Climate change debate – latest results

Guest essay by Bevan Dockery

Here is 38 years of empirical data clearly showing a relationship between the satellite temperature and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory.

image

Figure 1. Mauna Loa Observatory

Figure 1 shows the monthly lower tropospheric satellite temperature for the Tropics-Land component in blue and the annual change in CO2 concentration in red. The obvious correlation between the two raises the possibility that there may be some common causal factor whereby the temperature drives the rate of change of CO2 concentration. It is not possible for the rate of change of CO2 to cause the temperature level as a time rate of change does not define a base. For example a rate of 2 ppm per annum could be from 0 to 2 ppm in 12 months, 456 to 458 ppm in 12 months or any other pair of numbers that differ by 2.

Note that the satellite temperature data is supplied as a residual after removal of the estimated seasonal variation. This makes it comparable to the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration as taking the annual rate eliminates the seasonal variation.

Calculation of the Ordinary Linear Regression between the two time series gave a correlation coefficient of 0.65 from the 448 monthly data pairs. Detrending of the time series in order to determine the statistical significance gave a correlation coefficient of  0.56 with 446 degrees of freedom. However the Durbin-Watson test of the time series gave a value of 1.08 indicating positive autocorrelation which means that Ordinary Linear Regression is inapplicable. The autocorrelation was estimated to be 0.53. When applied to the transformed time series, that is, applying a First Order Autoregressive Model, it resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.25 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 5.38, implying an infinitesimal probability that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test.

Applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the Tropics-Ocean component of the satellite temperature compared to the annual change in CO2 concentration gave a correlation coefficient of 0.14 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 3.06, implying a probability of 0.2% that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test.

It follows that this synthesis of empirical data conclusively reveals that CO2 has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years but that the rate of change in CO2 concentration may have been influenced to a statistically significant degree by the temperature level. Note that it is not possible for a rise in CO2 concentration to cause the temperature to increase and for the temperature level to control the rate of change of CO2 concentration as this would mean that there was a positive feedback loop causing both CO2 concentration and temperature to rise continuously and the oceans would have evaporated long ago.

Support for this thesis is seen in a statistical analysis of the monthly CO2 concentration with respect to the lower tropospheric temperature for Macquarie Island in the Southern Ocean at Latitude 54̊ 29ʹ South, Longitude 158̊ 58ʹ East. Applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the various components of the temperature, Global, Southern Hemisphere, Tropics, and Southern Extension and their Land and Ocean components gave correlation coefficients ranging from a minimum of 0.01 for 284 degrees of freedom, t statistic 0.15, probability of zero correlation 88% for the Southern Hemisphere zone, 90̊S to 0̊, to a maximum of 0.55, 284 deg. of free., t statistic 10.97, infinitesimal probability of zero correlation for the Tropics temperature zone, 20̊S to 20̊N.

This explains the well known fact that CO2 change lags temperature change over a large time range. Ice core data has revealed that the cycle of ice ages and interglacial warm periods shows CO2 change lagging temperature change by several centuries to more than a millennium while modern CO2 and temperature data shows lags of 9 to 12 months, Humlum et el., 2013 [1]. Cross correlation of annual changes in each of CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa and satellite lower tropospheric Tropics – Land temperature showed that CO2 change lagged temperature change by 5 months. As temperature controls the rate of change of CO2 concentration, local maxima in the CO2 rate must correspond to temperature maxima which, mathematically, must occur after the maxima in the rate of change of temperature. Likewise the CO2 concentration maxima must post-date the maxima in the CO2 rate and thus post-date the corresponding temperature maxima. Put simply, CO2 does not cause global warming.

The CO2 concentration data for the Mauna Loa Observatory is freely available from the Scripps Institute via the Web page:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2

The satellite temperature data for the Tropics zone is freely available from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, Dr Roy Spencer’s Web site at:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt

The CO2 concentration data for Macquarie Island is available at:    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/pub/data/current/co2/monthly/mqa554s00.csiro.as.fl.co2.nl.mo.dat

The above conclusion is totally at odds with the statements from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Policymakers Summary from Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific Assessment, 1990, being the, then, final Report of Working Group 1 of the IPCC, opened with the statement, page XI:

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We are certain of the following:

•  there is a natural greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be

• emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.” –  end quote.

After decades of research into the relationship between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature, the latest, Fifth Assessment Report, 2015, of the IPCC, the Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, page 8, made the claim:

“SPM 2.1    Key drivers of future climate

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. …….” –  end quote.

Here again is 38 years of empirical data, this time showing a distinct lack of a relationship between the satellite temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Figure 2. Mauna Loa Observatory

image

Figure 2 shows the monthly lower tropospheric satellite temperature for the Tropics-Land component in blue and the monthly CO2 concentration in red after removal of the seasonal variation so as to match the residual temperature series. The clear and obvious difference between the two raises the possibility that there may be no common causal factor whereby the CO2 concentration drives the temperature as claimed by the IPCC.

Calculation of the Ordinary Linear Regression between the two time series gave a correlation coefficient of 0.49 from the 454 monthly data pairs. This is a measure of the relationship between the background linear trend of each of the time series as shown by the almost identical correlation between the temperature and the time of 0.50. The correlation between the CO2 concentration and the time was 1.00, that is, the CO2 concentration time series was practically a linear trend as is the time. Any pair of linear trends, no matter what their source, will have a high correlation coefficient of about 1.0 which is necessarily of no causal significance as every time series has a background linear trend with respect to time.

Detrending of the time series in order to determine the statistical significance gave a correlation coefficient of  0.0015 with 452 degrees of freedom. However, the Durbin-Watson test of the time series gave a value of 2.40 which indicates negative autocorrelation. The autocorrelation was estimated to be -0.79. Applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the two transformed time series resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.002 with 451 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 0.047 implying a probability of 96% that the correlation coefficient is equal to zero from the two-sided t-test.

Once again the Macquarie Island data support this result. The Island is in the Southern Extension zone of the satellite lower tropospheric temperature data, latitudes 90̊ South to 20̊ South. Analysis of the temperature data for the complete zone and its Land and Ocean components with respect to the CO2 concentration showed that there was positive autoregression in each case requiring a First Order Autoregressive Model to be applied. The result for the whole zone was a correlation coefficient of -0.06, 296 deg. of free, t statistic -0.98, probability of zero correlation 33%. For the Land component, the correlation coefficient was -0.02, 296 deg. of free, t statistic -0.39, probability of zero correlation 70%. For the Ocean component, the correlation coefficient was -0.07, 296 deg. of free, t statistic -1.14, probability of zero correlation 26%.

The negative correlations imply that an increase in CO2 concentration caused a decrease in temperature, the complete opposite of the IPCC thesis. However as the probabilities were not statistically significant, this could not be supported and the conclusion must be that the correlation coefficients were zero in agreement with the Mauna Loa result.

In conclusion, this synthesis of empirical data reveals that increases in the CO2 concentration has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years across the Tropics-Land area of the Globe. However, the rate of change in CO2 concentration may have been influenced to a statistically significant degree by the temperature level. As the Tropics is the zone of greatest average temperature, it must consequently produce the greatest rate of increase in CO2 concentration causing that CO2 to spread North and South towards the Poles. This is supported by data from CO2 stations across the Globe whereby temperature events, such as El Nino, increasingly lead the matching CO2 event with increasing CO2 station latitude.

As the seasonal variation from photosynthesis can be as great as 20 ppm in amplitude, it is possible that the almost 2 ppm per annum increase in CO2 concentration over the past 38 years has arisen from biogenetic sources driven by the natural rise in temperature following the last ice age. The Tropics has the greatest profusion of life forms throughout the Globe, so this may be a feasible source for the increase in CO2 concentration for that period. That could include an increase in the population of soil microbes thereby increasing the fertility of the soil leading to the greening of the Earth as can now be seen in satellite imagery.  This is supported by an extensive study of global soil carbon which, quote: “provides strong empirical support for the idea that rising temperatures will stimulate the net loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere” end quote, Crowther et el 2016 [2].

Note that, as a consequence, the CO2 concentration will not fall until after the temperature falls below a critical value. This is predicted to be a surface temperature of zero degrees Centigrade at which point water freezes and is no longer available to support the continued regeneration of the biogenetic sources that create CO2. This may explain the large time lag between the long term temperature changes and the corresponding later changes in CO2 concentration seen in ice core records.

[1]    Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim, “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”, Global and Planetary Change 100 (2013) 51-69.

[2]    T.W. Crowther, et el, “Quatifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming” Nature, Vol. 540,                 104-108, 01


Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist.

formerly: Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists,

Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,

Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists,

Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists,

Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
463 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chimp
December 16, 2016 5:35 pm

This result comports well with the observation of a dramatically cooling earth from the 1940s to 1970s during an interval of relentlessly increasing CO2 levels.

Reply to  Chimp
December 16, 2016 7:50 pm

No it doesn’t. A cooling earth with this beautiful correlation, should have produced falling CO2 levels.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 8:26 pm

How so? The facts based on this graph demonstrates temperatures do not follow CO2 rises. And remember it is ONLY CO2 from human activities that drives climate change, so we are told.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 8:28 pm

The graph does not show the 1940s to 1970s, Nick. It’s like the riddle where you are asked if you invited your parents over and they are at the door, and you bought sugar, butter, and flour, to make cookies, which do you open first? And then you answer “the butter”, when you should have said, “The door.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 8:36 pm

Unless, as I suspect, it is easier for warming oceans to give up CO2 than it is for cooling oceans to absorb CO2.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 8:41 pm

Nick,
“Note that, as a consequence, the CO2 concentration will not fall until after the temperature falls below a critical value. This is predicted to be a surface temperature of zero degrees Centigrade at which point water freezes and is no longer available to support the continued regeneration of the biogenetic sources that create CO2.”

Chris
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 9:44 pm

“And remember it is ONLY CO2 from human activities that drives climate change, so we are told.”
Who said that?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 10:24 pm

” will not fall until after the temperature falls below a critical value. This is predicted to be a surface temperature of zero degrees Centigrade”
This makes no sense. Which temperature? Zero where?
But anyway, the alleged agreement had CO2 “relentlessly increasing” which the earth was “dramatically cooling”.

Paul Aubrin
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:06 am

Nick, what you say supposes that CO2 concentrations would essentially depend on temperatures. There is a visible correlation of Mauna Loa carbon dioxide concentration variations following northern hemisphere temperature variations with a 8 months delay.
Another interesting paper studied the correlation of the variations of CO2 concentrations in relation to human emission. It found no significant relations.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
” Abstract:
A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 2:33 am

Paul
“There is a visible correlation of Mauna Loa carbon dioxide “
There are two things going on. There is short term, where CO2 responds to changes in temperature via ocean outgassing and photosynthesis. That has a marked annual cycle. The short term variations have been going on forever, and balance out.
Then there is the slow effect of CO2 blocking outgoing IR. That causes accumulation of heat on a decades scale. The CO2 we have added is new.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 2:42 am

“Chris December 16, 2016 at 9:44 pm”
Climate scientists etc etc…

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 2:45 am

If we look at Figure 1, some peaks in CO2 are coinciding with temperature but in majority of the cases the CO2 peaks have no corresponding peaks in temperature but present flat pattern. See after 2000 upto 2005.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 9:24 am

Nick,
You said
“Then there is the slow effect of CO2 blocking outgoing IR. That causes accumulation of heat on a decades scale. The CO2 we have added is new.”
Why will heat accumulate over decades, instead of simply cause an acceleration of the flow of heat to the poles, and an increase in convective thunderstorms, both of which lead to it being lost into space?
If this assertion is correct, how to explain the drop in global temps from the 1940s to the 1970s, when CO2 was increasing, or during the past twenty years or so, when CO2 has increased faster than ever?
Saying a thing and believing it to be the case does not make it true.

Bartemis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 9:36 am

“No it doesn’t. A cooling earth with this beautiful correlation, should have produced falling CO2 levels.”
No, it should have produced a falling rate of change of CO2. And, it did.

Toneb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 10:00 am

Menicholas:
“Why will heat accumulate over decades, instead of simply cause an acceleration of the flow of heat to the poles, and an increase in convective thunderstorms, both of which lead to it being lost into space?”
So you want the ocean currents and convective input, jet streams, all winds in fact – to increase to do that?
Because that is what is needed to “cause an acceleration of the flow of heat to the poles”.
The tropics is developing a “hot-spot” whereby there is a -ve feedback to warming (any forcing of warming)
“If this assertion is correct, how to explain the drop in global temps from the 1940s to the 1970s, when CO2 was increasing, or during the past twenty years or so, when CO2 has increased faster than ever?
That was a period before the +ve forcing of GHG’s significantly outweighed the -ve ones of aerosol.
Vis “Global dimming”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif
The last 20 years has seen the GSMT suppressed by a prolonged spell of -vePDO/ENSO regime.
However ….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/scale:0.01/offset:-3.63
Shows it matches very well with the longer-term trend with the last 2 years having returned up to from the *pause*.
“Saying a thing and believing it to be the case does not make it true.”
It does if the evidence points to that conclusion within 95% conf limits.
It does.
What does not make it wrong is saying it’s wrong without equally strong evidence.
You know like we know that Einstein’s SR/GR is true …. until we have evidence it isn’t?

Menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 10:31 am

ToneB,
When i want trollish lies and sophistry, i shall be sure to address my question to you.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 10:43 am

“Why will heat accumulate over decades”
The constraint is to maintain the IR exit to space. Basically. CO2 is a hindrance in the path, so temperatures have to rise to overcome the hindrance. It isn’t just a one-time amount of heat that thunderstorms can get rid of.
We have globally a steady solar input, and yet all sorts of weather. Locally, there is a smooth annual insolation cycle, but again, the weather does not march in lockstep. The natural variation is not cancelled with CO2; CO2 just provides a trend, which the last century clearly shows. There seems to be increasing evidence (the recent Meehl/Santer paper is an example) that IPO type cycles make up a good part of that variation.

Menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 11:02 am

Most of the regulars here are well familiar with the null hypothesis, and who has the burden of proof when making the assertion that CO2 is the thermostat of the atmosphere.
Most are well aware that if there is a CO2 influence in temperature, it must be very low, and insignificant compared to preexisting fluctuations (i.e., What would be happening if there was no additional CO2 being added to the atmosphere).
Most are well aware that the GCMs have been falsified, and most every prediction and scary promise of future disastrous effects based on them has failed to materialize.
Plainly spoken, the people that believe CO2 is going to cause problems for human endeavors have been wrong about everything they have said would happen. In fact, about the only thing in politically motivated climate science that can be asserted with anything like 95% confidence is that whatever warmistas say will happen, will not happen, and most of the stuff they say has already happened is hogwash (Ocean acidification, accelerating sea level rise, unprecedented rates of warming, lowest polar ice in umpteen gazillion years, or just about everything bad to ever happen or be imagined, including these: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm ).
We are all still waiting for any warmista to respond the DB Stealey challenge: (I am not as eloquent or able to clearly enunciate the exact wording, but it is basically the following) Show us a direct measurement or experimental result which demonstrates the assertion that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere over time.

Menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 11:56 am

Nick,
“It isn’t just a one-time amount of heat that thunderstorms can get rid of.”
Of course I do not have to point out that thunderstorms are not a one time event. The hotter the atmosphere when the storms begin, the more energy is available and the more heat is transported to the upper atmosphere.
Heat in the atmosphere is displaced from the tropics to the poles over time, and from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Convection in general tends to counteract any increase in surface thermal energy, as it will become more vigorous and efficient at transporting energy when the surface warms. And the mechanisms that cause poleward movement of heat will transport more energy when there is more heat to move.
And then there are clouds…
But anyone making such a claim that higher CO2 will lead to ever higher temps must explain why it is that the ice core records show temp begins to decrease while CO2 is high and still rising, and that temps begin to increase when CO2 is low and still decreasing.
This pattern is direct evidence that CO2 does not control atmospheric temps.
Further compelling evidence lies in the long term geologic record, which shows no correlation between CO2 and temps, even when CO2 is ten times higher than it is now.
Of course, this entire conversation (over the past several decades) is mostly only interesting or important from the point of view of general knowledge. The whole idea that CO2 rising is bad and costs us all in the end is not only not proven, it was never addressed, and no one ever explained why anyone should disregard what has been known for a very long time…humans do very well on a warmer Earth, and fare poorly when it is colder on the Earth. This is proven by thousands of years of human history.
Hundreds and hundreds of millions of people live and thrive in the hottest regions of the Earth, and always have. A person can live indefinitely in the hottest locations on the planet completely naked, if that person has sufficient water. The biosphere explodes when temps are high, and does even better when CO2 increases.
Cold, on the other hand, kills everything graveyard dead. In the coldest locations and time periods on Earth, an unprotected person would be dead in minutes to at most a few hours. With highly specialized clothing, a person could survive these places for a day or two before perishing. To survive for any length of time, a person needs adequate shelter and a large store of food.
We live on a planet which is nowhere too hot for life to thrive, but which has enormously large areas of perpetually frozen and quickly fatal wasteland, and vastly more so which is equally fatally frigid on a seasonal basis.
We are in a rare and short window of interglacial warmth, which has allowed humanity to flourish. This interglacial could end at literally any time, given what we know about what causes these conditions.
Such a return to full blown glaciation will be a calamity of unimaginable horror, with billions likely to die…and yet we spend monumental amounts of time and money making up lies, corrupting on an institutionalized basis the scant real data we have managed to collect, and telling our children horror stories which rob them of happiness and truth…all based on the idea that a warmer world is a bad thing, and that we can and must control and prevent warming!
I know where I would rather be, and what the real catastrophe will or would be. Tell me why anyone should want more of this:comment image
http://image2.redbull.com/rbcom/010/2013-10-09/1331614928077_13/0010/1/1500/1000/13/polar-wasteland.jpg
http://goista.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-Antarctic-Peninsula-Anything-But-A-Wasteland.jpg
instead of more of this:
http://img.wallpaperlist.com/uploads/wallpaper/files/tro/tropical-island-wallpaper-1920×1080-530f3b1a15ae0.jpg
http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/travel_wallpapers/Tropical%20Paradise%20Wallpapers/images/kaneohe_fish_pond_oahu_hawaii.jpg
http://img.xcitefun.net/users/2011/07/257235,xcitefun-amazon-rainforest-3.jpg
?

Menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 11:59 am

Mods., can you check for a comment I posted which is awaiting moderation?
Thanks

george e. smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:43 pm

Well notice that it says “Rate of change” of Mauna Loa CO2 data. That’s a process generally known for greatly amplifying random noise in systems. Integration does the opposite and smooths out variations.
So we take the DERIVATIVE of the CO2 data at a SINGLE POINT (ML) and we compare that to the GLOBAL INTEGRAL of the entire satellite observable lower troposphere, and we CLAIM these two are RELATED.
What total bull shit (scientific term).
We now KNOW FOR SURE (from OCO-2) that globally COP2 is NOT well mixed to a degree where the derivative of the measurements at a SINGLE POINT would correlate with the NTEGRAL of a near complete GLOBALLY scanned average measurement.

Toneb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:45 pm

Menicholas:
ToneB,
When i want trollish lies and sophistry, i shall be sure to address my question to you.”
Yep that reply fits your MO all right , and pretty much par for the course on here.
The fact that I give science with links to same, matters not of course.
Merely that you disagree with it.
FYI: a troll is not someone who disagrees with you – it is someone who merely had-waves that for arguments sake
Oh, and if you genuinely do want to pose a climate/meteorology question to me – feel free.
I generally find though that that is the last thing most denizens here do.
They will get answers from science they do not agree with of course.

Menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 1:14 pm

Tone B
Get real.
For one thing, I only said you give responses that are troll-ISH. 🙂
I try to be precise.
For another, my question was addressed to a specific person.
Because I wanted to engage Mr. Stokes.
Perhaps you do not remember me, but I remember you.
I have never had a single productive conversation with you.
Global dimming? Feh! Not worthy of response. Up your game, me laddie.
Linking to Wikipedia on a climate subject?
Laughable.
Last twenty years of pause, while CO2 rise accelerates, explained away by bland reference to a natural oscillation?
Sorry, but not only did I stop keeping track of the explanations before the full sixty-some-odd separate and mutually exclusive lame excuses were invented, but I know enough to know that if a natural cycle can counteract rapidly rising CO2 concentration, there is nothing to worry about.
Read up on sophistry.
You aint the only one with an edumacation, ya-know?
A word of advice…there is a new sheriff in town, and you may want to start a move to getting real about the crap you spout.
You are a dedicated warmista, and the religion you espouse is about to become a dark stain on a resume.
Adapt accordingly.

Menicholas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 1:33 pm

Tone B,
Just another point, in case you did not notice you were doing it: Your position amount to saying that when temps are going up, it is because of increasing CO2, but if temps are going down or are flat, there are logical explanations based on natural cycles or events which explain those trend, but which are transient and will not matter in the future.
Oh, and the past two years (caused by a natural cycle which has not even completed its downward leg!) proves it was always CO2.
I have no idea how a seemingly smart person can delude his- or herself with such inane doubletalk.
Are you even dimly aware of how much information you are sealing off from your mind in order to maintain the cognitive dissonance that you are experiencing? (If you indeed believe what you say)

Chimp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 2:02 pm

Nick,
Nope. The cooling oceans did outgas less CO2, but the small reduction was more than compensated for by increased postwar human emissions. The fact that the rate of increase of CO2 sped up slightly after the PDO shift of 1977, without a corresponding increase in emissions, suggests that warmer oceans did contribute more to the total accumulation. But the slight temperature increase since 1977 probably owes more to clearer skies than to higher man-made CO2 levels.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 7:30 pm

I have to agree with Nick here. This is a terrible article, one of the worst ever posted at WUWT. Everyone knows short term seasonal variations in CO2 will follow temperature rises and falls. But long term, that’s not what’s happening, so it’s irrelevant. It says absolutely nothing about whether increasing CO2 can have a warming effect on the atmosphere one way or another.

Crakar24
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 1:28 am

And so we come to the fallacy that drives nick stokes the it trapped by co2 does not cause a build up of heat.
Once you have freed yourself of this falsehood all will become clear…….good luck letting go and witnessing the facts

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 4:33 am

Nick,
CO2 levels may very well have fallen during the mid-20th century cooling period…

The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.
[11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.
MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006), Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
The assertion of a 10-yr resolution is based on firn densification models. While 10-yr resolution is possible, the resolution of the DE08 core could be as coarse as 30 years. So, CO2 levels could have declined for more than a decade and not been resolved by the DE08 core.
From about 1940 through 1955, approximately 24 billion tons of carbon went straight from the exhaust pipes into the oceans and/or biosphere.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law19301970.png

Toneb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 6:26 am

Mencholas:
Just another point, in case you did not notice you were doing it: Your position amount to saying that when temps are going up, it is because of increasing CO2, but if temps are going down or are flat, there are logical explanations based on natural cycles or events which explain those trend, but which are transient and will not matter in the future.
Well, yes in essence, that is what I am saying, because it is what science is saying.
Really sorry you don’t like that.
The Earth is storing heat because less is escaping via LWIR than the Earth receives via SW from the Sun.
We know that via TOA measurement, and via quantification ( OHC ) of heat stored in the oceans (93% of climate heat). That imbalance did not stop during Monckton’s pause.
There is the rising trend of GHG driven warming that gets modulated by natural variation. Chief among them PDO/ENSO – the chief reason for the *pause* along with weaker forcing than was projected by the GCM’s.
So natural cycles do modulate GMST’s, but note the run of -ve PDO/ENSO regime should have cooled the atmosphere not merely arrested the warming.
Where’s the heat coming from then, if not held in by anthro CO2?
It is a core of this blog and others of it’s kind that it is ABCD
Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
It’s not the Sun, or undersea heating – all that’s left is “it’s not happening” or it’s CR’s and the clouds.
“Are you even dimly aware of how much information you are sealing off from your mind in order to maintain the cognitive dissonance that you are experiencing? (If you indeed believe what you say)”
Now that is funny …. pot calling the kettle.
Sorry to pull *authority* on you my friend but I worked for the UKMO in my professional life, having trained in science/engineering and never post here if unsure without first consulting the peer-reviewed science.
I come her to read what you call the *science* “I am shutting out of my mind”.
Can you say the same?
Do you read the IPCC science as reported in the likes of SkS?
Do you read the papers I or Nick or Griff or Leif link to?
Considering the IPCC AR’s are based on empirical science going back ~ 150 years and most of yours is mythical that comes around ad nauseum on here as though the IPCC “consensus” had not looked at it and dismissed it decades ago – makes your statement one that echos deep out of the rabbit-hole.
Just consider one expert here who you (no doubt) dismiss – as your type of *sceptic* has particular contempt for such experts – where would threads concerning “it’s the Sun stupid” end up were it not for his ( Lief Svalgaard)s input?
Another thing – I do not post on here to convince you or any other regular denizen who comes here merely to give hugs and kisses to the likes of Willis and Bob, and Ball etc. You are unreachable. It’s an ideological psychosis. And before you say mine is – can I say that I voted for Brexit and am in no way a *lefty*.
I come here because I know much of what I read is either post-truth, as in the squewed graph at the top here, or the Dragon-slaying “there’s no GHE” and “it’s only 0.04% of the atmosphere”
Ignorance should be denied. That’s my motivation.
Que outraged indignation.

Reply to  Toneb
December 18, 2016 7:49 am

When entering into debate over the causes of global warming one must be careful about usage of “science” as the word is polysemic and changes meaning in the midst of arguments ( http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ )

Reply to  Toneb
December 18, 2016 5:58 pm

“Sorry to pull *authority* on you my friend but I worked for the UKMO in my professional life”
Finest example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam I’ve ever seen in my life!
“Do you read the IPCC science as reported in the likes of SkS?
Do you read the papers I or Nick or Griff or Leif link to?”

You? SkS? Nick? Griff? Griff Griff? Strewth!
You’re having a laugh innit?
Oh yeah, we read them…
Heh, you’ll be wittering about Wikipedia next!

Chimp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 10:59 am

David Middleton
December 18, 2016 at 4:33 am
Thanks for that information.
I’ve wondered how reliable pCO2 estimates derived from ice cores can be.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 11:06 am

“CO2 levels may very well have fallen during the mid-20th century cooling period”
Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised. I was responding to Chimp who said they were “relentlessly increasing”. Cool water does retain more CO2.
But it looks more like a “pause”. And that’s the thing about Fig 1 here and Bart’s graphs. They show the CO2 rate wiggling with the temperature. But it wiggles about a mean of about +2 ppm/year. It’s that mean that is the anthro.
The Mauna Loa record from 1958 shows a pretty steady rise.

Chimp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 11:21 am

Nick,
Relentless postwar rise is what the Law Dome data show, as below. David’s link appears to differ from the conclusion drawn from these data (spelling corrected; “AD” should also precede rather than follow the year number):
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
“1,000 Years CO2 Data (papers: 1989-1997)
“Three ice cores drilled at Law Dome, East Antarctica from 1987 to 1993 resulted in atmospheric CO2 records from 1006 A.D. to 1978 A.D.
“The records extend into recent decades for which instrument measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels occurred. This was enabled because of the high rate of snow accumulation at the Law Dome drill sites. Scientists reported that the air enclosed in the three ice cores have unparalleled age resolution.
“Uncertainty in the data is 1.2 parts per million (ppm). Pre-industrial CO2 levels range from 275 to 284 ppm. Lower levels occurred between 1550 and 1800 A.D. These ice cores show major growth in atmospheric CO2 levels in the industrial period except 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly.”comment image
If these data are to be credited, the Depression and war slowed CO2 growth despite the generally warm WX in the interval 1935-45. If the paper cited by David be correct, then the stabilization continued into the early postwar period as well.

Kristian
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 10:18 pm

Nick Stokes said, December 17, 2016 at 2:33 am:

Then there is the slow effect of CO2 blocking outgoing IR. That causes accumulation of heat on a decades scale.

Not according to the AGW “hypothesis”, Nick. The slow, gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 is specifically NOT supposed to give rise to an “accumulation of heat on a decades scale”. Because it is all supposed to happen incrementally, and so as the extra increment of CO2 input reduces the outgoing IR a tiny bit, the temperature is forced to rise a tiny bit, and by that letting the Earth system rid itself of the energy that was initially held back, RESTORING THE HEAT BALANCE at each incremental step. The next increment of CO2 input arrives, forcing T to rise a tiny bit more, restoring the balance once again. And so on and so forth. What we will OBSERVE over time, then, is a stable radiative balance at the ToA (SW in = LW out) with NO net accumulation of energy (not “heat”, internal energy) in the Earth system, but with a steadily rising Earth system temperature all the same. How is this? Earth’s “effective radiating level” (ERL) is raised, not in giant leaps (as if the atmospheric CO2 content were doubled overnight), but slowly and gradually over time, maintaining a constant Earth T_e to space, but forcing the T_s to rise (via the lapse rate). THAT’S the postulated “greenhouse” warming mechanism, after all:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
And so, observing a positive radiation imbalance at the ToA is specifically NOT a sign of an “enhanced GHE”, but of something else. And this “something else” is of course – as the ToA radiation flux data shows us – an increase in ASR (“absorbed solar radiation”), the solar heat input to the Earth system:comment image
(ERBS and ISCCP FD; top: reflected SW; middle: OLR; bottom: net ToA radiation; tropics.)comment image
(ERBS (red) and ISCCP FD (black) vs. models (multicolours), reflected SW inverted (bottom) to show gain, plus scaled TSI (top), together making up the solar input (ASR) to the Earth system; near-global (60N-60S).)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 10:47 pm

Kristian,
” Because it is all supposed to happen incrementally, and so as the extra increment of CO2 input reduces the outgoing IR a tiny bit, the temperature is forced to rise a tiny bit, and by that letting the Earth system rid itself of the energy that was initially held back, RESTORING THE HEAT BALANCE at each incremental step.”
Yes, that’s all true. But there is an accumulation of heat, which flows into the oceans, rather slowly. That is what keeps radiation balance at TOA on the side of retaining heat. Less goes out than comes in; the balance goes into the ocean.

Kristian
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 19, 2016 7:07 am

Nick, you wrote:

”Because it is all supposed to happen incrementally, and so as the extra increment of CO2 input reduces the outgoing IR a tiny bit, the temperature is forced to rise a tiny bit, and by that letting the Earth system rid itself of the energy that was initially held back, RESTORING THE HEAT BALANCE at each incremental step.”
Yes, that’s all true.

