Determination of the CO2 doubling global mean temperature from observations

Guest essay by Girma Orssengo, PhD

Orssengo at lycos dot com

What is the expected global warming if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles from 400 to 800 ppm? The answer to this question is essential for our understanding of the earth’s climate. Unfortunately, the estimates for the CO2 doubling global mean temperature (GMT) vary by a factor of three from 1.5 oC to 4.5 oC. Data analysis in the literature shows that this very large uncertainty is due to the multi-decadal oscillation (MDO) of the GMT, and when this oscillation is removed, we find a time-invariant CO2 doubling GMT of 1.4 oC.

The aim of this article is to determine the time-invariant CO2 doubling GMT using published results in the scientific literature for the GMT and the observed atmospheric CO2 for the Mauna Loa data (Tans and Keeling, 2017).

The CO2 doubling GMT T2x is a parameter in a linear mathematical model that relates the logarithm of the annual atmospheric CO2 concentration ln(C) to the GMT T given by (Caldeira et al., 2003; Knutti and Hegerl, 2008; Wigley and Schlesinger, 1985)

clip_image002 Eq. 1

where Co is the atmospheric CO2 concentration corresponding to a reference GMT of T = 0. Note that since Eq. 1 could also be written as ln(C/Co) = (ln(2)/T2x)T, when C/Co = 2, this equation gives T = T2x. As a result, T2x in Eq. 1 represents the CO2 doubling GMT.

To estimate the CO2 doubling GMT directly from observations, the reference atmospheric carbon dioxide Co could be removed from Eq. 1 by differentiation of this equation with respect to year y, which gives

clip_image004

clip_image006 Eq. 2

Solving for the CO2 doubling GMT T2x in Eq. 2 gives

clip_image008 Eq. 3

Using the mathematical model given by Eq. 3, if for a given middle year of a trend period, the GMT trend dT/dy and the relative atmospheric carbon dioxide trend (dC/dy)/C are known, the CO2 doubling GMT T2x could be estimated directly form observations.

Under what condition could we determine the time-invariant CO2 doubling GMT from Eq. 3? We may answer this question by looking at the annual atmospheric CO2 data for Mauna Loa shown in Fig. 1, which suggests a monotonically increasing smoothed curve for the annual atmospheric CO2. From Eq. 2 and Fig. 1, to obtain a constant CO2 doubling GMT T2x, the GMT trend dT/dy must be proportional to the relative CO2 trend (dC/dy)/C at all times, which is only possible if the GMT T is also monotonically increasing like the annual atmospheric carbon dioxide C.

clip_image010

Fig. 1. Annual atmospheric CO2 for the Mauna Loa data (Tans, P. and Keeling, R., 2017) and an average atmospheric CO2 concentration of 343.32 ppm and a least squares average CO2 trend of 1.46 ppm/year for the trend period middle year of 1983.

Several studies (Delsole et al., 2011; Knudsen et al., 2011; Latif and Keenlyside, 2011; Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994; Swanson et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2011) have reported that the annual GMT data has multi-decadal oscillation (MDO) having 55 to 70 year period. As a result, before the annual GMT could be used in Eq. 3, its MDO must be removed. Wu et al. (2011) have reported the secular GMT trend obtained after removing the MDO from the annual GMT data as given in Table 1, which approximately corresponds to the annual atmospheric CO2 data period shown in Fig. 1 and 2. Note that the annual atmospheric CO2 data for Mauna Loa starts from 1959.

From the results of Wu et al. (2011) for the secular GMT trend dT/dy for a given trend period middle year given in Table 1 and the observed relative atmospheric carbon dioxide trend (dC/dy)/C for the same trend period middle year, the CO2 doubling GMT could be calculated using the mathematical model given by T2x = ln(2)(dT/dy)C/(dC/dy) (Eq. 3).

Table 1. Secular GMT trends obtained after removing the multi-decadal oscillation from the annual global mean temperature data (Wu et al. 2011).

Trend period

length (year)

Trend Period Trend Period Middle Year Secular GMT Trend

dT/dy (oC/year)

50 1958 to 2008 1983 0.0086
25 1983 to 2008 1995.5 0.0096

From Table 1, for the trend period middle year of 1983, the secular GMT trend dT/dy = 0.0086 oC/year. For the same trend period middle year of 1983, Fig. 1 shows an average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of C = 343.32 ppm and its average trend of dC/dy = 1.46 ppm/year. Substituting these values into Eq. 3 gives a CO2 doubling GMT of

clip_image012 oC Eq. 4

This result means that if the atmospheric CO2 were doubled from, say, 400 to 800 ppm, the secular GMT would increase by 1.4 oC.

To verify whether this CO2 doubling GMT of 1.4 oC determined for the trend period middle year of 1983 is time-invariant, we calculate its value for a different trend period middle year. From Table 1, for the trend period middle year of 1995.5, the secular GMT trend dT/dy = 0.0096 oC/year. For the same trend period middle year of 1995.5, Fig. 2 shows an average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of C = 363 ppm and its average trend of dC/dy = 1.67 ppm/year. Substituting these values into Eq. 3 gives a CO2 doubling GMT of

clip_image014 oC Eq. 5

The above results (Eq. 4 & 5) for two different time periods show that the time-invariant CO2 doubling GMT is 1.4 oC. This result is almost identical to the minimum possible CO2 doubling GMT of 1.5 oC reported in IPCC (2007): “The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.”

Regarding to the CO2 doubling GMT, in addition to its minimum possible value, IPCC (2007) had also reported: “It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C”. How could we also determine these IPCC estimates using our mathematical model given by Eq. 3?

To determine IPCC’s CO2 doubling GMT estimates above using our empirical model, we use the GMT trends given in the same report (IPCC, 2007) : “Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”

Note that these IPCC’s GMT trends of 0.02 and 0.03°C per year are much greater than the secular GMT trend of 0. 0096 oC per year reported by Wu et al (2011) given in Table 1.

The IPCC report quoted above suggests a central GMT trend of 0.02 oC/year. Replacing the secular GMT trend of dT/dy = 0.0096 oC/year in Eq. 5 from Wu et al. (2011) with IPCC’s central GMT trend of 0.02 oC/year gives

clip_image016 oC Eq. 6

Remarkably, this calculated value for the central IPCC GMT trend is identical to the central CO2 doubling GMT of 3 oC reported in IPCC (2007).

clip_image018

Fig. 2. An average atmospheric CO2 concentration of 363.00 ppm and a least squares average CO2 trend of 1.67 ppm/year for the trend period middle year of 1995.5 for the Mauna Loa data (Tans, P. and Keeling, R., 2017).

The IPCC report quoted above also suggests an upper GMT trend of 0.03 oC/year. Replacing IPCC’s central GMT trend of dT/dy = 0.02 oC/year in Eq. 6 with its upper GMT trend of 0.03 oC/year gives

clip_image020 oC Eq. 7

Remarkably, again, this calculated value for the upper IPCC trend is identical to the upper CO2 doubling GMT of 4.5 oC reported by IPCC quoted above.

