Analysis of the Relationship Between Land Air Temperatures and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Guest essay by Clyde H. Spencer

Before getting into the details of the analysis, it must be stated that there are a number of issues with the available temperature data sets. Some critics have dismissed the historical ocean pH measurements because of the poor spatial sampling. However, the same criticism can be made about historical temperatures. There are still concerns about the influence of the Urban Heat Island effect on recent temperature readings. In addition, the temperature record is a moving target because there are on-going changes made to try to correct for the shortcomings of a system that wasn’t intended to be used to track long-term changes. Therefore, if you attempt to reproduce my results, you will probably find that the data have changed. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project was started because of distrust in the other existing data sets. I have chosen to use BEST data (08-Jan-2016) because it is readily available and some consider it to be superior to the government data sets. Any conclusions need to be taken with reservation.

Unfortunately, the most detailed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration data that are available cover only about the last 56 years. The Mauna Loa CO2 data are available from the Scripps Oceanographic website. A scatter-plot of BEST monthly temperatures versus logarithm base-2 (Log2) PPM (parts per million) CO2 concentration was prepared for the period of 1958 through 2015. (See Fig. 1, below) The point cloud for the monthly data is not particularly tight. Indeed, the least-squares fit regression-lines only show an R2 value a little above 0.5 for both the average global high and low temperatures. The classic interpretation of the R2 value is that it represents the amount of variance in the dependent variable (temperature) that can be explained by the independent variable (CO2 concentration). That is, in this situation, only a little more than half of the rise in temperature can be related to the increase of CO2 in the last half-century. Of that CO2 increase, the combustion of fossil fuels probably only accounts for about 75%. (See Spencer, 2015).

Using raw PPM rather than the LOG2 of the PPM CO2 gives slightly higher correlation coefficient with the monthly high-temperatures. (0.533 v. 0.528). Whereas, the opposite is true for low temperatures (0.548 v. 0.550). Thus, it seems that the average low-temperatures behave slightly better with respect to the theory that CO2 is impeding radiative cooling.

Using a 2nd-order fit instead of a linear fit increases the correlations slightly. However, the trend-line curves upward with the high temperatures for the most recent data, but downwards for the low temperatures. The apparent opposite results, suggest that something is affecting the high and low temperatures differently. I have pointed out previously, (Spencer, 2015) that the difference between the high and low temperatures has been increasing in recent years and seems to be the result of the high temperatures increasing more rapidly than the low temperatures. That is the opposite of what one would expect if CO2 were the main driver.

image

Fig. 1 Monthly average temperature versus Mauna Loa CO2 concentration

Substituting the presumed concentration of CO2 (277 PPM) for the pre-industrial era into the linear regression equations yields high and low temperatures estimates of 13.537 and 2.207 degrees C, respectively. That gives an average of 7.872°C, compared to an average temperature of 8.367 for 1771 from the BEST database. It is a surprisingly good agreement for a linear prediction based on temperatures that generally appear to increase in a saw-tooth pattern.

While the correlation of temperature with CO2 looks compelling, what if it is because the CO2 is coincidentally highly correlated with something else such as natural, in-phase long-term temperature trends or it is simply a proxy for the totality of anthropogenic influences? Remember that correlation does not mean causation!

However, using annual Law Dome CO2 data from 1759 through 2015, the relationship is less well-behaved. (See Fig. 2, below) The correlation coefficient (0.5638) for average temperature versus CO2 is, approximately, what is observed for the Mauna Loa monthly CO2 data. Non-linear behavior is particularly striking for Log2 CO2 concentrations less than 8.35 (≈pre-1972). There also seems to be particularly serious problems with the estimate of CO2 concentrations (284 PPM) or temperature around 1805 to 1840. Note that the slope of the regression line is similar to those in Figure 1.

image

Fig. 2 Average annual BEST global land surface-temperature versus Law Dome ice-core CO2

It is generally thought that pre-industrial CO2 levels were relatively constant, only showing very slow increases. However, at low levels of CO2, the temperatures were varying in a manner not expected from the theoretical model. Some of the low temperatures associated with the downward spike in temperatures with a CO2 log2 concentration of 8.15 may be the result of the eruption of Mt. Tambora (1815), but not all. The temperatures apparently started to decline a decade before the eruption, and remained low longer than the typical two or three years after a major eruption. The decline in temperatures resulting from the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa is barely discernible at a concentration of 8.18. There are also high temperatures paired with low CO2 concentrations.

Assuming that the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature is as shown in Figure 1, then the historical temperature data are not trustworthy. If the temperature data, which are 12-month averages, are correct, then there appears to be a serious problem with the assumed control of CO2 over temperatures! Alternatively, the CO2 concentration would have to have been varying considerably at this time to explain the different temperatures. This goes to the heart of my opening statement about the veracity of the historical temperature data and the ability to say anything about temperature increases for anything other than the modern record. Although it is not highly probable, in my judgment, one has to at least entertain the possibility that the modern rise in temperature along with CO2 is a coincidence.

A plot of estimated atmospheric CO2 concentration versus population for the period of 1958 to the present day shows that the rate of growth of CO2 is greater than the population rate. A 2nd-order least squares fit gives an R2 value of 0.999. (See Figure 3 below.)

image

Fig. 3 Annual Mauna Loa CO2 concentration versus world population

The correlation of historical, global CO2-increases, with population increase, is so high that one must entertain the possibility that the CO2 is a proxy for the totality of anthropogenic effects when used to predict temperatures.

One such effect is anthropogenic water vapor. Combustion produces water from all hydrocarbons, along with CO2. Water used in steel rolling mills, and many other industrial applications, evaporates under conditions it would not have done so were it not for Man. Similarly, water used to cool nuclear reactors and other power plants is released into the atmosphere; it initially condenses into visible water droplets, and then evaporates, increasing the relative humidity. Reservoirs in arid regions provide water vapor both from the reservoir surface and the fields the impounded water irrigates; the water vapor would not have been present before the dams were built. Lastly, massive depletion of underground aquifers, largely for agricultural irrigation, has brought water vapor into contact with the atmosphere during the growing season in arid and semi-arid regions to change the balance of the relative humidity. The essential point here is that ‘Greenhouse Gas’ theory predicts that increasing CO2 will warm the atmosphere slightly and cause additional evaporation of water, which amplifies the CO2 warming. Man is providing additional areas from which water can evaporate.

Another anthropogenic effect is Urban Heat Island contamination of the temperature records as the cities have encroached on what were formerly rural areas. The BEST project claims to have disproved that hypothesis, but it is my opinion that they didn’t search far enough outside the city limits, nor in the right direction. Quattrochi et al. (Project Atlanta, 1999) have demonstrated that the heat and pollution from central Atlanta (GA) influences the weather for miles downwind from the city. Additionally, Watts (2015) has demonstrated a woeful lack of adherence to standards in the siting of many temperature-recording stations. I don’t think this is “settled science.”

A plot of BEST global average land-temperatures versus world population (Figure 4, below) produces what appears to be a near-linear trend with an R2 value (0.782). However, fitting a 2nd-order polynomial produces a trend line with an R2 value of 0.811.

image

Fig. 4 Average annual global land-temperatures vs. world population

This suggests that all anthropogenic influences may account for as much as 81% of the variance in the land temperatures. I should note that if one plots 12-month smoothed BEST temperature data in Figure 1, instead of monthly temperatures, a linear correlation of similar magnitude is obtained. Therefore, the nominal R2 value of about 0.5 is likely an upper bound on the CO2 impact alone.

Atmospheric CO2 is characterized as a “well-mixed gas.” However, the NASA OCO-2 satellite shows a range of about 4% throughout the world, integrated over a 1-month period (see Fig. 5, below). That is approximately 10% of the claimed total increase in CO2 during the Industrial Era. Notably, there is no obvious evidence for the Northern Hemisphere industrial emissions. The preponderance of high values is over the southern oceans, which might be the result of out-gassing. The Amazon basin also shows elevated CO2; it is unclear whether that is a result of human burning activities or normal decay of vegetation. One needs to ask why OCO-2 isn’t confirming the presumed Northern Hemisphere anthropogenic CO2 when it is blamed for the historic temperature increases, and why there is a larger increase in high-latitude temperatures where CO2 has the lowest concentrations!

imagePPM

Fig. 5 CO2 concentrations from the OCO-2 satellite, July 2015 (NASA/GES DISC)

In summary, approximately 81% of the warming in the last century may have resulted from all anthropogenic influences, as suggested by figure 4. This includes water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and land use changes to the albedo and thermal mass. CO2 may account for as much as 52% to 56% of the contribution from anthropogenic drivers (See Figs. 1 & 2). Fossil fuel-CO2 represents less than 75% of anthropogenic CO2. If we were successful in completely phasing out fossil fuels over the next 100 years, we would have a reduction of 50% in average CO2 emissions. If the Earth is warming at a nominal rate of 1°C per 100 years from all influences, then we can hope, at best, for a reduction in temperature increase of 20% (0.54×0.75×0.50) or 0.20°C. That is to say, if the world were to phase out fossil fuels in the next 100 years the warming would be 0.80 degrees instead of 1.00°C! Unfortunately, eliminating fossil fuel use will probably not be successful in significantly reducing future temperature increases, even if it can be accomplished.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
402 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Graham
February 26, 2016 4:18 am

“(Fig 4) suggests that all anthropogenic influences may account for as much as 81% of the variance in the land temperatures.”
But this suggests that the decline in the population of pirates is responsible.
http://media.photobucket.com/user/IncredibleDeege/media/PiratesGlobalWarming.gif.html?filters%5Bterm%5D=pirates%20and%20global%20warming&filters%5Bprimary%5D=images&filters%5Bsecondary%5D=videos&sort=1&o=6
Let’s not get too carried away with identifying the cause and effect of a correlation to suit a narrative. That’s the alarmists’ game.

Reply to  Graham
February 26, 2016 10:01 am

“The waste heat generated by car engines, power plants, home furnaces and other fossil fuel-burning machinery plays an unappreciated role in influencing regional climates, new computer simulations suggest. By altering atmospheric circulation, human-made heat may raise temperatures by as much as 1 degree Celsius during winter in the northernmost parts of the world.”
https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/waste-heat-responsible-for-most-of-northern-hemisphere-warming/

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  sunshinehours1
February 26, 2016 10:38 am

I once held the position that waste heat may be a contributor. However, when I did the calculations it appeared that the impact was negligible.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  sunshinehours1
February 27, 2016 7:11 pm

I have wondered about this and thought it unlikely as I don’t buy the AGW idea of no negative feedbacks to warming influences. If, however, one accepts that only a fixed quantity of heat can escape the planet then any increase in heat release into the environment will result in higher temperatures. I don’t believe I have ever seen any formulaic description of how earth’s energy budget balances at different CO2 levels or from different temperature levels. Yet, our knowledge of earth’s past shows we keep resetting to something much like today’s climate. In spite of the high albedo of the many ice ages or the high temperatures of the Jurassic and despite various arrangements of the continents. Also, of course, in spite of much higher CO2 levels.

Reply to  Graham
February 26, 2016 10:15 am
John Harmsworth
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 27, 2016 7:33 pm

Heat from combustion of fossil fuels s not insignificant. I think at the very least it would be a substantial addition or accelerator of AGW. If it isn’t accounted for in the models then those models are even farther out of wack and the warmists have to explain how that heat escapes earth when AGW heat can’t.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Graham
February 26, 2016 10:36 am

Your example is a spurious inverse correlation. I’m acquainted with the problem. That is why I didn’t claim that population was responsible for the temperature increase. Anthropogenic influences are at least probable because one of them, anthropogenic CO2, is at the center of the debate.

Graham
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 3:31 pm

“…I didn’t claim that population was responsible for the temperature increase.”
But that is the thrust of Fig 4. Population is the independent variable.
“Anthropogenic influences are at least probable…”
Conversely, it is “at least probable” that population may be the dependent variable, increasing with the benefits of global warming.
Or none of the above are “at least probable”. The variables may be simply coincidental. As the globe warmed, for whatever reason, population increased for other reasons.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Graham
February 26, 2016 4:06 pm

Graham,
No, the thrust of Fig. 4 is that there was a correlation between population increase and temperature increase. It would be illogical to conclude that humans were directly responsible for the temperature increase unless they were little thermonuclear reactors. So,the leap of logic was that they are doing things that increased the temperature. Those who claim that AGW is the result of anthropogenic CO2, and principally from fossil fuels, have made the assumption that population is an independent variable. I was pointing out that the extremely high correlation suggested that CO2 was actually a proxy for all anthopogenic effects. Mosher has confirmed that BEST takes a similar view.
Yes, I acknowledged that some or all of the correlations may be coincidental. While I didn’t say it, I considered the hypothesis that warming was responsible for the population growth. However, since hygiene is generally acknowledged to have played a significant role in extending the longevity of humans, and the Green Revolution (fertilizers from petroleum stock) is given credit for most of the increase in food production during the industrial revolution, it didn’t seem to me that the magnitude of the correlation between temperature and population would support the thesis that population was the dependent variable.

Graham
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 7:25 pm

“…it didn’t seem…that population was the dependent variable.”
Some may not dismiss the possibility so readily!
http://web.stanford.edu/~moore/HistoryEcon.html
Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to compile cogent and thoughtful rejoinders.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Graham
February 26, 2016 8:47 pm

Graham,
I think that one of the problems we are confronted with is that is isn’t an ‘either or’ situation. There are numerous interelated feedback loops. Certainly a warmer climate has made things easier for Man and allowed for more leisure time to invent new things and perhaps allow more babies to survive cold Winters in higher latitudes. Clearly, medical advances have allowed Third World countries to escape former ravages on their population and have burgeoning populations. But, my personal opinion is that GHGs are more the result of human activities and therefore population is the main driver in temperature increases, at least at the moment.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2016 11:23 am

Anthropogenic influences are at least probable because one of them, anthropogenic CO2, is at the center of the debate.

Clyde Spencer
Untrue statement. Because an assertion is “at the center of [a] debate,” is no evidence at all of its merits.
“Probable” (apparently you have forgotten the meaning of this word) means: “likely to be true.”
When you use reason to try to persuade your child that there is no giant dragon in the closet, that does not make it “at least probable” that there is a giant dragon in the closet.
The conjecture that is AGlobalW is based on not one measurement. There is no evidence of significant probative value AT ALL that CO2 can cause changes in climate, much less human CO2 emissions.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 27, 2016 11:48 am

Janice,
If everyone agreed with you, we wouldn’t be having this exchange. My personal opinion is that the role of CO2 is smaller than is typically attributed by supporters of CAGW. However, I think that it does have a small contribution to part of a complex feedback loop. I think that water vapor is more influential and that humans are also responsible for increased WV, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions of the land. I think that you should try to make Mosher and Stokes see it your way. That should be interesting.

mellyrn
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2016 1:25 pm

It would be illogical to conclude that humans were directly responsible for the temperature increase unless they were little thermonuclear reactors.
All energy conversions ultimately devolve to heat. When a human stops producing heat, that human is dead. More people -> more heat . . . probably to a trivial degree, yet still greater than zero.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  mellyrn
February 27, 2016 2:13 pm

Mellyrn,
Yes, the heat from humans is obviously greater than zero. But, when I ran the numbers, it was lost in the noise.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2016 2:25 pm

Yes, Mr. Spencer. However, to repeat my point, “having this exchange,” does not in any way make “Anthropogenic influences [] at least probable because one of them, anthropogenic CO2, is at the center of the debate.
****************
Re: M0sher and St0kes: there is no point at all to trying to convince a closed mind. Their ignorance is self-imposed. No one can help them except themselves.

george e. smith
Reply to  Graham
February 26, 2016 10:41 am

I’m at a loss to understand, why the author of this essay, insists on shuffling the chairs on the deck.
So you plot BEST monthly Temperatures versus log2 CO2, and don’t get a strong agreement so then you decide to plot a non BEST monthly Temperature set against the linear CO2. Why did you not plot the exact same BEST set against the raw ppm CO2.
And while you are at it, why don’t you plot the exact same BEST Temperature set against exp(CO2 ratio).
Quit moving the pea around under the shells.
I can also match your BEST Temperature set to the function:
y = exp(-1/x^2) with suitable parameters.
If you are trying to sell us on the BEST Temperature data set, instead of the actual measured Temperature data set, then at least use the exact same set for all of the possible theoretical functions you are trying to validate.
There is plenty of historical data showing Temperature going up with CO2, and plenty of data showing Temperature going down, with rising CO2.
It is impossible that such data is a logarithmic relationship.
log x always goes in the same direction as x.
G

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 11:15 am

y = 0.000x^2 + 0.000X + 296.232
ergo y = 296.232
G

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 11:26 am

George,
I used BEST temperatures in all cases.

AndyG55
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 12:10 pm

Why would anyone waste their time plotting BEST against anything !!!!!

AndyG55
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 12:11 pm

Heck. they even had to hire a low-end salesman to be their frontman…. right Mosh !!