So why did you claim the following?
“Then there is the slow effect of CO2 blocking outgoing IR. That causes accumulation of heat on a decades scale.”

But there is an accumulation of heat, which flows into the oceans, rather slowly. That is what keeps radiation balance at TOA on the side of retaining heat. Less goes out than comes in; the balance goes into the ocean.

Yes, and this ToA imbalance (and thus the net accumulation of energy inside the Earth system over time) is caused by an increase in the heat INPUT from the Sun, NOT by an “enhanced GHE”. As I showed you above 🙂

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 19, 2016 8:07 am

@Toneb

if you genuinely do want to pose a climate/meteorology question to me – feel free.

How can you seriously expect me to believe that climate sensitivity to CO2 GHG effect can be more than 1ºC per doubling of CO2? When your side have been wrong with all your speculation. When it might very well be only ½ºC per doubling of CO2, or less? Don’t you feel guilty for preferring speculation to science, for costing humanity trillions of dollars in unnecessary measures to replace working systems with “clean energy“? When this focus on CO2 as evil and pollutant means less energy for those in developing regions at a time they need more energy to improve their quality of life.
I hope you like my climate/meteorology questions.

Simon
Reply to  Chimp
December 17, 2016 5:25 am

Chimp
So what does this graph tell you?
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

rbabcock
Reply to  Simon
December 17, 2016 5:36 am

It tells me nothing because the temperature record has been so corrupted you can’t believe it.

Menicholas
Reply to  Simon
December 17, 2016 9:30 am

R Babcock,
Exactamundo!
But, the times they are a-changin’.

Menicholas
Reply to  Simon
December 17, 2016 9:42 am

Note that it has been clearly shown that the sum total of all the alterations to the historical climate data records matches the graph of atmospheric CO2, proving that the alterations are a fr@udulent effort to make the temperature records match the rise in CO2.
It is no surprise that if you change one set of numbers to match the trend in another set of numbers, that the trends in the two sets will match!
The data has now been tortured for so long, it is telling warmistas exactly what they want to hear.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-04-18-24.png
http://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/

Chimp
Reply to  Simon
December 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Simon,
It tells me that BEST is no better than the rest.
All the “surface data” sets are works of science fiction, if not fantasy.
“Climate science” isn’t science and isn’t about the climate.

Toneb
Reply to  Chimp
December 17, 2016 10:11 am

http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
“The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the Berkeley Earth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.”
“It tells me nothing because the temperature record has been so corrupted you can’t believe it.”
Well what to do when any and all evidence is corrupted and/or fraudulent?
I’d suggest figure out that by the balance of probability it isn’t maybe?

Chimp
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 12:59 pm

Toneb,
No probability involved. It’s a fact that all so-called surface data sets have been burned beyond recognition. The data’s own mothers wouldn’t know them.
“Climate science” is a thoroughly corrupt exercise, with no relationship to actual climatology.

DayHay
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 3:59 pm

Nice graph, what facts can be derived from it?
http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm
How many similar events, or even more warming, have happened over the Holocene?
How and why are the last 250 years of temperature concerning?

DayHay
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 4:00 pm

Better link for graph
http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg

tony mcleod
December 16, 2016 5:40 pm

As the seasonal variation from photosynthesis can be as great as 20 ppm in amplitude, it is possible that the almost 2 ppm per annum increase in CO2 concentration over the past 38 years has arisen from biogenetic sources driven by the natural rise in temperature following the last ice age.
Don’t think this can be supported by the evidence.

Chimp
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 16, 2016 5:46 pm

Biogenetic? I assume you and Bevan mean biogenic.
CO2 has increased monotonously for at least 71 years, not just 38. For most of that time, GASTA, to the extent that such a thing can be measured, has fallen or stayed flat.
Rising CO2 has been correlated with rapidly falling temperature, slightly rising and flat. CACA was born falsified.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Chimp
December 16, 2016 7:01 pm

Monotonously? I assume you mean monotonically
: > )

Reply to  Chimp
December 17, 2016 12:05 am

Personally, I liked monotonously better 🙂

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
December 17, 2016 1:26 pm

Juan,
That shows me!
But the alleged increase is monotonous as well as monotonic.
Which is in itself and interesting fact. If it is a fact. Since the rate of growth hasn’t changed much despite more people and industry since 1945, the carbon sinks must not be saturated yet, whatever and wherever they may be.

Robert from oz
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 16, 2016 8:24 pm

Evidence “Griff” really please show us some or piss off you troll !

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 16, 2016 8:28 pm

Not Griff, but tony has stated in another thread that CO2 “retains” heat.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 17, 2016 12:36 am

You’ve repeated that 5 times now Patrick.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 17, 2016 12:39 am

Did you actually read my question Robert or is your knee jerking?

Robert from oz
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 17, 2016 3:01 am

nuh knees jerking , but that just happens to be my bs alarm .
You claim it wasn’t supported by the evidence , but you fail to support that claim with evidence which was the crux of what I was trying to say .
So now we know you’re not Griff but just another time wasting troll with cranial rectal disorder !

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 17, 2016 5:32 pm

“tony mcleod December 17, 2016 at 12:36 am
You’ve repeated that 5 times now Patrick.”
Yep. The fact you stated CO2 “retains” heat demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about. You are the sort of scientifically illiterate person one of which once quoted to me that methane has, and I quote, “four carbons”…
If you can demonstrate CO2 actually does TRAP HEAT as you claim I will retract my statements, apologise and refrain from responding to your, quite frankly stupid, posts.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 17, 2016 6:23 pm

“You… once quoted to me that methane has, and I quote, “four carbons”…”
Patrick you are mistaken.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 17, 2016 8:06 pm

“tony mcleod December 17, 2016 at 6:23 pm
“You… once quoted to me that methane has, and I quote, “four carbons”…”
Patrick you are mistaken.”
Puhlease! I did not say you, I said some as scientifically illiterate as you.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 21, 2016 8:33 pm

Thank you! Skankhunt42, er, I mean Griff, is the troll of trolls!!!!

Donald Kasper
December 16, 2016 5:43 pm

Graphs overlapping time series have no meaning and does not show anything. You graph CO2 in the x-axis to your climate variable (say a database of temperature) in the y-axis, do a least squares fit, and get a correlation coefficient. That shows you the relationship of two things. These graphs are not science, they are Powerpoint slides. The actual correlation of CO2 to most databases of global mean temperature is about 0.34, which is random noise. That settle the correlation theory between them. There is no correlation.

Chimp
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 16, 2016 5:47 pm

Eggsactry!

Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 17, 2016 12:14 am

I think Figure 2. tells that story fairly well, but I was intrigued by the detailed discussion of the treatment of times series, autocorrelation and autoregression. I have no practical experience with those subjects myself so it was interesting.
But Figure 2. tells the story very simply I think. It’s the same story told by observing the relation between CO2 increase since 1998 and “the pause”, there isn’t one.
The real value added in this analysis, assuming it’s correct (which I shall endeavor to determine for myself) is that it shows CO2 trailing temperature, while Figure 2 provides no evidence of that. If so, it corroborates the ice core record, but using precision instruments. That is a very significant contribution in my opinion.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 17, 2016 12:53 am

The correlation looks a bit weaker at shorter time scales, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say there in no correlation.
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

observa
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 17, 2016 7:00 am

Can we have the thermometer used for all those years to check its accuracy? We’ll deal with the CO2 measuring instrument used in due course.

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 17, 2016 9:45 am

To Tony McLoud 12/1716 @ 12:53am
The scale used in your chart is inappropriate to show the actual CO2 – temperature relationship found with ice cores — so it is misleading.
In finer detail, using ice cores, the temperature peaks led the CO2 peaks by 500 to 1,000 years.
That is the only known relationship of CO2 and temperature with real data (data from outside a laboratory).
Based on the work of scientists who study real things (rather than playing climate computer games) Earth has had higher CO2 levels than today most of the time in the past 4.5 billion years.
There is no evidence of runaway warming from CO2 levels up to 10X or 20X the 400 ppmv level today.
The fact that we are here today debating tenths of a degree of average temperature is more evidence that there has never been runaway warming on our planet

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 17, 2016 6:39 pm

The vast majority of these “temperatures” antedate invention of the thermometer in the 17th century.

Stephen Greene
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 17, 2016 7:53 am

Unless you look at correlations of the changes made to raw data which correlate beautiful. In Webster’s this is now the definition of Conformational Bias!
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-04-18-24.png

D.I.
December 16, 2016 5:45 pm

Bevan Dockery, could you please tell us the Temp of 0.0 on your Graphs,
thanks in anticipation.

Reply to  D.I.
December 17, 2016 12:37 am

D.I., the values of temperature in both figures are shown as Zed (Z) Scores, where zero is the mean (average) value over the sample. Climatologists refer to it as the “anomaly”; it’s a measurement of variation around the mean used to normalize data that has no well defined zero and is common in regression modeling to make the data usable in applications that assume a normal distribution, such as Students T. The actual value of the mean (0) in that use is unimportant.

December 16, 2016 6:08 pm

Climate Change has been fully in the political and policy realm now going on 18+ years Science not needed. That is, since the IPCC and Mendacious Mann and co-conspirators felt the need to create the fake hockey stick. Now they can’t back out of a Trillion+ dollar lie.
The climate hustle is up though. Nature will now, over the next 7 years, show who really controls Earth’s climate.
The only honest climate science paradigm shift will involve the acceptance of the benefits to the biosphere (and thus mankind) of increased availability of the primary substrate element for all life on this rock.

Chimp
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2016 7:00 pm

Joel,
Well said.
For carbon-based lifeforms such as those of us on this third rock from our local star, more carbon is better.
This should be self-evident. But for the educated idiots of CACA, apparently not. And by calling them idiots, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.
More likely is that they’re not idiots but Manndacious criminals, with the blood of millions and theft of trillions on their larcenous, murderous hands. Long may they swing.

Reply to  Chimp
December 16, 2016 7:39 pm

+30 dB above background.

Editor
Reply to  Chimp
December 18, 2016 12:30 am

They are the ones who call us idiots, amongst many other things, but we are generally more polite and professional than that. Name calling seldom adds to the understanding of anything and it never really changes opinion.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2016 8:18 pm

As far as our debate with the leftists on climate I made this comment at Real Science:
It turns out that the oil industry is stock full of wacky climate alarmists. That’s ironic as up to this day the leftists first try to discredit climate skeptics by tying them to “big oil.”
But oil companies BENEFIT from the climate idiocy.
Yes, because it kills coal, and oil is substituted.
Again, the major point relevant to our debate is that when they try to discredit us because of an alleged oil connection we can throw back in their face “OIL BENEFITS FROM THE CLIMATE SCAM! Like the Paris Accord!”
I’m all for maximum oil production. But, as far as Rex Tillerson, IMO we don’t need a climate change pushing oilman as Sec of State responsible for our global agreements like the Paris Accord. No thanks!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 16, 2016 8:24 pm

Assuming my last comment big oil & AGW gets through moderation I would add this:
On Rex Tillerson’s leftist positions on climate change:
Two days after Trump’s election Exxon tweeted “The Paris agreement is an important step forward by governments in addressing the serious risks of #ClimateChange.” TIllerson signed off on that:
Stabbed In The Back! ExxonMobil Throws Shade At US Coal Industry: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/11/11/stabbed-back-exxonmobil-throws-shade-us-coal-industry/
Rex Tillerson Oct 2016: “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious. Addressing these risks requires broad-based, practical solutions around the world. Importantly, as a result of the Paris agreement, both developed and developing countries are now working together to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442995/rex-tillerson-carbon-tax-backing-climate-change-believer
All I ask is that we get some clarification from Tillerson or Trump because if as Sec of State he’s going to push the Paris Accord we might as well just stick with Kerry as SoS.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 16, 2016 8:49 pm

Eric,
First, not the topic of this thread.
Second, neither Trump nor Tillerson are going to read your post and clarify anything for you here.
Third, a Republican President is not going to keep a Democrat Secretary of State, especially one as inept as Kerry.
Fourth, the President is never going to please everyone no matter who he picks. And he doesn’t have to. Get over it.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 16, 2016 9:00 pm

Aphan It was relevant to my previous post that was a reply to Joel. But that post is apparently stuck in moderation, though for some reason it may be lost in spam.
Also, I think you could realize that my point of “we might as well stick with Kerry as SoS” was satirical, if that’s the right word. It’s wasn’t quite serious, but rhetorical to make a point.
Plus, you said that Trump nor Tillerson will not read this: how do you know? I hear that Trump reads WUWT. More importantly, if you understand how the blogisphere works, I’m just one commenter out of potentially thousands that echo each other and eventually the word DOES get through to the relevant political figures.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 17, 2016 12:26 am

Trump could partially satisfy Tillerson by submitting the treaty to the senate, but without his endorsement.

Menicholas
Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 17, 2016 12:06 pm

Not to worry…I have solid information that Trump knows how to fire people who are not onboard with his plans.

Latitude
December 16, 2016 6:10 pm

Might be time to rethink this…comment image

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Latitude
December 17, 2016 3:18 pm

I don’t know about that. Playing devil’s advocate, shouldn’t the detrended CO2 increses have been compared to ( insolation new/insolation old) to the 1/4 power since temperature is proportional to the fourth root of radiation?
Assuming a 20 ppm increase in CO2 over 10 years,
with an original average surface wattage of 390.7 per square meter, using Trenberth’s figures, a 10 year increase in wattage to 2.94 l0g(420/400) = an increase of 0.0623 watts over that 10 years, and a temperature increase from 288 K to (288 K)*(390.7623/390.7)^0.25
for a temperature increase over that 10 years to 288.0115.
The relationship between CO2 and temperature may well be real, but too small to measure once you consider that wattage increases from CO2 increases are proportional to the logarithm of the change, and temperature is proportional to the fourth root of ( old wattage plus wattage change;/old wattage.
That 233.6 second figure is obviously wrong. It should be replaced by 390.7 or maybe 490.7 once the latent heat of convection and evaporation is taken into consideration.
The Stefan-Boltzman relation gives
T = 64.77867 W^0.25. From elementary calculus, the derivative of that
equation will give you the sensitivity.
dT/dW = 64.77867* 1/4 * (W^(-3/4)) = 64.77867*1/4 * (1/(W^0.75)).
To get that 1.2 C, a graybody earth the same as now is assumed, with an albedo of about 0.3,
giving
1/4* T/((1-0.3)*1366 watts) giving 239 watts/square meter. I don’t think the accepted calculation is WRONG, but I think it’s calculating the wrong thing- the net effetc of an additional 3.7 watts from the sun magnified by the greenhouse effect. In actuality, the output from the sun is not changing with an increase in greenhouse gases, it is the surface albedo, which would change by maybe, using Trenberth’s figures, from 0.3 to 0.3*(394.4/390.7)), for a doubling of CO2, or to 0.30285.
That would imply an increase in surface temperatures 0f 0.7 C, less than that if latent heat of convection and conduction increased proportionally to the increase in wattage.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Alan McIntire
December 18, 2016 7:05 am

correcton, not that anybody evidently cares. Per IPCC figures, 5.35 rather than 2.04 should be used, erroneously computed log base 10 rather than ln,
Assuming a 20 ppm increase in CO2 over 10 years,
with an original average surface wattage of 390.7 per square meter, using Trenberth’s figures, a 10 year increase in wattage to 5.35 LN(420/400) = an increase of 0.261 watts over that 10 years, and a temperature increase from 288 K to (288 K)*(390.961/390.7)^0.25
for a temperature increase over that 10 years to 288.000166 K, still insignificant.

