “A value of 1 implies that a linear equation…”.
Ah. “implies”.
At “December 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm” the argument-by-repetition continues: “When the correlation coefficient approaches the limit of 1 (or -1) the relationship implies causality.”
But there’s that word “implies” again.
At “December 16, 2015 at 2:11 pm” the “argumenter” repeats that last quote. As if it is some kind of devastating point. (Laugh.)
Aphan completely skewers this hapless poster at “December 16, 2015 at 2:08 pm”:
“READ the statement over and over again to yourself until you can accept, and admit, that the word CAUSATION is not included ANYWHERE in that statement.”
No more needs to be said. Mr. Richard S. Courtney had also deeply and mortally wounded the argument up-thread.
But our blusterer blusters on, see for example at “December 16, 2015 at 4:02 pm” with “Your “proof” is invalid because”… The rest of the quote is not necessary. This poster has demonstrated that he inserted his concept of “causality” into a quote about _correlation_. He claimed that perfect correlation “defines” (and then, back-pedaling) “implies” causality. Hint: “implies” does not equal “defines”, and does not come close to “proves”.
He “argues” on, and on, completely ignoring the multiple skewers and devastating vacations of his so-called “argument”.
Thanks to him, and other posters like him, it makes it obvious that this particular article is devastating, in some fashion, to his career/belief/position, and those of other posters like him.
For others that may want to come here and put up pretend arguments like him, please, up your game. Weak and unsupportable argumentation does not support your cause. It wastes time, and gives the regulars here opportunity to demonstrate that the Church of CAGW has no case.
The plain fact is of course that the Church of CAGW has no case. That is plainly obvious to anybody that looks at the evidence impartially. If the Church of CAGW had a case, then the evidence would be plainly and clearly demonstrated, and all of the impartial readers, such as myself, would simply sit up, pay attention, and agree that the position holds merit. Alas, it does not.
For the sake of any fence-sitters, people who may have come here recently or are here for the first time, please do scroll back up-thread and read again Mr. Courtney’s reply at “December 16, 2015 at 7:26 am”. The last paragraph is included here for your convenience:
“The anthropogenic emissions may have caused the alteration to the carbon cycle system but it is much more likely to have been caused by the temperature rise from the LIA over recent centuries.”
LIA == “Little Ice Age”. As has been mentioned up-thread, the ice core records demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 _follows_ temperature. The physical evidence shows that increased CO2 typically follows increased temperatures by about 200 to 800 years. The LIA is about 500 years of cold weather that the earth experienced between about mid-1200s to about mid-1700s. So now, somewhat upwards of 200 years later, we are seeing CO2 levels going up. No surprise.
A main reason why the climate models fail so miserably, ie show way too much temperature sensitivity from doubling CO2, is that they assume high positive feedback effect from CO2 on water vapor. In fact, the net effect is probably negative.
Stand in front of a fire and feel the heat. Put a blanket between you and the fire and you don’t feel as much heat. Atmospheric water vapour acts in much the same way with the sun.
Water vapor is far and away the most important GHG. Most of the added effect of CO2 occurs in the first 200 ppm. After that, the effect diminishes. At most absorption bands, gaseous water and carbon dioxide overlap. CO2 is significant only where H2O is very low, as over the polar deserts.
BusterBrown-
YOU need to get a grip kiddo. YOU stated-
“Richard, in the case of r =1 or r = -1 correlation indicates absolute causation.”
That sentence, as YOU constructed it, is undeniably and completely incorrect.
in the case of r=1 or r=-1 correlation indicates absolute CORRELATION, not CAUSATION. You are either UNAWARE of the fact that those two words mean two different things and cannot be used interchangeably, or you cannot READ properly and are not recognizing they contain different letters in the first place.
Richard TRIED to explain that you were wrong, tried to point out what I just said to you, and then you provided a wiki link that ALSO proves you wrong for the same reasons!
“The correlation coefficient ranges from −1 to 1. A value of 1 implies that a linear equation describes the relationship between X and Y perfectly, with all data points lying on a line for which Y increases as X increases. A value of −1 implies that all data points lie on a line for which Y decreases as X increases. A value of 0 implies that there is no linear correlation between the variables.”
READ the statement over and over again to yourself until you can accept, and admit, that the word CAUSATION is not included ANYWHERE in that statement. Read it over and over again until you grasp the following basic facts: 1) “A value of 1 implies a perfectly CORRELATED relationship between X and Y, a perfect CORRELATION.” 2) A value of 1 does NOT IMPLY perfect CAUSATION between X and Y.
Two things can be PERFECTLY correlated without implying ANY causal relationship at all. For example-
100 people jump on trampolines in a park
An earthquake occurs at the exact same time, and it’s epicenter is under the park.
The jumpers and the earthquake are perfectly correlated. But it would be ridiculous to IMPLY that the jumpers CAUSED the earthquake based on that correlation, no matter how perfect it might be.
–HotScot
December 16, 2015 at 11:29 am
Stand in front of a fire and feel the heat. Put a blanket between you and the fire and you don’t feel as much heat. Atmospheric water vapour acts in much the same way with the sun.–
A radiant effect
–BusterBrown@hotmail.com
December 16, 2015 at 11:33 am
Stand naked outside at night feel the cold. Put a blanket between you and the air and you don’t feel as cold. Atmospheric water vapour acts in much the same way with the cold of space.–
A convective effect.
Space is not cold or hot.
Energy is not transfer by convection in space, and heat loss in space is a radiant effect only-
unless something is evaporating into the vacuum of space
Evaporative cooling in space can be observe with comets, and evaporative cooling is used in spacesuits to keep an astronaut cool in the space environment.
Evaporative cooling is main way human control their body temperature.
Wet clothing in cold weather is example of evaporative- get out of wet clothing or you will freeze to death. Or stand near fire.
Evaporation cooling is why tropical ocean surface temperature can not get as warm land surface temperature, surface ocean doesn’t warm higher than 35 C, whereas land surface can warm to about 70 C. And water vapor and heat capacity of water causes tropical temperatures- not very hot and not very cool- despite receiving the majority of the Sun’s energy.
*******
They assume that relative humidity will stay constant as the atmosphere warms.
You’d have to examine the individual climate models to see if they include water vapor or not, and to what degree each one does if they do handle it.
All the GCMs include a water vapor feedback of a magnitude that is not in evidence and is indeed physically impossible.
That is, they assume way too high an H2O feedback from presumed CO2 warming, while ignoring totally or downplaying necessarily associated H2O phenomena such as evaporative cooling and clouds.
Ken Stewart:
You say
Well, your “alternative way to view The Pause” can be challenged because it does not “compare temperature with carbon emissions”: it compares temperature with the trivial anthropogenic addition to carbon dioxide emissions. But that severe error is not the reason I am making this post.
I am writing because there is one uniquely important “way to view The Pause” and it is provided by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its most recent (AR5) so-called scientific report (WG1).
Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is here and says
GMST trend is global mean surface temperature trend.
A “hiatus” is a stop.
Hence, the IPCC provides two understandings of the misnamed ‘Pause’ which are
1. The ‘Pause’ is a “hiatus” to rise of GMST which is longer than 15 years.
And
2. The ‘Pause’ is a lower temperature rise since 1998 than predicted by the CMIP5 ensemble mean trend (i.e. 0.21ºC per decade).
The second of these IPCC definitions of the ‘Pause’ makes any consideration of predicted temperature rise meaningless because the ‘Pause’ indicates the climate model predictions are wrong and high.
Any “alternative way to view The Pause” distracts from the important fact that the IPCC says the ‘Pause’ indicates the climate model predictions of global warming are wrong and high.
Richard
Good morning Richard
I’ve been unable to reply but the problem seems resolved now.
My alternative way to view The Pause is not a distraction but a reinforcement of the argument that GCM predictions are too high. The only difference is in plotting temperature against CO2 concentration instead of time. There has been a pause in global warming for 37 ppm CO2 increase (not just anthropogenic, but all sources), and also for 18 years 6 months.