Regarding the history for the range of values for the CO2 doubling GMT, Kerr has reported an interesting story (Kerr, 2004): “On the first day of deliberations, Manabe told the committee that his model warmed 2°C when CO2 was doubled. The next day Hansen said his model had recently gotten 4°C for a doubling. According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5°C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5°C-to-4.5°C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since, including the three by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More than one researcher at the workshop called Charney’s now-enshrined range and its attached best estimate of 3°C so much hand waving.

In this article, we showed that Charney’s range are not “so much hand waving” because they could be determined using the mathematical model T2x = ln(2)(dT/dy)C/(dC/dy) (Eq. 3), the observed relative atmospheric CO2 trend (dC/dy)/C (Fig. 2), and IPCC’s GMT trends dT/dy.

In conclusion, we found a time-invariant CO2 doubling GMT of 1.4 oC (Eq. 4 & 5). We also showed that the higher CO2 doubling GMT values reported in IPCC (2007) are for secular GMT trends of 0.2 and 0.3 oC/decade that are inconsistent with the observed secular GMT trend of about 0.1 oC/decade (Delsole et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011). Note that as the annual GMT has been reported to have a multi-decadal oscillation (MDO) of about 55 to 70 years for the last 8000 years (Knudsen et al., 2011), a linear trend of at least a 70-year period should be used to remove the contribution of the MDO to determine the secular GMT trend, which gives about 0.1 oC/decade for the latest 70-year period from 1946 to 2016.

From about 1960 to 1990 with a trough in the mid-1970s, the MDO was in its cool phase, and it has been in its warm phase since 1990 that is expected to continue until about 2020. In the early-2020s, the cool phase of the MDO is expected to start with its trough in mid-2030s. The empirical evidence for this drop in global mean surface temperature would be the recovery of arctic sea ice and cooling of the Northern Hemisphere for the period from about 2020 to 2050.

When we start to see a steady increase in arctic sea ice in the 2020s that continues until the 2050s, what would happen to the “Theory of Man Made Global Warming”?

UPDATE: 1/29/18 This figure has been added to address questions posed in comments:

girma-fig3

Fig. 3. Central, lower and upper secular global mean temperature curves for the HadCRUT4 dataset, showing the annual GMT for 2016 of about 1.2 deg C is just above the upper boundary curve. Since the annual GMT oscillates relative to the central secular GMT curve that is 0.9 deg C currently, global cooling is expected when the annual GMT moves from the upper boundary to the central and lower boundary curves resulting in multi-decadal global cooling based on the pattern after 1878 and 1944. The secular GMT T in Wu et al. (2011) describes the central monotonically increasing curve. Source: https://tinyurl.com/ycffkd2a


References

Caldeira, K., Jain, A.K., Hoffert, M.I., 2003. Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty and the Need for Energy Without CO2 Emission. Science 299, 2052–2054. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078938

Delsole, T., Tippett, M.K., Shukla, J., 2011. A significant component of unforced multidecadal variability in the recent acceleration of global warming. Journal of Climate 24, 909–926. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3659.1

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Kerr, R.A., 2004. Three degrees of consensus: climate researchers are finally homing in on just how bad greenhouse warming could get–and it seems increasingly unlikely that we will escape with a mild warming. Science 305, 932–935.

Knudsen, M.F., Seidenkrantz, M.-S., Jacobsen, B.H., Kuijpers, A., 2011. Tracking the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation through the last 8,000 years. Nature Communications 2, 178. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1186

Knutti, R., Hegerl, G.C., 2008. The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nature Geosci 1, 735–743.

Latif, M., Keenlyside, N.S., 2011. A perspective on decadal climate variability and predictability. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 58, 1880–1894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.066

Schlesinger, M.E., Ramankutty, N., 1994. An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years. Nature 367, 723–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/367723a0

Swanson, K.L., Sugihara, G., Tsonis, A. a, 2009. Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 16120–16123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908699106

Tans, P., Keeling, R., 2017. Trends in Carbon Dioxide [WWW Document]. URL https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Wigley, T.M.L., Schlesinger, M.E., 1985. Analytical solution for the effect of increasing CO2 on global mean temperature. Nature 315, 649–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/315649a0

Wu, Z., Huang, N.E., Wallace, J.M., Smoliak, B.V., Chen, X., 2011. On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature. Climate Dynamics 37, 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1128-8

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jer0me

Aren’t the models merely displaying the warming programmed in to them in the first place?

Funny you should say that, since CO2 has zero influence on temperature, according to a study of othr planets:
Nikolov, N., & Zeller, K. (2017). New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model. Environment Pollution and Climate Change, 1(2), 112.

sb, in my opinion the paper you cite is very poor, to the point should not have been published. Explained why in more detail elsewhere, previously. Think critically. Their 10 data points compare apples to oranges (planets to moons), and some are also just guesstimated garbage. Plus, the underlying physics is flat wrong experimentally.
As bad as the various Lew papers, or Henry 2017 attacking Susan Crawford on polar bears (itself partly another Lew paper).

As bad as the various Lew paper
========
disagree. any planet with and atmospheric lapse rate is warming the lower atmosphere at the expense of cooling the upper atmosphere. the question to be answered is this: is the lapse rate due to GHG? would the earth have a lapse rate without GHG?
we can theorize until the cows come home and we cannot answer this question without a degree of doubt. thus the politicization of GM.
however if we can analyse the lapse rate on other planets and moons with different atmospheres we may be able to replace theory with observational evidence.

any planet with and atmospheric lapse rate is warming the lower atmosphere at the expense of cooling the upper atmosphere. the question to be answered is this: is the lapse rate due to GHG?

Earth has this because of water’s heat of evaporation being store in water vapor.
This is what turns on and off depending on surface air temps https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/

Brett Keane

Rud, your refutation is just a legalistic statement, not Physical. The planet/moon claim typifies the misdirection from people who do not understand how gases operate when mixed ie alloyed.
Poisson and Maxwell had this figured out and I have plenty of empirical evidence.
But I cannot really be bothered by misdirection – the real world is showing the truth. Brett, NZ

Here is a partial comparison, ie, of earth and venus, by another author. When you have two planets to compare, with different atmospheric compositions, and yet the two controlling variables are density and the distance from the sun, not radiative forcing, what am I missing?
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

why is the lapse rate important? effective radiative height of atmosphere is 5km. lapse rate is 6.5C/km.
5km * 6.5C/km = 32.5 C
readers may recognize this figure as the theoretical warming of the. surface due to GHG.
so. if the lapse rate is due to GHG then all is well. however if not, then we have an extra 32.5C. not accounted for which argues strongly that GHG warming is 0.0C.
which means that a planet or moon with a non GHG atmosphere and a lapse rate is evidence that GHG warming is 0.0C.