Reply to  Alan McIntire
December 19, 2016 9:35 am

So you model a climate sensitivity for CO2 doubling = 0.375ºC. What does Trenberth have to say about that? Or do they not speak to you. Are you persona non grata too.

Duncan
December 16, 2016 6:23 pm

I do not like the second graph. If one changed the temperature scale say from -1 to +1. The scale would show correlation as the temperature rise slope would be of similar (steeper) magnitude to that of the CO2 slope. We’ve been warned here on WUWT of similar games played by the warmists. If you disagree, I am all ears. I think it is faulty.comment image

DWR54
Reply to  Duncan
December 16, 2016 10:07 pm

“If one changed the temperature scale say from -1 to +1. The scale would show correlation as the temperature rise slope would be of similar (steeper) magnitude to that of the CO2 slope.”
______________________
Exactly. Also, why select the land-only component of one particular region of lower troposphere temperatures to compare against the global component of CO?
I went to WoodForTrees and selected UAH v6, which is a global lower troposphere temperature series and compared it to global CO2 emissions from the same source as the head article. Like the author in the head article I also smoothed both by 12 months to cancel out the seasonal CO2 trend. I also ‘nomalised’ both so that the chart could showed them against a comparable scale. This what I got: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/normalise/plot/uah6-land/from:1979/trend:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/normalise
A very close correlation over time between global CO2 emissions and global temperatures in the lower troposphere, as determined by UAH.
You can play with the figures yourself here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/normalise/plot/uah6-land/from:1979/trend:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/normalise

Hugs
Reply to  Duncan
December 16, 2016 11:49 pm

+1
The scale above is arbitrary and misleading even if not lying by omission. Warmists already do that.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Duncan
December 17, 2016 12:51 am

silly stuff keep the gradients in line and we can all make a judgement.
Its stilll possible that the lines depart or show a different relationship not interested in what looks like a smear.
Duncan is on to it.

Toneb
Reply to  Duncan
December 17, 2016 3:58 am

“I do not like the second graph. If one changed the temperature scale say from -1 to +1. The scale would show correlation as the temperature rise slope would be of similar (steeper) magnitude to that of the CO2 slope. We’ve been warned here on WUWT of similar games played by the warmists. If you disagree, I am all ears. I think it is faulty”
Yes you need to choose the scale that fits with the whole record….comment imagecomment image

Duncan
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 6:22 am

“Yes you need to choose the scale that fits with the whole record….”
That is the problem, who gets to “choose”. Hockey Stick Mann? That is the false fallacy I am speaking of. With the right scale and smoothing one could prove the increase of taco restaurants in the USA and temperature increase are correlated.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 7:39 am

Your first graph compares absolute ppm CO2 against a temperature anomaly with a specific base period and a scale of 10ths of a degree. I suppose anyone could change either of those and produce a totally different graph that would be to their liking.

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 8:09 am

“That is the problem, who gets to “choose”. Hockey Stick Mann? That is the false fallacy I am speaking of. With the right scale and smoothing one could prove the increase of taco restaurants in the USA and temperature increase are correlated.”
No it wouldn’t.
Take any up-to-date global temp record you want and plot it against CO2 concentration, such that the scales are maximised to depict equal slopes (eg a flat one where temps were stable prior 1800).
NOT – as the OP has done to minimise it and hide the fact that if a longer period were shown it would be evident that the y-axis was stretched on the CO2 graph.
“Your first graph compares absolute ppm CO2 against a temperature anomaly with a specific base period and a scale of 10ths of a degree. I suppose anyone could change either of those and produce a totally different graph that would be to their liking.”
Not and get the same slopes.
You have to maximise the likeness to see it.
That is not fraudulent.
It simply scales temp response to CO2 concentration.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 8:38 am

It’s not tacos causing the warming, not CO2 nor cow farts.. It is leprechauns
https://postimg.org/image/6zknzc5el/

Bartemis
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 9:48 am

What you are showing is a mere vague resemblance, but the dips and crests do not match at all. All it shows is the two series moving in the same general direction, which is a 50/50 coin toss.
When you get everything matching up, in every nook and cranny, then you have something. And, that is what we have with the temperature and rate of change of CO2.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/nopause_zpscjndrosf.png

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 9:51 am

Toneb December 17, 2016 at 8:09 am
Tom in Florida said: “Your first graph compares absolute ppm CO2 against a temperature anomaly with a specific base period and a scale of 10ths of a degree. I suppose anyone could change either of those and produce a totally different graph that would be to their liking.”
Your reply: “Not and get the same slopes.”
But isn’t that the problem? If you changed your temperature anomaly base period to 1980-2010 and keep everything else the same, are you saying the slope of that change would be the same?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Toneb
December 17, 2016 4:13 pm

In the first graph, the blue does not represent temperatures prior to 100 years before present. That is part of Mann’s Trick (I would never patch proxies to thermometers). Those are proxies based on a a single tree (Bristlecone Pine) which are not true readings = faulty graph.

O R
Reply to  Duncan
December 17, 2016 4:27 am
Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 17, 2016 9:51 am

Useless. If you plotted it against the stock market index, you would find just as great a correlation. All it tells you is they are both moving up.
Try matching every up and down movement as well as the trend, as I show above with temperature anomaly and CO2 rate of change. Now that’s a meaningful correlation!

Chimp
Reply to  O R
December 17, 2016 1:36 pm

If you plotted CO2 against temperature from 1940 to 1977, the two trend lines would not only not correlate, but move in different directions. While CO2 was rising, GASTA would be falling.
Similarly, if you plotted only from 1998 to present, CO2 would be rising while GASTA at best was flat.
So there is no correlation, except accidentally between c. 1977 and 1997.

O R
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 12:35 am

Yes, there are natural variations superimposed on the CO2-driven global warming signal. If you smooth them it looks like this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.0065/offset:-2.09

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 8:57 am

Utterly meaningless.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 9:33 am

Bart, here is the problem with your correlation between CO2 and T: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-300/trend/plot/esrl-co2/derivative
.
.
You see, the derivative removes the trend in CO2.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 10:02 am

So what? When you integrate the derivative, you retrieve the original series.
It is not the trend in CO2 that nails temperature as the driving agent. It is the trend in dCO2/dt, which is the same as the trend in the temperature series scaled to match the variation.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/trend

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 10:32 am

Bart all your relationship shows is that the NOISE in the CO2 signal is correlated with the temperature ANOMALY nothing else. Being that it is a mere correlation, there is no indication which variable is independent and which is dependent.

Reply to  gallopingcamel
December 20, 2016 8:27 am

gallopingcamel:
To refer to the CO2 times series as a “signal” is a mistake that results from application of terms and ideas from telecommunications to a problem in systems control. For telecommunications, the “signal” comes from the past with the result that it can travel at sub-luminal speed. For systems control, the “signal” would have to come from the future with the result that it would have to travel at super-luminal speed but the latter is impossible under relativity theory. Thus, for systems control the signal power and noise power are both nil.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 10:42 am

Bart says: “you retrieve the original series.”

No, actually you do not, because when you integrate the constant of integration is arbitrary Do you remember Calc 101 ?

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 10:57 am

The variability is not “noise”, but yes, it is highly correlated between the series. So is the trend. When you scale the data to match the variability in T and dCO2/dt, you also match the long term trend (see the above link).
The argument is thereby not dependent on any assumed integration constant, or any bias offset in dCO2/dt integrating into a trend. It is based on the match between A) the variability and B) the long term trend in dCO2/dt, which integrates into a quadratic term in total CO2. Both of these components are matched by a single scaling constant. The odds of that happening by happenstance are essentially nil.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 11:10 am

Bart:
.
1) You are using SH data and not global data.
.
2) You lose the absolute level of concentration of CO2 when you integrate the derivative. That’s why the constant is call ARBITRARY
..
3) You say: “The odds of that happening by happenstance are essentially nil.” and I say your correlation doesn’t prove causation. So in essence, your relationship does not tell us which variable is independent, and which is dependent. Matching two wiggly lines provides no evidence of causality.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 12:15 pm

1) The SH data matches the satellite data best in the period of overlap, and the satellite data fit the model very, very well.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/offset:0.6/scale:0.22
The satellite data are more globally comprehensive, and not subject to the “adjustments” that have rendered the surface data suspect.
2) Doesn’t matter, as I am not hanging my hat on any arbitrary constants, but on the match of the long term trend in dCO2/dt with the trend in temperature anomaly, when the temperature anomaly is scaled to match the variation.
3) We know the direction of causality because the notion that temperature is driven by the rate of change of CO2 is absurd. Were that the case, we could see CO2 rise rapidly to very high concentration, but once it stopped, temperatures would revert to their initial values. Clearly, then, it is temperature that drives the rate of change of CO2, and not the reverse.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 12:34 pm

Bart says: “We know the direction of causality” No we do not. You commit the fallacy of a false dilemma in assuming only CO2 an T are involved in the correlation. You say one side of the coin is “absurd” therefore the other side is the only alternative. There could be a third, fourth or many other factors “causing” your wiggly lines to match up .
….
You claim that ” the notion that temperature is driven by the rate of change of CO2 is absurd.” However you are not comparing temperature to the rate of change of CO2. You are comparing the temperature anomaly with the rate of change of CO2, so please address how that is “absurd.”

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 12:49 pm

Fine, if you want to split hairs:
3) We know the direction of causality because the notion that temperature anomaly is driven by the rate of change of CO2 is absurd. Were that the case, we could see CO2 rise rapidly to very high concentration, but once it stopped, temperature anomaly would revert to its initial value. Clearly, then, it is temperature anomaly that drives the rate of change of CO2, and not the reverse.
As for a separate process producing both, unlikely, but it does not matter. Either way, humans are not the major driving force.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 12:55 pm

Bart says: “unlikely, but it does not matter. Either way, humans are not the major driving force.”

Hand waving extraordinaire.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 1:05 pm

It is straightforward logic. The relationship is simply incompatible with humans being the driving force.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 1:39 pm

Stop calling your “correlation” a “relationship.”

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 1:43 pm

Also Bart, because since your entire claim is a simple correlation, which does not show causation, you cannot logically exclude human influences.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 1:49 pm

Yes, I can. I’ve done my best to explain why. Keep watching as events unfold.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 2:36 pm

Bart says: “I’ve done my best to explain why.” Your “best” is a dismal failure. You have provided a correlation as evidence of causation. You’ committed the fallacy of false dilemma, demonstrated a lack of understanding the constant of integration, and waved your hands a lot.
.
Radiative physics offers a much more plausible causative explanation, and has evidence to support it. All you have is a couple of squiggly lines that appear to correlate.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:00 pm

Sorry, no. Radiative physics suggests that temperatures might depend on absolute concentration of CO2. It does not say there is a temperature dependence on the rate of change of CO2. That would lead to absurd inferences.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:11 pm

Bart, your correlation doesn’t explain anything. Radiative physics explains rising temperatures. Since you offer no explanation for what is actually happening in the physical world , your correlation has no value. In order to have value, you need to show a causative relationship. Try doing real science for a change.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:13 pm

For example Bart, your correlation could be explained with a third factor, namely volcanoes. They emit both CO2 and add heat energy via the liquid lava they expel. They could be the causative explanation for the correlation of your wiggly lines.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:17 pm

Again, sorry, no. The hypothesis of Earthly temperatures increasing as a function of increasing CO2 concentration does not explain why the rate of change of CO2 is proportional to temperature anomaly. You can’t square that circle.
I have offered explanations for what is happening in the real world. Scroll through the comments to find them.
And now, if you’re finished with your petty, childish insults, can we move on?

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:24 pm

I have read all of your “explanations” and I have read all of Englebeen’s rebuttals. You lose, Ferdinand wins.

Janice Moore
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:32 pm

GallopingC: You may have “read” Bartemis’ comments, but you CLEARLY have not understood them. Your own mouth condemns you,

…need to show a causative relationship…

(GC)
For all Mr. Engelbeen’s efforts (and I am not demeaning him as a scientist, per se), he has NEVER proven causation. He has a guess. That is all.
For me, and Allan MacRae and many others, Bartemis “wins,” for his argument is based on accurate, real world observation-based, data processing analysis.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 19, 2016 11:02 pm

Janice Moore:
Mr. Engelbeen states that “empirical data conclusively reveals that CO2 has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years.” How from empirical data can Mr. Engelbeen know that CO2 has not caused this temperature change. There is no way in which Engelbeen can know this as information required for him to know this is missing.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:33 pm

I will let history be the judge. The ultimate outcome really is not in doubt. This is actually a very simple and obvious problem.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:35 pm

Bart, if you think that someone pointing out your logical fallacies, your misconception of integration, and the uselessness of your correlating the noise of two signals as “petty and childish” I feel sorry for you. Your poor little ego will be crushed if you even attempt to get a paper past peer review.

1sky1
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:36 pm

Actually, it’s not just the high correlation (or, more incisively, cross-spectral coherence) between yearly average delta CO2 and yearly temperature anomalies that points to the latter as the driver of the former. It’s the behavior of the cross-spectral phase, which shows that variations of CO2 concentration invariably LAG variations of T at frequencies of high coherence. (Unfortunately, contractual commitments prevent me from showing the actual cross-spectral results here.)
BTW, the “constant of integration” for delta CO2 is determined by the FIRST value of CO2 concentration and the actual temperature is simply the sum of the anomalies and the constant mean over the entire record. Objections of “arbitrariness” of data treatment thus are empty.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:38 pm

Janice, all Bart has shown is a correlation. He has not shown causation. You know full well that correlation is different than causation.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:42 pm

1sky1, ΔCO2 and dCO2 are mathematically different things, and your choice of the constant being the FIRST value is ARBITRARY

1sky1
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:51 pm

The notion that dCO2, rather than delta CO2, is at issue when dealing with digital time-series gallops far away from the manger of reality. ANY such original series can be reconstructed EXACTLY by progressively adding the partial sum of first differences to the KNOWN first value.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 4:54 pm

No, GC. It is unique to match the integrated result with the original series.You were never scoring points in this regard, and you need to stop digging.

gallopingcamel
Reply to  O R
December 19, 2016 5:04 pm

1sky1, direct your comments to Bart, as he does not talk about ΔCO2 at all.
..
Look at his comments December 19, 2016 at 10:02 am, December 19, 2016 at 10:57 am, December 18, 2016 at 11:43 am, etc……

He never talks about ΔCO2, he’s talking about dCO2

Reply to  O R
December 20, 2016 7:26 am

Bartemis:
We know the direction of causality because the notion that temperature anomaly is driven by the rate of change of CO2 is absurd.
All what you have proven is that there is a correlation between the variability of the temperature anomaly and the variability in CO2 rate of change, but that says next to nothing about the cause of the slope, because the variability and slope are proven caused by different processes.
Moreover by comparing temperature with the CO2 rate of change, you are comparing apples with oranges, as you have largely removed the origin of the slope in the CO2 rate of change: human emissions, which increased slightly quadratic over time, which gives a straight line in the derivative…
We know the direction of causality because the notion that human CO2 emissions are driven by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is absurd.