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 2:37 pm

“””””……Using raw PPM rather than the LOG2 of the PPM CO2 gives slightly higher correlation coefficient with the monthly high-temperatures. (0.533 v. 0.528). Whereas, the opposite is true for low temperatures (0.548 v. 0.550). Thus, it seems that the average low-temperatures behave slightly better with respect to the theory that CO2 is impeding radiative cooling. …..”””””
“”.. monthly high-temperatures. …”””
“”.. the opposite is true for low temperatures ..””
I don’t see anywhere in this paragraph where you said you plotted MONTHLY BEST TEMPERATURES against PPM CO2.
You cherry picked just parts of what you plotted against log2(CO2).
I know of no theoretical or experimental claim that either monthly highs, or monthly low vary logarithmically with Temperature.
The theory (false) is that the Temperature is proportional to the log(CO2 ratio). It isn’t of course, but that is the theory; not highs lows, or any other subset.
G

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 3:35 pm

George,
You seem to be having trouble understanding this. First you complained that I had switched temperature databases, which wasn’t the case. Then you complained I didn’t use the same BEST data for everything. That was because I first showed the best available data for the last 56 years. To go back farther, I had to use a different BEST temperature set, whose integrity I questioned.. Now finally you are complaining that there is no logarithmic relationship between average temperatures and high and low temperatures. That is not something I ever claimed.

Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 4:20 am

I wonder if the world population vs Temperature relationship holds up through the Maunder and Dalton minimums? Temp vs Time and Population vs Time. I suspect not. Also… cause and effect is not necessarily the same as correlation. A warming planet CAUSES CO2 to come out of solution of sea water.
“…one has to at least entertain the possibility that the modern rise in temperature along with CO2 is a coincidence.” Or the cause/effect relationship is on its head.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 10:45 am

Paul,
If you look at my Fig. 2, it would tend to support your speculation. However, as I pointed out, poor historical data make it difficult to reach any definitive conclusion. The only two OCO-2 maps I have seen suggest that out-gassing from warm oceans is quite prevalent.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 4:27 am
emsnews
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 11:36 am

We do not know the WORLD population before 1900. We are mainly guessing since no one really really counted population, even US census figures don’t have it all down pat until roughly my lifetime! We still don’t today if 11 million illegal aliens live here now, too!

Follow the Money
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 1:47 pm

You understand Paul!! The original secret sauce of the proxy hockey sticks phenomenon.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 27, 2016 1:46 pm

emsnews says:
…11 million illegal aliens live here now…
That is the same number I recall reading in about 2004.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 4:33 am
bobl
February 26, 2016 4:31 am

The correlation of CO2 and population is on the surface compelling BUT is it? It is more than likely related to a common upstream factor, eg that the warmer climate since the LIA has ushered in a “golden era” where humans can proliferate, but the same factor (temperatture) also outgasses the ocean. In general we know that higher fossil fuel consumption results in wealthier countries which have LOWER population growth. So CO2 is not likely to be directly caused by population growth or vice versa, there is another mutual factor. Mind you a billion extra people exhale a lot of CO2.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bobl
February 26, 2016 10:50 am

Bobl,
I took a stab at estimating human CO2 exhalations in a previous post, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/ . While it is calculable, it doesn’t seem to be a major contributor.

David A
February 26, 2016 4:36 am

The idea that population growth and UHI may be a larger factor then accounted for is reasonable. However the lack of warming in the bulk of the atmosphere does not support CO2 of water vapor forcing even a little bit.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/10/el-nio-shortens-the-pause-by-just-one-month/
While the potential for human increases in water vapor appear reasonable, does data support this? (I did not see such information in the post)
In the US the one surface data set of pristine stations is a very consistent match for both RSS and UHA over the continental US. In addition the surface record has been adjusted far more then most admit when one looks at the historic records from the late 1970s.

Reply to  David A
February 26, 2016 7:54 am

comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David A
February 26, 2016 10:57 am

David A,
I must admit I only have anecdotal evidence for what anthropogenic humidity as done to Phoenix and farmers in the Mid-west. I don’t have large grants and graduate-student slave labor to pursue it. It is my hope to remove some blinders to alternatives to the reigning paradigm and encourage others to explore alternative explanations.

David A
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 8:54 pm

I can see how human induced water vapor could add to UHI in some regions as something worthy of consideration, but not to overall atmospheric warming. I drive several times a year up and down the 99 in Calif, through small towns and large agricultural areas. The T varies by two to three degrees in micro climates throughout the drive, especially at night.
IMV, the oceans are a GHL (Greenhouse Liquid) and variations in their absorption of SW radiation due to cloud cover, jet stream flux, and possibly solar cycles are the dog wagging climates tail. All of the man made reservoirs in the world if 100 percent full, and emptied in one moment, would raise the worlds oceans about .5 inches.

Chris Wright
February 26, 2016 5:11 am

A fascinating post.
Fig.3 strongly suggests that mankind can take much of the credit for the increasing CO2 which is making the planet greener.
Fig.4 is fascinating. The most likely explanation is that much of the apparent warming is due to the growth of urban heating and the closure of rural stations, particularly in the 1990’s. The climate establishment’s refusal to properly compensate for UHI is close to criminal behaviour. Not only is it possible scientific fraud, it may be financial fraud, as governments are squandering trillions of dollars based on this possible scientific fraud.
.
A fascinating graph has been posted several times here at WUWT. I don’t know its origin. Its title is:”USHCN Temperature Adjustments Vs .Atmospheric CO2″
If correct, then this graph shows an extraordinary correlation between the *adjustments* and CO2. I doubt if there is any physical explanation for such a correlation.
.
If a similar correlation exists for the global temperature data, then this would go a long way toward explaining the apparent correlation between temperature and CO2. To put it bluntly: without the need for any organised conspiracy over the years, have hundreds or thousands of scientists been unconsciously adjusting the data so that it more closely fits their assumptions?
Chris

Reply to  Chris Wright
February 26, 2016 7:06 am

much of the modern global warming also coincides with the closing of a large number of weather stations as a result of the break up of the Soviet Union. It may simply be an artifact of closing a lot of colder stations in Siberia, which was largely masked due to the smearing effect of anomalies and homogenization.

Alan Davidson
Reply to  Chris Wright
February 26, 2016 9:57 am

USHCN Temperature Adjustments vs Atmospheric CO2 content graph is from Steve Goddard/Tony Heller’s informative http://www.RealClimateScience.com blog. The very close correlation is indeed extraordinary. Adjustments probably involve only a few NOAA staff in co-ordination with a few in NASA GISS, not hundreds or thousands of scientists.

nc
Reply to  Chris Wright
February 26, 2016 10:11 am

I always wonder why when ever it is said C02 does this or that there never seems to be a differentiation between anthropogenic and natural C02. Including this article unless I missed it, all C02 seems to always be thrown into the same vat. Has the ratio between anthropogenic and natural C02 decreased?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nc
February 26, 2016 11:05 am

nc,
Until the launch of OCO-2, most research came squarely down on the back of humans as the source of increasing CO2. In looking at the sparse published results of OCO-2, it is difficult to see the presumed sources of anthropogenic CO2.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Chris Wright
February 26, 2016 11:15 pm

Chris Wright:
You ask

To put it bluntly: without the need for any organised conspiracy over the years, have hundreds or thousands of scientists been unconsciously adjusting the data so that it more closely fits their assumptions?

The answer is YES. Please read this especially its Appendix B.
Richard

Mike Maguire
February 26, 2016 5:30 am

This article makes numerous outstanding objective points. From my own experience predicting crop yields, I’ve noted a significant increase in low level moisture/dew points over the majority of the US Cornbelt during the growing season vs just 3 decades ago. This is almost entirely from the increased evapotranspiration from corn plant populations that are now almost twice as dense as they were(based on advances in technology/genetics).
The planet is greening up from the increase in CO2. There is clearly a greater contribution to evapotranspiration and low level moisture as a result of this.
Is this a positive feedback?
Well, the increase of water vapor in the Cornbelt during the growing seasons says otherwise. It results in a lower lifting condensation level, earlier formation of day time cumulus and earlier and more widespread cooling convection as well as lower daytime readings.
Warmer lows at night for sure but less solar heating from the increase in low level clouds……..and a decrease in average cloud height…..more effective radiation than higher clouds because they are warmer.

David A
Reply to  Mike Maguire
February 26, 2016 6:04 am

Mike, interesting comment on negative feedback potential.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/clip_image036.jpg

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Maguire
February 26, 2016 6:53 am

Doesn’t a higher CO2 level result in lower evapotranspiration on a per plant basis?

mebbe
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2016 7:56 am

There is no doubt that enhanced CO2 results directly in increased photosynthate and increased growth; more foliage, bigger foliage. Bigger plants transpire more than smaller plants and the partial closure of stomata in response to a large increase in CO2 does not change that.
The recently vaunted ability of incremental, 2ppm annual enrichment of global CO2 to greenify the deserts relies on a tortuous rationale that comes down to retention of soil moisture.
In fact, there’s good reason to think that the expansion of acacia (not just grasses) range in the Sahel is the result of increased precipitation and there’s no shortage of evidence that that’s the case.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2016 1:03 pm

Good point. Yes, higher CO2 levels do cause plants to be more water efficient:
https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
What is the amount of additional surface area of plants and potential transpiration vs what is the amount that is conserved(from photo-respiration being suppressed) with higher amounts of CO2?
Impossible to know. Observations in the US Midwest are with an extreme example using a C4 crop, corn that has almost twice the surface area compared to the 1970’s crop. Clearly, the amount of increase in transpiration is by far much greater than the better efficiency from the increase in CO2 since then. We can see widespread dew point increases up to 10 degrees F at times just from corn transpiration in late June into early August.
This has made for a giant laboratory experiment……that applies only to around a 10 state area region, where humans manipulated the vegetation to grow food(and unfortunately, bio-fuel) .
What would be the case in nature, where the increased surface area from a greening planet is more modest, maybe +15% over the same time frame?
It would not be so one sided. Maybe it’s balanced? There are other contributing components related to the hydrologic budget that are hard to estimate but potentially significant.

Richard111
February 26, 2016 5:38 am

I am unable to understand how CO2 molecules in the atmosphere ‘trap’ heat. Is there a tutorial that laymen can understand out there in the world wide web?

David A
Reply to  Richard111
February 26, 2016 5:51 am

They do not trap heat The redirect about 50% of outgoing longwave radiation in a narrow band, so that the residence time of some energy increases, while input (insolation) remains constant thus more total energy in the system.

David A
Reply to  David A
February 26, 2016 5:52 am

The redirect towards the surface about 50% (slightly less) of outgoing longwave radiation in a narrow band, so that the residence time of some energy increases, while input (insolation) remains constant thus more total energy in the system.

Alex
Reply to  David A
February 26, 2016 6:19 am

David A
Would the narrow band be about 1% of longwave?

Reply to  David A
February 26, 2016 7:14 am

CO2 also captures head from surrounding air molecules via conduction and radiates slightly more than 50% of that to space. The atmosphere would be isothermal otherwise.
This cools the atmosphere which then cools the surface because the atmosphere and surface are tied together via the Lapse Rate, which is a function of gravity and the condensation of water. The dry air lapse rate is identical to the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy by gravity. The wet air lapse rate depends on how much water is in the atmosphere.
Unfortunately climate science is obsessed with radiation, likely due to growing up during the cold war and nuclear warfare concerns. They largely ignore the equally important processes of conduction, convection and advection.

David A
Reply to  David A
February 26, 2016 12:22 pm

Fred says, “CO2 also captures head from surrounding air molecules via conduction and radiates slightly more than 50% of that to space.”
===================================================================. I
Very true. It appears logical that any GHG radiating to space conducted energy in the atmosphere will cool the atmosphere relative to encountering a non GHG molecule. Steven McIntyre a long time ago called for an engineering analysis on the physics of heat gain and loss throughout the atmosphere.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Richard111
February 26, 2016 6:41 am

Richard111,
You will hear words like “forcing” used in relation to the CO2 heat participation.
It is a vague term that is abused by the global warming promoters. I can’t find out any mathematical function that is a good transformation for that term.
Also just as CO2 molecules trap heat, so too do all the other substances in the atmosphere, like the other gases and especially water. There is a lot of water in the atmosphere. Way more than CO2 and the water contribution of heat absorption is ~100X that of CO2. The CAGW crowd like to ignore that.
CO2 like methane (CH4), discharges the energy into the atmosphere in wavelengths related to heating so that is why CO2 & Methane are referred to GHGs.
Energy Absorption Spectra of some gases:
(Note: what the gas emits is not the same as what it absorbs)
http://www.sas.rochester.edu/ees/fehnlab/ees215/fig16_5.jpg

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 11:08 am

Paul,
As a rule of thumb, a molecule that absorbs energy will re-radiate it at a longer wavelength.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Richard111
February 26, 2016 6:57 am

Richard111,
Many tutorials are propaganda mixed with science . Here is a good video in the form of a lecture ~80 minutes.

Richard111
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
February 26, 2016 9:57 am

Thank you for the video link Paul. Will have a good look after I’ve checked my data allowance. 🙂
And thanks for the familiar graph. My studies on the net tell me that there is a peak radiation appropriate to peak temperature. Take CO2, peak temperature at 223K (-50C), means CO2 is radiating over the whole 13 to 17 micron band. Yet CO2 in the tropopause must surely be much warmer than -50C, kinetic collisions with all the other atmospheric molecules, so how does CO2 absorb radiation from the surface over those bands? When the sun is shinning the 2.7 and 4.3 bands will be absorbing sunlight and warming the air but that absorbed energy does not warm the ground. I see CO2 as purely a coolant. So much to learn.

george e. smith
Reply to  Richard111
February 26, 2016 11:22 am

If you come up with a way to trap heat, patent it.
You will make a fortune from refrigeration companies and home builders, who would love to have the perfect thermal insulator material.
G

February 26, 2016 5:42 am

Unfortunately, eliminating fossil fuel use will probably not be successful in significantly reducing future temperature increases, even if it can be accomplished. . .

“Unfortunately”? No, fortunately. Warming is a Good Thing.
/Mr Lynn

David A
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
February 26, 2016 5:59 am

Yes, overall warming is a good thing, especially as it occurs mostly at night in the higher latitude regions of the NH. It is good for Canada and Russia for example. Small warming with increased CO2 is very good. Delaying the onset of an ice age may not be possible, but is off immense benefit. The benefits of CO2 are KNOWN and observed, the harms projected by WRONG IPCC models, are failing to materialize.

Reply to  L. E. Joiner
February 26, 2016 6:06 am

Warming is a Good Thing.
That is true and can not be said often enough.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
February 26, 2016 11:12 am

LEJ,
One can always have too much of a good thing. 🙂 The point I was trying to make is that for those supporting COP-21, and who are prepared to force changes on us to ‘save the world,’ their efforts will probably be in vain.

David A
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 8:58 pm

Not if the “forced change” is the goal, and not cooling the planet. “Post modern science”, another word for politicized science.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David A
February 26, 2016 9:05 pm

David,
Perhaps I have given you a data point to support your thesis that the goal is actually to force a change, and not to prevent heating of the planet.

David A
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2016 4:48 am

Clyde says,
“If we were successful in completely phasing out fossil fuels over the next 100 years, we would have a reduction of 50% in average CO2 emissions. If the Earth is warming at a nominal rate of 1°C per 100 years from all influences, then we can hope, at best, for a reduction in temperature increase of 20% (0.54×0.75×0.50) or 0.20°C. That is to say, if the world were to phase out fossil fuels in the next 100 years the warming would be 0.80 degrees instead of 1.00°C!”
======================================================================
Unfortunately nobody is likely to ever convince the Parris Blackbeard’s that their effort is purely political.
C. Monckton has already demonstrated, using their own inflated physics, that the efforts of the West will have zero practical affect on GAT. Many of the Parris Blackbeard’s openly admit their goal is political based, not science based.
National Post – 2009
… In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted “we have four months to save the planet.”…
=======================
Guardian – 3 November 2009
We only have months, not years, to save civilization from climate change
…….Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Institute and author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
=======================
WWF – 7 December 2009
12 days to save the planet!
…“The world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far won’t keep the world under 2° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. …
[WWF-UK’s head of climate change, Keith Allott]
=======================
Guardian – 18 January 2009
‘We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead’
Jim Hansen is the ‘grandfather of climate change’ and one of the world’s leading climatologists…..
======================
WWF – 7 December 2009
12 days to save the planet!
…“The world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far won’t keep the world under 2° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. …
[WWF-UK’s head of climate change, Keith Allott]
Of course all of the above drivel is a rinse wash and repeat of earlier climate doom…
==========================
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
=========================
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
=========================
“Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford Biologist, Earth Day 1970
========================
Political, not science…
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas”…
“The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. (Brock Chisholm, first Director General of the World Health Organization.
===========================
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
“[the United Nations could become] a comprehensive Planetary Regime which could control the distribution of all natural resources.. and all food on the international market.” -You guessed it, Our Science Czar John Holdren
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
==================================
I should not have to convince anyone of my thesis, as it is plainly admitted to by what IMV are evil bastards.
Karl Popper; The logic of scientific discovery; Page 20
======================================================
… “it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible.”
========================================================
This appears to me to be an exact description of fifty ways to explain the pause. (always said to the tune of fifty ways to leave your lover) followed by “simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever” (The latest NOAA surface record)

PiperPaul
February 26, 2016 5:58 am

What is always missing in news reports is an explanation of how tiny the CO2 concentration is in Earth’s atmosphere and at what point lowering the percentage of CO2 would start to shut down plant growth. That’s a far scarier scenario than whatever the doomers can come up with, scarier even than an asteroid strike.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  PiperPaul
February 26, 2016 7:28 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/30/carbon-and-carbonate/comment-page-1/#comment-2133597
“THE BIG WHIMPER”
[excerpt for PiperPaul]
I posted the following musings, starting on 30Jan2009.
My question: Am I correct is saying the following, and if so, approximately when will it happen?
“During an Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop to very low levels due to solution in cold oceans, etc. Below a certain atmospheric CO2 concentration, terrestrial photosynthesis slows and shuts down. I suppose life in the oceans can carry on but terrestrial life is done.
So when will this happen – in the next Ice Age a few thousand years hence, or the one after that ~100,000 years later, or the one after that?
In geologic time, we are talking the blink of an eye before terrestrial life on Earth ceases due to CO2 starvation.”
Regards, Allan
[excerpt]
I wrote the following on this subject on 18Dec2014, posted on Icecap.us:
On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
[excerpt]
Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current [terrestrial] life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.
Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.
As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. 🙂
Best, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79524
[excerpts from my post of 2009]
Questions and meanderings:
A. According to para.1 above:
During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not? [updated revision – perhaps 150ppm not 200ppm?]
When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?
Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that they cause global warming?
Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Regards, Allan 🙂

Tom Halla
February 26, 2016 6:04 am

Another post where the commentary on the post is more understandable to me than the original post. The very high correlations are suspicious, and I suspect an artifact somewhere.

