From the “linear thinking doesn’t follow reality” department, comes this stunning revelation that sounds pretty much just like every other press release about climate we’ve ever read. Plus, they’ve got a map!
A new study puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map
Concordia research findings can be used to show the impact of human activity on local climate
Montreal, Jan. 20, 2016 — Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But what does that mean locally?
A new study published in Nature Climate Change pinpoints the temperature increases caused by CO¬2 [sic] emissions in different regions around the world.
Using simulation results from 12 global climate models, Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, along with post-doctoral researcher Martin Leduc, produced a map that shows how the climate changes in response to cumulative carbon emissions around the world.
They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.
“This provides a simple and powerful link between total global emissions of carbon dioxide and local climate warming,” says Matthews. “This approach can be used to show how much human emissions are to blame for local changes.”
Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramo?n [sic] de Eli?a [sic] from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Globally, the researchers saw an average temperature increase of 1.7 ±0.4°C per trillion tonnes of carbon in CO2 emissions (TtC), which is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But the scientists went beyond these globally averaged temperature rises, to calculate climate change at a local scale.
At a glance, here are the average increases per trillion tonnes of carbon that we emit, separated geographically:
Western North America 2.4 ± 0.6°C
Central North America 2.3 ± 0.4°C
Eastern North America 2.4 ± 0.5°C
Alaska 3.6 ± 1.4°C
Greenland and Northern Canada 3.1 ± 0.9°C
North Asia 3.1 ± 0.9°C
Southeast Asia 1.5 ± 0.3°C
Central America 1.8 ± 0.4°C
Eastern Africa 1.9 ± 0.4°C
“As these numbers show, equatorial regions warm the slowest, while the Arctic warms the fastest. Of course, this is what we’ve already seen happen — rapid changes in the Arctic are outpacing the rest of the planet,” says Matthews.
There are also marked differences between land and ocean, with the temperature increase for the oceans averaging 1.4 ± 0.3°C TtC, compared to 2.2 ± 0.5°C for land areas.
“To date, humans have emitted almost 600 billion tonnes of carbon,” says Matthews. “This means that land areas on average have already warmed by 1.3°C because of these emissions. At current emission rates, we will have emitted enough CO¬2 [sic] to warm land areas by 2°C within 3 decades.”
###
Related links:
Cited study http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2913.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Mercator cylindrical projection certainly makes it look far worse than we thought, which is probably the intention.
or its just the easiest to plot as an image on a computer. which is probably the reality.
With a computer program it’s merely a matter of which library do you want to select to create the output display.
Your willingness to accept actual dishonesty as long as it supports your religious beliefs is amazing.
How come Antarctica is not warming due to increased CO2. CO2 apparently does NOT like the South Pole. Why?
Because it is not warming at the South Pole (and these modelers knew they couldn’t get away with it because Antarctica is not warming – even the sea surface temperatures are cooling off as evidenced by the expanded sea ice around Antarctica).
But the real question is why is Antarctica not warming? Because they have not got around to adjusting the temperatures up here yet. Antarctic temperatures are managed by the UK Met Office and are just quality controlled. Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt have not been able to muck around with these temperatures yet.
Check out the Antarctic Peninsula temps (which the whole global warming community was gloating about for so long about how temperatures were rising here – the myth continues to persist with all global warming believers – they do not know what is really happening of course because they do not check any data sources – they just believe – the Peninsula has the same temperature in 2014 as in 1990, or 1975 or 1955 – 2015 temps were actually much colder than these times).
http://s28.postimg.org/mefikdxu5/Faraday_Ant_Penin_Dec15.png
How about the very South Pole. Zero warming happening here. And this station is staffed by up to 200 researchers in the summer and 50 in the winter so the NCDC does not get to just “adjust” the trends here which were recorded by people who are carrying out measurements at a high level of scientific accuracy and are actually risking their lives to do so.
But someday, Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt will be trying to adjust even these temperatures.
http://s27.postimg.org/n9pup0lhf/Amundsen_Scott_Dec15.png
CO2 does NOT preferentially seek out the North Pole and do NOTHING at the South Pole. It is just a continuation of a fake science trying to fake up the records to keep the gravy train rolling.
Apart from a step up in 2010, The Arctic is also cooling since the switch in the AMO.
http://s19.postimg.org/sm42pougj/No_Pol2.jpg
ONe rather obvious observation is that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with temperature. It didn’t four billion years ago, and it won’t a billion years from now.