Ken
kenskingdom:
Genuine thanks for that explanation.
We do disagree about the preferable way to view The Pause, but that is merely a statement that you and I have different opinions. Your explanation provides sufficient clarification of your view to enable others to make their own assessments of which of our opinions they think is preferable.
Again, thankyou.
Richard
An open question I’d like exploring…
The Central England temperature record is the longest time series we have.
The moving average clearly shows the trends. So early on 1670 – 1700 the average temperature fell by 1.1C, then rose from 1700 to 1740 by 1.8C CET rose by close to 1.8C from 1700 to 1740, before falling back by close to 1C in 20 years.
This is thought to be caused by 4 mechanisms…
Sun
Volcanism
Sea
Greenhouse Gases (CO2).
We can discount the last one, since we are in the preindustrial period. Volcanism is also unlikely over that time period. Dr Leif Svalgaard would discount the Sun, although others would correlate this to a sunspot decline (with no further mechanism to account for the changes). This leaves us with the sea ( Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation?).
If the sea has made the CET swing as wildly as it apparently has over such a short period, then how come the climate models would ascribe all the increase since 1850 due to CO2? Can the current climate models predict the CET back to 1659? If not, the sea’s apparent contribution now could be understated. And to what extent is a random walk contributing to the temperature across with time series? The difference between annual temperatures in the CET is stationary (Mean =0.0C std dev 0.8C). Despite obvious mechanisms above, to what extent is the random walk process contributing to the CET?
It strikes me that if the climate models can’t explain the CET, their ability to forecast the future is poor.
The CET is probably not taken seriously as a proxy for global temperatures.
By whom is it not?
Compare CET with HadCRU reconstruction of GASTA.
I’m not interested in global temps, but in the Central England record. The question remains – what according to ‘settled science’ made the temperatures oscillate in Britain so wildly from 1659 until 1760; 100 years of see-saw. Are the current climate models capable of explaining this, and if not, why not? The climate modelling community believe they can explain the data post 1860 with a whiff of CO2. That wasn’t a viable mechanism in 1740, unless I’m much mistaken…
Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit produced a temperature scale in 1724; Anders Celsius produced his scale (since inverted) in 1742.
Just “Nookied” a copy of Peter L. Ward’s latest book, “What Really Causes Global Warming – GHGs or ozone” that offers up ozone as an explanation for global warming.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG —— WRONG & Wrong!!!
The scientific method does not demand that we skeptics offer an alternative explanation for a non-existent problem. All the scientific method requires is that skeptics poke holes in CAGW theory and if they can’t patch those holes that’s their problem. Cold fusion, anyone?
It is obvious that that earth has been hotter and CO2 concentrations higher and that any current changes in CO2 and heating are simply natural variability. In the uncertainties surrounding the magnitude and fluxes of both CO2 and heat/power balances, CAGW theory has not demonstrated that anthropogenic sources make a significant contribution compared to natural variability which is evident in their theory’s inability to model or match reality.
CAGW theory is a combination of esoteric theory, hocus-pocus proxies, hand waving, and name calling that has collapsed in the face of reality. We skeptics should not compete by playing their losing game.
The ball is in the warmist’s court, not the skeptic’s.
+ 100
In the Social Sciences, theories are never wrong. Out of an excess of politeness, perhaps, theories are flawed, or faulty, or even incomplete.
In Chemistry, we have a different standard.
Your theory is:
Not incomplete.
Not faulty.
Not flawed.
It is:
Simple, direct, to the point, easy to understand.
Calm down Nicholas Schroeder.
The scientific method doesn’t demand that skeptics offer an alternative explanation. But scientific MINDS are still going to attempt to figure out how this planet works, to fill in the gaps. I WANT science to continue to move forward, I WANT logical, demonstrable evidence about how the planet works. If that pursuit DOES come up with other alternatives to the AGW theory, then even better. Right?
Well, Earth is warm because 70% of surface is water.
If Earth was covered by 100% ocean, there would not be ice on Earth- other than high in high atmosphere.
Earth’s tropical region is 80% ocean, Earth can not have snowball earth with 70 to 80% of it’s tropics covered with ocean. and Earth’s ocean prevents any kind of runaway effect- whether warming or cooling runaway effect.
Or put Earth at Venus distance and Earth’s ocean will prevent a runaway warming. Put Earth at Mars distance, and earth will not become a snowball earth- the tropics will still have liquid oceans.
Though at Venus or Mars distance, obviously Earth would be hotter or cooler.
.
gbaikie-who are you talking to and what is your point?
— Aphan
December 16, 2015 at 3:55 pm
gbaikie-who are you talking to and what is your point?–
My point is that earth’s climate is mostly about oceanic processes, so not atmospheric.
So if want to terraform Mars [make if warmer], add water to it’s tropical zone surface.
If want to cool Venus, add tens of trillions of tons of water [which will put water vapor in the atmosphere and this will cool Venus- or with Venus lacking a ocean of water, it would be related
to altering it’s atmosphere].
But in terms of Mars one can’t warm the planet with any amount of greenhouse gases- unless it involves water vapor which condenses in it’s tropics.
Of course, total energy consumption, which is indeed related to the total CO2 in the atmosphere as indicated, is as much a measure of time as anything else. You could use Warren Buffet’s age or pints of beer that have been drunk interchangeably. Obviously, both of those are not likely to be related to global temperature. The one that is, however, is the magnetic activity of the sun over the period since 1900. Given the thermal inertia of the earth, a phase lag will be apparent in response of the system, and it will act as a low pass filter. February is usually colder than december in the northern hemisphere despite the fact that the winter solstice occurs in late december.
Another important fact. Historically, warmer has been better than colder for living things, not including living things with beach houses.
I disagree with you conclusion that CO2 increase is due solely to energy consumption.
1) Correlation does not mean causation!
2) Your period for comparison is far too short.
3) Ice core and other geologic analysis has demonstrated that CO2 concentrations have varied significantly in the past 4+ million years, long before man and the significant burning of fossil fuels.
4) CO2 concentrations from the analysis mentioned in 3) demonstrate that CO2 concentrations increase after the Earth’s temperature increased (ALWAYS lagging – by 200-800 years) and decreased after Earth’s temperatures fell (ALWAYS lagging by 400-2,000 years). There are obviously natural causes for this relationship which you have ignored.
5) Process Control analysis demonstrates that lagging incidators are never driving functions, they are resultants.
Since the Earth has only recently emerged from the LIA and Earth’s temperature has warmed by 1.5-2C over the past ~165 years, it is far more logical to postulate that some, or most, of the increase in CO2 concentration is due to that warming with a fractional contribution from consumption of fossil fuels by man. Your conclusion of 100% due to energy consumption is suspect at the very least.
Otherwise, I think your analysis is worthy of a formal paper so the “experts” can review, comment, rebut and refine.
Bill
See reply to richardscourtney above. The tightness (R² > 0.99) of statistical confidence coupling changes in instrumentally observed CO₂ concentration to socio-economically gathered MTOE fossil fuel consumption statistics is outstanding. If the added atmospheric CO₂ is not directly caused by CO₂ loading thru fossil fuel burning, then there almost certainly is a so-far hidden factor which does couple these two as closely as they are. It would be a billion-to-one chance that the atmospheric PPM of CO₂ just happened to correspond on a nearly straight line with humanities increasing dependence on fossil fuel consumption to the 0.99+ R² level.
All that you cite – regarding little ice ages, pre-holocene temperature variations, CO₂ lags, and so on … are quite poignant, yet they do not influence the actual 0.99+ R² correlation in any way. This is not to say that there isn’t also scientific evidence supporting the LIA, pre-Holocene temperature variations; it is also not to say that truly huge climatic changes such as the Big Ice Ages didn’t happen, but these and their causal factors are not presently in play, today.