Alex
February 26, 2016 6:17 am

CO2 / Temperature. Chicken / egg. Not convinced

Paul Coppin
February 26, 2016 6:18 am

Man is providing additional areas from which water can evaporate.

This may be true, but is it significant? We live on a planet that the majority of the surface is covered with water. Is it likely that man’s contribution, based on scale factors alone, is anything more than a transient local effect? I do believe that UHI influences local weather patterns, and I do in fact believe that UHI can exacerbate the severity of local storms due to thermodynamic influence, but that the heat contribution cause no net change in the planet’s thermodynamic equilibrium.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
February 26, 2016 7:18 am

a transient local effect
===============
thermometers measure transient local effects. no thermometer yet invented measures global temperature, though there are dendroclimatologist that would have us believe that 1 tree can measure the global temperature.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Paul Coppin
February 26, 2016 11:18 am

Paul,
The effects of water vapor aren’t transient. They are continuous. While the water will probably precipitate out within a week, that may be enough time for the downwind plume to cover most of the continent.

David A
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 12:13 pm

Yet there is no global increase in W/V. There is no correlation to CO2 except in the surface record. Neither the satellite or weather balloon data sets support this. The pristine station surface record of the US does not support the correlation to CO2, but does support the satellite and weather balloon data. One study (sorry, no reference) showed UHI occurring even in small towns. The entire surface record is in my view suspect.
The increasing divergence between the troposphere and the surface is not, per the physics articulated by the IPCC, related to CO2. The old global and NH data sets used to show a .35 global to .6 degree NH cooling from the 1940s peak to the 1979 ice age scare peak. That has been mostly erased, and the climate-gate emails documented the intent to do this. Continues .01 degree cooling of the past continue monthly, with zero explanation by NOAA! The same establishment that finds over 60 reasons for the pause, then attempts to erase it altogether, also attempted to erase the MWP, the Ice age scare cooling to the late 1970s, and altered the SL rise data to show an increase 100 percent not supported by the tide gauge record. The satellite data NOAA formally supported as the most accurate data set, they now disparage because it does not support their political agenda. I do not trust post normal CAGW science supported by billions from global governments attempting to tax the air we breath and to assume international control of national policy all in the name of “protection”.
“Such is the nature of the tyrant, when he first appears he is a protector” Plato.

Simon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2016 10:43 am

David A
“Yet there is no global increase in W/V.”
Wrong……
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
February 27, 2016 11:06 am

Simon,
This is probably one of the most important contributions to this thread, or at least my thesis, that has been posted. Thank you for finding and posting it.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2016 11:44 am

Clyde Spencer,
David A is correct. The link Simon posted doesn’t show a rise in water vapor, much less the accelerating rise predicted by the CO2=AGW conjecture. The link says:
Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air.
But there have been no warmer temperatures. Global warming stopped many years ago (and don’t confuse an anomaly – a variation from the average – as accelerated global warming). If the planet was truly getting warmer, then water vapor — humidity — would be increasing. QED
But humidity is not increasing. Both Relative Humidity and Specific Humidity have been declining for decades.
That is another fact in the increasing list of empirical evidence showing that the CO2=cAGW conjecture has been falsified — even though it only requires one example to falsify a conjecture or hypothesis.
Global precipitation is likewise not increasing, nor are extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or death rates from extreme weather. None of those alarmist predictions have ever come true.
Everything we observe now has happened in the past, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree. There is nothing unusual happening. There is nothing unprecedented happening with global temperatures, as much as the alarmist crowd wishes there were.
In fact, we have been through more than a century of the most beneficial, benign, and pleasant global temperatures in the entire geologic record. Global T has fluctuated — no, it has wiggled by just 0.7ºC, over a century and a half. Rather than facing a climate catastrophe from runaway global warming, exactly the opposite has happened:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dbstealey
February 27, 2016 2:22 pm

db,
Would you be willing to speculate on why the specific humidity has been declining for decades?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 28, 2016 4:01 pm

Clyde says:
Would you be willing to speculate on why the specific humidity has been declining for decades?
You want speculation? I’ve got speculation. Just maybe… the planet hasn’t been warming, as is endlessly reported.
When we’re being told that global T has risen by tenths, or hundredths of a degree over the past century, that is well within any error bars (within calibration tolerances). So we don’t actually know if global T has been rising or not. Do we?
What we have are real world observations. Humidity is one observation. It has been declining decade by decade. What would cause that? I’ve speculated. Your turn.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2016 4:46 pm

db,
I’m at a loss to explain it because, under the prevailing paradigm, I would have expected it to be increasing. Perhaps Mosher or Stokes can put a spin on it.

Shawn Marshall
February 26, 2016 6:20 am

no physics
just statistical speculation

EdB
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
February 26, 2016 6:30 am

The physics are in the models. The models have been running way too hot. Empirical data and statistics show this, not speculation.

george e. smith
Reply to  EdB
February 26, 2016 2:47 pm

might be physics in the models what is needed is the physics of a real rotating tilted planet not one bathed 24 hours day and night in one quarter sunshine
G

Reply to  Shawn Marshall
February 26, 2016 7:19 am

what I find interesting about the cause and effect argument is that early humans learned to predict the seasons long before they understood the cause.
yet modern humans cannot predict the climate but believe they understand the cause very well.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  ferdberple
February 27, 2016 8:26 pm

I understand your confusion. The temperature/humidity correlation cited by Simon, if correct, means that a single additional photon hitting the earth would cause one more molecule of water vapour to enter the atmosphere, resulting in runaway heating until all the oceans are boiled away. This is the inevitable result of a refusal to look for the negative feedbacks which any vaguely aware person must realize has to exist. Aka more heat = more evaporation= more condensation at altitude= more heat radiated back to space.

JohnWho
February 26, 2016 6:22 am

“This suggests that all anthropogenic influences may account for as much as 81% of the variance in the land temperatures.”
Just the land or the sea surface too?
Atmospheric CO2 might have a warming effect on the temperature, although it may not be discernable. Therefore, a complete halt in anthropogenic CO2 might not make any difference at all.

ulriclyons
February 26, 2016 6:25 am

” Man is providing additional areas from which water can evaporate.”
Drier northern hemisphere land would be warmer without any additional forcing.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ulriclyons
February 26, 2016 11:31 am

ulriclyons,
Dry land would increase the daytime ground temperatures, but higher humidity would decrease radiative heat loss at night.

emsnews
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 11:47 am

I grew up in the desert Southwest. Yes, when you have 1% humidity, the minute the sun goes down, the chill sets in whereas where I lived in NYC, in summer, the sun set and we sweltered in high humidity nights especially if there was little coastal wind.

ulriclyons
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 1:37 pm

Agreed. Tmax cooled faster than Tmin through the last cold AMO phase (N.Hem faster), especially in the mid 1970’s with the multi year La Nina, with both increasing continental interior rainfall. And the N.Hem Tmax rises faster than the S.Hem Tmax from 1995 with the stronger warming phase of the AMO.
Graph from Willis’ post of 23 Feb 2016:comment image?w=960

ulriclyons
February 26, 2016 6:39 am

The lowering of water vapour altitude from the mid 1990’s with the warm AMO would increase low level greenhouse effect, and also increase the depth of penetration of solar near infrared into the atmosphere. The warm AMO from the mid 1990’s is in contradiction to AGW theory, as it was driven by increased negative NAO, while all the models predict increasingly positive NAO/AO with increased GHG forcing.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

george e. smith
Reply to  ulriclyons
February 26, 2016 2:50 pm

Cooling goes as 4th power of Temperature, ergo, highs cool faster than lows. What’s not to understand ??
G

bit chilly
Reply to  george e. smith
February 27, 2016 8:53 pm

yep, just look at the speed the north atlantic has cooled in the last year.

ShrNfr
February 26, 2016 6:45 am

On a short enough length of data, anyone can get all sorts of correlations. Some will actually even be real. The total population correlates well with the number of pints of beer consumed for instance. Under the theory that the consumption of beer per capital remains unchanged, the null hypothesis can be rejected with statistical significance. The question is one of finding a theory whose null hypothesis can be rejected with statistical significance over recorded history.

Peter Sable
Reply to  ShrNfr
February 26, 2016 5:36 pm

The question is one of finding a theory whose null hypothesis can be rejected with statistical significance over recorded history.

In a complex system, without enough data, you can estimate what the null hypothesis is by using appropriately shaped random noise to get a confidence interval. This will work for complex systems with hidden variables (e.g. like global climate indicators).
See this example here where they determine that the ENSO signal is statistically significant using this method: http://paos.colorado.edu/research/wavelets/bams_79_01_0061.pdf
I’ve done an analysis on the much adjusted GISS global surface temperature data. At confidence level 80%, the trend in temperature trend is higher than random baseline wanderings. Note I have to estimate the wandering beyond the GISS sample interval because, well there’s no data there. In other words, in the frequency domain, I’m extrapolating what the noise floor is for frequencies below 1/135 years.
note that’s 80% confidence that there’s something more than baseline wandering noise. Not exactly high confidence.
Given there are potential multi-hundred year and thousand year natural cycles (not fully quantified, but some signals appear to be there), we simply don’t know how much low frequency noise there naturally should be in global temperature. Which is why to believe there’s a recent non-natural trend I’d want 99% confidence level, which we don’t have.
Peter

David A
Reply to  Peter Sable
February 26, 2016 9:12 pm

Peter you say 80% confidence based on GISS surface record, assuming it is how accurate and on what baseline, as the GISS baseline years may remain the same, but the past T is continuously changing?
What if you incorporate the plus 20% (global, more in the tropics) above the expected (not the observed) surface warming, predicted for the troposphere, with the satellite record showing that not only is the troposphere not warming 20 percent more then the surface, it is not warming at all for the past 18 years, and only has warmed about 30% of the expected rate?
Does the confidence then drop below 50%

Peter Sable
Reply to  Peter Sable
February 27, 2016 1:19 pm

Peter you say 80% confidence based on GISS surface record, assuming it is how accurate and on what baseline, as the GISS baseline years may remain the same, but the past T is continuously changing?

caveat emptor. That’s why I think the confidence level needs to be far higher than 80%, because the data is manipulated and has large error bars even if it wasn’t manipulated.

it is not warming at all for the past 18 years, and only has warmed about 30% of the expected rate?

I ran it since 1945, hoping that would smooth out PDO/AMO etc. The trend still goes up.
I think 18 years is a pretty small interval to make a judgement on. I also think 70 years is too small. Be happy with several hundred years.

David A
Reply to  Peter Sable
February 27, 2016 9:36 pm

I do not disagree with your time line or comments Peter, just one clarification. The observations showing actual tropospheric warming to be only about 33% of the IPCC projected warming are based on 36 years of satellite record. To really have an accurate idea of most of the climate forcing’s may well take several hundred years of honest and consistent scientific observation, but to discredit CAGW theory one only needs to debunk their internal and published projections per their own timelines. It is not required that we even understand why they are wrong. A strong La Nina should about do that to all but the priests.

Scott
February 26, 2016 6:49 am

“Man is providing more areas from which water can evaporate”
Perhaps this is true at the macro level, but at the micro level where temperature is monitored, it seems to me that man is providing less areas from which water can evaporate. Everybody’s yards are sloped or drain tiled to push water into storm sewers, same thing for roads and trails, impervious surfaces such as asphalt and concrete and brick don’t evaporate water, swamps are being constantly drained for new building locations, fields are drain tiled to remove standing water, creeks prone to flooding have been pushed underground into storm sewers. Not to mention lakes that have been completely drained for irrigation. And when there is less water to evaporate, the air temperature at the monitoring station is much higher because 50% of the suns energy goes into phase changing water to vapor (no temperature change).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scott
February 26, 2016 11:40 am

Scott,
If you remove standing water for agriculture, and then provide metered water for the plants during the growing season, the evapotranspiration would seem to be a direct tradeoff for the former evaporation. So, there is no net loss. what is new is hot impervious surfaces of urban areas that can flash evaporate water before it runs off, and reservoirs and irrigation of formerly unproductive land, and the tapping of aquifers bringing water to the surface of arid regions. I don’t think that there are any definitive quantitative studies.

February 26, 2016 6:53 am

Professor Murry Salby’s theory shows that the CO2 is the trailing consequence of temperature and that the ratios of the two main isotopes of CO2 prove that most of it originates in the organic biosphere.
see:

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  buckwheaton
February 26, 2016 9:29 am

Sorry, but Dr. Salby is completely wrong on several points: CO2 variability is trailing temperature variability, but CO2 increase is near independent of temperature: it follows human emissions at a rate of around 50%.
By integrating temperature he assumes that temperature is the only driver of CO2 levels, but as near all variability is the response of (tropical) vegetation on temperature, but vegetation is a net sink for CO2, thus not the cause of the increase… As CO2 uptake by plants is preferentially 12CO2, that would increase the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, but we see a sharp decline, caused by burning fossil fuels. Again he is completely wrong in his interpretation…

Bartemis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 26, 2016 10:04 am

Nonsense. This is all narrative cant.

Hugs
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 26, 2016 10:57 am

No, it’s sense. But don’t stop, somebody in the Internet disagrees.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 27, 2016 12:39 am

“Salby’s argument has not been refuted by anybody”
Well, apparently similar arguments have been refuted many times. They fail dismally on mass balance. Bart airily tells us that mass balance is irrelevant. But it isn’t. It’s essential.
But yes, it’s possible that Salby’s exact arguments haven’t been refuted. That’s because he won’t write them down. It’s hard to deal quantitatively with a video or podcast. If he won’t produce a written account, why can’t one of his followers produce an authorised version?