Could you provide the source of the data for that graph please.
UAH..now off you go and plat, tone.
Arctic does not have a land mass
antarctic does.
The thermal momenta are totally different. The question I have is – given they are totally different, why would anyone expect them to be the same?
I’m directing my question to you Bill since you’re implicitly making that claim – considering the two systems are so utterly different, can you explain why you expect them to be the same?
thanks.
Before Bill replies, he would be wise to ask you, cc, to describe in detail the “thermal momenta” of the Arctic and Antarctic and how they differ. How, indeed, are they “totally different?” You asserted this, so you must know… lol.
Just to be clear, are you saying an area with land mass (e.g Antarctic) should be expected to cool in response to CO2 increase, whereas an area without land (e.g. Artic) should be expected to heat in response to the same stimulus?
J. as I said above
water and ice have a heat capacity (thermal momentum, the temperature change per joule energy input), it has latent heats of transformation (i.e. the energy input before temperature and state change occurs).
Dirt/ mud, rock also have them.
The are different.
I ‘m sorry j. This aspect is FUNDAMENTAL to basic physics. if you dont know it, dont talk about it. If you want to talk about it, go find out about it. It’s unmitigated nonsense for you to be shouting from a vacuum, foot stomping, capitals and lols etc. do not lend your perspective any integrity, information does.
cc
Who knew Canada’s NWT,Yukon and Nunavut. Greenland and Siberia are either not landmasses or not in the Arctic.
You are a very weak troll.Surely you can bring a better game here.
Fact free fretting your specialty?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Antarctic temperature is going nowhere
http://s19.postimg.org/f2zs7njcj/South_Temps.jpg
In fact, UAH SoPol has 2015 in 35th place out of 37 years.
“It’s unmitigated nonsense for you to be shouting from a vacuum”
And you are doing a very good job at it, little caitie.
Empty meaningless garbage seems to be your forte.
Thermal momentum or inertia is as nonexistent as CAGW.
Thermal momentum is only relevant to high energy particle studies …
@C.C:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html
Specific heat of pure water 1.0
Specific heat of ice 0.5
Specific heat of granite 0.17
There is a reason water is used for moving heat in engines and for thermal mass in solar homes.
Your ‘porky’ about rocks (land) having more heat capacity than water is a real hoot, but quite wrong.
Were it heat capacity keeping one from warming, it would be the one with the water staying cold…
HINT: Look up the Southern Ocean and the way it isolates heat exchange.
For extra credit, explore the implications of the sunny shallow Gulf of Mexico as relared to the Gulf Stream.
As the old Oly commercials used to say “It’s the water, and a lot more”.
(If you dont know what Oly is, that too will explain a lot…)
Cait…..did you know thay the wind moves ice on top of water…..how does that affectt ice mass in the arctic
Philsalmon.
“thermal momentum or interia is as nonexistent as CAGW”
Interesting, but says a lot about the education of people posting here.
okay phil – I dare you to take a swig of hot coffee, just to prove your point.
Marcus
“thermal momentum is only relevant to high-energy particle studies”
uh. no. The laws of thermodynamics apply to anything with temperature – i.e. everything.
Caitie,
You forgot to include the most important points;
1) the Antarctic land mass sticks very, very deep into the ocean
2) land masses don’t move, water does.
I didn’t understand it myself until I learned these things from you.
Is there any evidence that CC actually understands the big words she is using?
Thermal momenta???????
KTKT
About thermal “momentum”, lets be clear – you were invited to withdraw your erroneous implication that heat somehow has momentum, ie that a mass which recently has increased in temperature due to heat input, will continue that temperature increase for a time after the heat input has ended. But you did not, instead making some comment about coffee.
So you really believe in thermal momentum? Well you believe in AGW, so equally irrational belief in thermal momentum is not surprising, along with the neolithic creation fantasy about climate being created unchanging and perfect, only to be changed by humans.
bills, its not warming in the way YOU think because you’re not correctly accounting for the latent heat of melting by ice. With that information in hand, the plots you show are perfectly understandable.
When you have a glass of ice, the surface temperature of the ice does not change, systematically from zero as the ice melts, until ALL the ice is melted – this is also shown in those plots.