Ferd.. I derived again the Molar mass version of the Ideal Gas Law, then used one meter of atmosphere to get the units to work out, and I computed 287K. OK, so I thought “so what”, since the density is an indirect way of inferring temperature, so I thought it was circular reasoning. This logic went out the window with the Venus comparison, as now we have “two earths” to compare, each with their own atmospheric composition, sun planet distance, etc. The fact that at 1 Bar, they have the same temperature, in fact from 0.3 Bar to 1.0 Bar, I had to concede that I was wrong. Still, I respect Rud’s thoughts, so I am happy to be educated on what I have wrong.

BK, if you cannot be bothered by ‘misdirection’, perhaps you could be bothered by posting your observational counters. Thanks.

Odd.. ?? … I still need someone to point out the error I am making. Rud?

SB, explained once. No need twice if you did not get the first time. I do not engage in endless stupidity comment banter. Educate yourself, then get back with something of pseudo substance.

Ok, Rud. You failed at your math, so you resorted to insults. I had hoped for more.

Mike McMillan

Planetary lapse rates. Don’t have a source for this.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/lapse_rate_planets.jpg

MarkW

I’ve experienced night fall in the desert.
I’ve experienced night fall when the humidity is close 10 100%.
Obviously green house gases play a role in retaining heat.

Obviously green house gases play a role in retaining heat.

I suppose a role sure, going to cause the Apocalypse not a chance.
And you need to separate them into condensing gases, and non-condensing gases (at our planets operating conditions)
comment image
How many degrees/hr did the temp drop at dusk in each location?
And at what time during the night did temps stop falling in each?comment image
Did you know that at the surface, deserts lose twice the energy as the tropics(18vs9kJ/m^3), while they start with half as much(73vs36kJ/m^3)?

AndyG55

H2O ONLY, MarkW, because it actually changes the lapse rate and does radiate excess energy from phase changes.
But guess what,
There is only water vapour in the atmosphere BECAUSE it is doing it job, which is cooling..!!

Mark.. The temperature in my area can swing 80 C from winter to summer, 25 C from one day to the next, or even overnight. I understand that I am supposed to “average” this to the SB temperature of 287K. One way or the other, the earths temperature must “average” out. (At least with pressure it is nearly constant world wide, winter/summer, etc.)

Richard M

Here’s how I see it. The lapse rate is the reason the Earth is warmer than the SB calculation. However, on a planet without GHGs the surface temperatures would be the same as the SB calculation. What GHGs do is allow more energy to be absorbed into the atmosphere thus expanding it to a level where the lapse rate leads to additional surface warming.
On a planet without GHGs you would still have a lapse rate but it would look like what Earth sees above the effective radiation height. Essentially the effective radiation height is at the surface.
The reason N&Z find similar values across multiple planets/moons is because they all have GHGs in their atmospheres. Their findings do seem to indicate that GHGs provide no other function.

Richard: “However, on a planet without GHGs the surface temperatures would be the same as the SB calculation”
Agreed, on “average”. The equatorial region would be raging hot and the poles deep freezing. The day night swings would be huge. Venus is interesting, in that the massive CO2 should move the heat around horizontally to the dark side very quickly, north and south, making for a more even temperature distribution. (I have not confirmed this)
As I see it, GHGs do part of the WORK to move heat around, and water vapor does most of the work, making the world broadly habitable.
Added GHGs do what Willis suggested, ie, some small extra heat is trapped, so the thunderstorms(in the west equatorial Pacific mostly) start a few minutes earlier, and stop a few minutes later.(driven by the evaporative characteristics of water, as he demonstrated)
This time shift is not recorded on any of our varied measurement systems, including balloons and satellites. The maximum/minimum temperatures can/will stay the same. We will never have enough devices to directly measure the effect of our human CO2 additions. The models will never help us, as they cannot be validated.
The subject of this WUWT article is perhaps the only way of tracking the human/natural changes. The results so far do not support fears that the earth is in danger from our added CO2.

OK, I found the Venus temperature profile right here on WUWT. It is supportive:
“The much ballyhooed greenhouse effect of Venus’s carbon dioxide atmosphere can account for only part of the heating and evidence for other heating mechanisms is now in a turmoil,” confirmed Richard Kerr in Science magazine in 1980.
The greenhouse theory does not explain the even surface temperatures from the equator to the poles: “atmospheric temperature and pressure in most of the atmosphere (99 percent of it) are almost identical everywhere on Venus – at the equator, at high latitudes, and in both the planet’s day and night hemispheres. This, in turn, means the Venus weather machine is very efficient in distributing heat evenly,” suggested NASA News in April 1979. Firsoff pointed out the fallacy of the last statement: “To say that the vigorous circulation (of the atmosphere) smooths out the temperature differences will not do, for, firstly, if these differences were smoothed out the flow would stop and, secondly, an effect cannot be its own cause. We are thus left with an unresolved contradiction.”

I should have linked the WUWT article, written by Steven Goddard, aka, Tony Heller. It is dated 2010. I am humbled by how long it took me to understand what he was on to back then.(density, pressure, lapse rate, greenhouse effect, all combined)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

MarkW

I never said anything about apocalypse. However the desperate desire to believe that CO2 can’t cause any change, causes many to latch onto bad science as eagerly as do the apostles of cataclysm.

MarkW

Richard, energy being absorbed into the atmosphere is what other people call heat.

Mark, Richard, Andy, Mike, thanks for the civil discussion.
I now can reconcile the SB equation working from a planets effective emission level(and as Richard said, at the surface with zero GHGs), or 10 km on earth with GHGs, with the lapse rate defined from mass/gravity or PV=nRT, down to the surface.. CO2 acts like billiard balls, which reflect LWIR out in micro seconds, in any direction. They also lose their energy via collisions even faster to H2O, N2, O2, thus slightly heating the atmosphere. On Venus, with almost pure CO2, those billiard balls zip the energy right around Venus, to even out the temperature. Venus will still have an effective emission level, according to the SB equation, and will have a lapse rate. I doubt if there is any planet anywhere without some GHG and “greenhouse effect”. (The quotes are because greenhouses are transparent to outgoing and incoming LWIR, but connotate a general understanding)
The earth churns its atmosphere with water to dissipate the excess heat at the equator, and dump it on the way to the poles. Our added CO2 traps a bit of the heat, but the rate of vertical and horizontal transport of heat adjusts slightly. The net change is unlikely to be measurable, let alone beyond natural variations. The author of this essay is to be congratulated for making such an effort to measure net changes.
My initial reference to Nikolov, N., & Zeller, K. (2017) is a bridge too far for me right now.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