We are somewhat certain – but not unanimously so – that a large round of non-Phreatic eruptions would modify world climate toward the warm-trend, but an equally power set of Phreatic eruptions would modify it toward the cooler trend. Take a pick … there are a lot of factors. CO₂ is one of them.
GoatGuy
CoatGuy:
Yes, you did proclaim your ignorance upthread.
This link is to my above post that attempts to explain to you what correlation does and does not indicate.
Richard
GoatGuy:
In retrospect, I think I should have also linked to my mention of the LIA in a post above addressed to you because you attempt to claim the LIA is not relevant to recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration although it is probably the primary – although indirect – cause.
Richard
GG,
The causal factors of the LIA, pre-Holocene temperature variations and Big Ice Ages most certainly are in play today. They operate continuously. CO2 is insignificant.
During the past 70 years, for instance, CO2 has correlated most of the time with flat (past two decades) or falling (1945-77) temperature. Only from the late ’70s to ’90s did rising CO2 happen accidentally to coincide with increasing temperature, to the extent GASTA can even be measured.
Here’s what (Pearson) correlation is.
You have two variables, x and y.
Each of these variables is separately “centred” (by subtracting its mean) and “scaled” (by dividing it by its standard deviation) to deal with things like arbitrary origins (“sea level”, “0ºF” and so on) and units of measurements.
Fit a least squares line.
The slope of this line is the correlation.
To prove that correlation does not imply causation:
let a,b,c,d be any four distinct numbers. For example, take the ace-ten of clubs from a card deck, shuffle them, and take the top four.
let x be [min(a,b),max(a,b)].
let y be [min(c,d),max(c,d)].
The correlation between x and y is +1.
However, it is also false that the absence of correlation (more precisely, a correlation close to zero) implies the absence of a relationship, because
Pearson correlation is only sensitive to LINEAR relationships. Here’s some R code.
> x cor(x, x)
1
> cor(x, x^2)
> cor(x, x^3)
0.9165519
> cor(x, x^4)
Now I think we’d all agree that there *is* a relationship between x and x squared. But the correlation is zero.
It could even be a causal relationship: imagine a ball thrown in a vacuum, where height is a quadratic function of time, so the correlation between height and time over the trajectory is zero.
GoatGuy keeps on confusing me with his use of language. “The tightness (R² > 0.99) of statistical confidence” has me really baffled. R² is NOT any kind of statistical confidence.
“The tightness (R² > 0.99) of statistical confidence coupling changes in instrumentally observed CO₂ concentration to socio-economically gathered MTOE fossil fuel consumption statistics is outstanding.”
So what? All that proves is a tight correlation between two things increasing at the same time. That correlation, no matter how tight it is, even 100%, does NOT prove anything else UNLESS that correlation can be proven to be the ONLY two things that changed during the same time period. It only stands as 99% proof in a physical world in which you have first proven either that CO2 from the Earth, the Oceans and the atmosphere never, ever change, or that they do BUT they have all remained perfectly constant during the same time period.
Good luck proving either one.
Mr. O’Keefe…
…
Oh good grief Buster…do you have a reading comprehension problem, or do you just like to argue on the side of stupidity?
He even stated “Here’s what (Pearson) correlation is. You have two variables, x and y.” When he was talking about Pearson-he only used two variables. Since Pearson’s correlation only applies to CORRELATIONS, he then went on to TRY to teach you that even a perfect correlation does not imply CAUSATION using an example that involved 4 distinct numbers. (he doesn’t call them variables because he’s no longer talking about correlations)
You are being as stubborn as a brick about something that just makes you look more and more idiotic every time you bring it up.
“William Yarber
December 16, 2015 at 7:04 am
I disagree with you conclusion that CO2 increase is due solely to energy consumption.”
As, I believe, should anyone: the fact that there are so many more humans exhaling CO2 now than there were in 1850 is enough to disprove the “due solely” statement.
Cement manufacture produces CO2, in amounts that have grown substantially since the year 1900.
Barring a miraculous breakthrough, renewable energy has no hope of replacing cheap, reliable fossil fuels in the foreseeable future
… but it is very good at stuffing money into the pockets of political cronies.
Suggestion, Anthony: going forward it would boost your credibility if you post the author’s credentials up front. Rather than have your guests look up the author, posting their credentials up front is, among other things, a basic courtesy. For example, you featured a post on December 13th entitled “The ‘Binding’ Paris treaty is now just voluntary mush”, a Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek. Bezdek is a member of the (ready for this?) “The Washington Coal Club”! That would be “Wachington, DC”.Really!?
Could this blog post (and the author’s affiliation) be any more self serving? Knowing the author’s affiliations and credentials up front changes the entire dynamic when reading the article up to, and including, not reading it at all. Regarding today’s post, who is Ken Stewart, who funded his research, what degrees does he hold, who is he employed by, what are his fields of expertise, what are his affiliations, etc, etc..etc?
Another point/question: have you ever featured an article supporting the opposing point of view?
Most of us prefer to deal with arguments, not attack the author.
We leave those tactics to the warmunists.
Yawn…another poster who is concerned with Anthony’s credibility, his lack of “basic courtesy” etc, yet his own post is filled with numerous insinuations that so obviously originate in logical fallacies.
You lost me at “going forward”.
shouldn’t we all so that – for example – tell us about yourself before going on to the meat of your post
would you really want us to know about your “progressive” politics – and your Alarmist sympathies before reading your message – it would change the entire dynamic when reading your post
or maybe not – we probably came to the same conclusion about you either way – your obsession with Appeal to Authority tells us plenty – too bad the resort to fallacy isn’t confined to “your side” – yawn
–“The ‘Binding’ Paris treaty is now just voluntary mush”, a Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek. Bezdek is a member of the (ready for this?) “The Washington Coal Club”! —
Hmm:
“The Club’s constituency consists of over 300 individuals with diverse interests in coal, ranging from its production through its utilization. The membership roster includes coal producers and transporters, legislators – both Federal and State, associations focused on coal’s role in the American economy, academics involved in coal-related research, and policy makers from both the executive and legislative branches of government. Visitors are welcome to participate in our programs. Individuals become members by participating in Club activities”
http://www.washingtoncoalclub.org/history.html#membership
Not sure if Roger Bezdek.is member, but:
“1.
I am Dr. Roger H. Bezdek, president of Management Information Services, Inc.,
(MISI), an economic research firm specializing in energy and environmental issues.
2.
I have 40 years experience in consulting and management in the energy, utility,
environmental, and regulatory areas, and have served in private industry, academia,
and the U.S. Federal government. My experience includes Corporate Director,
Corporate President and CEO, University Professor, Research Director in the Bureau of
Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Research and Program
Director at the Energy Research and Development Administration and the U.S.
Department of Energy, Special Advisor on Energy in the Office of the Secretary of the
Treasury, and U.S. energy delegate to the European Community and to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have served as a consultant to the White House, the
Office of Vice President Al Gore, Federal and state government agencies, and various
corporations and research organizations, including the National Science Foundation,
NASA, DOE, DOD, EPA, IBM, Goldman Sachs, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, J. P.
Morgan Chase, BAE Systems, Ontario Power Generation, Eastman Kodak, American
Solar Energy Society, Greenpeace, the Rockefeller Foundations, UN Environmental
Program, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Blue Green Coalition, Japan Atomic Energy
Research Institute, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Electric Power Research
Institute, Edison Electric Institute, National Coal Council, and Nuclear Energy Institute.
During 2003/04, I served on the Federal Task Force charged with rebuilding the
economy of Iraq and in 2008 I presented energy briefings to the staffs of Senators
Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. I am active with the National
Research Council of the U.S. National Academies of Science (NAS), and have served
on various NAS committees, including, most recently, the joint NAS/Chinese Academy
of Sciences Committee on U.S.