Physics is not a conspiracy bill. IT’s just how it works. Im not sure what gravy train you think is rolling. I know of no research scientists that are particularly wealthy – however I know plenty of oil barons who are.
Put another way – there is significantly GREATER financial gain to be had in managing sites like this, than there is in doing climate change science. Were I an oil baron, I would probably be doing my darnedest to make claims like the ones I see here – with equivalent lack of basic understanding in an attempt to delude and misguide those who are angry, bitter and easily led – exactly what we see here.
Also, when you have a glass of ice, if it is 90% full it will melt over.
KTKT
Your tribe like to crow about “physics”. “We are the physicists, only we can understand climate”. This conceit is leading you astray. For one, despite all scientists’ natural loyalty to their speciality, climate is as much biology as it is physics. Lovelock’s daisyworld and Gaia hypothesis is probably largely correct. The biosphere’s response to increasing CO2 is as important as its effect on the emission height.
Furthermore, the physics being applid to climate science is the wrong kind. It lacks the most important ingredient – the dynamics and patterns of chaos and nonlinearity. If physicists wish to be relevant to climate, they need to go back to school, and read up on Lorenz, Mandelbrot, Feigenbaum, Belousov/Zhabotinsky, Ruelle, and especially Prigogine and the discipline he founded of nonlinear thermodynamics. Only then might physics have something meaningful to say about climate.
Thanks EM, i appreciate youre desperate to one up me. thats fine.
“Your ‘porky’ about rocks (land) having more heat capacity than water is a real hoot, but quite wrong”
Yes, fair point, but actually I didn’t say that. Here is what I said.
” it has latent heats of transformation (i.e. the energy input before temperature and state change occurs).
Dirt/ mud, rock also have them.
They are different.”
I can appreciate you simply made a mistake, that’s fine. I’m fully aware water has a substantial heat capacity, and why it is used to heat homes. Thanks for the redundant information.
I’m sensing a pattern amongst the resident troglodytes.
1. make claims along the lines of “bah!, I know better than all of them!”
2. make some declarations preferably without recourse to even basic information
3. litter the posts with prepubescent and, where possible and if appropriate, semi-misogyinistic comments
4. round it all of with a healthy shower of indignant spittle.
Above all – above ALL – anyone who disagrees with you, for any reason at all, must be demonised, crucified and belittled – and if the recipient of those quips comes back with any, they’re obviously angry and immature. Prepubescent language is the reserve only of the particular individual composing the post – anyone else making use of it is unauthorised and is therefore obviously a fool. XD
I note they are using Mercator’s projection for their map – but I thought we climate-deniers were the flat-earthers!
Author’s Martin Leduc, H. Damon Matthews & Ramón de Elían write:
This isn’t supported by evidence presented. None of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Prove me wrong. You can’t. There is no evidence at all to support that statement, allegation, whatever you choose to call it. None. Not a jot or tiddle. Nothing. It’s unfounded. Nowhere is there any evidence at all.
How this nonsense gets published in a once respected journal of science such as Nature is beyond be. I would guess that since it’s published under the heading of “Letters” it isn’t refereed. It turns out my guess is qualified; I happen to know for a fact those entries aren’t refereed, they’re pure speculation. I’ve published in that forum.
The sad part is Nature can publish what they want as a result. It’s an editorial decision and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
This isn’t science.
It certainly isn’t science. Furthermore, the once-upon-a-time prestigious journals have become rags unworthy of the attention of anyone seeking factual scientific information. They are now more akin to tawdry celebrity mags and perhaps one of the unlooked for yet serendipitous corollaries of the climate pseudoscience debacle is the ultimate demise of these grotesque parodies of previously quality publications and the rise of open access science publication.
I can’t begin to express how much this true observation troubles me. “Troubles” is the wrong word; it actually scares the piss out of me.
We made a bad mistake with mass communications. It started with radio, progressed to television, and its bloomed with the Internet. We had no idea; I had no idea. If I had understood how this would work out, I wouldn’t have had anything to do with it. What I had been proud of shames me now.
There are, and always will be, people in large numbers that have no time to devote to the subject of “climate change”; It’s no mark of insufficiency, just a truth. They are easily swayed by others who would, for their own reasons, take advantage of them and they have few defenses. They are good people who do their very best to make good decisions based on the information they’re given and they depend on the good will of the people who provide that information. They are more than smart enough to differentiate between good information and bad information if it’s presented to them, however if it isn’t even published, there’s no hope; they can be lied to and they will believe the lies. If you don’t even give them a chance to hear the opposing position, they have no choice.