Richard M
“The lapse rate is the reason the Earth is warmer than the SB calculation. However, on a planet without GHGs the surface temperatures would be the same as the SB calculation.”
I agree that the effective radiation height is the surface, because the atmosphere would not radiate anything. However that are two things heating the atmosphere: surface contact, and GHG’s absorbing energy on the way in and out. Discussions of ‘radiative balance’ leave out the surface heating because the atmosphere can radiate the energy away, something not possible without GHG’s.
Your analysis is fine as far as radiation goes, but you left out the surface heating. Without anything intercepting the incoming energy, the atmosphere would not heat by it, however far more energy would reach the surface. That means the surface temperature would rise more during the day than it does now. Because the atmosphere is in contact with the surface, the air will be heated more than it is now, but will have no way to dispose of that heat. It would simply accumulate and be moved around by convection because there would be a lapse rate.
Were you to add the surface heating (convective heat transfer) the air temperature would rise (far more than it does now) and the daytime surface would be cooled by that ‘loss’. The surface temperature would always be the SB value without GHG’s, but it would not be as is often claimed: the same as a naked moon. The claim for a 33 deg C rise from a naked moon to a 15 C Earth being ’caused by GHG’s’ is false. Without GHG’s it would be warmer. How then can we know adding more radiating molecules will increase the air temperature 1.5m above the ground?
The surface, absent GHG’s, would be heated by the incoming radiation, transfer a portion of it to the air, and radiate the rest at a temperature consistent with the two losses. As for the temperature of the air 1.5 m above the ground, that would be far higher than it is now because GHG-free air no way to radiate energy gained from the surface. It could only cool at night by heating the surface, increasing nighttime energy loss. The overall effect would be moderating the day-night range, with a higher temperature than now.

Crispin..
No GHGs? result? Lots of surface winds? A general wind direction to the very cold poles should happen. Dusty and windy.

I’ll have to agree with ristvan here. The Nikolov and Zeller paper, is in my opinion, junk. Remember, these are the guys that published a similar paper under fake names.
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.0210111/full/

Thanks Anthony. It is certainly not for me to judge the motives of the authors for doing that, but I will wade through their math to see what it is they think they have found.
Thank you for your wonderful forum which allowed me to ask questions and to receive answers. You are among the the best of the American tradition of innovation and excellence.

sailboarder
We have not figured out
what causes climate change
on our planet, beyond
a simple list of likely causes,
so how much could we
possibly know
about OTHER planets?

higley7

Right, they are claiming double of CO2 creates a 1.4 deg C temperature increase. However, they for get that all they are looking at is correlation and not causation.
As we know that CO2 always lags temperature changes, they are actually saying that a 1.4 deg C increase in global temperature will cause a doubling of CO2. As CO2 partitions 50 to 1 into the oceans, there is a lot more CO2 in the oceans. A ~1% outgassing of CO2 from the oceans is adequate to double atmospheric CO2 to 800 ppm. And the plants will love it, big time.

Alan Tomalty

What is SB? cmon guys easy on the abbreviations!!!!!!!!!!!

Rainer Bensch

Alan, SB means the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

higley7 wrote:
“As we know that CO2 always lags temperature changes…”
Correct h7, but nobody wants to discuss (let alone accept) this lag – because it stops the endless debate and the huge “cargo cult” that is global warming alarmism.
Ferdinand will point out, probably correctly, that warming only causes a small part of the increase in atmospheric CO2, and that other causes contribute the majority of the increase – OK, but that does not in any way disprove the obvious reality – that temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature, that therefore the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, and that THERE IS NO REAL CO2-DRIVEN GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.
Those who disagree with the above hypothesis must first demonstrate a credible alternative – and first they must show how the future can cause the past – and that is impossible – and that is why they don’t want to discuss it. 🙂
Regards, Allan

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/25/2017-was-warm-the-next-few-years-will-be-more-important/comment-page-1/#comment-2726775
[excerpt]
EARTH COOLED FROM ~1940 TO ~1977, EVEN AS FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION STRONGLY ACCELERATED.
As atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased, Earth cooled for about 37 years, then warmed for a few decades, and then stayed about the same temperature during “the Pause”. except for some major El Nino’s. Earth is still cooling from the last El Nino, and is expected to cool considerably more, based on the 4-month leading indicator of sea surface temperatures.
The is NO evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming., unless you are also prepared to conclude that it also drives global cooling AND “the Pause”.
Regards, Allan
__________________
Using the same assumptions at Christy and McNider 2017 (~all changes are due to increasing atm. CO2), I estimated TCS equals MINUS ~1C/(2xCO2) for the global cooling period from 1940 to 1977, ~equal but opposite sign to the PLUS 1.1C calculated by Christy and McNider for 1979 to 2017.5.
I conclude that “This TCS is so low that there is no real global warming (or cooling) crisis caused by increasing atm. CO2.”
__________________

philo

Unless an abbreviation is included and explained, per Ranier, it should always be included in comments such as this.

Samuel C Cogar

ALLAN MACRAE – January 29, 2018 at 5:23 am

Ferdinand will point out, probably correctly, that warming only causes a small part of the increase in atmospheric CO2, and that other causes contribute the majority of the increase –

“Shur nuff”, … Ferdinand just might be silly enough to “point out” what you stated above, ….. but he sure as ell wouldn’t be correct iffen he did so.
“DUH”, warming of the ocean water causes the majority of all atmospheric CO2 ppm increases, …… like 80+% majority of it. The outgassing of CO2 as a result of the decomposition of dead biomass is the 2nd majority cause of said increase even though it is not directly measurable.
But anyway, Allan MacRae, …….. be SPECIFIC whenever you use/cite the word “warming” in context with any commentary denoting atmospheric CO2.
Fer instance, ….. the local warming of an “open” can of beer or soda pop will cause a wee small increase in atmospheric CO2. A damn small increase, ……. but still an increase.
And, ……. the seasonal warming of the near-surface temperatures wherever there is dead biomass on or near the surface ……. can/will cause a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Microbial decomposition of dead biomass increases significantly whenever near-surface temperatures rise above 60F.
But, …… both the increase in yearly average warming ….. and the bi-yearly (seasonal) warming …… of the ocean waters in the Southern Hemisphere ……. is the direct cause of the majority of both the yearly and bi-yearly increase in atmospheric CO2, as per the Mauna Loa Record.
Allan, neither you or Ferdinand, ….. nor anyone else, ….. can point out a human (anthropogenic) CO2 emission “signature” …… anywhere within the 59 years of the Mauna Loa CO2 ppm data. And if one cannot “point out” a human signature therein, …… then it is asinine and stupid for anyone to claim that humans are the major cause of atmospheric CO2 increases.