–
Chinese Energy Cooperation and on the NAS
Committee on Fuel Economy of Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles. I have testified
before the Federal, state, and city governments. I am the author of six books (including
a book on energy policy published in September 2010) and over 300 articles in scientific
and technical journals, I serve as an editorial board member and peer
–
reviewer for various professional publications, and am the Washington editor of
World Oil magazine.
I received a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Illinois (Urbana)”
https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/issues/environment/files/Ex%2013_Declaration%20of%20Roger%20Bezdek.pdf
But perhaps he become member of the club recently.
I have to agree with you on this. Credibility is definitely an issue when reviewing the article. For instance the credentials of ken Stewart are unknown. There’s quite a few others that post here also. …a little blurb about the author would be appreciated
OK A question, CO2 also issues from the oceans according to Henry’s Law. But, if the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased by external factors, such as fossil fuel combustion, then won’t the rate of release of CO2 from the ocean decrease?
I’ve done some quick searches for this without anything meaningful or trustworthy. Does anyone have some good resources I could look at?
One interesting fact, not verified, I found is:
Around 88 thousand million tonnes of carbon is released from the surface of the world’s oceans each year, with an annual uptake by the oceans of 90 thousand million tonnes.
http://www.ghgonline.org/co2sinkocean.htm
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 displays and tabulates the natural stores and fluxes of the atmospheric CO2 balance. A couple of the natural uncertainties are on the order of +/- 50%. Nothing but wags & hand waving. Anthropogenic’s net contribution of 4 Gt/y out of 45,000 Gt of stores and hundreds of Gt/y fluxes doesn’t even make for a good foot note, lost in the third of fourth decimal point. How many significant figures are legitimate? maybe 2?.
Yes, the total quantities are vast, Nicholas, both into and out of the ocean, and with high error bars. The rates are defined by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean, and the temperature. I maintain that, due to Henry’s Law, if the atmospheric ppCO2 is increased by the human CO2, then this will change the ocean/atmosphere exchange, decreasing the ocean-to-atmosphere exchange and increasing the atmosphere-to-ocean exchange.
Oceans are not distilled water. Much more than Henry’s Law is at work
How much more different. The law still applies, perhaps there is some other chemistry going with the CO2 in the ocean, but does that change the ocean-atmosphere exchange?
Henry’s Law is derived for systems at thermodynamic equilibrium. The atmosphere and oceans most certainly not at equilibrium. At best, the system approximates a dynamic steady state, sometimes, and in some areas. So you can use Henry’s Law as a first order rough cut for what to expect, but that is about all. You make assumptions about your system and equilibrium, and the more your assumptions match reality, the better your calculation. Calculations like this do have some practical utility, but one must always be keenly aware of the assumptions (sometimes implicit) which have been made, and the limitations of the method.
Without including very detailed and completely comprehensive evaluation of the carbon cycle and its known unknowns and its knowns that are relatively very high in uncertainty, that statement is untenable. Also, there must be a context to geological knowledge of CO2 and temperature and the ancient carbon cycle details.
John
Concur.
I’d like to see a falsification of the null hypothesis that the recent CO2 level rise is not a natural result of the warming since the Little Ice Age.
Any claims that the increased CO2 levels are anthropogenic should, at least, estimate what percentage of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic, and what percentage is natural.
“Barring a miraculous breakthrough, renewable energy has no hope of replacing cheap, reliable fossil fuels in the foreseeable future”
That’s why their goal is to make fossil fuels expensive.
I am surprised that no-one has pointed out that, since about 2000, growth in the rate of emissions has been inversely correlated with the percentage that has remained in the atmosphere! This is because the rate of growth in atmospheric CO2 has also been on a pause (at 2 to 2.5 ppm/year) whereas emissions have been steadily increasing on an annual basis. This point is nicely illustrated in a graph by, of all people, Hansen. See figure 3 here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/pdf
It indicates, as backed up by the text, that the “airborne fraction” has dropped from about 60% to 45% of emissions. The explanation given is that the sinks must have increased in size. How convenient! Key point, however, is the lack of correlation between rate of growth of emissions versus atmospheric growth. This divergence also appears to lead to a problem with the oxygen balance model, but I’ll have to get to that later.
Yes, and among contributing sinks could be the increased “greening” of formerly barren lands, more rapid forest growth, modern conversions to no-till ag, etc.
Best place to see the relationship between CO2 and Temperature is here:
climate4you.com
click on CO2 and Temperature
then click on Temperature and CO2
Since temperature is supposed to have a log2 relationship with C02, why haven’t you plotted it that way?
Peter
Conveniently and seemingly forgotten, is the proof positive in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland Ice Core Records that CO2 FOLLOWS Warming and Does NOT Lead it! The higher CO2 readings correspond to increased plant life and warmer Oceans, both of which result from Warming Events.
There is nothing magical about 400 PPM. Other Geologic Evidence has indicated that there have been periods where the CO2 concentration has exceeded 800 PPM without “Catastrophic Greenhouse Runaway”. Virtually all Astrophysicists agree that Venus like Greenhouse effects require CO2 levels in excess of 20% CO2 – That’s 20 Million PPM! Four Hundred PPM CO2 is Insignificant despite of all the AGW Alarmism. At 20% CO2 levels, Temperature considerations become irrelevant due to the inability to breathe!
“Venus like Greenhouse effects require CO2 levels in excess of 20% CO2 – That’s 20 Million PPM!”
Correction: 20% = 200,000ppm
CO2 has been as high as 7,000 parts per million without any warming !
The “greenhouse” effect on Venus requires 100% CO2 atmosphere, 100 times more massive than the Earths, sulphuric acid, active volcanoes and being a lot closer to the Sun.
The lag between temperature rise and CO2 is in the region of 600 to 1000 years, so it (ie., the higher CO2 seen today of 400ppm and more) fits in well with the MWP.
I am not saying that is the case, but it is something that would be consistent with the lag seen in the ice core records.
My apologies to everyone else for breaking a butterfly on the wheel, but I think a clear understanding of the connection between correlation and causation is vital in making sense of climate science. Where there is one vocal BusterBrown, there may be others with the same misunderstandings.
BusterBrown: you claimed to find “glaring” errors in my exposition. What you demonstrated is that you do not know what a “variable” is in statistics.
A variable is a *collection* of observations.
If you measure the temperature in your office at
midday for a week, you have ONE variable containing SEVEN numbers. In general, of course, measurements are not restricted to being single numbers. They could be numbers, vectors, directions (there’s a lot of stuff been worked out for circular and spherical data, where the measurements are directions in 2D or 3D space), shapes (and there’s a lot of work going on with statistical analysis of shapes, none of which I understand), …
In my example, I had two variables.
If you want to compute the correlation of two
variables, they must both have the same number
of elements and that number MUST exceed 1, because if you try to carry out the calculation with just one number in each variable you will try to divide zero by zero. Here it is in slow speed.
mean([x1,…,xn]) = (x1+…+xn)/n
Note that the mean is not defined for n = 0,
and that the variable we pass to mean is a
*collection* of numbers. This estimates a
“centre” for the *collection* of numbers.
sample_covariance([x1,…,xn], [y1,…,yn]) =
let xbar = mean([x1,…,xn])
and ybar = mean([y1,…,yn])
in ((x1-xbar)*(y1-ybar)+…+(xn-xbar)*(yn-ybar))/(n-1)
Note that the covariance is not defined for n = 0
(because mean isn’t) or n = 1 (because we’d try
to divide zero by zero).
sample_standard_deviation(xs) =
sqrt(sample_covariance(xs, xs))
This estimates a “scale” for xs.
pearson_correlation(xs, ys) =
let mx = mean(xs)
and dx = sample_standard_deviation(xs)
and xs’ = (xs – mx)/dx
and my = mean(ys)
and dy = sample_standard_deviation(ys)
and ys’ = (ys – my)/dy
in covariance(xs’, ys’)
(Do I have to explain that (xs-mx)/dx is a vector-valued expression such as APL, Fortran, R, Matlab, and so on are perfectly happy with, NOT a single number? Probably.)