I had a part in this. I made the tools needed to lie on a very large scale and I have to repudiate it. The tools I personally made available have been misused and corrupted. It’s purely ironic that Al Gore himself was a sponsor of the “Smart Valley” project back in 1986 and has claimed to be the inventor of the internet. Now, perhaps, everyone understands why that was so important to him.
This nonsense must stop. It’s an attack on democracy, and attack on personal intelligence, and an attack on freedom. It can’t be perpetrated under the guise of science. It’s a travesty that violates every precept of science.
Mm, hm.
Way off topic maybe but…even the science of our Solar system isn’t ” SETTLED ” yet !!
Scientists believe they have found a giant 9th planet in our Solar system …
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/01/20/scientists-may-have-just-found-ninth-planet-and-its-massive.html?intcmp=hpbt4
https://youtu.be/6poHQ2h00ZA
It’s kind of a nice thing to slip in here Marcus because it’s a good demonstration of what does in fact constitute a reasonable standard of evidence in support of a hypothesis. In other words, the peculiar orbits of Sedna and other icy worldlets out of the ecliptic plane are difficult to explain without the presence of a previously unknown mass. It contrasts nicely with climate pseudoscience in which there is nothing whatsoever to differentiate the proposed hypothesis from natural variation and is forever and completely unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific at its very fundament.
You say it so much better than me !!
Back in college, I took an astronomy course and while I can’t remember the exact content, I remember the book talking about the history of planetary discovery and calculations on Neptune and Uranus’ orbits showing that there should be a ninth massive planet. When they looked at about where they thought it should be, they found Pluto – but Pluto wasn’t massive enough to match what they were looking for.
They were never able to find the “missing mass.”
Not being an astronomer, is this a separate search or a continuation of the previous search after it was left cold for so many years?
Is that the one that Zachariah Sitchin predicted in his book The 12th Planet?
This map has proved it’s the “Simple High School Physics” mantra. We learn in high school that heat rises. According to this map, all the heat generated by bad humans rises to the north pole. This, in turn, forces the last remaining cool air to drop to the south pole because everyone knows in high school that cooler air sinks. This explains why the Arctic has been losing ice and the Antarctic has been gaining.
Oh, very good.
w.
In what solar system/universe is the North Pole “up”? This is a joke, right?
Every point on the Earth is “up” from some relative perspective.
Sorry, I should have used some sort of sarcasm warning….
Mmmm … that is 0.7°C in thirty years, or 0.21°C per decade. I suppose they won’t use satellite data.
w.
Satellite data also show land temperature increase.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf
Sorry, as is always pointed out here, satellites do not measure surface temperatures !!
… caused by….
Fairies? Gnomes! That’s it!
Come on Janice, you know very well that it was the Unicorn farts !! Stop trying to protect the Unicorns !! LOL
Extract from the article you link to.
“Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere…Almost all model simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models,”
In fact, the rest of the paper repeatedly says the models may be wrong (but we prefer to think the data is wrong.)
Either way I’m not seeing the models being validated here.
Try again.
catie, I’m very interested in your estimation of the thermal moment of Antarctica, covered as it is by ice.
But I really want to get to the heart of your argument, which is the radiative physics of CO2. You see, there is a very good reason the models overestimate warming, the ice cores and the benthic cores show co2 is the slave of temperature, and there is essentially zero correlation between co2 and temperature at Phanerozoic scale. The reason is that the effective atmospheric physics of co2 can only be found at quantum level. The irony is that the very reason you fear it so much, that it is a very “strong” earth spectrum absorber, is its downfall as an effective greenhouse gas.
In the cartoon and table the excitation states of co2 are plotted against a modtran pre industrial co2 level transmittance to the tropopause. The first transition from ground state is usually the most energetic and that is the case for co2 shown here as the Boltzmann population density at wn667/15um. This central or “Q” portal accounts for half of co2’s radiative potential and it is squarely in the flat bottom of zero transmission at pre industrial level.
“So what”, you say, “It’s still warming us.” True, but in these bands, no more so than it was before us.
hello gymnosperm.
Thanks for your message.