Bartemis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 27, 2016 10:13 am

Nick Stokes February 27, 2016 at 12:39 am
“But it isn’t. It’s essential”
I had thought more highly of you previously, Nick. Any undergraduate controls student could tear apart the pseudo-mass balance argument without blinking. It is a very stupid argument.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 27, 2016 10:52 am

Ferdinand, how do you account for the fact there is no lag between the hemispheres for CO2 rise. About 95% of anthro CO2 is emitted in the northern hemisphere, and we no from the nuclear test ban treaty it takes at least six months for any increase in CO2 in one hemisphere to equilibrate in the the other, yet when the residuals of the seasonal variability over the period of increasing CO2 are compared there is no lag. This is comparing Mauna Loa with the Antarctic CO2 readings, so it’s not exactly like for like, but don’t you think the lack of a lag is curious?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 27, 2016 12:31 pm

agnostic2015,
The story of no lag comes from Tom Quirk in E&E. What he did is comparing the seasonal changes between several stations in the NH and the SH and he concluded that there was no lag between them. But he forgot that there is no visible lag in the seasonal data if you shift the data a multiple of 12 months (and 6 months between NH and SH)…
The CO2 and δ13C changes are huge and vary between +/- 1 ppmv at the South pole and +/- 8 ppmv at Barrow. The timing of these changes is temperature induced, but as that is a rather fixed cycle, there is little change over the seasons, despite the huge increase over the past decades. Here for CO2 at Mauna Loa and Barrow. split in two periods:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_MLO_BRW.jpg
The same for the δ13C measurements:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
The relative timing of the seasonal changes only shows where the cause is: near ground and by vegetation, as the CO2 and δ13C are opposite to each other. The SH variations are much smaller and opposite to the NH. That says next to nothing about the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, which is visible in the small change at the end of the full cycle.
If one looks at the yearly average trends, not the seasonal, it is clear that the cause is in the NH as CO2 (and δ13C) in the SH lags the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
There is a 6 months lag between near sea level stations (Barrow, Samoa) and altitude stations like Mauna Loa and the South Pole and a lag of ~12 months between NH and SH for the same altitude…
We (Jack Barrett and me) have written an article in E&E as reaction on the work of Tom Quirk…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 27, 2016 3:29 pm

” But he forgot that there is no visible lag in the seasonal data if you shift the data a multiple of 12 months (and 6 months between NH and SH)…”
Ferdinand, this does not make any sense. What did he forget? Why do you need to shift the data a multiple of 12 months, and why 6 months between NH and SH? I presume “6 months” relates to the seasons, but it’s not clear why.
Incidentally I am quite willing to believe you but your arguments thus far have not been convincing. I am trying to get to the bottom what is clearly a complex issue, and I can see the problems in the mass balance argument. I don’t know that it doesn’t ultimately come to the same thing (that man is responsible for the rise in CO2).
Your argument seems to revolve around the uptake of an oxygen isotope, but it’s not clear how. I read your posts carefully but they are confusing. It seems you are assuming things to be true that I can’t see a justification for, and assuming the reader knows something they don’t necessarily know. The Tom Quirk argument for example….what do you mean he “forgot”. The calculation as I have seen it is relatively simple. Is there a lag in the increase in CO2 when seasonal variability is taken into account or not?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 28, 2016 2:40 pm

agnostic2015,
Sorry that I was not clear enough…
you wrote:
Ferdinand, how do you account for the fact there is no lag between the hemispheres for CO2 rise.
The first time that argument was used, was by Tom Quirk, who said that there was no lag between the hemispheres if you compare the timing of the seasons, which is a non-argument, as the seasons always follow about the same timing, whatever the lag in rise…
It seems that your remark is not based on Tom Quirk’s argument, which gives a lot of confusion, so we have to go back to the third graph in my previous reply: the CO2 trends.
4 stations were plotted 1995-2004 (that was used some time ago, but recent years show the same differences), from near the North Pole to the South Pole. The CO2 increase is visible in the most Nordic station first and needs about 6 months to reach the same level at Mauna Loa at 3,400 m height, 12 months to reach Samoa at sea level in the SH and near 2 years to reach the South Pole at ~3,000 m height.
From these lags it is clear that the source of the CO2 increase is in the NH at ground level…
when the residuals of the seasonal variability over the period of increasing CO2 are compared there is no lag.
Between Mauna Loa and the South Pole there is a lag of ~18 months in CO2 levels. By looking at the residuals, you have effectively removed the difference in level, where the real lag is…
If you plot the real trends of Mauna Loa and South Pole over the full period of measurements, it is clear that even the difference in residuals is widening:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
CO2 at Mauna Lao is average 55.8% of human emissions.
CO2 at South Pole is average 53.8% of human emissions.
————-
A similar graph of δ13C shows similar trends, but downwards. The CO2 and δ13C trends together prove that the CO2 source is at ground level in the NH and has a low 13C/12C ratio.
The oceans can be excluded as source, as their 13C/12C ratio is higher than of the atmosphere and one would expect the main source in the SH.
The biosphere as a whole can be excluded as source, as that is a proven net sink for CO2 and thus increases the δ13C level.
Human emissions fulfill the location of the source (90% emissions are in the NH), the amounts (twice the measured increase) and the change in δ13C (triple the observed change if all human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 28, 2016 3:32 pm

Ferdinand,
I guess I’m missing something here. I would expect that most anthropogenic CO2 would be emitted nominally at about 45 deg lat. N, and then diffuse both N and S. Why would it show up first and at greatest concentrations at 71 deg lat N? Particularly, since the cold northern oceans are a more efficient carbon sink than the lower latitudes?

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 28, 2016 3:03 pm

Seriously Ferdinand, I am not being funny but your reply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You might be right but I absolutely cannot tell. I have read your reply a dozen times and it’s worse than your other ones. Please, for gods sake just forget for the time being the anthro component and examine whether there is a lag between the hemispheres.
“It seems that your remark is not based on Tom Quirk’s argument, which gives a lot of confusion,”
It doesn’t matter who made the remark.nit matters whether it is true or not.
“The CO2 increase is visible in the most Nordic station first and needs about 6 months to reach the same level at Mauna Loa at 3,400 m height, 12 months to reach Samoa at sea level in the SH and near 2 years to reach the South Pole at ~3,000 m height.”
Where does it show this? You have shown trended graphs and I can’t identify which from what. Your following commentary doesn’t explain the graphs at all. You need to show how detrended CO2 variability shows no correlation with spikes and troughs in both hemispheres at the same time, and show that year to year variations in the rate of change is lead by the NH and not concurrent.
I can’t make head nor tail of your graphs, comments, how they relate to each other. Honestly, I don’t think it’s that hard. I really want to know for sure if you have a genuine point – that you are right or possibly right. I can’t even tell if your wrong. As it is it’s nagging me that you are obfuscating the point with your explanations. Please, I beg you, nice and clear.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  agnostic2015
February 28, 2016 3:38 pm

Agnostic,
I too am having trouble seeing how Ferdinands CO2 graph makes the point. It it also troubling because it was one of the first serious criticisms of my post that helped convince Anthony that I had some “errors” that needed to be corrected. I think that it is in serious need of additional explanation or supplementation.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 29, 2016 7:38 am

agnostic2015 and Clyde,
I am quite surprised that the CO2 trends are not self explaining that the SH lags the NH… Probably the generation after me which did grow up with the “all” explaining frequency analysis?
You need to show how detrended CO2 variability shows no correlation with spikes and troughs in both hemispheres at the same time, and show that year to year variations in the rate of change is lead by the NH and not concurrent.
That nails the problem: if you detrend the graphs you have removed (most) of the lags! There is no “must” for the spikes and troughs to be synchronized – or lagged – between the hemispheres as that is only visible if there are large variations in the unknown source. If that source shows no/little variability and a constant increase, there is nothing to synchronize…
—————-
If there is no extra release of CO2 anywhere, there is no trend in any of the CO2 stations anywhere.
The main variability then is from the seasonal changes, largely caused by temperature and largely a response of NH vegetation on temperature over the seasons. See graph 1 and 2 of my first response.
In that case the residual after a full seasonal cycle of 12 months is near zero every year.
Besides that there is a year by year variability which is situated mainly in the tropics, again a reaction of vegetation on temperature, but opposite to the seasonal variability, but that too levels out to near zero in 1-3 years.
That visible as a variability of +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend of +80 ppmv in the past 55 years. The trend is not caused by vegetation, which is a net sink for CO2. Thus it makes no sense to look at the synchronization of the variability to know the origin of the trends…
—————–
If there is a continuous increasing extra release of CO2 anywhere (volcanoes, humans), which is larger than the sink capacity of nature, the trend would go up, starting at the point nearest to the points or areas of emissions.
With one caveat: not all areas are covered and some sources are in air flows which spread the emissions in specific directions, which are then seemingly first. That is e,g, the case for Barrow, which receives its CO2 levels mostly from the mid-latitudes via the Ferrel cells. Thus the source is in fact several thousands km from the measurement place. Nevertheless, if one uses local measurements from e.g. tall towers, the sources (and seasonally sinks) are clear.
The regional increase of CO2 needs time to mix in the bulk of the atmosphere, mostly by latitude, partly by altitude and the ITCZ makes a strong barrier which allows only about 10% of air exchange between NH and SH.
That is visible in the fact that the same level of CO2 is reached after Barrow in graph 3 at average 6 months later in Mauna Loa, 18 months later at Samoa and 24 months later at the South Pole. Even so the lags are highly variable from year to year, depending of regional and hemispheric sinks and sources besides the origin of the increase…

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
March 2, 2016 2:48 pm

agnostic2015 and Clyde,
There is a nice animation from NOAA about CO2 levels since 1959 (and extended to 800,000 years from ice cores), which shows that the NH CO2 is seasonally far more variable, but in average higher before the SH. That is based on a growing number of stations:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
March 2, 2016 6:32 pm

Ferdinand,
Starting about 1995 at approximately 45N, there are some transient spikes that I would speculate are forest fires. However, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that these pulses are diffused north and south.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
March 3, 2016 7:50 am

Clyde,
There are several land bases stations (tall towers?) involved, if you look at the adjacent map, which may detect the spikes, certainly if these are from forest fires. But as these still are in the non-well-mixed atmosphere (the first few hundred meters over land), they don’t measure real “background” CO2. As the mass of air in the first few hundred meters over land is less than 5% of total air mass, one need a lot of burning to get that visible after mixing into the bulk of the atmosphere.
Still neighboring stations show some similar behavior with the largest spikes…

Phil.
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
March 3, 2016 8:09 am

Bartemis February 27, 2016 at 10:13 am
Nick Stokes February 27, 2016 at 12:39 am
“But it isn’t. It’s essential”
I had thought more highly of you previously, Nick. Any undergraduate controls student could tear apart the pseudo-mass balance argument without blinking. It is a very stupid argument.

But any undergraduate chemical engineer or reaction kineticist will show them the error of their ways!
The Mass Balance equation which applies is:
dCO2/dt= Ffossilfuel + Fsources(T, pCO2) – Fsinks(T, pCO2)
where Fx is the flux of CO2 due to x.

Scott
Reply to  buckwheaton
February 26, 2016 2:44 pm

I like it, makes sense, I’m a big Salby fan now.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Scott
February 26, 2016 4:11 pm

Yes, indeed Scott, and me, too. If one listens to Dr. Salby’s Hamburg lecture with an open mind and careful attention, his analysis showing that CO2 lags temperature by 90 deg. (i.e., a quarter cycle) is highly persuasive. Also, his analysis of C13 and C12 is excellent. Mr. Englebeen disagrees with Salby, but Englebeen has never refuted him.
*************
Re: Hugs
1. Your pretend name is achieving the effect you intended if you meant to elicit mild disgust.
2. In case you didn’t realize it, Bartemis’ “Nonsense” was directed at Englebeen, not at Salby.

Reply to  Scott
February 26, 2016 4:15 pm

“Mr. Englebeen disagrees with Salby, but Englebeen has never refuted him.”
He has, many times. And at least Ferdinand puts it in writing.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Scott
February 26, 2016 5:25 pm

N1ck St0kes: Englebeen has tried to refute Salby many times.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Scott
February 26, 2016 11:45 pm

Janice Moore:
You rightly say

Englebeen has tried to refute Salby many times.

and, of course, Salby’s argument has not been refuted by anybody.
We had earlier considered the same matters and concluded that a ‘natural’ cause is more likely than an ‘anthropogenic’ (i.e. man-made) cause for the the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 although but neither a ‘natural’ or an anthropogenic cause can be identified with certainty
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
Importantly, our paper concluded that the mechanism of the atmospheric CO2 rise is very, very likely NOT the anthropogenic CO2 emission overloading the sinks for CO2. The IPCC and Engelbeen promote this possible mechanism as being the cause of the rise.
There is still insufficient data for absolute certainty, but the recently obtained OCO-2 data strongly indicates that the mechanism of the atmospheric CO2 rise is NOT the anthropogenic CO2 emission overloading the sinks for CO2.
Hence, evidence continues to mount that explanations for the atmospheric CO2 rise promoted by e.g. the IPCC and Engelbeen are wrong. This does not mean that explanations for the rise provided by Rorsch et al. or Salby are right but it does add to the probability they are right.
Richard

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Scott
February 27, 2016 5:04 am

Scott and Janice,
Dr. Salby made several fundamental errors in his lecture, where I was in London a few years ago. When I asked him about that after his lecture, he was simply evading the questions and never answered them there, or here or anywhere where my objections were written and his lecture was discussed.
He promised years ago to publish his findings in the peer reviewed literature, but not even on the Internet there is anything from him where one can review and comment on what he wrote…
Basically, about the integration of temperature: the variability of the CO2 rate of change follows the variability of temperature with an about pi/2 lag.
It is proven from the opposite δ13C changes that most of the variability in CO2 rate of change is caused by the response of (tropical) vegetation to temperature (Pinatubo, El Niño). Thus if you integrate the variability, and only the variability, you have the influence of temperature on CO2 levels caused by vegetation. That is in fact negative: vegetation is a net, proven, increasing sink for CO2. The earth is greening.
I have again listed to a part of the above (Hamburg?) lecture. He has a few new items, I didn’t hear before, like introducing the “thermally induced CO2”, which is simply the CO2 increase caused by increasing temperatures. That matches the increase in the atmosphere in the satellite era, if you take the right fudge factor. No mention of Henry’s law which is the real factor…
He then uses the fudge factor to (back)calculate the natural and human contribution at around 15 minutes.
At just over 20 minutes, he makes an enormous (new?) blunder by mixing up the residence time with the decay rate of an excess amount of CO2 above equilibrium. Unbelievable! Sorry, but if you don’t know the difference between residence time (which in itself doesn’t change the CO2 content of the atmosphere with one gram) and the excess decay rate, what then is the value of the rest of his story?
His analyses of the 13C/12C ratio (from another lecture) was completely wrong: there are only two main sources of low-13C on earth: recent organics and fossil organics. recent organics (the biosphere as a whole) is a net sink for preferentially 12CO2, thus relatively increases the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and thus not the cause of the CO2 increase or the 13C/12C ratio decline…
Thus sorry, Dr. Salby may be good in his own field, but about the cause of the CO2 increase he is way off reality…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 27, 2016 8:57 am

Ferdinand,
When carbonate-fixing organisms create shells, which ultimately fall to the ocean floor to create limestone, do they likewise create low-13C? If so, then weathering, surface limestones should be adding low-13C to the carbonate/bicarbonate ions in the ocean, which when out-gassing occurs, should have low-13C.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Scott
February 27, 2016 5:15 am

Richard,
Again,
One can fit the increase of CO2 mathematically with a lot of theoretical variations: from near 100% natural to near 100% anthropogenic. What counts is if any such theory fits all observations, without violating one of them.
Human emissions fits all observations and fits the main increase (even twice), but doesn’t fit the (small)variability around the trend. Temperature fits the variability, but doesn’t fit the increase, as the variability is from the biosphere, which is a net sink for CO2 and the oceans on the other side have a too high 13C/12C ratio to be the cause.
Thus humans are responsible for most of the increase and temperature variability is responsible for most of the CO2 variability in rate of change.
If you find some natural cause that does fit all observations and accounts for the disappearing of all human contributions, then we can have a discussion, until then it is just words without any base in reality…

richardscourtney
Reply to  Scott
February 27, 2016 6:28 am

Ferdinand:
You say to me

If you find some natural cause that does fit all observations and accounts for the disappearing of all human contributions, then we can have a discussion, until then it is just words without any base in reality…

Firstly, the human emissions of CO2 do NOT “disappear” they become part of the total CO2 circulating in the carbon cycle. And the human emission is a trivially small addition to that total.
A redistribution of the CO2 between ‘compartments’ of the carbon cycle would provide the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 contribution, and such a redistribution would result from an alteration of the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades and, therefore, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium. The most likely cause of such a change to the equilibrium is the rise in global temperature over recent centuries which is recovery from the Little Ice Age. However, it is possible (although very unlikely) that the human emissions of CO2 has altered the equilibrium.
The suggested alteration to the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle is the ONLY explanation that fits all observations. This IS reality.
You know this is reality but you refuse to acknowledge it, and until you do acknowledge reality there is no possibility of discussing it with you.
Richard

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Scott
February 27, 2016 12:53 pm

Clyde Spencer,
Carbonate shells are formed by coccoliths directly from bicarbonates in the surface seawater and have about the same δ13C level as the surface layer, which is about zero per mil to slightly positive, like most carbonate layers on earth are… The organics of the coccoliths have a much lower δ13C level, which makes that there is a small difference of 1-2 per mil between deep ocean waters (where the organics decompose) and surface waters (Where they take their preferred 12CO2).
In general one can say that inorganic carbon is mostly around zero per mil δ13C, including subduction volcanoes where carbonate rock is decomposed and its CO2 emitted.
Organic carbon in general is (much) lower in δ13C, depending or the mechanism used by the different species. Varying between -10 (C4 pathway) to -40 per mil (natural gas) and below.
The atmosphere was in between at -6.4 per mil (pre-industrial) to nowadays below -8 per mil.
Deep magma volcanoes are slightly above atmosphere for their per mil.
In the pre-industrial past there was an equilibrium between (deep) ocean, the biosphere, sedimentation, rock weathering and atmosphere for the δ13C in the atmosphere; only a few tenths of a per mil between glacial and interglacial periods, and +/- 0.2 per mil all over the Holocene. That changed drastically when humans started to burn fossil fuels, here measured in coralline sponges:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg

February 26, 2016 7:01 am

As I recall, BEST compared city size to temperature. It did not consider the rate of change of city size, which was a reason their paper was rejected.
The argument being that it is the growth of cities that causes the rise in temperature, not the absolute size of cities. So if you are looking for correlation, you need to also check derivatives and integrals.