Just to try to make this a bit clearer, the fact
that the x and y variables in my example
both contained two numbers was not ANY kind
of error, let alone a glaring one. It *WOULD*
have been a glaring error had they contained
only one. It doesn’t make SENSE to try to
compute a correlation between two numbers.
R code:
> cor(1, 1)
NA
Here “NA” is a special value meaning “there is
no answer”, not the IEEE NaN floating-point value.
The things you called “ordered pairs” are in fact
vectors (sequences), and far from correlation not being defined for vectors (sequences), that is PRECISELY what correlation is defined for.
If it comes to that, you can *also* compute correlations between sequences whose elements are ordered pairs (or triples, or quadruples, or whatever) and this is routinely done. The result is a 2×2 (or 3×3 or 4×4 or whatever) matrix. But that comes in 2nd year statistics.
I do have a degree in this stuff. I am certainly capable of being really stupid about advanced stuff. But something *this* elementary?
Don’t believe me? Well, here’s an excerpt from the R documentation.
cor package:stats R Documentation
Correlation, Variance and Covariance (Matrices)
…
cor(x, y = NULL, use = “everything”,
method = c(“pearson”, “kendall”, “spearman”))
…
x: a numeric vector, matrix or data frame.
y: ‘NULL’ (default) or a vector, matrix or data frame with
compatible dimensions to ‘x’. The default is equivalent to
‘y = x’ (but more efficient).
…
See that word “vector” in the descriptions of the arguments? Not “number”, *vector* (sequence of numbers). I should perhaps mention that I tested my examples in R (adapting the syntax where necessary).
I suppose some of you may be thinking that I’m appealing to the argument from authority. Well, when it comes to definitions, the definition of a technical term in a particular community just *is* what that community say it is, and an appeal to authority is legitimate. The definition I’ve given of Pearson correlation just *is* the definition that’s used in the statistical community. There is an abundance, no, a glut of web pages explaining it, and you’ll find no material disagreement.
The fact that a community can define technical terms any way they want does mean that they can say authoritatively what their definitions are. It does NOT mean that their definitions necessarily make sense NOR that, if meaningful, any particular application of them to a real world problem is appropriate, NOR even that it is always possible for someone to be sure whether it is or not. For example, you will find people saying “STAT 101 methods are OK for most applications” and you’ll find other people (including me) saying “heavy tailed distributions are common, mixtures of distributions are common, you can be sure that the assumptions justifying classical methods WILL be violated by some of your real data and unless you *check* you have no right to assume that those violations are practically unimportant.” Whenever I hear the phrase “the science is settled”, I just think about foundational questions in statistics and snigger
But given a definition you *can* draw some conclusions about it. The example of cor(x,x^2)
shows that absolute simply predictable causation does not imply non-zero correlation. (Did you notice that the x in that example was not a number but a vector?) But by looking at the definition of correlation, we see that it just takes a bunch of pairs of numbers (equivalently, a pair of bunches of numbers) and spits out one number at the end, and that there is no intrinsic connection with causality in the calculations. In particular, cor(x,y) = cor(y,x). But if x causes y, y doesn’t cause x (at least, not the x that caused it; y might cause a later x). “Causes” is not a symmetric relation. “Is correlated with to degree R^2” is ALWAYS a symmetric relation.
There is an approach in Statistics that deals with both correlation and causation, and that is the Path Analysis approach initially devised by Sewall Wright. But that *uses* the analyst’s prior knowledge (or belief) about causal relationships to refine correlations, it does not infer causes from correlations. And there is something called “Granger causation”, in which certain relationships between time series can be used to *suggest* causal relationships. But it can happen that both x Granger-causes y and y Granger-causes x.
The pattern x y (z causes x and y, which are independent given knowledge of z) is too common to rule out.
Let’s see an example. Suppose you have a job, and you put 10% of your earnings into a retirement account (wish the economy let me do that) and you spend 1% of your earnings on Science Fiction magazines and paperbacks. Every single time. No variation in the proportions. The correlation between the deposits in your retirement account and the money spent on publications in your library would be perfect. But neither would cause the other. Withdrawing money from the account when you retire won’t make your cherished copies of Analog disappear. And if I steal every book you have by David Weber, your bank account won’t change.
This doesn’t mean that fossil fuel use *doesn’t* largely determine atmospheric CO2. It just means that the graph we’ve been discussing cannot possibly *tell* us whether it does or not. Since we have reason to believe that atmospheric CO2 levels varied a lot before humans burned any fossil fuels at all, the main thing we learn is that most of the relevant data is simply missing from the graph. We need a better understanding of why CO2 levels changed in the past and a good explanation for why those causes are not the primary causes now. Such may be forthcoming. Such may already exist. But correlation, especially from radically incomplete data, is not sufficient to infer causation all by itself, no matter what R^2 is.
The only reply you could possibly make to this that would leave you with a shred of reputation would be “sorry”. I’m not seriously expecting to see that.
**************************
Love the phrase about the butterfly and wheel! But I think in this particular instance a cockroach and sledgehammer might be more appropriate.😉
Richard O’Keefe,
You’re the next in line to take Busted Bluster to the woodshed:
Where there is one vocal BusterBrown, there may be others with the same misunderstandings.
Mr. Bluster thread-bombs this site 24/7, all throughout what would be the normal work day for productive folks. He has my condolences if he’s on the dole. But if not, he’s surely cheating his employer; I doubt he is getting paid to post his wacky opinions constantly on internet blogs.
His basic argument comes from his misguided belief in dangerous man-made global warming. What else? If there was no dangerous AGW, then the alarmist clique wouldn’t have anything to complain about. Worse, they would have no reason to beg for more tax money every year.
If and when any of these purveyors of the ‘climate change’ false alarm can produce measurements quantifying the fraction of AGW, out of all warming from all causes including the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA, then I’ll sit up straight and pay attention.
But not one of them has ever been able to produce those measurements. That means they are posting their baseless opinions as fact. That is a FAIL here on the internet’s Best Science site.
We need data. Measurements are data. But neither Mr. Bluster nor any other climate alarmist has any such data. They are winging it. Thus, they lose the argument, and the overall debate.
Richard,
I love the phrase about the butterfly and the wheel, but I think in this particular instance it’s more like a cockroach with a sledgehammer. 🙂 Your restraint has been amazing.
Richard O’Keefe,
I see you have a know-nothing butting in on this. I wouldn’t worry too much about him, he’s not too sharp when it comes to what we’re discussing. He can’t even use “to” and “too” correctly.
Mr. Dbstealey, I truly hope that you can accept my humblest apologies…
Apology accepted with magnanimity.
Now, if you will apologize for promoting the repeatedly falsified “dangerous man-made global warming” scare, we’re good to go. ☺
Better yet, you’ll be on-board with these guys:
http://postimg.org/image/x3clnnn2l
[more astronaut skepticism here, and here.]
^That^ is proof of the muddled thinking of some commenters here. Mr. Bluster believes in the ‘dangerous AGW’ nonsense. He also apologized for his obvious spelling/grammar mistakes, and then he denied that they were mistakes — and then he wrote “Sorry”; another apology.
That is a textbook example of the irrational thinking of the alarmist crowd. They just can’t think straight. No wonder every alarming prediction they ever made has been flat wrong.
It’s a darn good thing he’s not teaching young, impressionable students his version of reality. That would go a long way in explaining the dumbing down of the population, to the point that a significant subset believes in “carbon” globaloney.
Instead of ‘Busted Bluster’, maybe “Tanglefoot” would be more appropriate?