Reply to  O R
December 20, 2016 8:48 am

Terry Oldberg,
Mr. Engelbeen states that “empirical data conclusively reveals that CO2 has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years.”
I never said or implied that. Empirical data do reveal that temperature can not have caused the current increase of CO2 and that humans are to blame for the bulk of the increase. That is what I said and implied…
That is supported by all available observations:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
That humans are the cause of the CO2 increase doesn’t imply that there will be a catastrophic increase in temperature. In my opinion only a largely benign increase which together with the increase in CO2 will be beneficial for plants all over the globe…

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 20, 2016 10:14 am

“…because the variability and slope are proven caused by different processes.”
They aren’t.
“…as you have largely removed the origin of the slope in the CO2 rate of change…”
The trend is clearly visible, and it matches the slope in temperature. Human emissions are not needed to provide the trend. It follows that including them in is an unnecessary complication, and a violation of Occam’s Razor.

Janice Moore
Reply to  O R
December 20, 2016 10:35 am

Dear Mr. 0ldberg,
You (unintentionlly, I realize) mistakenly attribute a quote by Mr. Dockery, the above article’s author, to Mr. Engelbeen. Lol, no wonder he made sure to pipe up! Heh. Mr. Engelbeen claims almost the exact opposite! 🙂
Re: proximate cause — it CAN be shown to be at least highly likely, i.e., not overwhelmed by another, controlling, driver.
Human CO2 emissions have NEVER been proven even “likely,” much less “highly likely” to cause a general rise in the surface temperature of the earth. It is all just a big guess (and there is anti-correlation data, now….). That CO2 has not been *conclusively* proven to lag temperature does not detract from the fact that there is much observation-based data (ice cores — with the damping equation applied) making the assertion that total atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle a rational conclusion .
I think you and I largely agree, thus, some of what I wrote above was not so much directed at you as in making sure that what you wrote does not mislead someone trying to learn, here.
Thanks for taking the time to both inform and to affirm me above.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
and HAPPY CHANUKAH!
Janice

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 20, 2016 11:41 am

Thank you for correcting my error.

Reply to  O R
December 20, 2016 10:40 am

Bartemis:
“…because the variability and slope are proven caused by different processes.”
They aren’t.

Bart, if you don’t accept any observation, then it is a fruitless discussion. If there is anything sure in climate science , it is that more CO2 uptake by plants increases the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and reverse. Thus if CO2 and δ13C change in opposite direction, plants are the main reactant.
If you have another explanation based on the literature, I am all ear.
On the other hand, the slope of dCO2/dt is NOT caused by vegetation, as that is a small, but increasing sink for CO2 over longer periods, proven by the oxygen balance and chlorophyl measurements: the earth is greening..
“…as you have largely removed the origin of the slope in the CO2 rate of change…”
The trend is clearly visible, and it matches the slope in temperature. Human emissions are not needed to provide the trend. It follows that including them in is an unnecessary complication, and a violation of Occam’s Razor.

The trend is clearly visible, as good as the trend in human emissions: about twice the trend of the CO2 increase. Occam’s Razor (and every observation) points to human emissions as cause, hardly any place for temperature…

1sky1
Reply to  O R
December 20, 2016 2:31 pm

It’s a strange Occam’s razor that totally ignores the empirically manifest cross-spectral phase between delta CO2 (which is what Bartemis is really talking about) and T in order to maintain the AGW narrative.

Bartemis
Reply to  O R
December 20, 2016 4:23 pm

“Bart, if you don’t accept any observation, then it is a fruitless discussion.”
It’s not the observations I don’t accept. It is your flimsy rationalization of what the observations mean.
“If there is anything sure in climate science , it is that more CO2 uptake by plants increases the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and reverse. Thus if CO2 and δ13C change in opposite direction, plants are the main reactant.”
The second sentence does not follow from the first. It is like saying:
“If there is one thing sure in medical science, it is that viruses cause colds and colds are caused by viruses. Therefore, if you have a viral infection, you have a cold.”

Reply to  O R
December 21, 2016 12:32 pm

1sky1,
It’s a strange Occam’s razor that totally ignores the empirically manifest cross-spectral phase between delta CO2 (which is what Bartemis is really talking about) and T in order to maintain the AGW narrative.
Not that strange: I am from the old engineering school, which was looking at the whole picture, not (only) at spectral analysis which nowadays explains “everything”.
Look at the total picture for the Mauna Loa period:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
There is a lot of variability in temperature, but that hardly shows up in the CO2 increase. The near perfect ratio between total human emissions and increase in the atmosphere is obvious. Between temperature and CO2 may be somewhat parallel, but with periods where there is an opposite relationship.
Now, what has Bart done: he compares the temperature with the CO2 rate of change. That is the largely detrended CO2 increase, thus he simply removed most of the increase to show that the more or less linear trend of temperature matches with the residual linear trend of the CO2 rate of change. That the latter is linear is the result of the slightly quadratic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, obviously caused by the steady increasing accumulated human emissions. Thus Bart has effectively removed most of the cause of the CO2 increase in his comparison…
Moreover, CO2 levels go up and down with temperature with a lag, which can be seen if you enlarge the trend for both: some +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 70 ppmv trend for the extremes. That is all influence of the temperature variability and that zeroes out after 1-3 years.
Thus in fact you must compare T with CO2 and dT/dt with dCO2/dt. The latter is here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_der.jpg
Which makes it clear that the derivative of T has exactly the same waveform as T, but 90 degr. shifted back in time. And more important: zero slope, there is zero influence of dT/dt on the slope of dCO2/dt, only a very small offset from zero. The match of the slopes between T and dCO2/dt is completely spurious.
Why doesn’t spectral analyses give you the right answer in this case? The problem is that human emissions are all slope and very little variability, while temperature is all variability and little slope. With spectral analysis you overfocus on the variability, which in this case is not important at all for the cause of the increase…

Reply to  O R
December 21, 2016 12:45 pm

Bartemis,
It’s not the observations I don’t accept. It is your flimsy rationalization of what the observations mean.
Bart, if you add CO2 from the oceans to the current atmosphere, then the δ13C ratio goes up. If you add CO2 from decaying vegetation, then the δ13C ratio goes down. Reverse if CO2 is absorbed by oceans or vegetation.
There is no rationalization which can change that.
The second sentence does not follow from the first.
Just handwaving without any base in isotope chemistry…

1sky1
Reply to  O R
December 21, 2016 4:55 pm

Ferdinand:
Coming from the old school of geophysical analysis, I recognize several
things that others may not:
1) The available length of record doesn’t necessarily determine any
underlying secular trend. The visual appearance of such may the result of
oscillatory signal components much longer in Fourier periodicities than the
record.
2) While spectrum analysis is by no means a panacea, it provides the most
general way of exploring the signal composition. It’s certainly far more
incisive and less limited than the primitive assumption of linear trend
plus random variability widely taught to undergraduates.
3) Non-specialists almost invariably miscomprehend the foregoing truths,
the proper methods of analysis and the potential insights provided thereby.
It’s a mistake to characterize the general effect of first-differencing as
preserving “exactly the same waveform,” while shifting the phase by a
quarter cycle. The actual transfer function is 1 – exp(iNOM), where NOM is
the normalized radian frequency, constrained to the baseband interval [-pi ,
pi]. See:
http://paloalto.unileon.es/ts/first/chapters/5fir/demos/tinvprop/fr1std.htm
It’s not really necessary–or practically possible in the strict differerntial sense that you write–to “compare T with CO2 and dT/dt with dCO2/dt.” Nor is it “the match of the slopes between T and dCO2/dt,” but the cross-spectral coherence that is of critical importance. And on that aspect of relationship between two time series, proper cross-spectrum analysis does not fail to give the right answer in any case, as you aver.
Unlike Bart’s take on the issue, it’s on the basis of the cross-spectral phase relationship between Keeling’s Mauna Loa CO2 series and a thoroughly vetted estimate of global average temperature that I dismiss CO2 as the potential driver of low-frequency variations (what you call trend)in temperature since the middle of the last century.

Reply to  O R
December 22, 2016 11:28 am

1sky1,
I agree that it is impossible to detect a secular trend in CO2, IF that was caused by temperature, as the time period since Mauan Loa is too short.
If we can agree that ice cores are of sufficient accuracy, then Bart’s theory has a huge problem. The overall CO2/T ratio over the past 800,000 years is ~16 ppmv/K, where CO2 follows T with a variable lag: ~800 years during warming towards an interglacial and several thousands during cooling after an interglacial.
On shorter time periods, the ratio is ~5 ppmv/K (seasonal), 4-5 ppmv/K (Pinatubo, ENSO), 8 ppmv/K (MWP-LIA) and now suddenly over the past 165 years >100 ppmv/K, while humans emitted over 200 ppmv in the same time span…
The resolution of all ice cores is good enough to detect such a “spike” in the record, be it with a lower amplitude for the worst resolutions, which span the longest period.
Some more theoretical and real life comment of mine at:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/
It gets interesting from chapter 2.4 onwards…
With spectral analysis you have proven that dT/dt variability is the main driver for dCO2/dt variability, but as there is no slope in dT/dt, it is not responsible for the slope of dCO2/dt over time and only responsible for a small part of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, that is the above 4-16 ppmv/K, or about 10 ppmv of the 70 ppmv increase in the past 57 years…
Keeling’s Mauna Loa CO2 series and a thoroughly vetted estimate of global average temperature that I dismiss CO2 as the potential driver of low-frequency variations (what you call trend)in temperature since the middle of the last century.
As the time span since Mauna Loa is too short, you can’t conclude that CO2 has no influence on temperature. Anyway, I agree that the influence of CO2 on temperature is small.
My main point is reverse: the small temperature increase since Mauna Loa (or even since the LIA) can’t be the main driver of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, only the main driver of the variability around the increase…

1sky1
Reply to  O R
December 22, 2016 5:25 pm

Ferdinand:
Not quite correct! What my cross-spectrum analysis shows is that temperature [sic!] variations are the driver of delta CO2 variations across a wide range of frequencies, including the multidecadal. This is not to say that the MEAN level of delta CO2 is driven by temperature. Indeed, the high mean level seems to be the result of human emissions, resulting in a pronounced trend in CO2 concentrations. Nowhere do I claim conversely that temperature is necessarily totally independent of CO2 levels.

Reply to  O R
December 23, 2016 10:34 am

1sky1:
What my cross-spectrum analysis shows is that temperature variations are the driver of delta CO2 variations across a wide range of frequencies, including the multidecadal.
Seems to be quite impossible to me, as you have two possible sources for the delta CO2 over decades: human emissions and temperature.
Human emissions show a near perfect correlation with delta CO2 over the past 57 years, or even the past 116 years (including ice cores), with twice the total emissions than the increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
Compare that to the multidecadal correlation between T and CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2.jpg
A change of about half the scale in temperature gives some 2 ppmv extra CO2 in the atmosphere, but 100 ppmv over the full scale? Moreover, it is proven that near all variability in CO2 is the response of vegetation to temperature variability, while vegetation is a net, growing sink for CO2 over longer periods than 1-3 years. Thus different drivers at work…
Are you sure that the attribution program doesn’t attribute the multidecadal increase to the wrong variable?
Again the main problem may be in the fact that human emissions may have too little variability: that isn’t even detectable at Mauna Loa (less than 0.2 ppmv after half is absorbed by oceans and vegetation).

1sky1
Reply to  O R
December 23, 2016 1:00 pm

Ferdinand:
My attribution is certainly not to the wrong variable. You have to understand that the relationship at issue here is not what you show, but that between the yearly DELTA CO2 and T, akin to what was shown here bycomment image.
In proper cross-spectrum analysis the mean of both variables is removed, leaving only the VARIATIONS about the respective means. It turns out that the r.m.s. variations of delta CO2 are of the same order as the mean. While I attribute the sizable mean of delta CO2 to human emissions, the cross-spectral phase of the variations manifest by the data permits only the attribution of temperature variations as the driver of delta CO2 variations, not the other way around. You can’t have the putative physical driver lagging the response.

1sky1
Reply to  O R
December 23, 2016 1:27 pm

It should be stressed that I used Keeling’s Mauna Loa CO2 series along with a proprietary, vetted estimate of GAST; my cross-spectral findings thus are restricted to the time period 1958 onward. Also, to be entirely punctilious, it’s not that DELTA CO2 variations per se lag behind T variations that is the basis of my attribution. It’s that the residual CO2 variations [sic!] would lag behind measured T variations during that period.

Reply to  O R
December 23, 2016 1:53 pm

1sky1,
I think that we largely agree that the variability in delta CO2 is caused by the variability of temperature, not the opposite way and that most of the offset of 1-3 ppmv/annum is caused by human emissions.
There may be a secular slope in CO2 caused by temperature, but that is maximum 16 ppmv/K per Henry’s law. Maybe you can use the longer time frame of two out of three Law Dome ice cores (DE08 and DE08-2) to expand the time period of interest to 150 years back in time, even when the CO2 data are smoothed over a period of ~8 years and are less accurate (~1.2 ppmv, 1 sigma) than Mauna Loa for the secular slope…
Still that doesn’t exclude a small influence of the increased CO2 level on temperature…

Reply to  Duncan
December 17, 2016 6:36 am

Duncan, pray do not be so silly. If one changed the temperature scale to -1 to +1, say, then the temperature trace would shoot up precipitously and career off-scale by 1995 – which wouldn’t be very useful. You could certainly change the scale to -1 to +20, say, in order to force the gradients to look similar but then you would simply have yards of y axis doing nothing which wouldn’t be very useful – or honest – either.

Duncan
Reply to  cephus0
December 17, 2016 10:38 am

Sure 1998 would go off scale. This graph was just one data set. Combine it will 100’s of others, average it, smooth it, pound it into submission, then scale it to match two slopes, then and only then will you receive your grant money.
I was just making a point the graph had suspicious scaling, the same trick used by warmists.

Menicholas
Reply to  cephus0
December 17, 2016 12:28 pm

The period from 1980 to present has shown a warming trend.
Which is said to be disastrous and the cause of all manner of future ills.
Prior to 1980, the trend was cooling for over 30 years.
Which was said at the time to be disastrous and the cause of all manner of future ills.
Interestingly, many of the claimed disastrous effects of both are identical!
It is a good thing it warmed up some…worldwide conditions for growing food and general survival have been improving.
It was durn cold in the 1970s!
Hey, how many people are going planning to spend some vacation time this winter in the polar regions, and how many are hoping and/or planning to visit places closer to the equator?

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Duncan
December 17, 2016 3:24 pm

As Bevan Dockery pointed out, the correlation between the two, temperature and CO2 is very high BEFORE detrending, so the pictue graph is irrelevant here.
Take a series of 30 coin tosses, counting heads as plus 1 and tails as minus one and keep a running total.
Do the same for a second series of 30 coin tosses and you’re likely to get a correlation close to + or – 1.

Reply to  Duncan
December 17, 2016 5:56 pm

If one changed the temperature scale say from -1 to +1

Why is the temperature, in that chart not give in ºK? The CO2 scale is in ppm and starts at zero. So should temperature start at its absolute zero. This obsessive cherry picking of temperature ranges and, especially, time periods, leaves me deeply distrustful.

stan robertson
December 16, 2016 6:27 pm

A physicist, Lon Hocker, showed that a chord derivative of CO2 concentration vs time showed spikes that identified every El Nino back into the 1950s. It was posted here on WUWT some years ago, but I can’t find it at the moment.