GoatGuy
February 26, 2016 7:05 am

[1] R² … can be misleading
Until basically a few weeks ago (in other words, for nearly 40 years), I have been under the misguided idea that R² or ‘R squared’ is a good, universal metric for how closely a bunch of data is “fitted” by the slope and intercept that is computed from it statistically.
However, R² has a deep flaw: when slope approaches zero, R² also approaches zero; one can view this trivially in Excel by having one column of increasing digits (1, 2, 3, … 99, 100), and the column next to it with a well-behaved random number picker (use formula ‘=rand() /100+0.5’, which you can copy-paste!). Then, in separate cells, use the =slope(…) and =intercept(…) and =RSQ(…) functions on your X’s and Y columns. Surprise, surprise … the R² is quite low. Ranges from 0.1 to 0.01 for 100 data points.
Now, change the random-picker formula to ‘=rand()/100+a1/10’ (assuming the counting sequence is in column A.) You won’t have to change the slope / intercept / R² formulæ.
Sure enough, now R² is like 0.99 or so.
If you were to plot it, you, I, anyone would see that the randomness is visually nearly the same, the only difference being that the 2nd random-picker formula also has a nice straight-line slope upward, too. Thing is, R² implies a really good fit, whereas in the first case, it implied a really poor fit.
REMEMBER THIS. It is important when reviewing statistical fits, especially of data which hardly varies around a ‘slopeless’ mean.
[2] The coefficients on those X and X² curve-fits can’t be 0.000
This is more of a typo alert. I can see what happened: your X is population, which is in billions. The ax² + bx + c formula is going to have really, really small coefficients for {a} and {b}. Perhaps it would have been better to divide population by 1,000,000,000 first?
[3] Oh, but for the data linkie!
So one thing is pretty clear: the link between CO₂ doubling (which is why y’all used log₂ scale) and mean temperature rise is OK-to-good (if we believe the R² = 0.564 having the indicative correlative value), and would seem to hold out hope that a world of countries that either consciously or innately edge toward zero population growth will also cap temperature rise, is possible.
But … as others here are fond of reminding, correlation is not causation. The truth is rather starkly contrary here: the population of the planet has risen with all sorts of seemingly correlated (and probably causal) cofactors. As a few wags here have already cited, population rise could be correlated to the average drop in tooth decay afforded by toothbrushes and paste. It could be correlated to the gross tonnage of plastic manufactured, or the decline in lead used in plumbing. It could be correlated to the average computational power per adult, or the mean range of grit sizes that one finds in commercially milled wheat flour.
The point is, it very probably is not actually caused by those factors.
But it may well be shown ’caused’ by the world’s increase in petrochemicals, increased per-capita use and availability of the “products of energy-intense processes”. Automotive vehicles replacing donkey carts. Municipally plumbed filtered and chlorinated water. Municipally maintained trash, sewerage, paved roads and street-maintenance services.
And that’s the point: that if one really wishes to do high quality scientific-statistical projections, the matrix of causality needs to be fleshed out, that the various cofactors correlated, and demonstrated to back-cast the relative fecundity, prosperity and growth curves of entire regions, clades of peoples, and the planet.
Because if THAT is done, then there really might be some value to putting stock in such systems to propose likely human civilization dynamics in the future. Which, from the other statistics, would then lead us to believe projections about future CO₂ levels, future tropospheric warming, future sea-level rise or fall.
UNFORTUNATELY … such modeling is far, far beyond what most people which to harangue about. Most people – and yes, I’m pointing a finger both at me and many of you – most people want to take 3 to 5 variable correlations and trumpet them around a la Al Gore, and declare that the world is either coming to an end, or is entirely OK, or that no one knows, or that all good scientists agree, and so on.
Which leads me to wonder … is there any body which has yet really put together a comprehensive cross-correlation of the known correlative and causal factors? Maybe this is waiting for the A.I. singularity?
GoatGuy

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  GoatGuy
February 26, 2016 11:47 am

Goatguy,
Yes, you are correct that the coefficients of the regression line are not zero. They are just rounded off. The important part of the graph was the scatter and how it relates to population and the dependent variables. I could have left it off, but the y-intercept carries some useful information. I’m not sure to what use you would put the entire regression equation so that you really need the coefficients. I can provide them if you like.

george e. smith
Reply to  GoatGuy
February 26, 2016 2:59 pm

numerical origami is what you’ve got. Not predictive of anything.
Prediction is about real numbers that you DON’T HAVE.
Can’t do any sort of statistics on numbers you DON’T HAVE.
Can’t predict anything from statistics; it’s all about numbers in a data set, you already have exact values for.
G

Allan MacRae
February 26, 2016 7:15 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/are-jagdish-shukla-and-the-rico20-guilty-of-racketeering/#comment-2051188
[excerpt]
We have a full-scale test of the hypothesis occurring right now on this planet – I suggest that is more meaningful and more accurate than the physical arguments. While fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 both increased strongly since about the 1940’s, global temperatures decreased from ~1940 to ~1975, increased to ~2000 and has been flat since – so there is a negative correlation of temperature with CO2, a positive one, and a zero one.
The evidence suggests that near-zero is the correct answer – CO2 is NOT significant driver of global temperatures. The alleged global warming crisis does not exist.
Furthermore, please note that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and consider the implications of this reality..
A few more thoughts below: Climate heresy now, but conventional wisdom in 10-20 years.
Regards, Allan 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When misguided politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

Steve Case
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 26, 2016 7:53 am

Allan MacRae … at 7:15 am …
Furthermore, please note that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales…

And that lag is what, about 800 years? And what happened 800 years ago?
Can you say The Medieval Warm Period?

Peter Sable
Reply to  Steve Case
February 26, 2016 5:57 pm

There is no historical precedent for such a large dppm/dt (really the slew rate of concentration) in the history of C02 with a lag of 800 years. Sorry, this C02 is anthropogenic. However its correlation with temperature is likely spurious.

Neo
Reply to  Steve Case
February 26, 2016 8:22 pm

The 800 year lag makes more sense if you consider CO2 to be an effect, rather than a cause.
The 800 years may be the recovery period of the Earth, when the CO2 indicates an increase in life.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Steve Case
February 29, 2016 7:48 am

Neo,
The CO2 levels during the Roman WP, Medieval period and many other warmer periods than today were 280-300 ppmv. Now are near 400 ppmv… Here in the Law Dome ice core: ~8 ppmv drop between MWP and LIA cooling, 110 ppmv increase since the LIA for less to equal warming?
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg

Allan MacRae
February 26, 2016 7:24 am
February 26, 2016 8:07 am

25 years ago, a couple of friends from university went off into the world of finance.
Sure – they were going to be earning shed-loads of cash. BUT – I consoled myself – they faced a destiny of sitting for long hours at a computer screen looking at impenetrable graphs and charts, trying to perceive meaningful trends and correlations.
I went off into the world, and decided to primarily take an interest in the environment and renewable energy.
And, let’s not forget, I was going to save the world.
Except that I now realize that the people of the world only need saving from misguided policy makers who would seek to obstruct the activities of big-finance and free-market energy provision.
So, I’ve ended up as part of an effort to save the world from the profiteers of doom.
Well – I sure feel like the world’s biggest loser now!!!
So all that I get is a computer terminal and all of the graphs and maths, but none of the money, cocaine and high class call-girls.
Yeah, lucky me…

Neo
February 26, 2016 8:28 am

So Morpheus was right, we are not only all batteries, but warm batteries at that.

Matt G
February 26, 2016 8:31 am

The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over land and ocean, show most CO2 source increases are over the oceans. Despite all the CO2 humans are suppose to be releasing there is generally a lot less CO2 emissions over these areas compared to out-gassing CO2 over the warmest oceans, covering the Tropics and sub-Tropics.
The inconvenient relationship between CO2 and temperature over the last few million years is that when high CO2 levels are reached a Ice age results soon after. Therefore CO2 is a negative feedback and in fact the planet is full of negative feedback’s that keep the planet more stable than a humans body, yet the mass difference between them are gigantic. It is remarkable how such a huge body can remain stable thanks to many numerous negative feedback processes.
The biggest problem with land temperature and CO2 is that since the 1940’s there has been more decades with rising CO2, but no rising temperatures indicating natural cycles are dominating.

Michael Carter
Reply to  Matt G
February 26, 2016 7:06 pm

“It is remarkable how such a huge body can remain stable thanks to many numerous negative feedback processes”
Matt – yes, remarkable, like all evolution 🙂 Biologists have a very big part to play in this research too

February 26, 2016 8:31 am

The OCO2 color coded map shown is for the month of July, when there are great seasonal natural sinks in the northern hemisphere. The squiggle in a graph of monthly readings from Mauna Loa shows that seasonal alternations between sourcing and sinking from nature, such as from northern forests, outweigh manmade contributions. However, the seasonal sources and sinks largely cancel each other out over a year. What would be good is a color coded map of CO2 over the world over a whole year.

Bartemis
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 26, 2016 9:25 am

“However, the seasonal sources and sinks largely cancel each other out over a year.”
Says who? There is no physical necessity for this claim.
And, if they do not cancel each other out to within a gnat’s eyelash, they are so large that the residual would easily swamp human inputs.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 9:49 am

Except that the residual is only half human emissions and never higher than the emissions…:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 9:53 am

This is circular reasoning.

Hugs
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 11:05 am

‘Says who? There is no physical necessity for this claim.’
Well if it is seasonal. Please don’t be so aggressive.
Blog:

One needs to ask why OCO-2 isn’t confirming the presumed Northern Hemisphere anthropogenic CO2 when it is blamed for the historic temperature increases, and why there is a larger increase in high-latitude temperatures where CO2 has the lowest concentrations!

The graph is not from a year, it is a July snapshot. During the summer NH grows wood and grasses.

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 11:26 am

“Well if it is seasonal.”
Big IF. What is a season? Is every year exactly the same as before? Is the Earth always in exactly the same state at a given time of the year?
No, it is not. There is significant variation, some very long term.

Phil.
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 9:26 pm

Here’s the OCO-2 map for April 2015:comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Phil.
February 27, 2016 8:11 am

Phil,
The OCO-2 map you provided is labeled Sept. 2014 – Sept 2015, not April 2015. Did you put up the wrong map?

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
February 27, 2016 10:22 am

Clyde – you have to look at the bottom right – it’s 3/27 to 4/11. so actually two weeks in the Spring.
So, yes, apparently NH CO2 is elevated in the Spring, which is curious, since you’d think that the newly growing plants would be sucking it all in. So, one wonders what the source is?
Industry is year round yet, over the year, NH concentration plunges to the global minimum. So, all that red is not from industry.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bartemis
February 27, 2016 10:49 am

Bartemis,
Those who fly aerial surveys try to pick a time when when the snow is gone and the leaves have not come out completely. That tends to be around March through May, depending on the latitude. At the time of this map, it is generally warm enough in the NH to encourage aerobic and bacterial decomposition of leaf litter left over from the previous growing season. So, without optimal photosynthesis to capture the CO2, I would expect the CO2 levels to be high. The origin is biological.

Phil.
Reply to  Bartemis
February 27, 2016 10:56 am

Hardly surprising given that the Mauna Loa data shows the annual peak is in May, also not surprising that when Spencer picked August that it showed low because that’s when Mauna Loa shows a rapid drop towards the minimum in September. The annual minimum is usually about 2ppm above the previous year’s.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Phil.
February 27, 2016 11:23 am

Phil,
It wasn’t so much “picking” a particular OCO-2 map. I went out to the OCO-2 website looking for recent usable maps. The one I included in my post was the only one I came upon. I picked that one because I didn’t want to re-use the one I had previously used. (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/ )

Phil.
Reply to  Bartemis
February 27, 2016 12:58 pm

Better yet you could have chosen the annual movie:
https://youtu.be/_UEZqyGU5RU
Presenting the July data and expressing surprise that the NH values are low is rather disingenuous when that’s exactly what you’d expect from the Mauna Loa data

Reply to  Bartemis
February 28, 2016 1:37 am

“And, if they do not cancel each other out to within a gnat’s eyelash, they are so large that the residual would easily swamp human inputs.”
This is what I suspect as well. I have been thinking about the argument between you and Ferdinand for a long time. It’s been one of the most interesting and entertaining discussions I have encountered in climate science – I really have to thank you both.
The problem with the mass balance as I see it is that CO2 can be thought of flowing between two reservoirs; biota that absorbs CO2 and biota that releases it (ie sources and sinks). If the rate at which CO2 is released through metabolism of dead organic matter by primarily bacteria in the soil is temperature dependant, but is not balanced by flora that absorbs it through the growing season you will see a rise in CO2. This may appear as a trend over time, particularly if the is a general rise in minimum temps since biota releasing CO2 are completely temp dependant and do not require photosynthesis.
If, however, man both emits a new source of CO2, plus reduces the capacity for CO2 to be absorbed, say by deforestation, PLUS local warming from UHI effects, then perhaps he could be a significant contributor. But it’s hard to find all this sort of using quantified, or directly observed/measured which IMO the only way to settle it for sure.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bartemis
February 29, 2016 7:59 am

agnostic2015,
CO2 uptake by plants exceeds release by decay, feed, food with ~1 GtC/year:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
CO2 uptake by the oceans exceeds release with ~3.5 GtC/year nowadays (~2.2 GtC/year in reference year 1995):
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
February 29, 2016 9:08 am

Not only are these studies conducted with a strong confirmation bias, not only are they undertaken in specific sampled areas and therefore not likely to be representative, but again, uptake is partially driven by anthropogenic inputs, so this is the pseudo-mass balance fallacy in another guise.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bartemis
February 29, 2016 10:45 am

Bart:
uptake is partially driven by anthropogenic inputs, so this is the pseudo-mass balance fallacy in another guise
In my informed opinion, based on all available evidence, the net sink rate is near fully driven by the accumulation of human emissions…
Linearity of the CO2 sink processes:
e-fold decay rate for the excess CO2 above steady state In 2012:
110 ppmv / 2.15 = 51.2 years or a half life time of 38 years.
The figures for 1988 (from Peter Dietze):
60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, 53 years, half life time 39 years
For 1959:
25 ppmv, 0.5 ppmv/year, 50 years, half life time 37 years
The e-fold decay rate of slightly over 50 years is too slow to remove human emissions in the same year as emitted, as can be seen in the graph above. Thus that accumulates in the atmosphere (as mass, not the original molecules). That means that besides a small contribution caused by temperature, the whole increase in the atmosphere over at least the past 55 years is from human emissions and thus also the main cause of the net sink rate…

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
February 29, 2016 11:06 am

Ferdinand – this is just constructing a narrative, an interpolation of data to adhere to a prescribed scenario. There is no physical reason or evidence that compels that things must be as you say.
You need to consider alternative explanations. If you put as much energy into that as you do in trying to find consistencies with your preferred outlook, you would quickly find that the realm of possibilities is large, and there is no general preference for the one you have latched onto.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bartemis
March 1, 2016 9:12 am

Bart:
There is no physical reason or evidence that compels that things must be as you say.
Henry’s law says that for a given temperature there is a fixed ratio between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean surface. If the pressure in the atmosphere is higher than that ratio, there will be a CO2 flux from the atmosphere into the ocean surface in ratio to the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and surface,
The net sink rate over the past 55 years shows a nice linear ratio with the pCO2 difference between the atmosphere and the “equilibrium” pCO2 for the momentary temperature.
Seems to me that this is based on a very good physical reason…

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
March 1, 2016 11:28 am

“Henry’s law says that for a given temperature there is a fixed ratio between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean surface.”
No, it does not say that at all. Henry’s law states that:

“…water takes up, of gas condensed by one, two, or more additional atmospheres, a quantity which, ordinarily compressed, would be equal to twice, thrice, &c. the volume absorbed under the common pressure of the atmosphere.”
It says nothing about a fixed ratio of absolute concentration, only of change in concentration, i.e., what is “taken up”. A fixed ratio is only the ultimate conclusion of atmospheric and hydrological balance in steady state.
The oceans and Earth’s atmosphere are never in steady state. In particular, there is a huge input of new CO2 into the surface system every second from upwelling waters, and it has to be dispensed with, or it will accumulate.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bartemis
March 2, 2016 1:17 am

Bart:
No, it does not say that at all. Henry’s law states that:
“…water takes up, of gas condensed by one, two, or more additional atmospheres, a quantity which, ordinarily compressed, would be equal to twice, thrice, &c. the volume absorbed under the common pressure of the atmosphere.”

That is the same as saying that if there is a pressure difference between atmosphere and ocean surface, there will be a flux between the two in the direction of the lowest pressure. That flux will be in ratio to the pressure difference… No matter if that is static or dynamic, no matter if that varies by the minute and never is in steady state.
The oceans and Earth’s atmosphere are never in steady state. In particular, there is a huge input of new CO2 into the surface system every second from upwelling waters, and it has to be dispensed with, or it will accumulate.
There is a huge continuous input of new CO2 at the upwelling zones into the surface system that is simply following the water flow towards the sinks and is hardly dispensed in the rest of the water surface system. Thus never accumulates in these waters, but is released into the atmosphere in ratio to the pCO2 difference between water and atmosphere.
If the temperature increases, more is released into the atmosphere and less remains in the water phase in the stream from upwelling to downwelling. If the pressure in the atmosphere gets high enough at ~16 ppmv/°C, the CO2 in and out fluxes between the water flux and the atmosphere and thus between upwelling and downwelling are restored to what they were before the temperature increase…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 26, 2016 11:54 am

Donald,
So are you saying the the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere is more than capable of ‘neutralizing’ all the anthropogenic emissions during the growing season? The first OCO-2 map released during the AGU meeting was for the months of October and November and looked rather similar. The only place I could see what might be anthropogenic CO2 was in an area of eastern China. I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more released on what OCO-2 has been finding.