My case was won long ago. ☺
Layman question here (which is to say, sorry in advance if I show my ignorance)-Can the CO2 satellite images (which show higher CO2 concentration in red areas and low in blue) be “overlayed” with UAH or RSS temps, to see if those higher spots are hotter than nearby areas of lower concentration? I understand the difference in concentration of CO2 is very small from the red blob to the blue, and satellite is not surface temp, but wouldn’t CAGW predict higher temp in area of higher concentration? I think the author is onto something, and hope he digs deeper.
You might ask at Roy Spencer’s blog – he is directly involved with the UAH satellite record.
Which specific images are you referring to? For example the red and blue charts posted yesterday here at WUWT-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/15/agu15-new-nasa-satellite-maps-show-human-less-of-a-fingerprint-on-global-air-quality-compared-to-10-years-ago/
-don’t refer to CO2 data, they were tracking “nitrogen dioxide hotspots, used as an indicator of general air quality, occur over most major cities in developed and developing nations.”
The Weather Channel just aired a fear-mongering segment on CAGW and how the last 14 or so years were the “…warmest EVER RECORDED.” This is what we layman call, “a whopper.” That may be a true statement but irrelevant. “Recorded” meaning the last two centuries? When will they leave out “recorded” and say, “ever?”
Tekov-who knows, but the moment they do, skeptics will be down their throats because if it hasn’t been recorded, you’re just guessing.:)
NASA et al’s ‘recorded’ datasets ARE just guessing
A few weeks ago I put together graph 4 on my own showing the zero correlation between temp and Co2 from 360-400ppm. What was fascinating was showing it to an otherwise bright person in the solar business. He responded that the lack of correlation didn’t falsify anything for him. He had no answer when I suggested that such a conclusion was contrary to plain logic.
That is the problem right there. Given irrefutable, observable evidence, even bright people just ignore it. At the very least the observational record over the last 20 years shows that Co2 has a smaller effect than previously thought. But what good is such evidence when there is a real cognitive dissonance affecting the people who believe? It’s hard not becoming depressed when seeing face to face what little good evidence is in this discussion.
Money is the root of all evil, in one way or the other !!!
Love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. BIIIG difference.
–Love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. BIIIG difference.–
Would love of money include being envious of those with a lot of money.
And perhaps were giving away their money might be like giving away one’s children?
What about people who love to give away other people’s money?
Cause that about sum up a Lefty.
I don’t know Dave in Canmore. On the other side, I didn’t look at the graphs included in the OP here and determine that they proved anything conclusive either. A single reference point based on a tiny 20 years of this planet’s history shouldn’t confirm OR falsify anything about our climate for anyone, because our climate has so many variables and components and forcings that we don’t even understand fully yet.
And you have to prove that cognitive dissonance is really affecting someone before you can even begin to attribute anything TO that cognitive dissonance.
Agreed Aphan, small sample size and a small amount of data. But if there are no temp changes with such a big increase in emissions, then AT THE LEAST one must conclude that there is nothing catastrophic about said emissions. If this isn’t apparent then one is engaging in magical thinking or numbers mean nothing and nothing can ever be disproven! If A then B, thats how logic works. If you observe B and start to claim “not A” through ad hoc “fix-its” then one must admit they do not understand what is being looked at. But to merely say that nothing is disproven is in fact false. To examine then ignore basic and simple counter evidence is just that: cognitive dissonance.
“To examine then ignore basic and simple counter evidence is just that: cognitive dissonance.”
No Dave, it’s not.
“In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.”
If your friend isn’t having any mental stress or discomfort, then he’s not experiencing cognitive dissonance, and YOU don’t get to say that he is simply because YOU think he should be!
“If A then B, thats how logic works. ”
You seem to have a very limited understanding of how logic works. And psychology. And maybe even climate science.
“But if there are no temp changes with such a big increase in emissions, then AT THE LEAST one must conclude that there is nothing catastrophic about said emissions.”
No, one must NOT necessarily conclude that. There are many mechanisms that could be affecting temperatures towards “cool” while CO2 emissions are increasing (which I am assuming that your friend knows) that JUST focusing on the small area and data that you did left all the other bases uncovered.
I don’t believe in AGW theory or any of it’s offshoots. But I DO believe in logic and scientific methodologies and you aren’t demonstrating a huge skill set in either one at the moment.
The graph of co2 emissions vs co2 concentration runs from 1965 to 2014. Co2 data from Mauna Loa starts at 1958/59 What does the graph look like with the previous 6 years included?
You can look here:
http://climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
BP only provides energy data from 1965.
Just out of curiosity, what would the formula be if you assume a logarithmic trendline for your full Tropo Temp vs CO2 chart?
R squared = 0.44. Slightly better but not much.
Patrick Moore stated in one of his presentations that only about half of the CO2 emitted by human activity shows up in the atmosphere. This is the only time I have heard this. I thought that it was very interesting if true. I assume that if that is true that it is being absorbed by the vegetation and oceans.
James,
This has been “known” for a long time (provided that you accept the estimated emissions data). See the link I provided up-thread, where the proportion remaining in the atmosphere is estimated to be 45% (having decreased from 60% over recent times. The proportion going into the terrestrial and oceaninc sinks can be estimated from the oxygen balance model that I mentioned.
IPCC contains the seeds of its own destruction.
If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro C is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC & 240/555) IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro C was solely/90% responsible for the 112 ppmv atmos CO2 increase between 1750 – 2011. C is not CO2.
PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
…………………………………….PgC/y……ppmv/y
FF & Land Use Source…….8.9……….4.22
Ocean & Land Sink…………4.9……… 2.32
Net Source.……………….…..4.0……….1.90
If the anthro 8.9 Pg C/y (4.2 ppmv CO2/y) suddenly vanishes the natural cycle that remains would be a constant sink of 2.3 ppmv CO2/y. Reverse extrapolation (GCMs & RCPs apply forward extrapolation) calculates that 121 years in the past (278 ppmv CO2/2.3 ppmv CO2) or the year 1629 (1750-121) atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, zip, nowhere to be found.
Oh, what a tangled web they wove!
The 8.9 Pg of anthro C simply vanishes in earth’s 45,000 plus Pg C cauldron of stores and fluxes. Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.
High correlation and presence of pause in the NOAA’s geomagnetic data
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GT-GMF1.gif
unless some other mechanism is involved it points to the Svensmark’s hypothesis variant, where the geomagnetic rather than the heliospheric magnetic field might be the important factor. The nine year delay might be to do with the oceans global heat distribution.
Thanks Ken, I have been looking for temperature vs. CO2 concentration graphs for some time. Your graphs prove that there is no correlation. So, the CAGW theory is falsified. The rest is politics.
You can see the changes with time here:
http://climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
The negative correlation of temperature with CO2 would stretch back another decade at least. And HadCRUT, like the other “surface data set” books, have been cooked to a crisp.
Thanks to AJB, here is another way to look at it. 1st derivative style.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/06/it-would-not-matter-if-trenberth-was-correct-now-includes-january-data/#comment-1876593
AJB March 6, 2015 at 5:31 am
“In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.”
But you have the wrong relationship of CO2 to temperature.
Try: δCO2/δt = λT
i.e. relate the rate of change of CO2 concentration to temperature. Like this.
http://postimg.org/image/a153d8xan/full/
It shouldn’t need pointing out that despite consumption of fossil fuels accelerating, the rate of change of CO2 has remained static (i.e. has not accelerated) over the hiatus period either. But there are some who must believe that the Mt Pinatubo and Mt Hudson eruptions sequestered CO2. Or the Amazon basin, etc. held its breath for a couple of years. Maybe all SUVs, planes and powerplants were mothballed but I can’t say I noticed that 🙂
How much work, if any, has been done on the ability of the oceans to dissolve and outgas CO2 under the partial pressure it now has and at current ocean temperatures? IOW, how much CO2 would we expect the oceans to give off for each degree increase in surface temps? That sort of thing.
Thank you Ken Stewart, a productive effort at critical analysis. I wish there was a way to compare the effects of water vapor in this too. Would that correlate in any way, as the most potent greenhouse sustainer?