Stephen Singer
December 16, 2016 6:35 pm

Where’s the red montly CO2 concentration line in Figure 2?

TonyL
Reply to  Stephen Singer
December 16, 2016 7:15 pm

It is there, for sure. The red is overdrawn, on the heavy black line. If you open the graph in a new window and embiggen, you can see it a bit better. Sometimes the graphics do not translate and render as cleanly as we would like.

Javier
December 16, 2016 6:46 pm

Here is 38 years of empirical data clearly showing a relationship between the satellite temperature and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory.

False. Plotting two datasets can never show a relationship between them. Correlation does not imply a relationship.
The relationship between rate of change in CO2 and temperatures is known since the late 70’s and has been satisfactorily explained. It has been discussed here at WUWT thousands of times. It is related to the sinks response to temperature and has nothing to do with the long term trend in CO2 or temperatures. I suggest better documentation next time.

Chimp
Reply to  Javier
December 16, 2016 6:51 pm

Well spoken. Like a true man of science. Or person thereof.

Reply to  Javier
December 16, 2016 8:57 pm

You must have missed THIS statement later:
“Here again is 38 years of empirical data, this time showing a distinct lack of a relationship between the satellite temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

Hugs
Reply to  Aphan
December 16, 2016 11:52 pm

And that part is just untrue.

Reply to  Aphan
December 17, 2016 7:50 am

As it should be since the expected dependence is logarithmic, how many times more are we going to see junk graphs like Fig 2 posted on here. Let’s have some honesty and plot log(CO2).

Bartemis
Reply to  Javier
December 17, 2016 9:55 am

“… and has been satisfactorily explained.”
No, it hasn’t. In the late 70’s, there were not enough data to show that both the short term variation and the long term trend match.
It’s just been buried in a bunch of hand waving, not explained, let alone satisfactorily.

Javier
Reply to  Bartemis
December 17, 2016 10:27 am

Yes it has. Very conclusively. Bacastow studies allowed to elucidate the role of oceanic currents and vegetation on the seasonal CO2 cycle.
Bacastow, R. B. “Modulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the Southern Oscillation.” Nature 261 (1976): 116-118.
Bacastow, R. B., C. D. Keeling, and T. P. Whorf. “Seasonal Amplitude Increase in Atmospheric Concentration.” Journal of Geophysical Research 90.D6 (1985): 10-529.
The correspondence between the first derivative of atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures is due to sinks response to temperatures. This issue has been beaten to death at WUWT and every other climate site. Everybody with a minimum knowledge at both sides of the debate agrees. It has nothing to do with global warming and it is a telltale for skeptics that haven’t done due diligence on their beliefs.

Bartemis
Reply to  Bartemis
December 18, 2016 11:08 am

Nonsense. Vegetation is not producing the long term trend.
The entire record of CO2 change in the modern era can be reproduced from the temperature data only to high fidelity using a simple, affine parameterization. It is idiotic to imagine that, that is mere happenstance.

Reply to  Bartemis
December 21, 2016 12:55 pm

Bartemis,
Nonsense. Vegetation is not producing the long term trend.
Indeed, but vegetation IS producing near all variability. That is the problem with your theory… Mathematically still possible, but trend and slope are not caused by the same processes…

DWR54
Reply to  Javier
December 17, 2016 2:52 pm

Javier
“Correlation does not imply a relationship.”
____________
True, but where there is known causative effect, then correlation is evidence supporting a proposition.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that should, with associated feedbacks such as increased water vapour and reduced sea ice cover, force climate in a warming direction. The causative effect of CO2 should be to increase temperatures at the surface and lower atmosphere.
When all the world’s data sets, including satellite data sets, show a long term correlation between CO2 and global temperature increase, that doesn’t ‘prove’ correlation; but it is certainly evidence supporting the theory that CO2 is contributing to warming the atmosphere.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  DWR54
December 17, 2016 4:26 pm

Re DWR54
**CO2 is a greenhouse gas that should, with associated feedbacks such as increased water vapour and reduced sea ice cover, force climate in a warming direction. The causative effect of CO2 should be to increase temperatures at the surface and lower atmosphere.**
There is no proven feedback from increased water vapor. Increased water vapor results in more cloud which reflects solar radiation resulting in cooling. YUour causative effect is an unproven theory.
.
**When all the world’s data sets, including satellite data sets, show a long term correlation between CO2 and global temperature increase, that doesn’t ‘prove’ correlation; but it is certainly evidence supporting the theory that CO2 is contributing to warming the atmosphere.**
The correlation is not very good, but NASA/NOAA are trying to make it better by adjusting the temperatures – note the graph posted above, as well as:
http://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/
It is not evidence, but only one thing to look at. There is too much annual and monthly variation in the temperatures to be caused by CO2. There are many other factors being considered such as changes in solar radiation , magnetism, changes in cloud and moisture.

Javier
Reply to  DWR54
December 17, 2016 5:39 pm

True, but where there is known causative effect, then correlation is evidence supporting a proposition.

I accept that. But in this case causation works both ways. CO2 increases temperatures and temperatures increase CO2. However we know from the past that there is no runaway effect so feedbacks MUST be net negative or less than 1.
In the end we don’t know how much warming the increase in CO2 has caused, but since the 1910-1945 warming and the 1975-2000 warming are not very different while the CO2 difference is big, this suggests that CO2 warming, although noticeable, is not overpowering. The pause is also evidence that CO2 warming can be counteracted fully by natural forcings and variability.
And we have very strong evidence that warming was here before there was any change in CO2.
http://i.imgur.com/fa9yhHJ.png
So yes, CO2 surely warms, but no, that does not appear to be a problem. There is a very good chance that half or more of the warming is natural.

Berniea
December 16, 2016 7:07 pm

So many ignorant comments from ignorant people. This is a excellent piece of work and should be published. You can see the blips in CO2 coincident with the El Ninos. This work quantifies the relationship over short time periods.

NZ Willy
Reply to  Berniea
December 16, 2016 7:41 pm

Agreed it should be published,

Reply to  Berniea
December 16, 2016 7:47 pm

Berniea,
Unfortunatey the climatists are well aware of the ENSO – d(pCO2)/dt relationship.
But like the fact that 2015 and (likely) 2016 are the warmest years (in GISStemp) solely due to a major ElNino is a detail that gets lost in the communication to the public.

tony mcleod
Reply to  joelobryan
December 17, 2016 3:36 am

“solely due to a major ElNino”
Untrue, and obviously untrue with little more than a cursory glance at the graph. The last three major El ninos have been overlaying a background rise in temperature. So despite the 1998 El nino actually being a little stronger than 2015, the recent peak was higher. “solely” is incorrect.

Chimp
Reply to  joelobryan
December 17, 2016 3:39 pm

Tony,
Whatever slight rise in background temperature may actually have occurred since the PDO flip of 1977 cannot be attributed to an increase in CO2. So many variables underlie such a small increase in global average warmth that any effect from CO2 “forcing” (man-made or not) must be too small to measure, even with assumed feedback effects.

Chimp
Reply to  joelobryan
December 17, 2016 3:40 pm

Which is but one reason why the GIGO models have failed so epically.

Hugs
Reply to  Berniea
December 17, 2016 12:03 am

I’m agreeing on ignorance.

December 16, 2016 7:37 pm

Good work Bevan
Humlum et al and you should kindly cite my originating paper of Jan2008 at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

December 16, 2016 7:41 pm

340 W/m^2 ISR arrive at the ToA (100 km per NASA), 100 W/m^2 are reflected straight away leaving 240 W/m^2 continuing on to be absorbed by the atmosphere (80 W/m^2) and surface (160 W/m^2). In order to maintain the existing thermal equilibrium and atmospheric temperature (not really required) 240 W/m^2 must leave the ToA. Leaving the surface at 1.5 m (IPCC Glossary) are: thermals, 17 W/m^2; evapotranspiration, 80 W/m^2; LWIR, 63 W/m^2 sub-totaling 160 W/m^2 plus the atmosphere’s 80 W/m^2 making a grand total of 240 W/m^2 OLR at ToA.
When more energy leaves ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will cool down. When less energy leaves the ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will heat up. The GHE theory postulates that GHGs impede/trap/store the flow of heat reducing the amount leaving the ToA and as a consequence the atmosphere will heat up. Actually if the energy moving through to the ToA goes down, say from 240 to 238 W/m^2, the atmosphere will cool per Q/A = U * dT. The same condition could also be due to increased albedo decreasing heat to the atmosphere & surface or ocean absorbing energy.
The S-B ideal BB temperature corresponding to ToA 240 W/m^2 OLR is 255 K or -18 C. This ToA “surface” value is compared to a surface “surface” at 1.5 m temperature of 288 K, 15 C, 390 W/m^2. The 33 C higher 1.5 m temperature is allegedly attributed to/explained by the GHE theory.
BTW the S-B ideal BB radiation equation applies only in a vacuum. For an object to radiate 100% of its energy per S-B there can be no conduction or convection, i.e. no molecules or a vacuum. The upwelling calculation of 15 C, 288 K, 390 W/m^2 only applies/works in vacuum.
Comparing ToA values to 1.5 m values is an incorrect comparison.
The S-B BB ToA “surface” temperature of 255 K should be compared to the ToA observed “surface” temperature of 193 K, -80 C, not the 1.5 m above land “surface” temperature of 288 K, 15 C. The – 62 C difference is explained by the earth’s effective emissivity. The ratio of the ToA observed “surface” temperature (^4) at 100 km to the S-B BB temperature (^4) equals an emissivity of .328. Emissivity is not the same as albedo.
Because the +33 C comparison between ToA “surface” 255 K and 1.5 m “surface” 288 K is invalid the perceived need for a GHE theory/explanation results in an invalid non-solution to a non-problem.
References:
ACS Climate Change Toolkit
Trenberth et. al. 2011 “Atmospheric Moisture Transports …….” Figure 10, IPCC AR5 Annex III
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
http://principia-scientific.org/the-stefan-boltzmann-law-at-a-non-vacuum-interface-misuse-by-global-warming-alarmists/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
340 – 100 albedo = 240. Albedo is out of the equation so 240 ISR and 240 OLR are left to work out the balance.

December 16, 2016 7:46 pm

https://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 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

December 16, 2016 7:46 pm

“It follows that this synthesis of empirical data conclusively reveals that CO2 has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years but that the rate of change in CO2 concentration may have been influenced to a statistically significant degree by the temperature level.”
The second is true, a short-term effect, and no surprise. When oceans warm, they emit CO2. When they cool, it goes back again. No-one doubts that.
The first is false, and does not follow. No-one claims that the rate of CO2 change, as in Fig 1, causes warming. What the IPCC claims is that, on a much longer time scale than these wiggles, CO2 retains heat and an increased level causes warming. That is a slow effect; the post-industrial forcing is of order 2 W/m2. That won’t do anything observable in a year, but is inexorable. That is why your plot, even the cherrypicked tropospheric tropical land only, still rises over the period.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 8:10 pm

Nick,
my money is on the Climate Hustlers, from Steyer to Gavin, will need to find a new hustle by 2022.
Steyer (and his ilk Soros) will be okay since they have billions banked as cash. Gavin will probably need to emigrate to Canada or NZ if he wants to keep his personal gravy train rolling.

Robert from oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 8:29 pm

Longer time scales nick ? How far back do you want to go , when Co2 was up and temps were down or not quite that far to suit your religion.
Keep the faith you troll , keep the faith .

Owen Suppes
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 17, 2016 11:36 pm

Robert, calling Nick a troll doesn’t improve your grasp of radiative physics.

Frank Karvv
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 10:48 pm

So no CO2 logarithmic decreasing effect according to NS. Just an “inexorable” constant rise over time??
Inexorable: unyielding or unalterable. If CO2 has a decreasing effect as it would have over time then its influence is alterable.

Reply to  Frank Karvv
December 16, 2016 11:38 pm

I didn’t say constant. But the currently increasing would anyway outweigh the logarithmic effect.

Ian W
Reply to  Frank Karvv
December 17, 2016 1:46 am

But the currently increasing would anyway outweigh the logarithmic effect.

Surely the opposite is true; the effect of each doubling halves until the effect is unmeasurably small and therefore imperceptible.

hunter
Reply to  Frank Karvv
December 17, 2016 3:48 am

The logarithmic effect is not a step function. It is constant.

Hugs
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:04 am

Thanks Nick.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 2:06 am

@fNick Stokes
December 16, 2016 at 7:46 pm:
If it is not instantaneous, it does not exist, Nick. Being supposedly radiation. One day you might learn that radiation is an effect not a cause. But probably you will never comprehend what that means. Too much like Physics, beautiful stuff that it is.

azeeman
Reply to  Brett Keane
December 17, 2016 12:07 pm

Physics and climate “science” don’t intersect. The concept of an average temperature doesn’t exist in physics. Physics also relies on traceability. If a voltage measurement is in dispute, the instruments used to measure it the voltage can be traced back to a lump of metal in Paris. The concept of traceability doesn’t exist in climate science. Everything is based on some dubious statistics with no traceability, endless adjustments and parameters (e.g. wooden versus steel buckets) and never ending disputes because of the lack of traceability.
No sane person would trust a climate “scientist” to send a man to the moon or even run a lemonade stand. Without a solid scientific basis that stands without argument, climatology is at the same level as homeopathy and astrology.
Einstein’s theory of gravity superseded Newton’s only when very high precision, repeatable and traceable measurements showed flaws in Newton’s theory. The high precision of modern GPS relies on Einstein not Newton. Predictions can be made and tested with extremely high precision such as the recent discovery of gravity waves.
Climate predictions other than seasonal such as winter will be colder than summer are possible, but predictions of any precision are impossible or untestable.

Reply to  Brett Keane
December 17, 2016 6:54 pm

“climatology is at the same level as homeopathy and astrology.”
THAT good?
I seriously doubt it!

hunter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 3:47 am

Nick, people do claim that CO2 increases manifest as so-called “extreme weather” today. Please don’t be so dismissive.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 6:37 pm

“CO2 retains heat”
Actually a good description of what it does, since it has an absorptivity of nearly 1 and an emissivity of .002. The whole “radiative” part of the “forcing” is off track, and this applies to Willis’ downwelling work at AGU. You cannot infer radiation from absorption for CO2 except by multiplying by .002. Out of 500 photons absorbed, 1 is emitted. The other 499 quanta are dissipated kinetically.
CO2 cannot warm the 95% of the atmosphere that is transparent in the CO2 bands by radiation. It must do it kinetically, and it does. Just not very much. The fundamental CO2 band extinguishes all earthlight at 280 ppm. Additional gas cannot absorb more light because there isn’t any (more light). The remaining unsaturated CO2 bands where earthlight is not yet extinguished, are one order to many orders of magnitude weaker.

Ben Wouters
Reply to  gymnosperm
December 18, 2016 3:52 am


Could you help me out. I’m pretty convinced CO2 actually has a (small) cooling effect.
During daytime solar IR is absorbed by CO2 near 2000 nm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
This means that a little less solar is reaching the surface than without CO2 => cooling effect.
During night time the surface cools,
How fast is the day time solar energy “stored” in the CO2 molecules lost to the surrounding atmosphere or directly to space.
I do assume a CO2 molecule “excited” to its max by solar is not able to be even more excited by the much weaker surface radiation.