My interpretation of the process is that radiation from the sun penetrates the atmosphere at wavelengths where the atmosphere is transparent. Radiatively heating the ground, which then re-radiates the heat energy with a significant amount being re-radiated as IR.
Therefore, the troposphere is subject to an IR flux, but emanating from terrestrial sources, not solar.
So the opacity of the atmosphere is not important for the initial heating – energy arrives at different wavelengths. Havving arrived, it heats the earth, is re-radiated into the band where the CO2 can be easily excited, decay, and re-radiate isotropically – having a large optical depth of CO2 results in more of that radiation being re-emitted back downward to the surface with a relatively short relaxation time.
You say: “no more than it was before us” – I have no way of determining the veracity of that statement from your plot, unless you’ve normalised it to current day levels – that is to say, you’ve normalised the plot so it will necessarily span from 0 to 1. I can’t tell if that is actually absolutely any different to post-industrial levels.
If you dont mind, I’d also appreciate a citation or two.
Thanks again.
Troll posting as caitiecaitie:
You conclude a load of assertions addressed to gymnosperm by saying
In future please find some citations to support your twaddle instead of asking others to try to find some for you.
Richard
Certainly richard, which assertions would you like me to follow with citation?
To be honest, I didn’t think there was much in my post that was controversial. The atmospheric opacity is easily measured, the emissivity of the earth surface is also easily measured.
I think all of these are rather well established, so I assume I’ve missed something.
Thanks richard.
For a guy who objects so strenuously to insult, you sure do engage in it a lot.
Anyhow – I can try to cite my comments – but which would you like cited? To be honest I thought most of what I said was pretty much already and easily established, am I missing something.
Thanks.
Troll posting as caitiecaitie:
As I said, “In future please find some citations to support your twaddle instead of asking others to try to find some for you.”
You asked for the citations so I don’t see why you are asking me what citations you want.
However, as I always like to be helpful, I will say it would be good if you were to provide a citation for each assertion you make.
Richard
What 12 climate models did they use? I hope they didn’t use the global models which aren’t suited for regional studies.
“…net {CO2} emitters and sinks over a full seasonal cycle…”
http://i59.tinypic.com/152kmk4.jpg
(Source: Erik Swenson here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/#comment-2041884 )
Wow. LOOK at all those people in northern Canada and above the Arctic circle! Must be at least 8 billion more people on this planet than we realized! Has anyone ever SEEN them? Call National Geographic!!
Yeti’s !! ( or Abominable snowmen ) ?? LOL
Clearly since those areas are heavily forested the evil spruce and birch trees must be driving around in SUV’s
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/HocusLocus_photos/OCO2_20141001-20150922_EricSwenson_val380.0-415.0_co2331.7-442.4_10.png
The Masked Mercator to Dymaxion-izer strikes again!
(Source: Erik Swenson here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/#comment-2041884 )
So apparently they have hard coded into their climate simulation that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. Such computer models beg the question and are of no value what so ever. I read in a recent article that the original estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2, not including any feedbacks, are off by a factor of 20 too great. The feedbacks have to be negative for the Earth’s climate to have been as stable as it has been for more than the past 500 million years, enough for life to have evolved, enough for us to be here. The end result is that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really equal to zero so they need to rerun their simulations with the climate sensitivity of CO2 set to what it actually is , zero, and see what they get. Then there is the question of natural variability. It is not Man’ output of CO2 that has caused the ice age cycling or the warm period, cool period cycling over the Holocene. It is not Man’s output of CO2 that caused the Eemian to be warmer than the current interglacial period.
So let us discuss the science involving man made global climate change. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.
This is all a matter of science
If doubling CO2 ( to 700 ppm ) will cause Catastrophic Glo.Bull Warming then I guess the Earth was destroyed 10,000,000 years ago when CO2 was at 800 ppm…and we are really just a figment of our own imaginations !!
willhaas
Well said.
The earth’s climate has not been stable in the past 500 million years. What has happened shows signs that the climate has non-constant stability. The feedback figure is not constant, and seems to be more positive when snow/ice coverage is in a state where it has great upward/downward mobility in terms of millions of km^2 per year. That happens more when the earth is moderately covered by ice and snow (like during recent ice age glaciations), but the tropical zone and most near-tropics areas are warm.