Regarding energy use explaining 99% of the CO2 increase: I see appearance this figure is the correlation rate between a line and a curve on a graph.
I think a more accurate figure is all of it, because carbon budget figures show that atmospheric CO2 increase is less than fossil fuel contributions – nature has been a net sink ever since good annual figures became available, starting in1959. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
It is settled that “climate science” is unsettled, but real science falsifies the failed hypothesis of catastrophic man-made GW. This insanity will have a political solution, since the anti-scientific scam was political from the git-go.
2016 elections will put this beast to bed in the U.S….Go Cruzin’….
Donald L. Klipstein:
You say
Sorry, but it is silly to assert that because “atmospheric CO2 increase is less than fossil fuel contributions” the fossil fuel contributions must be causal of the rise in atmospheric CO2.
Natural emissions are an order of magnitude more that the “fossil fuel contributions” so – using the same logic – natural CO2 emissions must be a much greater cause of the rise than the “fossil fuel contributions”.
And the fact that nature has been a net sink only indicates that the sequestration of CO2 has been increasing. What can be said is that the “fossil fuel contributions” are greater than the increase to sequestration. And, of course, the natural CO2 emission is much more than the increase to sequestration.
Indeed, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is equivalent to about half the “fossil fuel contributions”. Therefore, using your simplistic assumptions, if the “fossil fuel contributions” had been zero then atmospheric CO2 concentration would have fallen to problematically low levels.
In reality, your comment says nothing about what the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration would have been if the “fossil fuel contributions” had been zero.
Richard
I don’t think we can do a lot about Global temperature as long as atmospheric pressure does not change.
But, but, but I can see those AGW fanatics.keyboards getting their counter arguments ready and when those fail, their pathetic attack the messenger posts and then when they have really failed countless mind numbing links to the Guardian and Skeptikalscience or whatever..
Been waiting for this piece… very timely.
I’ve always contended that what occurred is that there were three El Ninos between 1983-1998, and that the opportunists looked at the is impact and screamed that CO2 did it… until the Pause, when the nominal relation they imputed to CO2 ended…
That’s why the Pause has to erased at all cost… which means grossly and brazenly “warm” the data for temperature, SLR etc.
The real danger the World faces is a return of the inevitable glaciation period which has, in the past, proved very hard on animal life. An increase in CO2 levels to 1,000 ppm would be good for vegetation and an increase in average temperature by 2 or 3 degrees would have little effect on the tropics and would extend agriculture in temperate and polar areas to everyone’s benefit. We need to keep our eye on the main proven danger.
Let’s turn the Control Knob on Climate way up to its Cambrian setting, 7000 ppm, ie four CO2 doublings from present 400 ppm, plus a bit more. According to the IPCC’s best guess at ECS, ie 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2, that means that the Cambrian should have been about 13 degrees C warmer than now, or a blazing 27 degrees C. But it wasn’t. Its mean surface temperature has been estimated at 21 degrees C, which includes the Late Cambrian when CO2 levels might have been a little lower. Earth has rarely if ever exceeded 25 degrees C during the Phanerozoic.
And bear in mind that the IPCC says ECS could be 4.5 degrees C, in order to be able to plot scary graphs.
There was an ice age at the end of the following Ordovician Period, with CO2 still over 4200 ppm.
Curious about the numbers in figure 2. Y-axis is likely the CO2 concentration in ppm in a given year and X-axis maybe the energy usage in millions of oil units in the given year. Right? Meaning that the more there is CO2 in the atmosphere the more mankind will use energy ?
What if we look at the CO2 emissions in a given year and the increase of CO2 in the stratosphere in a given year. We could even use the same units (of mass) in both axis.
The energy vs CO2 graph is bogus, I would like to see the data of both sets being used and the units for the energy. Energy use has not been linear over that period so I suspect some graph trickery. I am also for rigorous use of statistics. just because minitab or excel pops out a r2 of 98 or 99 means nothing if the units are not the same.
v/r,
David Riser
Links to the data sources are in the article. Check for yourself.
KS
I did look at the data and its not anything like linear, its a variable growth over time which has changed drastically over the time period. so it would be a series of curves not a straight line. But you squish down a Y axes good enough and it all comes out. Certainly its not in ppm or anything else related directly to carbon. unrelated straight line graph fitting doesn’t mean anything.
v/r,
David Riser
Sorry I didn’t label the axes as I should have. You are correct, and we can look at it either way. Which is more plausible?
KS
Well you should convert the energy to CO2 released to the atmosphere and covert to ppm or convert the ppm to PGC or PGCO2 all being different. Pick one covert then check your fit using the same units. If your using annual average for both that is probably ok except that CO2 is cyclical so really you need to do monthly average. or something to that effect. Reality is you can’t get a perfect fit with cyclical data vs some kind of curved observational data. Perhaps using the annual cycle might give a better fit, but statistically your walking on ice as to appropriateness. There are tests to use to see if the data is linear enough and sometimes using a linear fit just isn’t the right way to go.
v/r,
David Riser
Kenskingdom-
You didn’t label the axes as you should have. Why didn’t you?
David Riser is correct and we can look at it either way. Thank you for admitting that.
Science by plausibility instead of proofs is just educated guessing isn’t it?
David Riser:
Why should units be the same? So by that logic we shouldn’t plot units of temperature against units of time? All you see is annual average atmospheric concentration of CO2 in ppm plotted against annual energy consumption in million tonnes of oil equivalent. What you see is what you get.
Aphan:
Pure oversight.
There is a strong relationship between growth in energy use and growth in CO2 concentration, just as there is between say job responsibility and salary. I trust no one suggests that merely increasing salary level leads to more job responsibilities.
Ken said:
“There is a strong relationship between growth in energy use and growth in CO2 concentration, just as there is between say job responsibility and salary. I trust no one suggests that merely increasing salary level leads to more job responsibilities.”
There is a VERY big difference between saying “there is a strong relationship/correlation” and stating the following as if it’s a fact :” the recent increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is almost entirely anthropogenic” and you didn’t perform the necessary steps required by logic to go from “strong correlation” to undeniable fact.
What you actually did WAS the equivalent of saying “the recent salary increase was almost entirely due to increased job responsibilities”!!!
Your conclusions about CO2 may indeed be valid, but the premises you used to establish that conclusion are not. And in scientific discussions, you’re asking a LOT to expect readers to just wander through the muck accepting your oversights and illogical assumptions just because your conclusion is valid.
Athan:
There may be an entirely innocent explanation for the strong relationship between energy use and CO2 concentration. I used to subscribe to the theory that temperature increase caused the CO2 increase, and energy use was co-incidental, but not any more. Temperature change especially following ENSO events precedes a small variation in CO2, but that is overwhelmed by the continuing increase in concentration. There has not been a decrease in 12 month averaged CO2 (from January to January, February to February, etc) since the Mauna Loa record started.
I refer you to a rather long but informative article on this topic by Ferdinand Engelbeen at WUWT on 25/11.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/
KS
Ken, according to the ice core records, CO2 increases follow temperature increases with a lag of about 200 to 800 years.
All of the recent increases in CO2 may be a result of the warming since the Little Ice Age. That should be your null hypothesis.
Ken,
I reread what I wrote, I wasn’t very clear. You Cant use differing data types in a scatter plot and call it statistics. You do this several times PPT vs MTons, and Tanomalies vs PPT. What you have done here means nothing. Using annual averages of a linear growth vs a cyclic growth vs a chaotic growth is also pretty awful. Why is that you say. Because your trying to say one causes the other, but on short time scales this is obviously false. So there are confounding variables built into your assumptions that you have not identified.