Reply to  Ben Wouters
December 18, 2016 9:07 am

I don’t know much about the near IR CO2 absorption at about 2000 nm/WN 5000. In a quick search I can’t even find the excitation mode. H2O may overlap, but the net effect seems to be complete absorption at those wavelengths.
Whether the net effect is warming or cooling is also hard to know. This is “top down” so the higher the altitude of complete absorption, the greater the chance of a cooling effect.

Reply to  Ben Wouters
December 19, 2016 7:16 am

The absorption peaks at 2013 and 2060 nm are v3 asymmetric stretches. They work in the mesosphere.
http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

Ben Wouters
Reply to  gymnosperm
December 20, 2016 8:15 am


Thanks for the link. So CO2 in the mesosphere intercepts solar IR around 2000nm and prevents it from reaching the surface (and heats the mesosphere)
Can the other absorption bands of CO2 do the same in the troposphere?
That is heat the troposphere during daytime, and radiate to space during the night.
I’m trying to get a feel for the mechanism that results in the troposphere temperature profile to shift roughly 1K from day to night and back. The surface cools much faster (and cools the lower few 100 meters atmosphere with it) since it can radiate directly to space (atmospheric window).
(I think I have uncovered the mechanism that explains our very high surface temperatures. (>90K higher than the moons) Role of the atmosphere is just slowing the energy loss to space. No warming of the surface required)

Reply to  Ben Wouters
December 22, 2016 8:17 am

In the fundamental bend at wave number 667.4 and rotations, CO2 has an absorption coefficient of nearly 1 and an emissivity of .002. Back radiation of the surface is thus very small as you suggest. Back, forth, and every which way radiation is essentially nonexistent below 300 meters in these bands.

Ben Wouters
Reply to  gymnosperm
December 23, 2016 5:57 am

December 22, 2016 at 8:17 am
“Back, forth, and every which way radiation is essentially nonexistent below 300 meters in these bands.”
I assume this is because the density is too high, and it’s mostly collisions that provide energy transfer?
(and evaporation near the surface)
To me this also means that during daytime it is mostly solar IR that is intercepted by predominantly H2O and a little by CO2. Surface IR is too weak then to matter much.

Reply to  Ben Wouters
December 23, 2016 8:46 am

Yes, pressure broadening of the lines, the very short (1 meter) extinction path, and the very low emissivity combine to ensure the dominance of kinetic dissipation of the energy absorbed by CO2 at 667.4 (15 microns) below 300 meters.
Water absorbs a ton of near IR top down from the sun, and it does it in the lower troposphere where most of the water is. If you look at Trenberth’s energy budget you will see 23% of TSI absorbed by the atmosphere. That’s 78 watts (an incandescent bulb) for every square meter. Oddly, this is ignored in the quibbling over a couple watts of “back” radiation.
Water radiates as a blackbody to a much higher altitude than CO2, not showing much deviation from the Planck curve until about three kilometers. Water has no “Q” branch and experiences mostly rotational transitions. Below three kilometers its influence on atmospheric temperature is kinetic (not radiative) as well.

Ben Wouters
Reply to  gymnosperm
December 27, 2016 8:01 am

December 17, 2016 at 6:37 pm
” If you look at Trenberth’s energy budget you will see 23% of TSI absorbed by the atmosphere.”
This whole backradiation idea (about twice as much backradiation as solar radiation) seems physically impossible to me. Unless I see a working backradiation panel harvesting this energy I can’t accept it as reality.
This diagram gives a more realistic energy budget:comment image
We only have to explain how the surface got to ~290K.
Simple answer: by cooling down.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/

December 16, 2016 7:52 pm
Bill Illis
Reply to  Michael Scott
December 17, 2016 4:25 am

Yes, there is actually a lag of 7 months between the temperature change to when the CO2 changes occur.
One issue to be careful with though, is that there are seasonal adjustments in the data for both temperature and CO2. When you are careful with that by looking at the numbers both seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted, there is still a lag of 5 to 9 months but it gets harder to see.

Bartemis
Reply to  Bill Illis
December 17, 2016 9:59 am

No, there is no fixed time lag. It is frequency dependent, and with a phase lag of a fixed 90 deg.

Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Bill Illis
December 17, 2016 2:57 pm

Completely off-topic:
Mr. Illis: Jo Nova [is/may be] trying to contact you. The generic e-mail is “support (at) joannenova (dot) com (dot) au”
No quotes in the above; ref: 750 m.a. T vs. CO2

Reply to  Michael Scott
December 17, 2016 4:57 pm

Michael Scott December 16, 2016 at 7:52 pm
“Comparison between CO2 and Temp from 1960 on showing Temp proceeding CO2 http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/mean:12/scale:0.2/isolate:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1961
I do not know what you were doing here. you used to isolate 60 months and than you used a mean of 12 months to the result of it.
I checked at WFT what isolate means and got the answer:
Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise’
Still I’m stepping in the dark…

December 16, 2016 7:59 pm

Sorry I really prefer when people post, that they do not just put up a graphic. Here is a link to the web site, so you can play with the image. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/scale:0.2/isolate:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1961

pochas94
December 16, 2016 8:44 pm

One must remember that the correlation coefficient between two straight lines is always 1 (or minus 1) whether they have the same slope or not. For such a coefficient to be meaningful both sets of data must include all of the variability. For a record with variability on seasonal, decennial, centennial, and millennial scales, like climate, these short term correlation coefficients have little meaning.

Bartemis
Reply to  pochas94
December 17, 2016 10:01 am

Exactly! These graphs showing temperature and CO2 vaguely marching in the same direction are meaningless. A significant correlation looks like this:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/nopause_zpscjndrosf.png

December 16, 2016 8:49 pm

You should get in the habit of squaring reported correlation coefficients whenever you see them in publications, to determine the actual strength of the relationship (also known as the coefficient of determination).
People who haven’t been educated in mathematical statistics may naively assume that a correlation coefficient of r = .50 means that the relationship accounts for half of change in the dependent variable. However, “The strength of the relationship between X and Y is sometimes expressed by squaring the correlation coefficient and multiplying by 100. The resulting statistic is known as variance explained (or R^2). Example: a correlation of 0.50 means 0.5^2 x 100 = 25% of the variance in Y is “explained” or predicted by the X variable.” http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/correl.html
That means a correlation of r < 0.50 or < 0.40 has very little explanatory value even if the data are NOT from autocorrelated time series. Values in that range are essentially meaningless, as discussed above, If the data are from autocorrelated time series (most are). In other words, garbage in, garbage out.

jim heath
December 16, 2016 8:54 pm

For the novices I will simplify all of the above on Global Warming: It’s crap.

Reply to  jim heath
December 16, 2016 8:59 pm

Lol! Bravo!

Hugs
Reply to  jim heath
December 17, 2016 12:07 am

But for different reason than stated above.

December 16, 2016 9:08 pm

Regarding: “it is possible that the almost 2 ppm per annum increase in CO2 concentration over the past 38 years has arisen from biogenetic sources driven by the natural rise in temperature following the last ice age.” In previous comings and goings of ice age glaciations, CO2 varied around or a little over 10 PPM per degree C temperature change. We’re now around 120 PPM above typical ionterglacial values. Also, the global carbon budget is known well enough for it to be known that in the past several decades, nature has been a net sink, removing nearly half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions so far.

Bartemis
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
December 17, 2016 10:03 am

“…nature has been a net sink, removing nearly half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions so far.”
(Sigh) The ridiculous pseudo-mass balance argument again. Nature, minus its dynamic response to anthropogenic forcing is not a net sink. This is a dynamic system. Static bookkeeping does not apply.

Reply to  Bartemis
December 21, 2016 1:16 pm

Bartemis:
Nature, minus its dynamic response to anthropogenic forcing is not a net sink.
Of course nature is a net source and human emissions simply disappear into space…
No matter what causes the increase in the atmosphere, natural sinks react equally to any CO2, whatever the source, above steady state. Thus either the natural cycle didn’t change much over time and (near) all extra CO2 is from humans, or the natural cycle increased a fourfold in lockstep with the fourfold increase of human emissions, or you can’t have a fourfold increase rate in the atmosphere and net sink rate…

December 16, 2016 9:15 pm

Regarding: “Note that it is not possible for a rise in CO2 concentration to cause the temperature to increase and for the temperature level to control the rate of change of CO2 concentration as this would mean that there was a positive feedback loop causing both CO2 concentration and temperature to rise continuously and the oceans would have evaporated long ago.” Feedback can be positive but short of causing runaway. Zero feedback means a feedback factor of zero. A feedback factor of 1 is borderline runaway. A feedback factor between zero and 1 is positive feedback short of runaway. Increasing temperature causes increase of CO2, and increase of CO2 causes increase of temperature. There is positive feedback with a feedback factor less than 1.

December 16, 2016 9:28 pm

The satellite temperature plot in Figures 1 and 2 is not global temperature but temperature of the lower troposphere over tropical land. I suspect that was chosen because there the 1997-1998 El Nino spike is dominant to an outlier extent and the spike of the recent El Nino is notably small. In global temperature, these two El Ninos had similarly tall spikes.

Richard M
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
December 17, 2016 5:53 am

Keep in mind the latest El Nino spike is enhanced by the loss of Arctic sea ice driven by the AMO. If you just look at the tropics you minimize the AMO’s influence.

Bindidon
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
December 17, 2016 4:29 pm

Donald L. Klipstein on December 16, 2016 at 9:28 pm
Here is a comaprison of UAH6.0beta5 for
– the Globe (blue);
– the Tropics (red);
– the Nino3+4 area (green).
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161215/86mdzjx7.jpg
You see that ENSO 2015/16 is higher than ENSO 1997/98 for the Globe, and that the inverse holds for the Tropics.

December 16, 2016 9:36 pm

Stop showing off how smart you are in statistics. I do not want to know about the Durbin-Watson test or whether ordinary linear regression is applicable or not. Dump your first four paragraphs and rewrite them in English. I can see without memorizing sixteen numbers that the main peaks in figure 1 coincide. Explain that without all the statistical babble.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
December 17, 2016 8:47 am

Agreed. Less stat-babble would be good. And I do stats every day.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mary Brown
December 17, 2016 12:02 pm

I hear that! If some of these people were on fire they’d be arguing how much of the temp was due to the flu or their earlier work out. It all smacks of an utterly unproven theory, like calculating how many angels
( Christmas thought) exhale how much CO2.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
December 16, 2016 10:03 pm

“Dr Murry Salby was saying a couple years ago”
and which we still can’t see written down anywhere.

Robert from oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 16, 2016 11:11 pm

Nick , what was your religion saying a couple of years ago ?
More acidic oceans.
End of the world if Co2 levels were not lowered .
20 ft sea rise .
Want me to stop with facts you dim witted bird brain troll ?

Hugs
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:10 am

And which don’t make sense anyway. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but Salby is talking all bonkers.

Hugs
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:15 am

And Robert, quote exact words as Willis says and keep on topic, please.

Robert from oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:21 am

Ahh hugs a new troll or maybe old shamed one with new Monica , whatever .
Your Darling troll Nick did specify “a couple of years ago ” or am I reading that wrong ? If indeed he does say a couple of years , what’s the problem ? Troll !

Toneb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 4:06 am

“More acidic oceans.
End of the world if Co2 levels were not lowered .
20 ft sea rise .
Want me to stop with facts you dim witted bird brain troll ?”
The only one of those that is a “fact” is that the oceans are becoming more acidic.
The other two are NOT facts.
Oh – there is one other.
Nick provides science.
That you do not agree with it does not make him a Troll.
People who flame others via hand-waving and zero evidence are Trolls.
Nick is too polite to say that – so I will.
Oh, and would denizens really like a pure echo-chamber here?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 10:35 am

ToneB,
If I were to say that “You have become more agitated,” would it be correct if you weren’t agitated to begin with? If a measurement changes from 8 to 7, would it be correct to say it has become more negative? The oceans are NOT acidic, and probably never will be. Therefore, any claim that they are “becoming more acidic” is disingenuous. It is NOT a fact. It is a willful attempt to influence people’s thinking with a non-fact.

Freedom Monger
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 10:36 am

No Toneb, it is exactly the opposite.
I see, time after time, the scientists here obliterate every argument Nick and you make.
Because of the empirical evidence and science presented here, I am thoroughly convinced that CO2 generally follows Temperature and doesn’t drive it.
This indicates that those who advocate Policy to restrict CO2 emissions have an agenda other than “saving the planet”, because their efforts and their solutions will do nothing of the sort.
Outside, the only ones I see that would truly benefit from the proposed Climate Policies are those who crave the institution of a certain kind of Power and Dominion.
I abhor ad hominem attacks. A Winner doesn’t make them.
While you and Nick can and do make some cogent arguments, you are losing. You are losing because you are advocates for Policy rather than Science. When all your scientific verbiage is stripped away your ultimate Message is that everyone needs to be Afraid and accept the Solutions of the Powers that be.
If you were really Advocating the Science, even with the positions you hold, you would logically and rationally have to say, “The Earth is Warming? Man is causing it? So what – it’s not really a Problem.)
We are a long, long, way from any sort of Climate Crisis, and we are not on a trajectory to get there.
Assess yourselves, why do you psychologically want to advocate the aspirations of Tyrants and Megalomaniacs? Why in God’s name would you want to aid and abet those who care nothing for the Unalienable Rights of Mankind?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:15 pm

Endless nonsense from ToneB! The approximate change in ocean pH has been measured as .01. This measured change is well within the margin of error for the instruments and representative characteristics of the tested locations. There are NO MEANINGFUL READINGS that indicate any reduction ( or increase) in ocean pH. Straight up, ToneB- you’re completely full of crap! Go away and read something factual!

Robert from oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:33 pm

Really Toneb facts and only one of them true , fact all were claimed as true by your religion , all are false even your blabber about the oceans becoming more acidic .
In order for something to become more acidic it has to be acidic in the first place , the oceans are basic or alkaline at 8.1 – 8.3 not acidic at all or have you lot invented a new scale for ph ?

Toneb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:55 pm

Clyde:
“ToneB,
If I were to say that “You have become more agitated,” would it be correct if you weren’t agitated to begin with? If a measurement changes from 8 to 7, would it be correct to say it has become more negative? The oceans are NOT acidic, and probably never will be. Therefore, any claim that they are “becoming more acidic” is disingenuous. It is NOT a fact. It is a willful attempt to influence people’s thinking with a non-fact.”
Not “agitated” at all my friend.
I have been reading some very strange stuff here and elsewhere for some years now and nothing surprises me.
In fact most of it has been around hundreds of times before.
Mythic in nature.
“is disingenuous”
Nope – read again – I said “more acidic”, as in tending toward acidity.
Undeniably true (above the rabbit-hole).
the Ph of the oceans is decreasing….
“Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. ”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
“It is NOT a fact. It is a willful attempt to influence people’s thinking with a non-fact.”
Now that is funny considering the avalanche of non-fact posted on here daily.
The above just proves it IS fact.
Don’t hand-wave give me some science that says it isn’t

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 12:58 pm

Toneb writes: “The only one of those that is a “fact” is that the oceans are becoming more acidic.”
I’ve always been curious about this assertion Tony, maybe you could explain your logic too me.
Henry’s Law tells us the ocean will offgas as temperature rises. All the data we have so far indicates ocean water temperature is rising. The data presented in this article suggests atmospheric CO2 rises with temperature, but lags temperature. Other data sets reconstructed from geologic records show the same lagging relationship.
So, in that situation, what’s your explanation of the effect you claim, that oceanic pH is dropping due to CO2 uptake from anthropogenic sources? How can CO2 be released from oceans, while at the same time causing pH to fall due to uptake?
This seems logically inconsistent?