A reply to your comment was too long to post here so I put it on my blog: http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2016/01/21/the-co2-deserts/
The equator barely saw much cooling even during Ice Ages. Most of the ‘cold’ affected mainly the South Pole which is still very much in Ice Age conditions even today, and most of all, the North American/EU regions where the majority of new glaciation occurred.
The climate has been stable enough for life to evolve. We are here.
As for mechanics of heat transfer in the troposphere:
A CO2 molecule does collide with other molecules frequently, resulting in heat transfer by conduction over merely several namometers each time. Air is actually a notably good thermal insulator. And convection on any scale smaller than global circulation does not happen everywhere in the atmosphere, only in a minority of it. A fair amount of the world at any moment has no largely-vertical air movement at any altitude above the surface boundary layer, let alone enough to shift heat significantly up or down in the troposphere in any localized region.
As for heat transfer by radiation: Greenhouse gas molecules do store energy that is transferred from one greenhouse gas molecule to another, or between a greenhouse gas molecule and either the surface or outer space. The storage time is short, but long in comparison to the amount of time it takes a photon of infrared to hop from one point to another in or below the atmosphere. More greenhouse gas molecules means the net heat transfer rate from the surface to outer space by LWIR radiation is reduced, as an increasing minority of this heat transfer is temporarily stored (locally in absorption sites even if for only microseconds) and/or turned back (re-emission of radiation by an absorber is in random directions regardless of the direction that an absorbed photon came from).
This does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics – they only require *net* flow to be from warmer to cooler (including to/from intermediate steps), and as they are stated they don’t say anything about rate of heat flow being affected by adding or removing an obstacle course.
In considering heat transfer through the air one has to consider both conduction and convection on a small scale. Yes, air is a good insulator in terms of just conduction but a poor insulator when convection is factored in. Insulation is designed to make use of air’s high conductive insulation but to prevent heat loss by convection. The gas molecules exchange heat when they make contact but them move around carrying the energy with them. If more CO2 did actually cause an increase in the insulation effects of the atmosphere then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The lapse rate is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases,
What am I doing in the Bahamas where it is blue according to the map of climate change. I could be in Canada which is green. I need my head examined! It is a cool 68 F here in the Bahamas but it is a cooler 14 F where my house in Canada is. By the way, some of those hapless Newfies are here. They said it was much colder in Fort McMurray. They are right. It is 10 F there. This article is almost as much fun as the photo’s of Quebecers marching in the snow against climate change.
Hmmmm, do Americans and Brits even know what a Newfie is ?? I thought it was just a Canadian thing !! LOL
This one (American) does — now! Heh. I always used the term to refer to the gallant Newfoundland Dog. Now, I will be more careful… . I do know to pronounce Newfoundland with the emphasis (unexpectedly, to my ear) on LAND.
To shut up and march on is very German. I thought that some people in Quebec deemed themselves French.
“…analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.”
Where on earth, literally, would enough fossil fuels come from to quadruple the atmospheric concentration of CO2? The modelling assumption is ridiculous. Thus I ridicule it. Haven’t they ever hear of ‘Limits to Growth’?
How do such puerile claims get into print? Are climate scientists such…what is the word? Misrepresenters seems inadequate.
Canadian Lame Ass Geographers to the Rescue!
Canadian professors, how do you like the cut in pay you took with the drop in value of the Canadian dollar? Oil is not important?
Fossil fuels have to be gotten rid of so they can be replaced with investments in renewable energy.
Fossil fuels are being gotten rid of, one tankful at a time. Sure hope they don’t find out the whole Canadian shield is underlain by more and more and more oil. That will really send the price down.
If it happens that is the case the only fossils around will be the old guys claiming that oil is biotic in origin, and that natural gas isn’t.
Wow.
Where’d caitiecaitie suddenly come from? She’s mopping the floor with a lot of people. I haven’t seen someone this good since R. Gates. Brandon Gates (no relation) comes in a distant second.
LOL
The only thing she is mopping up is the drink she must have spilled after making this comment.
===============================================================
“” caitiecaitie
January 20, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Phils’ dad.
you understand that ice is less dense than water right?
i.e. a container more than 90% full of ice will spill?””
———————————————————————-
Did she really say that ??
Yup. Here is C. “D’oh” C. : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/20/gosh-a-new-model-based-study-puts-temperature-increases-caused-by-co2-emissions-on-the-map/comment-page-1/#comment-2124927
The Amazing CC! One of AGW’s finest!