Samuel,
If you don’t like the data, they don’t exist?
The human “fingerprint” in the CO2 increase is as clear as can be. Fossil fuels have a much lower 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere and ocean CO2 has a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere.
As there is an enormous drop in 13C/12C (expressed as per mil δ13C) since ~1850 in exact ratio to human use of fossil fuels, that is the main cause of the increase. That excludes the oceans as main source.
Vegetation could be the other cause, as vegetation decay also has a low δ13C level, but from the oxygen balance we know that vegetation is a net producer of oxygen, thus a sink for CO2 and thus not the cause of the δ13C drop in the atmosphere. Just the opposite.
See the drop in δ13C of both the atmosphere (ice cores, firn, direct measurements) and the ocean surface (coralline sponges):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg

Samuel C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – January 30, 2018 at 12:01 am

Samuel,
If you don’t like the data, they don’t exist? ….. (Speak for yourself, John. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Alden )
The human “fingerprint” in the CO2 increase is as clear as can be. Fossil fuels have a much lower 13C/12C ratio than the …. yada, yada, yada

Ferdinand, do you have your fingers firmly implanted in both your ears and your eyeballs, ……. OR WHAT?
I specifically stated “Mauna Loa CO2 data”, …… not your “junk science” concocted estimations of CO2 emission quantities and sources.
Ferdie, here are links to 60 years of CO2 data, ……. take your pick …… and then cite me any “human fingerprints” therein …… that you have based your reputation and good name on …… by claiming said are “clear as can be”.

Samuel C Cogar

OOPS, …… Ferdie, …… forgot the links, ….. to wit:
NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
NOAA’s complete weekly/daily average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.txt
Now point out those “fingerprints” you claim are therein.

Samuel,
Mauna Loa not only measures CO2, they also monitor a lot of other gases and also isotopic compositions of these gases. That includes the 13C/12C ratio in CO2 since about 1981:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
Thus the human “fingerprint” in the decreasing δ13C level of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is clear…
At Mauna Loa they also measured the oxygen levels which prove that the biosphere is growing, thus not the cause of the CO2 increase.
Even if you don’t like the data of fossil fuel burning, that the biosphere is growing is indepedently proven by satellites: the earth is greening.
It is not because CO2 levels alone don’t give you 100% proof of the origin of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that you should ignore the other observations, which do proof what is cause and effect…

Samuel C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – January 30, 2018 at 11:53 am

Thus the human “fingerprint” in the decreasing δ13C level of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is clear…

Ferdinand, …… “Oh Brilliant One”, ….. please enlighten me and the rest of humanity, ….. as to just how in hell do you know that your above denoted “d13C trends” graph in CO2 emissions ……. denotes a human “fingerprint”, …….. when in actuality, it is highly more likely to be denoting a termite “fingerprint”, …… because, to wit:

Termite and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Facts:
• Termites produce more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) each year than all other living things combined.
• Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.
• Scientists estimate that, worldwide, termites may release over 150 million tons of methane gas into the atmosphere annually. In our lower atmosphere this methane then reacts to form carbon dioxide and ozone.
• It is estimated that for every human on Earth there may be 1000 pounds of termites.

“Oh Brilliant One”, ….. please tell us how you distinguish the difference between the atmospheric CO2 that was emitted by human activities ….. and the atmospheric CO2 that was emitted by termite activities?
Ferdie, …… or please cite a url “link” to your …. published “peer-approved” research paper (abstract) that explains how you accomplished the above.
Either fess up …… or quit posting your “junk science” piffle and tripe.

Samuel,
Please… What you asks for is explained many, many, many times, but here again for you…
When vegetation grows it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and replaces that with O2.
The biological process that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere is “tuned” for the incorporation of 12CO2, but still also uses 13CO2, but at a lower rate. The effect is that the carbon in plants has slightly less 13CO2 compared to 12CO2 than in the atmosphere.
Moreover, there are two main pathways to incorporate CO2: the C3 pathway and the C4 pathway. The C3 pathways is more selective for 12CO2 than the C4 pathway, but both give a drop in the 13C/12C ratio in the plant.
Coal is derived from only C3 plants (there were no C4 plants at that time and still all trees are C3 plants). When you burn coal, you bring more 13C-poor CO2 in the atmosphere and the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere drops. That is measured as a ratio formula, expressed in per mil δ13C. Coal is around -24 per mil.
The δ13C level of oil is more varable but in average slightly lower than for coal.
The δ13C level of natural gas also is variable but way lower than for coal, between -40 and -80 per mil.
C3 plants are around -24 per mil too, C4 plants around -13 per mil.
The atmosphere is currently around -8 per mil, fast dropping from -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil over the Holocene until about 1850. Thus some huge 13C-poor source is adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The (deep) oceans are between zero and +5 per mil, that excludes the oceans as main source.
Carbonate rocks are around zero per mil, Volcanoes beween -7 and +2 per mil. Again not the sources.
Besides human emissions, only the biosphere could be the source of low-13C CO2.
If there is more plant growth than decay (+ feed and food), the δ13C level in the atmosphere would increase as the growth uses relative more 12CO2 than 13CO2. And reverse.
From the O2 balance and from satellite measurements of chlorophyll on earth, we know that the biomass is growing, despite land use changes by humans, thus the biosphere is not the cause of increasing CO2 levels, neither of the drop of the δ13C level.
Moreover, the quantities needed are enormous: about 1/3 of all vegetation on earth must have been destroyed between 1960 and now to fit the CO2 increase ánd the δ13C drop in the atmosphere…
Conclusion: the only cause of both the CO2 increase and the δ13C drop in the atmosphere (and ocean surface and vegetation) is the burning of fossil fuels by humans…

Samuel,
BTW, thermites can’t eat more wood than is produced by vegetation each year, or they will run out of “fuel” sooner or later… They and all other creatures in the biosphere, including humans, don’t digest more carbon derivatives than was taken away as CO2 out of the atmosphere in the same or previous year(s) by photosynthesis (huge El NIño years excluded)…

Wim Röst

Ferdinand Engelbeen January 30, 2018 at 2:12 pm
WR: Well explained

Samuel C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – January 30, 2018 at 2:12 pm

Coal is derived from only C3 plants (there were no C4 plants at that time and still all trees are C3 plants). When you burn coal, you bring more 13C-poor CO2 in the atmosphere and the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere drops. That is measured as a ratio formula, expressed in per mil δ13C. Coal is around -24 per mil. ….. yada, yada, yada

Ferdie, you posted that same/similar silly “tripe n’ piffle” a long time ago, and I responded to it, …… but like the Magic Dragon, …… you went “poof” and was gone, …… thus refusing to acknowledge my posting, ……. let alone respond to it.
So, Ferdinand, …… here is your 2nd chance to respond to FACTUAL science that explains the declining δ13C level in the atmosphere, …….. thus you can respond or go “poof” again to save face, ……. your choice, to wit:

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

But the atmosphere (and the ocean surface layer and all plants on earth) show a declining δ13C level in ratio to the burning of fossil fuels… Which thus isn’t from the oceans and not from baking goods or C3 or C4 plants growing and decaying or eaten…
If not from humans, then where is it coming from?