February 26, 2016 8:34 am

Why warming is greatest in the far north where CO2 is the least? CO2 increased everywhere, including parts of the world where there is less at the time of measurement due to seasonal factors, or less yearround because the colder oceans sink more CO2.
The Arctic and near-Arctic warmed the most because the surface albedo feedback is greatest there.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 26, 2016 12:01 pm

Donald,
“…surface albedo feedback” I have some problems with that. The Arctic is nominally dark almost half the year, with very low sun altitudes during the time it is in sunlight. It is notoriously cloudy there. Lastly, the oft made claim that open “black” water absorbs the sunlight strongly ignores the fact that it looks dark because the reflection is specular. Fresnel’s equation demonstrates that reflectivity can reach 100% with glancing rays. One has to take all these variables into consideration to calculate how much energy Arctic waters can actually absorb.

Phil.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 1:39 pm

You have to take polarization into account too, the p=polarization has substantially higher absorption than the s-polarization.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Phil.
February 26, 2016 2:43 pm

Phil,
The sunlight coming in is unpolarized so the total reflectivity is unaffected.

Phil.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 3:48 pm

If that were the case there’d be no market for polarized glasses! Take a polarizing filter and look towards the ocean with sunlight glaring off it, rotate the filter and you’ll find an angle at which it disappears, the one polarization which is preferentially reflected is eliminated.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Phil.
February 26, 2016 4:14 pm

You misunderstood. I didn’t say that the reflected light wasn’t polarized. It is split up into two components whose sum determines the total reflectivity. Were that not so, there also would not be a market for polarized sun glasses because you wouldn’t see anything through them. (at least not the surface from which the partially polarized light is reflected. There is only one unique angle for which the light is completely polarized, the Brewster Angle. It is unusual for one to be in the correct position to perceive light at the special angle, and because the sun is in constant motion, it doesn’t last for long. But, this is all a non sequitur because the important point is that the reflectivity varies with the angle of incidence, which is always large at the poles and sometimes achieves a glancing angle with 100% reflectance.

Kiwikid
February 26, 2016 9:11 am

To naturally assume that there is a link between both CO2 and Temperature rises is incorrect. Convenient but totally incorrect.
1. There is no agreed relationship, even the IPCC state this. It is garbage.
2. If someone in the atmospheric science industry disagrees with this comment they need to show proof.
3. The burden of proof is with those that propose the warming theory, not others to disprove it.
4. The use of the OC-O2 for July is misleading, it is one month and a full understanding of the annual global transport is required
5. The current warming is mainly in the mid to far north latitudes, and along the annual atmospheric transport corridors.
6. This is not CO2 related. There are other factors at play.
7. The carbon cycle as depicted is a myth

February 26, 2016 9:18 am

There are so many mistakes in this post. I don’t know where to begin.
I will start with a general overview of what is wrong with the approach and in a later comment if I get time I will address every mistake
First and foremost ANY exercise that attempts to regress the temperature against explanatory variables must take account of the actual THEORY behind global warming.
That Theory says this: The temperature of the SURFACE is a result of EXTERNAL Forcings and internal variability. It is a function of ALL forcings– not just C02. C02 happens to be a large component but it is not the whole story. Over long periods internal variations will sum to zero, because energy cannot be created from nothing.
So here is how we fit the data
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
This is a fit of C02 concentration AND volcanic forcing.
Here is the data: Now, for those of you who want to get a bit more detailed we actually treat C02 as a proxy for all human forcing . See the spread sheet below for the correlations between c02 and other forcing
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/xls/forcing-comparison.xlsx
In short, The first model we did had all forcings in it. It essentially matches a c02 only “fit” . You can do it either way.
Now of course the problem here is that we are Fitting only the LAND data.
And of course you can USE that regression to predict what the other 70% of the globe will show.
Since the ocean doesnt follow the land PRECISELY you will see some differences.
Then. Here is what Clyde needs to do to test his model.
Predict the temperatures of the Ocean using his model. Guess what the population over the ocean is?
Well DUH.
He could also do this to see that his regression is flawed.
1. Grid the population: You can use Hyde Population ( 5 arc minute data ) all the way back to 1750
what you will see is zero relationship between population and temperature.
2. For the US he could have used 1 arc minute data ( 1 sq km ) going back to the early 20th century
what you will see is ZERO relationship.
3. You could pick out all the stations with ZERO POPULATION and just look at those. Did that
No population effect.

Bartemis
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2016 9:52 am

“Over long periods internal variations will sum to zero, because energy cannot be created from nothing.”
How long? Days? Years? Decades? Centuries?
This is an absolutely incoherent statement without further qualification. There is a continuous stream of energy coming into the system from the Sun. All it has to do is accumulate. In order to reach a steady state, it has to dissipate at the same rate it is being introduced.
But, there is no reason that the rate of dissipation has to remain constant and, to the degree it does not, stored energy will either increase or decrease. The rate of dissipation is governed by storage mechanisms which have modal responses modulated by time dependent functions. The timelines of these modal responses stretch over many characteristic lengths, some of which are, indeed, centuries long.

Mike
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 10:47 am

Agreed, this is part of the “internal oscillation” fallacy. Simply calling it “internal” does not mean it has to be net zero. Neither does simply labelling it an “oscillation”. That is substituting trivial naming for any scientific logic.
For example El Nino / Nina is NOT a pendulum. It is two very different processes that act in opposite senses. That does not mean it is net zero.
La Nina controls the amount of solar energy input to the tropics. El Nino transfers OHC to the atmosphere, and ultimately to space ( it is ironically a cooling event terms of the Earth energy budget ) .
We have very little idea what CAUSES either of the processes or what triggers strong El Ninos like the present, so any suggestion the sum of these two processes is baseless.
Simply using the term “internal” to describe something offers no information that would justify the conclusion that it is net zero.

Mike
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2016 10:24 am

Thanks Mosh’ , a good start.
Let’s add that linear regression on two error laden variables not a legitimate use of the technique, despite wide applicaiton of similar techniques in climatology papers:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ols_scatterplot_regression2.png
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/on-inappropriate-use-of-ols/
If Clyde were to plot each part of figure 1 at full scale on each axis we would that there is massive diffuse cloud of data with little linear relationship. The OLS fitted line would almost certainly be wrong to they eye. Datasets with such high non linear relationships or “noise” will produce an erroneously low OLS fit.
There is nothing more than the most general similarity to a long term upward trend in both datasets. There is nothing that suggests anything less trivial which may be evidence of a causal relationship.
The first thing to do when quoting an R^2 value is to calculate what number would indicate a 95% probability of this being non random events based on the number of degrees of freedom ( data points ) used.
Since both CO2 and temperature are auto-regressive and essentially accumulative integrals, they will likely show some trivial similarity. It would be more convincing to examine dT/dt vs d/dt(logCO2) , that would show if there is anything more that trivial up or downward trend linking the tow datasets.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2016 12:15 pm

Steven,
I’m glad to see that you treat CO2 as a proxy for all anthropogenic forcings, which is the conclusion I made from the high correlation with population. You have missed an important point. I have not claimed that the population is directly responsible for the temperature changes. I have claimed that there appears to be a relationship between population and human activities that produce well-mixed gasses that affect land, air, and water. Because of the different heat capacity of water, land, and air, it is going to be more difficult to demonatrate a correlation between SST and land population. But, I would expect to find one. I used land data because I expect it to be more responsive to changes in forcings. You complaints seem like little more than sophistry.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2016 1:32 pm

“There are so many mistakes in this post. I don’t know where to begin.”
Me neither
“First and foremost ANY exercise that attempts to regress the temperature against explanatory variables must take account of the actual THEORY behind global warming.”
So I’ll just chime in on that. I see this over and over here. Temperature should correlate with CO2. Or with emissions. Ignoring what the theory actually says.
A kettle on a gas stove. It’s heated by the gas, right? So the temperature should vary as the gas setting. Well, say you are boiling the kettle and you try varying the gas. Does the temperature correlate with the varying gas setting? Very poorly. It might correlate with the cumulative gas burnt. That is different arithmetic.
GHG concentration creates a forcing, which is like the gas setting. It’s a flux. Temperature responds to cumulative flux. There is likewise no reason to expect correlation to flux itself.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 26, 2016 2:57 pm

OK Nick,
let’s take your kettle analogy and run with it. If you frequently turn the gas up and down and take temperature readings less frequently than you adjust the flame, you will see little correlation. However, if you go through a process of setting the knob low, taking a temperature reading, and then repeating the process with slight increments, you WILL see a correlation between knob settings and temperature. Now, you remarked you might see a better correlation between total gas consumed rather than the height of the flame. Indeed, If I were to plot Delta CO2 against temperature change I would expect to see a lot poorer correlation than using the integrated CO2 concentration. So, what’s the problem? My complaint basically is that the historical CO2 and temperature data are unreliable because they don’t follow the same predictive model that modern data does.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 26, 2016 4:02 pm

Clyde,
No, it’s not an issue of frequency of measurement. Suppose you sinusoidally (sin(t)) vary the heat flux (around a mean), and the well-mixed kettle responds with temperature equal to the integral, which is linear plus cos. The sine and cos will be basically uncorrelated, and the sin with the linear heating also not, except for endpoint effects, which could equally be positive or negative.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 26, 2016 5:11 pm

Nick,
Your sinusoidal knob is not a good analogy for the real world. You have to add a trend to make it reasonable. Then you will find a correlation between the trend and the “linear plus cosine.” If you de-trend the the two, you should find an excellent correlation between the input and output, just 90 degrees out of phase. But, what you observe WILL be influenced by the frequency of the sampling. You will only be able to detect changes that are 1/2 of the frequency of the sampling rate. In the real world, we have an opposite problem that there may well be periodicities that are much longer than our life times and are difficult to recognize.

Bartemis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 26, 2016 5:11 pm

“the well-mixed kettle responds with temperature equal to the integral,”
It varies with sin(w*t-atan(w*tau)), where tau is the thermal time constant, and w is radial frequency, which you have assumed to be 1. If the time constant is short, the response tends toward the instantaneous. If long, it tends to the cosine.
What time constants are we looking for? If heating of the oceans, that is exceedingly long, but if the atmosphere, that is fairly short.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 26, 2016 6:18 pm

Clyde,
“You have to add a trend to make it reasonable.”
Well, even if you have trend alone, you don’t get perfect correlation. If flux is t, and temperature response is proportional to the integral t^2, and continuously measured, the correlation is R^2=15/16=0.9375. But any variation from that will generally make it worse.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
February 27, 2016 11:23 am

Nick,
“Temperature should correlate with CO2. Or with emissions. Ignoring what the theory actually says.”
I see skeptics make this mistake over and over again. It really is quite stunning.
Clyde. As Feynman noted the easiest person to fool is yourself.
You have fooled yourself into believing that you UNDERSTAND the theory you are trying to criticize.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 27, 2016 3:50 pm

Steven,
How do I know that you haven’t fooled yourself? Do I take your word for it?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 26, 2016 7:00 pm

Steven,
I finally had time to look at your spreadsheet. All I saw was a “CO2 proxy” and volcanic forcings. I didn’t see any attempt to partition any other antrhopogenic forcings, positive or negative. I’ve forwarded the thesis that anthropogenic water vapor is a significant forcing over land. After all, even the IPCC claims that CO2 only acts like a trigger and the increased temperature from it causes increased evaporation of water which does the heavy lifting, if you’ll pardon the pun. Basically, I’m saying that 56 years is a short time to conclude CO2 is driving temperature changes, and attempts to go back in time reveal problems with the historical temperature and/or CO2 estimates, based on the recent relationship between temperature and CO2.

David A
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2016 9:35 pm

“I’ve forwarded the thesis that anthropogenic water vapor is a significant forcing over land”
==========================================================================
FWIW, I would think it only potentially significant on the surface land record, not on the overall atmosphere over land. I do appreciated your approach.

William Astley
February 26, 2016 9:20 am

P.S. Thanks for the Salby link.
This analysis seems to lack focus. This is a holistic physical problem. If a theory is incorrect it will generate paradoxes. The paradoxes all go away when the correct theories and there mechanisms are applied to explain the observations and the analysis results.
Summarize everything we know about this problem. Let’s get everyone on the same page which is to at least understand and remember the paradoxes. The paradoxes point to correct answer.
A single paradox is sufficient to invalidate a theory. When there are piles and piles of paradoxes that invalidate a theory the issue is not is or is not theory incorrect, but rather why the field in question is ignoring the paradoxes.
1) The no warming for 18 years paradox.
It is a fact that two independent satellite data sets which agree with hundreds of thousands of weather balloons show unequivocally that there has been no significant warming for more than 18 years at a time in which atmospheric CO2 is rising year by year. That is paradox. A paradox disproves a theory. The warming in the last 150 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. There are dozens of other observations and analysis results that support that assertion.comment image
2) The latitude warming paradox. If CO2 was the causing the warming – ignoring the water vapor/CO2 overlap white lie – the observed warming should be the same for all latitudes as atmospheric CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere. The observed warming is primarily high latitude and there is twice as much warming in the high latitude Northern hemisphere. This pattern of warming is a paradox for the CO2 forcing theory. This same pattern of warming has occurred again and again and again in the paleo record with correlating changes to cosmogenic isotopes. The changes in cosmogenic isotopes are caused by solar cycle changes.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
3.2 Latitude effect
We have examined the temperature anomalies at the various latitudes enumerated above for three data sets: HadCRUT3v, and MSU_LT from UAH and from RSS. All show similar behavior. However, as explained above, we only present the results from MSU_LT_UAH. Figure 2 shows the UAH_LT anomalies for NoExtropics, Tropics, SoExtropics and Global. The average trends over the range 1979-2007 are 0.28, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.14 ºK/decade respectively. If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 (William: CO2 is after a lag of 12 months evenly distributed in the atmosphere) a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

3) The phase paradox. 7 out of 8 times planetary temperature rises and then atmospheric CO2 rises, as cause must lead effect the phase analysis result supports the assertion that the warming is not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Phase analysis of CO2 changes vs temperature vs anthropogenic CO2 emissions supports that assertions:
1) The recent temperature rise is not caused by increase in atmospheric CO2
2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is not caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Independent analysis of C12/C13 changes in the atmosphere supports the assertion that majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 (no less than 75%) is caused by the increase ocean surface temperature and increased release of low C13 deep earth CH4.
Comment:
If the heat hiding in the ocean hypothesis is correct then there is sustained mixing of surface ocean water with deep ocean water. The silly Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources which is a white lie model created to create an anthropogenic CO2 issues, assumes there very, very, limited mixing of the deep ocean and surface ocean water. As there is 32 times more dissolved CO2 in the ocean than in the atmosphere, if a portion of the deep ocean is replaced with surface ocean water (this must occur if there is mixing) then there is a vast sink and source of CO2 which works to resist surface forcing changes in CO2 due to volcanic activity or lack of volcanic activity and due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur.
As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2-8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment. Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around.
“Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyzes suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.”

4) It is pathetic in your face basic errors the 1 dimensional no feedback calculations (which were do more than 20 years ago) are ignored. If the white lie incorrect assumptions are corrected the surface warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is reduced by a factor of 16 from 1.2C to 0.075C. This result explains why there are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa.
Scientific Explanation why there is almost no warming for a doubling of atmospheric.
The One Dimension, No Feedback Forcing Calculation’s Deliberate Incorrect (White Lies/Fibs)
Comment: The so called 1 dimensional no feedback calculation shows ‘surface’ warming of 3.7 watts/m^2 or 1.2C. The following shows there is peer reviewed analysis that indicates that 1 dimensional no feedback calculation is too high by roughly a factor 16 due to white lie incorrect assumptions. The so called general circulation models (3 dimensional models) have more than a 100 subject parameters that can be adjusted to give any answer possible. The 1 dimensional calculation is however the basis for the entire charade.
P.S. Reducing the surface warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by a factor of 16 from 1.2C to 0.075C. Now as half of the warming should have all ready occurred, this means only 0.035C or less than 5% of the 0.8C warming in the last 150 years can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. The explanation of the remaining warming is due to solar cycle changes.
Assumptions
A) Lapse Rate Fib
The so called 1 dimensional, no feedback, forcing calculations for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 ignored the fact that the lapse rate decreases when atmospheric CO2 increases which reduces the forcing by a factor of four. The change in the lapse rate is due to the fact that hot air rises causing cold air to fall causing the phenomena which is called convection.
B) Water Vapor Fib
The 1 dimensional no feedback calculation CO2 forcing warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 was done with no water vapor in the atmosphere. As the planet is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere. As the absorbtion spectrum of water and CO2 overlap, water vapor in the atmosphere reduces temperature increase due to the doubling of atmospheric CO2 also by a factor of four.
Due to Fib A and Fib B, the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2, no feedbacks is 16 times smaller 0.075C rather than 1.2C which is so small the without feedback warming is the same as the with feedbacks warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1

Collapse of the Anthropogenic Warming Theory of the IPCC

4. Conclusions
In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2. Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.

The modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory began from the one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies with the fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981]. Table 1 shows the obtained climate sensitivities for 2xCO2 in these studies, in which the climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity CS (FAH) is 1.2~1.3K [Hansen et al., 1984].
In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2. The lapse rate of 6.5K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962) [Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978]. There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1.

The followings are supporting data (William: In peer reviewed papers, published more than 20 years ago that support the assertion that convection cooling increases when there is an increase in greenhouse gases and support the assertion that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause surface warming of less than 0.3C) for the Kimoto lapse rate theory above.
(A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) shows the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2.
Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7W/m2.
Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55~1.56W/m2 (averaged 1.1W/m2).
This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in
the 1DRCM and the 3DGCMs studies.
(B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24K considering the
evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.
(C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17K with the
direct heating of 1.2W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.

Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen.

Weart: This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…
Hansen: That’s trivial. You just put in…
Weart:… a lapse rate…
Hansen: Yes. So it’s a fudge. (William: It is not a fudge it is a white lie that is necessary or there would be no CO2 AGW issue) That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers (William: Different answers that invalidate CAGW, the 3-D models have more than 100 parameters to play with so any answer is possible. The 1-D model is simple so it possible to see the fudging/shenanigans). So you try to pick something that has some physical justification (William: You pick what is necessary to create CAGW, the scam fails when the planet abruptly cools due to the abrupt solar change). But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model.

In addition to ignoring the fact that ‘greenhouse’ gases increase convection which reduces surface warming by a factor of 4, the without ‘feedbacks’ calculation also ignored the fact the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the earth is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropics.
Redoing the double atmospheric CO2 level, no feedback calculation with a atmospheric model that takes into account the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the radiation effects of water/CO2 absorption overlap reduces the surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 3.7 watts/meter^2 to 1.1 watts/meter^2 ( also reduces surface for a doubling of CO2 by a factor of four). The 1.1 watts/meter^2 increase in forcing will result in surface warming of ball park 0.1C to 0.2C which is so small, the no feedback case is the same as with feedback case.
Check out figure 2 in this 1986 published paper that notes the 1 dimensional calculations were done for a dry atmosphere which is physically incorrect. The 1986 paper notes the surface forcing is reduced by a factor of four if it is redone with the estimated water vapor in the atmosphere.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region
In the 18 mm region, the CO2 bands (William: CO2 spectral absorption band) are overlapped by the H2O pure rotational band and the H2O continuum band. The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption is neglected in most studies concerned with the climate effects of increased CO2. </blockquote
5) The cyclic warming and cooling in both hemisphere paradox. What the heck caused the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet? The same high latitude regions of the planet that warmed in the past warmed in the last 150 years.
As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles) and the Heinrich events it is obvious a specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed. Recent Antarctic peninsula ice core analysis found 342 cycles of warming and cooling in the last 250,000 years with the same periodicity as is observed in the Northern hemisphere.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle” …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

February 26, 2016 9:39 am

Perhaps some scientists lack an appropriate skill set to explain climate change. Many apparently even fail to grasp that a forcing must be time-integrated to produce temperature change (this article is one example). If CO2 is a forcing on temperature, its effect on temperature must be in accordance with the time-integral of CO2 (or the time-integral of a math function thereof).
CO2 has a very tiny effect on average global temperature (AGT). Ignoring CO2 completely but including the factors that matter results in a 97% match since before 1900. This is in spite of the fact that some agencies have changed the data to corroborate a Global Warming agenda.
The factors that matter are identified and the tiny influence of CO2 is quantified at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com

Bartemis
February 26, 2016 9:57 am

The apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature is entirely superficial and spurious. The actual direct correlation is between temperature and the rate of change of CO2.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/offset:0.6/scale:0.22
The arrow of causation is from temperature to CO2, and not the other way around. Human inputs have very little impact.

Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 10:09 am

Bartemis says: “The actual direct correlation is……”
..
Then posts a graph showing the correlation.

The Bartemis says: “The arrow of causation is from……..”

Bartemis makes the common mistake of thinking correlation proves causation.

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 10:20 am

This is not a superficial correlation of low information, low polynomial order. It is a correlation that exists in every nook and cranny. The odds of being able to do that across the entire frequency spread without there being a cause and effect relationship are vanishingly small.
The arrow of causation is necessarily from temperature to CO2 because this is a derivative relationship, and it would be absurd to posit that temperature responds to the rate of change of CO2, and not its absolute level.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 10:27 am

Again Bartemis says: “It is a correlation that exists…”

Sorry Bartemis, correlation does not prove causation.
..
Even you know that.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 10:47 am

Christopher Keating,
After years of discussion wit Bart, I know that he is immune for any argument or observation that doesn’t fit his theory…
His correlation between temperature and CO2 rate of change is entirely from the influence of temperature on (tropical) vegetation, but vegetation is a net sink for CO2 over periods longer than 1-3 years. Thus there is no connection at all between the process that causes the variability and what causes the trend. As human emissions show twice the slope of the increase in the atmosphere, and fit all observations, these are the obvious cause of the increase in the atmosphere, not temperature. One can fit the same graph as Bart did as well as for variability and slope by combining both influences:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/rss_co2_emiss_deriv.jpg
Background at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_variability.html#The_real_world

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 10:54 am
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 11:35 am

Yes Bartemis, it is no accident that the noise in the CO2 signal is correlated to temperature. Now, besides your correlation graph, what other evidence do you have?

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 11:43 am

It’s not just “the noise”. It’s the whole kit and kaboodle. Long term, short term, every term.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 11:51 am

Bartemis, unless you have other evidence besides a single graphical display of correlation, it doesn’t matter if it is long term, short term, or ANY term.

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 12:06 pm

OK, Christopher. Sorry, you are wrong. But, I have see no point in continuing this silly conversation.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 12:13 pm

Bartemis, you posted: “Sorry, you are wrong”

I’m wrong to ask you for additional evidence?
..
Why is asking you for something besides a graph of correlation “wrong????”
..
Why is asking you for supporting evidence “silly????”

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 12:43 pm

Bart,
Disregard Keating. He has no credibility, as can be seen here.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 1:22 pm

David, it doesn’t matter what you say, poor little Bart got caught confusing correlation with causation.
..
..
..

Janice Moore
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 2:37 pm

@ C. Keating: You are either very dull or are intentionally mischaracterizing what Bartemis said today at 10:20am:

The arrow of causation is necessarily from temperature to CO2 because this is a derivative relationship …

Bartemis
(emphasis mine)
********************************************************
********************************************************
@Ferdinand Englebeen: re: After years of discussion with Bart, I know that he is immune from any argument or observation that doesn’t fit his theory…
And here YOU are, SEVEN years later, still with your one-way radio blasting us with the SAME ideas that have been refuted by MANY (not just Bartemis) able scientists on this blog. Does it not give you pause when you see that MOST (if not all) of your most staunch supporters are rabid AGWers (I know that you are not one of those)?
A voice from SEVEN years ago:

Dear Ferdinand Englebeen … Your key argument still is:
> Thus the mass balance simply says that nothing (as net result over a year)
> is added by the biosphere or the (deep) oceans, so the mass balance
> doesn’t need to include the (deep) oceans, as these can be assumed to be
> sinks only …

( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/24/watching-co2-for-the-last-12-years-by-hemisphere/#comment-98306 )
Law of Nature
(emphasis mine)
Mr. Englebeen,
You and I both know that Bartemis has OFTEN given you ad arguendo concessions in his replies to you. He regularly admits when he disagrees with your conclusion, but cannot prove his absolutely.
Such a remark is beneath you. You are better than that! I know. You have been on WUWT many times. It is late where you live, so, if you don’t reply, I will understand.
Sincerely, SIN-CERE-LY, indeed, (smile)
Janice

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 2:44 pm

Janice…..you say: “You are either very dull or are intentionally mischaracterizing ”

No mischaracterizing at all. Bartemis said, “The actual direct correlation is between temperature and the rate of change of CO2.” then he posted a plot of the correlation.
..
..
CORRELATION

Now Janice, you know full well that correlation does not prove causation, right?
..
Tell me how a direct quote from Bart is “mischaracterizing” what he said?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 2:52 pm

C.K.:
When

… a correlation [] exists in every nook and cranny. …

assuming causation is logical. Bartemis did not assert that he had proven causation, only that it APPEARS highly likely to exist and that the correlation is so strong as to make a prima facie case for his point.
Thus, the burden of proof has now shifted to
YOU, C.K.,
to meet Bartemis’ argument with evidence.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 2:55 pm

Bart,
You appear to be unaware of the fact that HadCRUT is a work of science fiction.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 3:09 pm

Janice, please stop trying to prove causation using correlation.
..
The problem Bart has is that he has no additional evidence beyond the correlation. You know full well that not only is there a strong correlation of CO2 with recent global temperature, backed up by the physics of the green house effect. Bart needs to show evidence of ocean out gassing to supplement his claim of causation. He has not provided any such evidence. His problem is he’s hanging his hat on a single correlation found between the noise in a CO2 signal and global temperature anomaly. When and if he can provide physical evidence that this causal chain is in fact occurring, he might be listened to instead of being ignored for his arm waving

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 4:53 pm

I have no evidence that gravity causes objects to fall beyond the fact that they consistenly do.
There is no strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature beyond the fact that both were going up for much of the 20th century. Having them move in the same direction is not a strong correlation. It is a 50/50 coin toss.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 5:28 pm

Thank you Bartemis for admiring that your suposed “relationship” is nothing more than correlation.

When you have evidence of causation, get back to me.
..
PS….when you can show General Relativity (i.e. gravity) is only correlation please publish.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 6:18 pm

Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to assert causation.
Also needed is a falsifiable theory to test and what is commonly called “face validity”.
One factor providing face validity is that the effect is preceded by the theoretical cause.
I don’t see any assertion that correlation proves causation here by Bartemis. I also disagree that the mistake of thinking correlation proves causation is in any way common in the posts on this site. However, could it be said the correlation is between the rate of change of temperature and the rate of change of CO2?
______________
This article by Mr Spencer seems to assert that a CO2 increase results in a temperature increase on the basis of an R2 of 0.5 using OLS regression. While OLS is robust with regard to violations of its underlying assumptions, 400,000 years of ice core data indicates that CO2 levels lag temperature changes; thus the model is misspecified, and the R2 is meaningless.
In other words, the causal relationship between CO2 change and global warming is spurious.
If this is a misunderstanding of Mr Spencer’s article, please accept my apology.
BTW, a comment was made by Mr Steve Case about the MWP being about 800 years ago, which agrees with the average lag time between global temperature increase (as provided by ice cores) and the rise of CO2 levels.
I’m not sure about the point of his comment, but CO2 levels are indeed rising.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Thomas Englert
February 26, 2016 8:59 pm

Thomas,
I’m aware of the claim that ice core data supports the claim that CO2 levels followed the increase in temperature. However, from my reading it appears to be a contentious claim. I didn’t want to wade into that based on a single data point. I’m also aware that as the firn collapses to form ice there is considerable compression and the entrained air is relatively free migrate within the open pores of the firn. Thus, I’m not convinced that the claim is reliable. Also, as a general rule of thumb, one can expect that the resolution of time decreases the farther one goes back in time. So, I didn’t want to take a strong position on that.

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 6:18 pm

“…when you can show General Relativity (i.e. gravity) is only correlation please publish.
Pretty much. It entirely rests on the assumption that the Ricci tensor is zero in the vicinity of a massive, neutrally charged, object, and correlates things like the gravitational red shift, the precession of planetary orbits, and the decay of the orbits of neutron stars to that assumption.
But, you don’t really know that, do you? You don’t even know what the Ricci tensor is. You simply think that talking about Relativity will make people think you are smart. I, on the other hand, can derive it all from scratch, and use it in my job as an everyday thing. So, how about you just run along, Junior. Nobody cares about your pretentious and hollow pronouncements.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 6:19 pm

Bottom line: CK, the burden of proof is on you and all the other AGWers to provide even ONE quantitative measurement that makes the conjecture about human CO2 emissions rise even to the level of a valid hypothesis. So far, not one piece of data proves causation. The climate models’ projections are anti-proof, they failed so badly.
And even CORRELATION is against you: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
******************************
And regardless of Bartemis’ ignoring your mischaracterizing him, I and many others can see that that is exactly what you did. And it is evidence, out of your own mouth, that you are dishonest. Thus, you have damaged your credibility here to the point that nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 6:30 pm

Janice, you say, “Bottom line: CK, the burden of proof is on you :
..
Nope….I have no burden of proof. I merely pointed out the pathetic attempt by Bartemis to show his “correlation” is causative. Janice, really, Bartemis has nothing other than his little graph. He has no other evidence for HIS CONJECTURE. I don’t have any burden, all I have done is shown you how lacking in evidence Bartemis has. When he can provide corroborating EVIDENCE then we can continue this discussion. You seem to think that I have something to prove. You are wrong. All I have done is poke holes in Bartemis’s pathetic little “theory.” If you wish to support his point of view, please provide EVIDENCE to support him. Otherwise just go away.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 6:34 pm

Bartemis says ” I, on the other hand, can derive it all from scratch”

Too funny…..

“Deriving” something is not “evidence”
..
You don’t even know the first thing about science.
..
Show us the DATA
..
Unless you are living on the planet Zircon, science is based on DATA, not derivations

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 26, 2016 6:53 pm

Look Bartemis, your sophmoric “theory” that dCO2/dt = f(T) is pointles for the following reasons…
..
1) It offers no predictive value.
2) It does not explain why there has been a 0.7 degree rise in global temps in the past 150 years
3) It is based entirely on correlation, and not on established physics.
4) It does not fit with established observations of the ice core record.
5) It does not fit with established observations of the concentrations of carbon isotope observations.
6) Your “conjecture” has not been published in a reputable scientific journal. Are you having trouble getting it past peer review?

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 27, 2016 10:44 am

“1) It offers no predictive value.”
It does. If temperatures remain in stasis, or start to decline, then the rate of change of CO2 will, too. We have already seen this. With the onset of the “pause”, the rate of change of CO2 became essentially constant, while emissions kept accelerating. That in itself falsifies the human attribution hypothesis.
It is worth noting that, it also falsifies the Karlization of global temperatures, as the rate of change of CO2 gives another measure of the temperature level, and it did, indeed, plateau over the past two decades.
“2) It does not explain why there has been a 0.7 degree rise in global temps in the past 150 years”
So what? Neither does the hypothesis of CO2 induced warming, as we see that CO2 does not drive temperature, but rather the reverse. If there were both a significant positive response to temperature from CO2, and this positive integral response to CO2 from temperature, there would be an unstabilizable positive feedback loop, which would have sent us into a runaway greenhouse eons ago. AGW is kaput.
“3) It is based entirely on correlation, and not on established physics.”
It is based on commonly occurring physical relationships. Better than being based on cartoon physics – back-of-the-envelope simple relationships which do not hold in a complex world of many stabilizing feedbacks – such as the failed AGW hypothesis.
“4) It does not fit with established observations of the ice core record.”
Observations which are unverifiable by any independent means. The history of such unconfirmed relationships holding up under scrutiny is rather bleak, once people get past the dogma and start scrutinizing.
“5) It does not fit with established observations of the concentrations of carbon isotope observations.”
Only simple minded interpretations of those observations. But, diffusion processes are complex, and often anti-intuitive.
“6) Your “conjecture” has not been published in a reputable scientific journal. Are you having trouble getting it past peer review?”
This isn’t my job. But, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Once the temperatures turn around, the dogma loses currency, and the corrupted pal-review embargo is lifted, I expect you will see a storm of literature addressing the data, instead of sweeping it under the rug.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 27, 2016 3:36 pm