That really IS funny!
She said it twice.
…Wow.
Good drugs ???
“mopping the floor with a lot of people” ?? Mr. Hoffer? Where did she manage to do that? I’ve read the entire thread… .
You’ve been had Janice… just laugh and nod 🙂
Actually Janice, I was being sincere. She got more right than she got wrong, and was rather clever with how she slid a bit of misdirection in here and there. I’ve just gone 12 rounds or so with Brandon Gates in another thread, and I’m pretty much done for the evening. But I look forward to seeing caitiecaitie around more in the future…
Well, Mr. Hoffer, I respect your opinion, but, I must disagree. I would say that approx. 90% of cc’s “facts” and assertions were wrong. And LAUGHABLY wrong at times. She did a FINE job of making AGWers look like dopes. I hope she comes around OFTEN!
And, davidmhoffer, THANK YOU, so much, for all that effort refuting B.G. Ugh! What a PAIN he is. But, your answers, no doubt, did much to prevent him from fooling the uninformed. WAY — TO — GO, DMH!
#(:))
A new toy ! 🙂
Agreed, it’s nice to see a pro-CAGW commenter stick around and respond to criticism, and the interesting responses this generates from other commenters. It’s a bit sad to see the snarkiness and condescension of a few other commenters to her / his posts – echo chambers and responding to arguments with ad hom are an anathema to good sceptical inquiry.
Impressive.
Funny how the projected warming is always where the instruments are not.
However this fine work of art does demonstrate that imaginary heat rises to the imagined top of this spinning rock.
But if CO2 done it, shouldn’t the heat be where the CO2 is concentrated ?
NASA’s own satellite shows a poorly mixed gas.
Actually they do show it as well-mixed. But the visuals they put out make it seem like there is a large range in the differences. But in reality there is only a percentage or two difference in the entire range. I made the same mistake by looking at the colors only and not the axes.
I like to tell these twerps that as they sit in front of their computers in their padded basements, they are probably sitting in an environment that is 2000+ppm CO2. 🙂
No wonder they are so hot and sweaty and incoherent. 😉
This all shows how corrosive today’s polticized climate science is becoming. Utterly skill-less models are becoming regarded as gospel truth.
Computer models cannot even get right – even come close to – mapping CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. How much less can they hope to map climate effects of CO2.
12 blind leaders of the blind are no better than one. The end is the same.
looks like cc took a hard left turn there
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/#mutable_1395662
Regarding: “Globally, the researchers saw an average temperature increase of 1.7 ±0.4°C per trillion tonnes of carbon in CO2 emissions (TtC), which is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Where does IPCC say that? IPCC knows that the effect of CO2, as it varies through anywhere in the range from as low as in recent Ice Age glaciations to as high as high side of foreseen by IPCC, is logarithmic. IPCC even favors a figure of 3.7 W/m^2 forcing from changing atmospheric CO2 concentration by a factor of 2 (3.7 W/m^2 per 2xCO2), which even Dr. Roy Spencer has gone along with in his website with mention that it is IPCC’s figure. This figure is obviously one of logarithmic effect, not linear effect.
Don, I had the “but CO2 is logarithmic” moment too, so I went back and parsed the language more closely. There’s a clever but of misdirection buried in the paper.
1) They make the claim that temperature increases linearly, not with CO2 concentration, but with cumulative emissions, a rather different thing.
2. The claim that this is “consistent” with the IPCC. Like you, I don’t recall the IPCC ever saying any such thing. Perhaps I missed it. But even if they didn’t, is the statement “inconsistent” with IPCC claims? I dunno, what I do know is that if it isn’t, showing that it isn’t would be quite a chore.
3. They seem to propose that there has been about 1 degree of warming in the last century due to these “cumulative emissions” which would essentially be attributing ALL of the warming in the last century to CO2.
There three things taken together make the paper rather difficult to debunk in a straight forward easily understood manner, and would require substantive detailed research. The notion that ALL the warming of the last century is 100% due to CO2 increases is clearly inconsistent with IPCC and other recent literature, so they’re off to a bad start on that alone.
That said, when I read through it (once the linear thing was understood) there was not much revolutionary about it. SB Law and GHG theory have always suggested that cold places/seasons/nights would warm more than warm places/seasons/days and that the arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic (which was called out as early as APCC AR4 if not earlier).