————–
Now Ferdinand, I was justa thinking …. that prior to the advent of the Industrial Revolution the Northern Hemisphere non-polar land masses were highly vegetated with massive forests of woody trees in the Temperate Zones and a mix of vegetation in the Tropic and Sub-Tropic Zones.
But in North America that all began to change in the early 1800’s when those great forests began being “clear-cut” of their virgin timber and the sawed lumber was used to build homes and businesses locally but the majority was shipped by water and rail to build the great cities and factories for the increasing population of laborers and workers. And the land from which that timber was cut was then cleared of all tree stumps, rocks and brush and was used to raise cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, geese and horses, …… and also used to grow food to feed those animals, to feed one’s family and to feed the increasing populations in the great cities. (added note: the same thing occurred in Europe but much earlier)
And that process continued well into the early 1900’s as urbanization of the cities increased and then in the mid-1900’s suburbanation of the farm land began. Said suburbanation became possible because starting in the early 1940’s the “family farms” began disappearing like snowflakes on a hot pavement and the woody trees and other greenery started growing again with gusto and the landscape has now become much “greener” with woody trees, etc., than it was pre-1940. (and the same all across Europe)
And the reason I am telling you this, Ferdinand, is because of what I found when searching for info concerning your “δ13C” statement, and what I found was, to wit:

Differences in altitude are also known to affect terrestrial plant carbon isotopic signatures (δ13C) in mountain regions, since plant δ13C values at high altitudes are typically enriched (Körner et al. 1988; 1991) compared to the carbon signatures of plants from low altitudes.
Soil organic matter also show enrichment in 13C with soil depth, which is suggested to be a consequence of humification and the loss of the lighter isotope (12C) via respiration, thus concentrating 13C in the soil organic matter (Kramer et al. 2003).
This might be transitional to temperature and differences in decomposition. Moreover, the isotopic carbon signatures of autochthonous and allochthonous food-sources in aquatic ecosystems are generally separated, which is also reflected in the consumer community. Stable isotope analysis is therefore a useful method for determining the autotrophic or heterotrophic character of lake food webs (Karlsson et al. 2003; 2007).

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:303212/FULLTEXT01.pdf

————–
Ferdinand, the re-growth of the forests are sequestering the C13 in the soils and their respiration is emitting the C12 back into the atmosphere ….. and that is potentially where your declining δ13C level is coming from. But what the hell do I know, I’m not a degreed expert like the (northern) European elite.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1533497

Ferdinand, …….. termites, ants and all plant-eating herbivores emit copious amounts of CO2 as a result of respiration ,,,,,,, and you don’t have a frigging clue what happens to the C13 that they ingest via their food source. Do they exhale that C13 into the atmosphere or do they defecate that C13 out as part of their body waste (feces)?

Samuel,
To begin with, I never look down on anybody less learned than I am, as I too have learned more on my own merits than I ever learned for having some scientific grade…
I only have problems with people who don’t want to learn, no matter how clear the explanations were, because they don’t like the result…
Keep it simple:
Humans emitted about twice the amount of CO2 that is found as extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
Humans emitted enough low-13C CO2, to drop the δ13C level in the atmosphere with 3 times the current observed drop.
Thus whatever the termites did or vegetation did or humans did with cutting and replanting forests, the use of fossil fuels alone is by far large enough to explain the CO2 increase and the δ13C drop in the atmosphere.
Moreover, both the ocean surface layer and vegetation show an increase of carbon mass and both show a similar drop in δ13C as in the atmosphere.
Thus whatever the termites did or whatever the δ13C level does with altitude or whatever humans did with forests, both ocean surface and vegetation are sinks for CO2 and certainly not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. Neither are they the cause of the δ13C level decline as they can’t be a net sink for CO2 and at the same time decreasing the δ13C level in the atmosphere. That is biochemically impossible, no matter the individual δ13C level of any plant or termite or human…
Further, If you quote part of an article that you think supports your ideas, look further than that quote:
In Fig. 5, soil δ13C levels were plotted for low and high altitude samples:
Low altitude: -27.7 +/- 1 per mil
High altitude: -26.7 +/- 0.5 per mil
Indeed “enriched” in 13C at high altitude, but just peanuts as influence on atmospheric δ13C levels.
If both emitted the 12CO2 difference in the atmosphere with reasonable quantities you even can’t measure the difference in the bulk of the atmosphere…

Sorry Ferdinand. I am laughing now, but it is not really a humorous matter.
I said recently on some thread that an angry old cougar would probably accost you, and … there he is.
I do not understand why a neophyte like Samuel is so obnoxious, when he has changed his story as he learns more, and still insists on talking down to people who have diligently studied these issues for decades.
I really do miss your debates with Richard S Courtney on this subject – as you know, Richard and I are officially agnostic on your “mass balance argument”, which would come as a shock to Samuel, but there it is.
I admire your patience with all of us, and wish you the very best in 2018.
Regards, Allan
Post Script
I recently ran my genetics and it confirmed our family history – that we arrived in Scotland from Ireland some 1000 years ago – so I leave you with this Irish blessing:
May the road rise to meet you,
may the wind be ever at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
and the rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of his hand.

Samuel C Cogar

ALLAN MACRAE – January 31, 2018 at 10:46 pm

I do not understand why a neophyte like Samuel is so obnoxious, when he has changed his story as he learns more, and still insists on talking down to people who have diligently studied these issues for decades.

“HA”, ……. a neophyte, huh?
Allan, spoken like one of the many clueless “edumucated” elites who truly believe that their Degree ranking and years-of-tenure …….. automatically bestows the status of “expert” upon their person and renders them immune from any criticisms or contrary comments by those of lesser Degree status or tenure.
Allen, am I correct in assuming that you are still highly PO’ed, unhappy, defensive and quite angry because of the actions of Charles Darwin …… who insisted on, per se, talking down to people who had been diligently studying the issue of plant and animal “evolution” for decades and decades?
And Allen , there are quite a few more of your denoted “neophytes” that have LITERALLY changed the “face of science” during the past 200 years. Read the bio of Charles Goodyear.
And for your information, ALLAN MACRAE, ….. I have been studying the “issues” associated with the “science of the natural world” …… for the past 70+ years (7 decades that is), ….. which began when I was about 5 years old.
And I earned my AB Degrees in the Biological and Physical Sciences in 1962, to assist me in my study and investigations of said issues.
So Allen, what is your excuse for being a “mimicker” and/or “paraphraser” of tripe and piffle …… instead of an “original thinker” like myself?
Ferdinand is NOT learned in or knowledgeable of “the biology of planet earth“, ….. therefore he has to depend on his “imagination” to devise and/or concoct the silly explanations he claims are “proof and evidence” for his junk-science claims.
Even though the world’s termite populations and the world’s ant populations, both emit like 20X more CO2 into the atmosphere than does the world’s human populations, …… Ferdinand absolutely, positively REFUSES to admit to those FACTS and continues to blame everything on the fossil fuel burning activities of humans.
Ferdie wants to “cite” a wintertime measurement of CO2 emissions from underneath “snow covered” decks in Alaska ……. and then claim those “emission” are responsible for the wintertime increase in atmospheric CO2 as defined by the Keeling Curve Graph, to wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