Clyde Spencer says:
I’m aware of the claim that ice core data supports the claim that CO2 levels followed the increase in temperature. However, from my reading it appears to be a contentious claim.
It’s not contentious, it is completely one-sided. There are numerous data-based charts showing cause and effect between CO2 and temperature. Every one of them shows that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature. There may be others that show ∆CO2 is the cause of changes in temperature, but I haven’t seen them. Whenever I ask anyone to post such a chart, the only ones ever posted are simple overlay charts. But an overlay does not show causation. So Clyde, if you have any charts showing that changes in CO2 cause subsequent changes in global T, please post them. I am sincerely interested.
Janice Moore says:
Bottom line: CK, the burden of proof is on you and all the other AGWers to provide even ONE quantitative measurement that makes the conjecture about human CO2 emissions rise even to the level of a valid hypothesis. So far, not one piece of data proves causation. The climate models’ projections are anti-proof, they failed so badly. And even CORRELATION is against you: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
The basis of the entire global warming debate from the get-go has been about the CO2=cAGW conjecture. Janice is right; skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those sounding the ‘dangerous manmade global warming’ alarm. But all available evidence indicates it is a false alarm.
Despite a steady increase in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global temperatures are not accelerating upward, as endlessly predicted.
There is one requirement necessary for any conjecture, hypothesis, theory or law: they must be able to make accurate, repeated predictions. Otherwise, they are wrong.
But not one multi-million dollar GCM, nor one climatologist or organization was able to predict the most significant global temperature event of the past century: the fact that global warming has been stopped for close to twenty years.
Thus, the CO2=cAGW conjecture is wrong. QED
At this point, the honest thing to for those promoting that conjecture to do is to admit that it has failed to predict reality, and to try to formulate a hypothesis that works better at explaining the real world. But instead, the alarmist crowd digs in its collective heels and argues incessantly, trying to support their failed conjecture.
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”
The alarmist crowd has stopped being honest.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dbstealey
February 27, 2016 5:33 pm

db,
if you were to ask Mosher or Stokes about the cause and effect, I don’t think that they would agree with you. Therefore, I think I’m justified in saying the issue is contentious. Personally, I think the issue is still unresolved to everyone’s satisfaction. I can’t give you any chart that resolves the issue. I tried to avoid getting into cause and effect, instead relying on correlation to suggest a plausible extrapolation. It is probably a case of both sides being right because CO2 is part of a feedback loop. I’m trying to keep my mind open to the subject and I’m always looking for the ‘silver bullet.’ One commenter pointed out that CO2 appears to have leveled off during the recent ‘hiatus.’ However, that’s an almost immediate response, not an 800-year delay. How would you interpret an immediate interaction between CO2 and temperature?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 27, 2016 7:42 pm

Clyde Spencer says:
if you were to ask Mosher or Stokes about the cause and effect, I don’t think that they would agree with you.
That’s OK, they don’t agree with Planet Earth, either. And their side makes it contentious, not skeptics of the ‘dangerous manmade global warming’ conjecture.
And:
How would you interpret an immediate interaction between CO2 and temperature?
I’m not interpreting, I just look at the alarmist conjecture and see one great big FAIL.
The basic debate is over the repeatedly falsified claim that a rise in CO2 will have bad effects. That has not happened. Everything we observe demonstrates that the rise in CO2 has been completely harmless, and greatly beneficial to the biosphere. The earth is measurably greening as a result of more CO2 (which anyway has risen by only one part in 10,000 — over a century and a half). There has been no global damage or harm from the added CO2. Thus, the rise in CO2 is “harmless”. On any cost/benefit analysis, the rise in CO2 has been a net benefit. What is the downside? Can you quantify anything?
The promoters of the CO2=AGW conjecture have failed to make their case. None of their scary predictions have happened, not a single one. In any of the hard sciences, such an abysmal failure would mean the end of it, along with a cut off of grants. The only reason that hasn’t happened here is because the ‘carbon’ scare has become entirely political, with only a thin veneer of science to try and make it appear plausible.
But it isn’t. That conjecture is a complete scientific failure. So now it’s all politics, based on pseudo-science. Wouldn’t you agree?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 29, 2016 8:10 am

Dear Janice,
I know, you are a big fan of Dr. Salby and Bart, but you are wrong about who supports who: on the same side of my stance that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 are a lot of distinguished AGW critics:
Dr. Singer, the Nestor of all skeptics,
Dr. Lindzen,
RGB, who unfortunately did give up to comment here because too much noise of unconvincible people…
Willis Eschenbach
and many others…
I could even convince Dr. Spencer, after an extensive discussion…

Bartemis
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 29, 2016 9:03 am

Do we need to go through the list, from helicobacter pylori to continental drift and many others, of the times that the majority of scientists were opposed by a single gifted person, and that person was proved right?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Christopher Keating
February 29, 2016 11:08 am

Bart,
I was reacting on the claim from Janice that my position was only supported by AGW people, which isn’t true. But I agree, there is no reason that the number of supporters says anything about the truth of a theory.
But violating even one observation does refute even the nicest theory. As yours violates about all known observations, I shouldn’t claim that my theory is of any value and defend it against all odds. No matter how brilliant the inventor of that theory…

Reply to  Christopher Keating
March 1, 2016 4:19 pm

Keating says:
Deriving something is not evidence.
But when Clyde Spencer says:
I tried to avoid getting into cause and effect, instead relying on correlation to suggest a plausible extrapolation. I can’t give you any chart that resolves the issue.
Then that argument fails. All it is based on are admissions, like this:
I can’t give you any chart that resolves the issue.
I’ve posted charts showing cause and effect. Clyde admits he can’t do that:
I tried to avoid getting into cause and effect, instead relying on correlation to suggest a plausible extrapolation.
Compared with causation, correlation fails.
Finally, this whole issue is contentious only because the alarmist crowd refuses to follow the Scientific Method. Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists, but there aren’t any skeptics among the alarmist contingent.
Without skepticism, it’s just politics.

Reply to  Christopher Keating
March 1, 2016 4:48 pm

Dbstealey says: “I’ve posted charts showing cause and effect.”
..
No, all you have posted are overlay charts. All they show is correlations.

February 26, 2016 10:00 am

“Another anthropogenic effect is Urban Heat Island contamination of the temperature records as the cities have encroached on what were formerly rural areas. The BEST project claims to have disproved that hypothesis, but it is my opinion that they didn’t search far enough outside the city limits, nor in the right direction. Quattrochi et al. (Project Atlanta, 1999) have demonstrated that the heat and pollution from central Atlanta (GA) influences the weather for miles downwind from the city. ”
1. our search had nothing to do with CITY LIMITS.
2. We categorized stations using several criteria. non urban was defined as
A) NO “built” areas as defined by MODIS within 10km of the station
B) NO built areas as defined by modis within 20KM of the station.
C) No built pixels within 10km per modis, no impervious surface within 10 km per Imhoff,
No Nightlights within 10km, Population less than 10 people per sq km within 10km.
Basically I looked at every indicator I could, not just modis
3. The Trend in urban versus non urban was INDISTINGUISHABLE. That is, you could not say
that they were different. That doesnt mean UHI is NON EXISTENT. quite the opposite
It means that the UHI we can see at individual sites is not pronounced enough to rise
above the noise in a global record.
4. The atlanta study looked at LAND SURFACE temperatures, for 19 days of clear sky weather.
Do you know why? because UHI is the worst in clear sky conditions. Note that Land surface temperature is different from Surface AIR temperature. Note also that the typical LAND SURFACE
air temperature measurement has an accuracy of +- 1C. Why? because the sensor doesnt
measure the surface. It measures the radiation that comes from the surface and you have to
account for transmission through the atmosphere… With a MODEL.. The better study here
is Pengs study of OVER 400 large cities.. Not just atlanta. read more.
here is a quick over view
https://wiki.lsce.ipsl.fr/pku/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=blog:abstract_presentation1_s_peng.pdf
Full paper
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2030438
Like most modern studies there is NO CONSISTENT RELATIONSHIP between population density and
UHI. The variables that do matter in a consistent fashion are outlined in Pengs paper. You should read it.
Why is UHI so hard to pin down in the GLOBAL record?
Landform will mitigate or REVERSE UHI.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1577-9
OR the MICROSITE of an urban station can lead to NEGATIVE UHI
http://nargeo.geo.uni.lodz.pl/~icuc5/text/O_3_1.pdf
“On the basis of six-year-automatic measurements (1997-2002) of automatic measurements in Lodz an empirical studies on the intensity of the urban heat island (UHI) were provided. Continues observations made every 10 minutes allowed to analyze the temperature contrasts between the urban and rural sites in detail. Results show that a typical course of UHI normalized according to sunshine and sunrise time is very similar in all seasons.Comparison of daily courses of the urban-rural temperature contrasts for two sites located in the town center shows that a negative UHI in the morning might be attributed to the microclimatical properties of the site rather than to the physical properties of the whole city. ”
This much can be said. Skeptics had a hypothesis: If you only look at rural stations, the warming
will disappear. Well, we did that. We still found warming. Calling Dr. Feynman…….
Calling karl Popper….

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 27, 2016 3:04 pm

Steven,
Thank you for the links. They were interesting reading. One of the more interesting graphs was the one showing the urban and rural populations intersecting around 2010. I don’t think that you have disproved my claim. The paper showed consistently higher urban temperatures than rural temperatures. So, as a city builds out, it drags its high temperatures into what had formerly been rural land. Should one not see a large increase in the temperatures of the converted land-use area? How does that weight the average temperatures? Also, did you specifically examine and compare rural areas upwind and downwind from large cities? I’m reminded of a complaint a former colleague made about the Three Mile Island event. The NRC said that the average dose received by people living in the area defined by a circle of a given radius did not receive a significant average dose of radiation. What didn’t get said was that in a plume downwind from the reactor, the people DID receive a significant dose. Something that the paper didn’t explain was that there appeared to be irregular cooling at night in Beijing. When you did your analysis of urban vs. rural, did you compare night-time temperatures downwind from cities?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 2, 2016 1:51 am

Keating says:
Skeptics had a hypothesis
Wrong from the get-go, sockpuppet. Skeptics simply say:
‘Prove it. Or, provide credible evidence to support yout conjecture’.
You failed.
Next…

Max Dupilka
February 26, 2016 10:18 am

If you are going to try to produce a study that is at least somewhat scientifically usable then the equations you come up with should have some meaning. The two regression equations in Fig. 3&4 are given with meaningless coefficients of 0.000. Either choose a proper scale or do not bother wasting a reader’s time with meaningless results. This type of stuff is frustrating for a scientist to see.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Max Dupilka
February 26, 2016 12:26 pm

Max,
Tell me how you intend to use the negligible coefficients and I will be happy to provide them.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 26, 2016 10:33 am

Clyde Spencer,
As Steve Mosher already said: too many errors in this story, so where to start in my comment?
1. To start with the obvious: a one-on-one correlation in a multivariate system seldom gives a good answer. In this case there is one source of CO2: human emissions with a huge trend and little variability and a second source: temperature with a small trend and huge variability. The accumulation of CO2 emissions by humans, temperature and the increase in the atmosphere can be plotted together:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Which already shows that the correlation between temperature and CO2 is not that good, but both CO2 emissions and CO2 increase in the atmosphere show a similar slightly quadratic increase over time.
CO2 emissions are based on fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are based on the 10-year resolution of the Law Dome ice core until 1959 and Mauna Loa since 1960.
The slopes are a near fit:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
Since 1960:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
There is an obvious possibility of a causal origin of the increase in the atmosphere, which may be correlated to both human population and its wealth: increasing population and increasing energy use, thus CO2 emissions.
Compared to the influence of temperature (either way):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2.jpg
A change of half the scale has little influence on CO2 increase, but the full trend would give a lot of CO2? Not really convincing…
2. Historical CO2 levels and temperatures in ice cores show a change of ~16 ppmv/°C over the past 800,000 years. That coincides with Henry’s law which gives ~16 ppmv/°C for the equilibrium between ocean surface waters and the atmosphere. Thus the ~1°C warming since the LIA is good for maximum 16 ppmv increase, the rest is from human emissions…
3. OCO-2 shows the difference between equator and poles: it doesn’t show the net effect. There is a continuous flux of CO2 of about 40 GtC/year between the upwelling waters near the equator and the sinking waters near the poles. Based on pCO2 measurements of waters all over the world, the oceans are more sink than source…
That the source of the extra CO2 is surely in the NH can be seen if you compare the yearly averages over time:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
4. Human induced water vapor is of no influence at all: I have calculated it some long time ago and it is about 0.01% of the gigantic water cycle… Compare that to CO2 emissions, which are already around 6% of the natural cycle…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 26, 2016 10:36 am

I’ll have to agree with both Ferdinand and Mosher. Perhaps Clyde can rework it to fix the errors.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Anthony Watts
February 26, 2016 12:32 pm

Mike,
What evidence? The 16 ppmv/°C is what Henry’s law says for the solubility of CO2 in seawater. In the literature that varies between 4-17 ppmv/°C. As vegetation is proven (small) net sink for CO2, the only non-human source of interest are the oceans, all other possible sources (volcanoes, rock weathering,…) being too small or too slow…
Confirmed by the CO2-temperature (proxy) ratio in ice cores.
Confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples over the past decades…

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Anthony Watts
February 26, 2016 12:35 pm

Sorry, wrong place for this reaction, should be downwards…

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Anthony Watts
February 28, 2016 1:34 am

Clyde,
The deep oceans are indeed lower in δ13C than the ocean surface by the exchange with dead plant and animal material, but the deep oceans still are around zero per mil, while the surface is at +1 to +5 per mil, depending of the abundance of bio-life in the surface layer which is very rich in the upwelling zones…
Nevertheless, there is an isotopic shift in δ13C at the water-air border and reverse, due to the slower speed of escape of 13CO2 for its larger mass. That makes that at the long time equilibrium between deep and surface oceans and vegetation, the atmosphere was at -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil over the full Holocene before 1850.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 28, 2016 7:57 am

Ferdinand,
So let me see if I understand the problem, at least at a qualitative level. It is believed that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is principally anthropogenic because fossil fuels are low in C13, and the burning of fossil fuels primarily add C12 to the atmosphere. However, living organisms selectively use C12 over C13. When the plankton die, and are consumed in their downward travel through the water column, their decomposition results in the creation of C13-low CO2. When that CO2 is released by upwelling, it is already low in C13 and is further depleted in C13 by selective evaporation. This seems like circular reasoning to use the low C13 as evidence that it is coming from fossil fuels. If the oceans are warming, which they seem to be, then there should be an increased rate of outgassing over what happened in the past and there should be an enrichment of C12. Did I get this right?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Anthony Watts
February 29, 2016 2:56 am

Clyde:
When the plankton die, and are consumed in their downward travel through the water column, their decomposition results in the creation of C13-low CO2. When that CO2 is released by upwelling, it is already low in C13 and is further depleted in C13 by selective evaporation.
The organics of dead plankton sinks into the deep oceans and are decomposed by bacteria. While this resulting CO2/derivatives is low in δ13C, maybe -20 per mil or so, that is getting into the bulk of mainly inorganic carbon. The gigantic amount of CO2/bi/carbonate in the deep oceans is around zero per mil and is hardly influenced by the yearly drop out of organics from the surface, the more that also carbonates are dropping out from the shells (and added from dissolved sediments on land) and everything seems to be equilibrated over many millennia.
When the oceans and the atmosphere exchange CO2, there is indeed a shift in isotopic ratio: -10 per mil between oceans and atmosphere, +2 per mil between atmosphere and oceans, both seen from the atmosphere. Thus average -8 per mil change for any continuous flux of CO2 between oceans and atmosphere and back.
If all fluxes were with the deep oceans, that would give an equilibrium of around -8 per mil in the atmosphere. But there is abundant bio-life in the surface, especially at the upwelling zones. That makes that the release of CO2 is from waters slightly above zero per mil δ13C and the average in the atmosphere over the whole Holocene is -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil… until humans became involved…
The δ13C level of the atmosphere since ~1850 dropped to below -8 per mil. If there was a substantial increase in the oceanic-atmospheric carbon cycle, that would increase the per mil of the atmosphere. If it was a one-way input, that would add CO2 of somewhere around -8.5 per mil, a little below current levels.
But the average fluxes, based on pCO2 differences, give more sink than source (~3.5 GtC/year), thus should increase the δ13C level in the atmosphere…

Bartemis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 26, 2016 10:51 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 11:06 am

Bart,
Integration of temperature has no bearing in any physical process: if the temperature shows a step increase, CO2 doesn’t accumulate until eternity: with 16 ppmv/°C, a new equilibrium is reached, no matter if that is static in a bottle or dynamic all over the ocean sources and sinks.
The increase of 0.7°C since 1959 is good for 11 ppmv increase of the 90 ppmv increase that is all…

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 11:22 am

Nonsense. I have shown mathematically how such a relationship can arise.
This is a continuous flow problem. CO2 is always entering the surface system. If it is impeded from exiting, e.g., by an increase in temperature, it will accumulate in the surface system, giving rise to a sustained increase.

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 11:45 am

Here is a more detailed mathematical model.

Mike
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 12:19 pm

Ferdi, then clearly your assertion that “… is good for 11 ppmv increase ” does not fit the evidence. You have been wheeling this figure out of years.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bartemis
February 26, 2016 12:25 pm

Bart,
Mathematically one can prove that any mixture of temperature and human emissions can fit the total curve of slope and variability, but again, that needs to be based on physical processes.
The physical process behind the variability is mainly the influence of temperature (and rain patterns) on tropical vegetation The physical process that gives the slope is not vegetation. Neither the oceans, as both are proven net sinks for CO2…
You have zero proof that CO2 accumulates in the ocean sinks, that is just your imagination to save your theory…
Your dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) lacks any physical response of the ocean in and out fluxes to the increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. The fluxes either way are directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. If the temperature of the ocean surface increases, its pCO2 increases with 16 μatm/°C. As result, the atmosphere increases its CO2 content and with 16 μatm/°C (~16 ppmv) extra in the atmosphere, the original in and out fluxes are fully restored and no further increase of CO2 will happen.
That is where your mathematical model goes wrong: you didn’t take into account the reaction of the fluxes on the increased pressure in the atmosphere…