2. The claim that this is “consistent” with the IPCC. Like you, I don’t recall the IPCC ever saying any such thing. Perhaps I missed it.
I missed it!
IPCC AR5 Figure SPM.10
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_summary.php
Roughly linear!
That being the case, since cumulative emissions are accelerating, particularly during the last 20 years, the obvious question, if this is the case, why are temperature changes (even if one accepts Karl et al at face value) and proxies such as SLR not also accelerating?
The basic error with their claim is the assumption that emissions are cumulative, that is the extra CO2 stays in the atmosphere forever. Basic chemistry and biology shows this to be false. We know from studies that plants are sucking up the extra CO2 to the point that the greening of the planet is obvious in multiple studies. Every gardener of course knows this which is why horticulturists increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses.
“1. They make the claim that temperature increases linearly, not with CO2 concentration, but with cumulative emissions, a rather different thing.”
That is not correct as I read it. Cumulative emissions means what, an increase in the total concentration. That is the same as linear with a cherry on top.
First it only applies to a planet with an atmosphere with no water vapour (or used it doesn’t rain) and second, it ‘cumulative’ is a way of totting up the total concentration. The claim is trying to sell ‘cumulative’ as essentially different from ‘the net total that has not been lost to sinks’ which is the same as concentration.
Whats amazing to me is these charlatans don’t quit. This has been going on since the 90’s. They have been working day and night to construct plausible con’s about global catastrophic warming but due to mans evil ways. Every bit of bogus research has been eventually exposed as false. This will be no different. I am just disgusted with these pseudoscientists. They are working to create the big foot of science, I assume to destroy the foothold of true science and the reasoning it fosters. I don’t know if these people are evil or actually deranged or have diseased brains. Someone please help me here. What ARE they.
All of the above.
And we have living proof in the current troll….. the mischaracterizations and intentionally misleading remarks = ev1l; only an unhealthy or deranged person would post as MUCH and for as LONG as this troll in defense of a piece of junk science. Who in their right mind would spend that much time and effort to argue FOR it? Unless… there is some money in it somewhere for cc.
Also, read cc’s comments for their syntax and vocabulary…. often a bit “off.”
[Usually best not to critic-eyes other writing errors or mistakes. Lest the next error be your own. 8<) .mod]
Too much Smirnoff’s vodka for her, comrade !! LOL
Part Norwegians drink vodka? I would imagine they’d be pining for the fiords!
@ur momisugly Peter and Paul: The science funding system is such that only proposals that present apocalyptic or sensational research are funded. Hence majority of scientists, since they need to feed themselves and the families, exaggerate. They are not pseudo- they are real and well educated, they just operate inside of a corrupt system. We all should actually dismantle it since it is unfixable. This will be greatest contribution to the scientific progress. By the way, did you notice morning headlines – all scientific world is abuzz!!! Two dudes from Caltech found 9th planet!!! Computationally… But it is real!!! This is an example of what I’m talking about.
I don’t find this article of much interest. It is possible to show a strong correlation between craft beer sales and CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t care.
I did find intriguing the post just yesterday by F.J. Shepherd regarding Norse Medieval Greenland and Historical Realities. Ötzi, also called the Ice Man, is also much more interesting and in need of an explanation than the (grotesque) map at the beginning. Do “climate scientists” not know about Polar Projections? Never mind, I know how these maps are made. But another interesting question: …
Here is a WUWT link regarding a letter indicating the Arctic Region was warming in the early 1800s. Why did it do that?
To the Royal Society – 1817 – warming Arctic
CC showed a graph above, supposedly from NSIDC, showing 2015 Arctic Sea Ice Extent at 12.2 msk..
Funny, NSIDC website shows it at 14.1 as of today !!
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
Heh. I knew I’d seen that map before.
Here it is.
IPCC AR5 Figure 2.2
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php#figure_2_2
Different color scheme, but same basic pattern. This isn’t “new science”, it is “old science” regurgitated.
Have to laugh, really. Any increase in temps that remain below freezing still won’t melt ice. And it always refreezes come winter in either hemisphere.
Laugh or not, but wash your trousers and leave them out hanging in -25C and they will dry up. Even if the ice won’t melt, it will go away and leave dry trousers for you.
Covered in ice ??
Might take a few days for it to evaporate, though. 🙂