BTW, that annual cycle inset, matched the daily change in temp.comment image

micro6500,
Of course the seasonal CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow the daily temperatures: for the biosphere in reverse order than for the ocean surface.
The calculated (based on solubility) seasonal CO2 flux from / to the ocean surface is about 50 GtC/season.
The calculated (beased on δ13C and δO2) seasonal CO2 flux to / from the biosphere is about 60 GtC/season.
As both are in countercurrent, (mainly NH) vegetation wins the contest with a global amplitude of 10 GtC/season or about 5 ppmv over the seasons, proven by the opposite CO2 and δ13C movements:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg

Samuel, you angry old trool.
First, learn to read what I wrote to Ferdinand:
“I really do miss your debates with Richard S Courtney on this subject – as you know, Richard and I are officially agnostic on your “mass balance argument”, which would come as a shock to Samuel, but there it is.”
Next, learn to think.
This debate has been going on ever since I wrote my 2008 paper stating that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record. The most intelligent of these debates was between Ferdinand and the brilliant Dr. Richard S Courtney, mostly here on wattsup. I strongly recommend them.
Finally, learn to control your anger and your tongue.
You must be impossible to be around, since you vent your bitter spleen even when you don’t know what you are talking about. Give your friends and family a break and Shut TF Up.
Regards, Allan

Samuel C Cogar

micro6500 – February 1, 2018 at 9:12 am

BTW, that annual cycle inset, matched the daily change in temp.

Sorry, micro6, …… “close” only counts in the game of “horseshoes”. The only “match” between the two is that they are both plotted “sine waves”.
There is absolutely nothing “steady and consistent” about seasonal (bi-yearly) “daily” changes in near-surface temperatures as you can readily see via your own posted graphic, ……….. but there absolutely, positively is a “steady and consistent” bi-annual cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities …….. whereby the MAXIMUM CO2 ppm always occurs within 5 or 7 days of mid-May of each calendar year …….. whereas the MINIMUM CO2 ppm always occurs within 5 or 7 days after the Autumnal Equinox on September 23rd of each calendar year,
Bout the only things that messes up the “start” dates of the bi-yearly CO2 cycling are El Ninos and La Ninas or a major volcanic eruption. Like so, to wit:
CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May
year mth “Max” ppm _ yearly increase __ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38
The above data is proof-positive of an average 5 to 6 ppm decrease in CO2 that occurs between mid-May (5) and the end of September (9) of each calendar year …… and that there is an average 7 to 8 ppm increase in CO2 that occurs between the end of September (9) and mid-May (5) of the next calendar year.
If you are not careful, Ferdinand and his “mass balance” thingy will have you returning things that you never borrowed to begin with.

I never said

There is absolutely nothing “steady and consistent” about seasonal (bi-yearly) “daily” changes in near-surface temperatures as you can readily see via your own posted graphic

And what I said is absolutely correct, there are 2 seasonal maxima rate changes, My chart has ~40 million data points, how many does your have?

Samuel C Cogar

Samuel, you angry old trool[sic].

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Allen, ….. I am not an angry old troll, ……. I am an extremely angry “old” Degreed Educator of the Sciences, …… because, during the past 30+ years, the lefty liberal “wackos” have taken control of the Public School curriculum and mostly what is now being taught to students is Politically Correct “junk science”. Care to divulge your “schooling years”?

Next, learn to think.
This debate has been going on ever since I wrote my 2008 paper stating that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.

Sorry Allen, but I have no desire to ever “learn to think” the same as you and Ferdinand have been misnurtured into thinking/believing that your “abstract reasoning” abilities are far superior to anyone that was “schooled” prior to the 1970;s.
“Learning to think” is a self-nurtured mental attribute that the “foundation” of which has to be acquired during one’s young (non-teen) adolescent years. A person can not easily be taught to “think” after they have matured through their teenage years. Getta clue, Allen, there is a biological reason for why …… “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”.
“HA”, anyone that claims they have proof that “atmospheric CO2 ppm lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record” ……. surely has need of a good pair of eyeglasses …… or a dire need of “re-nurturing” their brain neurons and/or a “re-configuration” of the neuron’s synaptic connections.

Samuel C Cogar

micro6500 – February 2, 2018 at 5:31 am

I never said

Of course you never said it, …… you quoted me, ….. “DUH”.
And your posted graph (chart) could have ~89 million data points, and it wouldn’t matter one (1) “twits” worth.
Here, micro6, study this graph for a few days ….. and then tells what you have learned from it.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png

Co2 isn’t causing the temperature changes.
But I didn’t need that graph, I figured out why it doesn’t, as well as what it does follow.

johchi7

Samuel
When I looked at your graph on my phone it includes all of your saved photos on your photobucket… Some 140+ of them….

Samuel C Cogar

micro6500 – February 2, 2018 at 7:05 am

Co2 isn’t causing the temperature changes.

“YUP”, you got that right.
Did you also notice that those increase and decreases in the near-surface (lower atmosphere) temperatures have no effect whatsoever on the increase, …. or rate of increase ….. in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
Micro6, did you notice that also, ….. huh, …. huh, ….. huh?
==================
@ johchi7,
I just checked and only have 41 photos uploaded to that PhotoBucket site …. but there are now so damn many “pop-up” ADS fighting each other for “screen space”, the site is now totally FUBAR.
I guess I’ll hafta find another site for “storing” images that I can “cite” via a url .jpg “link”.

Enough Samuel,
If you would actually read what I wrote, I do not even agree with Ferdinand, but am agnostic on his “mass balance argument”. The carbon cycle is a very complicated equation, with many large moving parts. He and I agree to possibly disagree, but we do so POLITELY.
Further, I happen to agree with your concern about modern science education – I do not understand have so many people can be so willfully ignorant of the scientific method. How can they not understand that science is NOT politics and it is not consensus?
Let’s stop this, I am not even that interested in the carbon cycle, because it is clear that climate is not significantly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, whatever the cause.
There is NO real global warming crisis.

Hivemind

In one word, yes.
It is actually slightly more complex than that, though. There are many models, each programmed by different teams. Each has a different rate of warming, determined by the assumptions of the programmers. Any model that produced a warming rate outside of that liked by the programmers had to be rewritten until it produced the “right” answer. Also, the “right” answer has been changing over time. As noted by Dr Orssengo, 4 degrees was the right answer at one time. Nowadays, even laymen can see that the world hasn’t warmed that much, so the models are being reprogrammed for lower, more plausible answers.
But in a short, yes the models give the results the “researchers” want.