So if you want to determine the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 you must do as close an approximation to inputs and outputs into the atmosphere of CO2 to determine this. Obviously no one has been able to do that. Dr. Salby makes a pretty good shot at it but he understands the limitations of our knowledge. Hopefully this new CO2 satellite will help.
v/r,
David Riser
Although the discussions above are interesting; this is the most important statement in the article:
“Not only that, but we’ll stay below 2 degrees of warming without the need for any emissions reductions!”
This is why the control freaks have moved the goal posts to 1.5 degrees – unless anyone has a different explanation? Please.
Phil’s Dad
You say
Yes, and I refer you to my post in this thread here which is immediately followed by the reply to it from the author of the above essay.
Additionally, I point out that the IPCC says there is no known way for humans to knowingly act to stop “global temperatures” rising by more than 1.5°C or 2.0°C from pre-industrial values.
Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) says; “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”, and no subsequent IPCC Report has amended that because there is still no published systematic analysis of the “relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.
So, the IPCC says that at present the likely effect – if any – of any CO2 emission constraints aimed at avoiding a 1.5°C or 2.0°C rise is not known.
Richard
Thanks Richard (and to Lubos on another thread for saying largely the same).
I in no way disagree with what (either of) you say.
I was just trying to create an opportunity for someone to put forward a rational explanation why 1.5 degrees is OK but 2 degrees isn’t (any more).
So far, nothing.
Since COP is only now asking the IPCC to come up with a paper supporting 1.5, I am left with the impression that the “science” on this has yet to be done.
So is the 1.5 figure based only on their fear that 2 degrees will not be breached even without restrictions (or taxes or anything else)?
Surely not!
Someone must know why the sudden shift from 2 to 1.5.
Anyone?
Thanks for the article Ken. I enjoyed it and the discussion.
?dl=0
==================================
Energy, Carbon Dioxide, and The Pause
Guest Blogger / 13 hours ago December 16, 2015
Guest essay by Ken Stewart
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
However, correlation can be demonstrated with many things. A while back I prepared this graphic for my children related to how house prices (CO2) keep rising but TOTAL sales have gone flat (TAMPERATURE).
Enjoy. (Totally devoid of science – merely an example.) These sorts of curves and their hockey stick counterparts show up all over. Might as well have some Yuletide fun.
IPCC AR5 lays out 4 possibilities: RCPs 2.5. 4.5, 6.0, 8.5 W/m^2. Each of these corresponds to a predicted level of CO2, RF, and temperature increase. They have been adjusted over the various reports.
Some time back I through the comments, I referred my publication Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 77 (1995) 113-120, with reference to pause in temperature. The greenhouse gases effect follow inverted ‘Z’ shape pattern in conversion of energy in to temperature with the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In the present article — Between 336 to 400 ppm of CO2 presented a relation of 0.0063 X, and between 370 to 400 ppm of CO2 presented 0.0004 X [pause].
This is exactly what I presented in my article with reference to relative growth or relative yield versus relative radiation stress or relative water stress or relative nutrient stress wherein maximum impact is in the slant line part shown in inverted Z. The horizontal portion in the present case started around 370 ppm – pause. The initial horizontal part might have ended at around 150 ppm [250 ppm ???]. The slant portion was maximum in between 150 [250 ???] to 370 ppm of CO2. With more accurate temperature data that takes in to account the rural-cold-island effect will provide the correct limits to CO2 for starting of slant portion and starting of pause.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Here is South Korea and Japan’s answer to the agreement in Paris…http://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2015/12/15/japan-s-korea-plan-61-new-coal-plants-in-next-10-years-despite-global-climate-deal
that’s the usual effect of caps : just the way people drive near maximum speed limit, governments will drive emissions as close to the 2° limit set in Paris as possible.
Hypothesis:
From a warming pov, CO2 is an inverse fractal in relation to water vapor – akin to positive and negative space. If water vapor cannot be modelled because of its (fractal) variance in time and space (and therefore discounted as a “climate control knob”), neither can the radiative result of CO2 – even though CO2 is a non-condensing (and allegedly “well-mixed”) GHG and H2O is a condensing, not well-mixed GHG.
Put another way: Water vapor, being a condensing GHG, varies fractally in time and space. CO2, being a non-condensing GHG, is said to have a roughly uniform radiative forcing effect, and therefore can be modelled (conveniently for consensus AGW theory).
But to the degree that CO2 can only “mop up” infrared left over after what water vapor has already thermalized via its massively larger volume in the atmosphere and massively larger absorption bands, the radiative role of CO2 is basically like negative space to H2O’s positive space.
If this were true, it would seem to destroy the distinction between water vapor as a “feedback” and CO2 as a “forcing” — would it?
makes sense
OR as Gloateus Maximus said up above:
“Water vapor is far and away the most important GHG. Most of the added effect of CO2 occurs in the first 200 ppm. After that, the effect diminishes. At most absorption bands, gaseous water and carbon dioxide overlap. CO2 is significant only where H2O is very low, as over the polar deserts.”
What other dynamics link Mauna Loa CO2 levels and industrial emissions?
A) deforestation, driving net CO2 increase ie reduction of forest sinks (more or less); and/or
B) disturbance of microbial/fungal rhyzo soil ecosystems via pesticides and monocropping; and/or
C) disturbance of oceanic microbia/plankton/algae balances by input of CO2, nitrogen, phosphorous runoff
A B & C all correlate with economic activity, which correlates with industrial emissions – the growth curves are probably all similar
All three go to @richard Courtney’s point about some “disturbance of global CO2 balance” as a possible cause of the CO2 rise.
And then there was the discovery of 3 trillion trees, 2.6 trillion more than previously “assumed.” Rather large delta sinkage living, sourcing when dead.
Per IPCC AR5 Figure & Table 6.1 land use/deforestation is relatively small amount and subject to large uncertainty.
A question about interpreting the meaning of the correlation coefficient [r-squared]. Is it correct to say “It measures how much of the variation in Y is determined by variation in x.” such that a 43% coefficient means 43% of the variation in temperature is driven by Co2 [and 57% by something else]?
Randy,
The meaning is “x% of the variation in Y can be explained by X” this goes along with the caveat that there may be confounding or lurking variables. After getting your strong correlation you would want to do a regression plot and look for a pattern which would indicate serious problems with the relationship. Before you go into any kind of causation you need to be able to explain the link, control for all known variables and test your hypothesis. Obviously, sometimes you can’t do those things and it just means there is a possible linear relationship. One thing to consider, any two variables that increase steadily over time, that are put into a scatter plot will show a very strong linear correlation, even things like tennis shoe sales and the movement of a star…..
v/r,
David Riser
Your observations are the reason Trenberth had to invent the heat hiding deep in the oceans where we don’t measure it, and NOAA had to work so hard at finding it without the ARGO data.
You’ve shown that the direct causation-factor is not correct, but the direct-causation-mitigated-by-something-else idea still works.
Reblogged this on rave|rant|reflect and commented:
Global Warming discourse is a theater of absurd!
It is absurd to ascribe global temperature rise (if it indeed is happening) to one variable – CO2 based only on statistical correlation and go on and switch to the so called renewables or non-carbon fuels on a massive scale.
We don’t yet understand effects of solar installations all over. We know that that large hydro electric dams have serious consequences. We know that massive wind farms can affect ecology. Somehow we believe that large solar plants would be without bad effects. Can we think of effects of reflected sun rays thrown back into atmosphere? Can we think of the heat arising of efficiency losses in solar generation?
The fact is that unless we reduce overall energy consumption we will continue to heat the planet because every energy conversion (for generation and consumption) results in heat. The different sources will make a difference in pollution, access and affordability. That’s all.
But reducing overall energy consumption will mean lower general consumption by those who have in favor of the poor who need to consume more for their well being.
Reducing overall consumption will also need check on population growth. There not even a mention of it in global warming discourse.
Hey,
Ken Stewart,
that ‘Obligatory smokestack image [for any] mention of energy and CO2’
is best Pat and Patachon
and you know it.
just stopp cuddeling – changing sides.