Chimp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 1:06 pm

Toneb
December 17, 2016 at 12:55 pm
Your link cites no source for the remarkable claim about ocean pH change since the Industrial Revolution.
I’d like to see the pH readings taken in the 18th century. Hydrogen was discovered in 1766 by Cavendish, but Sørensen didn’t introduce the pH scale until 1909.

Hugs
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 1:27 pm

Robert, if I wanted to troll, I’d be hugely successful in that. But no, I’m just saying not everything Nick says is bollocks, quite the contrary. Well he gets to your nerves but it is more of your property, not Nick’s.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2016 2:52 pm

“I’d like to see the pH readings taken in the 18th century.”
Sensible people didn’t rely on direct pH readings. They measured DIC (Dissolved inorganic carbon) and Total Alkalinity (TA). The first is just gravimetric analysis, and the second a titration. Then from equilibrium relations pH can be derived, much more accurately (until recently) than by direct measure. And it’s actually the balance of carbonate species that we want to know anyway, not pH.

Toneb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 1:10 pm

Freedom:
“No Toneb, it is exactly the opposite.
I see, time after time, the scientists here obliterate every argument Nick and you make.”
Of course they do!
Do you think I don’t realise that is what you would think.
I am in the alternative science universe after all.
Oh, BTW: Please name these “scientists”. I am not aware of any.
Posting on contrarian blogs is not science and it’s certainly not done by proper scientists.
They take original research and publish papers which pass review by experts in the field. They may or may not get published. If they are they stand the test of time. Going by the wayside if seen to be incorrect. Publishing here gets just hugs and kisses from the faithful. A few critical views from people like me, Nick, Griff, Greg, DW54, Leif etc, who can be bothered to take the vitriol and be treated as Trolls just because they disagree with 99% here and post up some established science.
“Because of the empirical evidence and science presented here, I am thoroughly convinced that CO2 generally follows Temperature and doesn’t drive it.”
Have you read the real science? Is it not logical that as it is a GHG it can do both? And the record only shows it following because that is what nature does via the carbon cycle. Humans are emitting it first now so it’s not the carbon cycle. Was a feedback. Now a driver. It can/do a do both.
“This indicates that those who advocate Policy to restrict CO2 emissions have an agenda other than “saving the planet”, because their efforts and their solutions will do nothing of the sort.”
Now you hit the gist.
The reflexive reversion to perceived motives. Politics.
My friend that rears it’s head in any walk of life. Me? I just understand the science and see it as certain that it shows that man is causing GW via pollution. With CO2. Simple as that. No bias involved. That people do not see that they look at people like me as doing likewise is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You don’t get it that someone can do so solely based on what the science says.
“Outside, the only ones I see that would truly benefit from the proposed Climate Policies are those who crave the institution of a certain kind of Power and Dominion.”
Irrelevant to me. It is or it isn’t us. It is and we need to address it. Thankfully we are. To late but a start.
“I abhor ad hominem attacks. A Winner doesn’t make them”
Good for you – I agree and I thank you for it.
“While you and Nick can and do make some cogent arguments, you are losing. You are losing because you are advocates for Policy rather than Science. When all your scientific verbiage is stripped away your ultimate Message is that everyone needs to be Afraid and accept the Solutions of the Powers that be. ”
Well thanks for the small praise.
Look. I know I will “lose” here, and I’m sure Nick does too. Ideological bias (proved by your political comments) is too powerful to change. I only come here to deny ignorance. Nothing more.
“If you were really Advocating the Science, even with the positions you hold, you would logically and rationally have to say, “The Earth is Warming? Man is causing it?”
I am and I do.
Simples.
“So what -it’s not a problem”
If you say so. You obviously know better.
“We are a long, long, way from any sort of Climate Crisis, and we are not on a trajectory to get there.”
Science knows that the worst effects are decades away. Point is we are decades away from allowing the biosphere to sink the excess carbon we’re stuffing into it. With much more to go in there.
“Assess yourselves, why do you psychologically want to advocate the aspirations of Tyrants and Megalomaniacs? Why in God’s name would you want to aid and abet those who care nothing for the Unalienable Rights of Mankind?”
Look, politics again. Even if I accept your “Tyrants and Megalomaniacs” schtick, it’s quite simple. “Bad” people can advocate good things. You are saying by that logic that a good thing becomes bad because bad people support it! Bizarre.

Bartemis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 4:05 pm

This statement from Toneb is deceptive and wrong:
“Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.”
Absolutely not. The molar concentration of hydrogen ions has increased 30%, but a 30% increase in a small value is still a small value. The phrase “making a mountain out of a molehill” springs to mind.
Acidity is measured by pH. Period. And, pH has not increased 30%. In fact, the solution is becoming more neutral, and therefore less reactive, so the situation is the antithesis of his implication.
But, the bottom line is this: Decreasing pH from the oceans no more fingers the culprit than rising temperatures means CO2 is behind the rise. It is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. No matter where the excess CO2 is coming from, it is increasing, and oceans must become (slightly) more acidic. It does not follow that we, in particular, are making the oceans more acidic.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 18, 2016 5:32 pm

“And, pH has not increased 30%.”
No, that’s a complete misuse of terms. You can’t talk of a % of a logarithm – they don’t have to be positive. It’s like asking what % is -5°C of 10°C.
Tony’s use of 30% is right. It’s true that [H⁺] is small, and that makes a case for not talking about pH at all. What counts is the carbonates, and the law of mass action says that they change in ratio. So a 30% increase in [H⁺] means a similar proportional reduction in [CO₃⁻⁻], and that goes into the solubility product for CaCO₃.

Bartemis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 19, 2016 9:09 am

You can talk of a % of anything.
pH measures “acidity”. It is definitional. There is no if, and, or but about this. Molar concentration is not acidity.
Toneb’s statement is meant to evoke emotionally laden images of materials dissolving in an acid bath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The oceans are becoming less basic, i.e., less reactive, not more.
And, again, with more CO2, the oceans become more acidic. It is tautological. It says nothing about where the buildup is coming from.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 19, 2016 1:23 pm

“You can talk of a % of anything.”
Not if it’s to be physically meaningful. The test for that is if it’s the same in different units. For [H⁺], 30% is the same whether you are using molar or tons/cu ft. But a change from pH 5 to pH 4 is a 20% drop if you use pH as – log(Molar). But if you use milliM, its a 50% drop from 2 to 1. And μM? It doubles, from -1 to -2.

Bartemis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 19, 2016 2:25 pm

Yes, if it is to be physically meaningful. We use the pH scale precisely because it is physically meaningful, because it reflects reduction potential.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 21, 2016 1:46 pm

Bartleby:
Henry’s Law tells us the ocean will offgas as temperature rises. All the data we have so far indicates ocean water temperature is rising. The data presented in this article suggests atmospheric CO2 rises with temperature, but lags temperature. Other data sets reconstructed from geologic records show the same lagging relationship.
Henry’s law gives us the equillibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and (free) CO2 in the ocean surface for the average ocean temperature, no matter if that is static (for an ocean with everywhere the same temperature) or dynamic (with lots of CO2 releases from warming upwelling waters and lots of CO2 absorbed by sinking waters near the poles).
For the current average surface temperature, that would be ~290 ppmv at steady state. The (very long time) relationship is about 16 ppmv/K. As we are at 400 ppmv in the atmosphere, CO2 in average is pushed into the oceans surface, not reverse.
If the oceans are warming without extra CO2 in the atmosphere, then total carbon (DIC: free CO2 + bicarbonates + carbonates) in the ocean surface would reduce as CO2 is released and the pH would increase.
With extra CO2 above steady state, more CO2 is pushed into the ocean surface, leading to more DIC and a lower pH. That is what is measured at a few places in the oceans. Here for Bermuda, with the longest time series, see Fig.5:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
The current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (and ocean surface) by far leads temperature…

Toneb
Reply to  Mike McMillan
December 18, 2016 5:47 am

Freedom:
“Because of the empirical evidence and science presented here, I am thoroughly convinced that CO2 generally follows Temperature and doesn’t drive it.”
Then how did Earth get out of it’s snowball phase/s then?
A passing star perhaps?
Of course it “generally” follows.
But it drives it as well.
Just depends on which comes first.
Normally it follows.
That is the way the carbon cycle works.
It is a GHG – so add it outside of the CC and it will drive temp.
We are and it is.

Freedom Monger
Reply to  Toneb
December 18, 2016 8:03 am

No, No, Toneb,
The ball is in your court.
You have yet to answer the question I posed to you a few threads ago:
“Since you claim to know exactly how much CO2 affects the climate, and exactly the role it has in the environment, you should be able to tell me what the Temperature (all other things being equal) would be for a given amount of CO2.
You should be able to say, for example:
At 200ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 22.321 degrees C
At 205ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 22.548 degrees C
At 400ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 25.896 degrees C
If you cannot give me these amounts, it means your claim to know the effect of CO2 on the Climate is scientifically proven to be invalid.
Can you show me this a chart like this?”
Hand-waving is what prophets, politicians, and authorities do when they can’t answer a question that threatens their claims of expertise or veracity.
Hand-waving is when you answer a simple question with a complicated or abstract response to mask the fact that you either don’t know or you’re lying.
Hand-waving is when you answer a simple question with a personal attack or dismissive language.
And a Hypocrite is someone who excoriates people for doing something they do themselves.

Ben Wouters
Reply to  Toneb
December 19, 2016 4:32 am

Toneb December 18, 2016 at 5:47 am
“Then how did Earth get out of it’s snowball phase/s then?
A passing star perhaps?”
Are you seriously claiming that the only way to end a snowball earth would be through the atmosphere warming the ice from above????
We are living on a planet that is made up of molten stone, with a core of molten metal and a very thin crusts barely holding all this heat inside.
Although small, we see a flux through the crust. Cover the crust with an insulating layer like ice, and the temperature through the crust will rise, until the flux is re-established.

Freedom Monger
Reply to  Toneb
December 19, 2016 8:52 am

Toneb,
I did not see your previous reply, and that’s why I didn’t respond sooner.
For the THIRD time, ANSWER THE QUESTION!
“Since you claim to know exactly how much CO2 affects the climate, and exactly the role it has in the environment, you should be able to tell me what the Temperature (all other things being equal) would be for a given amount of CO2.
You should be able to say, for example:
At 200ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 22.321 degrees C
At 205ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 22.548 degrees C
At 400ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 25.896 degrees C
If you cannot give me these amounts, it means your claim to know the effect of CO2 on the Climate is SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be invalid.
Can you show me this a chart like this?”
As a Layman I have the Right, even the Duty, to question Prophets, Priests, and Scientists. I have the Right to Question your Authority, your Expertise, and even your Motives.
I have asked you a Simple and Elegant Question, and you have failed twice to answer it.

Chimp
Reply to  Toneb
December 19, 2016 2:42 pm

Snowball Earth episodes don’t end because of CO2, but thanks to tectonics.
Increased volcanism does release more CO2, but the gas isn’t directly responsible for melting land and sea ice.

Peterg
December 16, 2016 9:51 pm

This data implies that some of the sources and sinks of CO2 in the atmosphere are proportional to temperature, and the net sum of these proportions is positive (with appropriate signing for sinks). It would be surprising if none of the sources and sinks were temperature sensitive, even man made sources. So I do not see how it is possible to conclude from this temperature sensitivity that the theory that mankind’s emission of CO2 is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is false.

Bartemis
Reply to  Peterg
December 17, 2016 10:07 am

It shows that human inputs are essentially superfluous. Give me the temperature record of some past interval, and I can tell you how CO2 changed in that interval to a high degree of fidelity. I do not need to know human inputs to do that.
I do not need fairies to explain how plants grow in my garden, therefore I discount their impact. Same principle.

Reply to  Peterg
December 21, 2016 1:51 pm

Peterg,
Bartemis’ calculation is only based on what mathematically does fit, but the alternative does fit as well: most increase is by human emissions and temperature plays only a role in the small variability around the trend, hardly in the trend itself. The long term influence of temperature is ~16 ppmv/K that is all. Not over 100 ppmv/K as is now the case…

December 16, 2016 10:12 pm

Water could explain this phenomenon. A higher temperature would result in greater evapotranspiration from the earth’s surface, which in turn would form a greater density of clouds. These shade the surface resulting in lower photosynthetic rates and hence lower uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere by plants. However, non-photosynthetic and non-biotic sources of CO2 release into the atmosphere would continue, thus CO2 would accumulate in the atmosphere. Has anyone correlated crop production rates with temperature and CO2 concentration? This mechanism would rapidly corect itself as phtosynthetic organism respond to increased CO2 availability once the cloud situation stabilized.
Does CO2 have anything to do with climate change? Or is it a follower, not a driver by the mechanism I suggest?

Reply to  detnumblog
December 17, 2016 6:51 am

Cloud coverage does not seem to be increasing. With more water vapor, the updrafts in clouds move more heat, which means that for equal updrafting and downdrafting worldwide in a warming world, clouds will have less coverage as they get more productive in transporting heat. A correlary here is that relative humidity for a global tropospheric average will decrease in a warming world.

December 16, 2016 10:31 pm

As some comments indicate, the graphs show short-term (1-2 years peaks) temperature variations originating from ENSO events and in this sense they have nothing to do with the climate change. ENSO events are not driven by CO2 as we all know. Because an El Nino causes a temperature peak in the ocean temperature, it decreases the absorption capability of CO2 from the atmosphere according to Henry’s law delay being 11 months as shown by Humlum. I have published this year a paper in which I have used a digital model to simulate the CO2 recycling fluxes between the atmosphere, the ocean, and the biosphere. This model shows that the short-term variations of the atmospheric CO2 concentration depend mainly on the temperature of the ocean and the coefficient of determination is 0.81 if Pinatubo eruption is eliminated. The link is here: http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/15789
I reckon, that somebody will comment that the correlation is not the causation. It is not and also in my case the causation comes from the physical model and the correlation is just a measure of this correlation.

Reply to  aveollila
December 16, 2016 11:13 pm

Here is a figurecomment image

Reply to  aveollila
December 17, 2016 9:04 pm

Sorry, the oceans are very nearly balanced in their uptake and output of CO2. There is a very slight increment of uptake to the tune of 1-2 GtC. Humans produce 9. There is no way 4.5 GtC of human Carbon is absorbed by the oceans. Vegetation is a net sink to the tune of 5 GtC. This is where most of human CO2 is going.
Vegetation also selectively absorbs the light Carbon humans produce. Ocean uptake is fairly indifferent to isotopes. It weakly prefers light Carbon at a fractionation of -2 PDB. Vegetation fractionates at -18 PDB.

Editor
December 16, 2016 10:37 pm

Bevan, I’m unable to reproduce your graphs. What is the exact location (link) to the data used?
w.