Richard: “However, on a planet without GHGs the surface temperatures would be the same as the SB calculation”
Agreed, on “average”. The equatorial region would be raging hot and the poles deep freezing. The day night swings would be huge. Venus is interesting, in that the massive CO2 should move the heat around horizontally to the dark side very quickly, north and south, making for a more even temperature distribution. (I have not confirmed this)
As I see it, GHGs do part of the WORK to move heat around, and water vapor does most of the work, making the world broadly habitable.
Added GHGs do what Willis suggested, ie, some small extra heat is trapped, so the thunderstorms(in the west equatorial Pacific mostly) start a few minutes earlier, and stop a few minutes later.(driven by the evaporative characteristics of water, as he demonstrated)
This time shift is not recorded on any of our varied measurement systems, including balloons and satellites. The maximum/minimum temperatures can/will stay the same. We will NEVER have enough devices to directly measure the effect of our human CO2 additions. The models will never help us, as they cannot be validated.
The subject of this WUWT article is perhaps the only way of tracking the human/natural changes. The results so far do not support fears that the earth is in danger from our added CO2.

oops, wrong location

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

sailboarder
“Agreed, on “average”. The equatorial region would be raging hot and the poles deep freezing. The day night swings would be huge.”
You have forgotten about the heat transferred to the atmosphere by contact with the surface. Such a transfer would continue in the absence of GHG’s. You are correct the surface would ‘try’ to warm much more than it does not, but it would be immediately and continuously cooled by contact with the air which would convect the heat upwards. Such contact heating continues independent of GHG concentrations.
The day night swings would be greatly moderated by the atmosphere because it would contain a substantial amount of energy, being unable to cool by radiation – only contact with the surface. At night, the rapidly cooling surface would be heated by the very hot air, using the surface as the only cooling mechanism available to it. The equilibrium air temperature would be far higher than it is now in such conditions.
The original “GHG’s are responsible for all warming” argument is completely inadequate. Just because radiating air heating disappears, doesn’t mean conduction and convection suddenly stop working. This flaw in the GHG argument is so deep it splits CO2-based alarmism from physical reality.

GoatGuy

nice math

tadchem

The equation is a fancy statement that a ‘power law’ has been used. A power law is an equation often used by statisticians in the complete absence of any data on cause-effect relationships because it allows approximate linear curve fitting over a wide range of paired values when log-log coordinates are employed, a ‘trick’ that effectively hides subtle but important deviations from a linear relationship.

Just so, as my comment to your comment below points out.

Komrade Kuma

‘statisticians’ being the operative word or at least indicating that thre are no technical specialists involved who properly understand the actual mechanisms let alone are able to quantify them and so statistics are restorted to as a last resort.
Statististics, apart from long being associated with lies and damned lies, are not that distant from Voodoo in the hands of evangelicals.

power law distributions are very common in nature. they differ from the normal distribution in that rare events are more likely in a power law distribution.
it is quite possible that. a generation of art students enrolled in climate science and then used excel and the normal distribution to analyse their data.
and low and behold their stats package told them that rare climate events were becoming more common than the statistics predicted. and therefore the climate was changing.
but of course the problem was in using the wrong statistical. assumption. they naively assumed climate statistics worked like a coin toss or roll of the dice.

tadchem

Interesting thing about Equation 1: It does not distinguish cause and effect. It assumes a direct relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. It could equally assert that temperature changes drive concentration changes. Also, the canonical ‘global warming’ models all totally ignore the primary factor that relates atmospheric temperature to atmospheric composition – the adiabatic lapse rate.

Bartemis

A counter would be that the equation is specifically predicated upon CO2 having a warming potential. A counter to the counter is that there is no way to confirm that the equation holds. There’s not enough curvature to be detectable over the range of the data, so a linear equation would do just as well.

Robert of Texas

If one replaced “CO2” with a “black box” that actually contained more complexities and control knobs, one could then say the power equation “approximates” the behavior of the black box over some range of inputs (the control knobs). I think that is what they are actually (inadvertently) doing rather than approximating CO2 driven behavior.
The problem with this as long as their is a black box, there is no real understanding of what is going on, only that an output can be approximated over a range of inputs. I do not see any value in this. There must be understanding of mechanisms to make any real progress.
Weather trained scientists (with a degree or not, they understand weather) are like the black box – they can make a forecast based on what they have seen (so, pattern matching), but can’t forecast something new that they have never seen. I think they mostly understand this.
Climatologists (at least many of them) believe they can forecast things they have never seen using a black box they have no understanding of. They only get away with this because they forecast out so far that most people forget when they turn out to be wrong (again, and again…)

higley7

CO2, and water vapor, are called radiative gases. During the day, they are saturated with IR radiation and converting IR to heat and heat to IR constantly, have a net effect of zero on temperature. However, at night, in the absence of insolation, these gases convert heat in the atmosphere to IR which is lost to space. This is why the air chills down so quickly after sunset and why small breezes kick up so quickly in the shadows of clouds on a day with scudding clouds.
The fact is that CO2 and water vapor cool the planet, not warm it, and actually, as CO2 rises it tends to displace water vapor, maintaining a constant total concentration in the atmosphere.

There must be understanding of mechanisms to make any real progress.
==========
disagree. humans learned to predict the seasons long before the mechanism was understood. this had great value and allowed civilization to advance.
why something happens is philosophy. thus PhD’s are doctors of philosophy. best kept in ivory towers out of harms way.
just look at the solution to global warming that PhDs have provided. stop burning fossil fuel. as practical a solution as you would get from the village idiot.
the real value in science comes from reliable prediction which allows us to build things that give reliable results.

Alan Tomalty

ferd wrote:
“Just look at the solution to global warming that PhDs have provided. Stop burning fossil fuel. As practical a solution as you would get from the village idiot.”
Well put ferd, although I think you are being too hard on the village idiot. Even he would have recognized his folly and reversed his opinion by now. But there are trillions of dollars being embezzled in this global warming scam.
We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles…

or it could be an as yet unrecognized third factor drives both temperature and CO2.
given that ice ages start when CO2 is high and end when CO2 is low it strikes me as absurd to believe CO2 has a significant warming effect. if that was true we would not see ice age cycles unless a third factor is actually controlling both temp and CO2.

According to some, the third factor is Milankovitch. Particularly obliquity. The presumption being that NH land vs SH ocean at 60 degrees is a big deal. Not a particularly supportable presumption, given that ocean rather than land governs atmospheric temperature.
The latest is complexity and emergent properties whereby CO2 back radiation (at the speed of light) needs time to warm the oceans and therefore lags temperature in the glacial/interglacial dance.
You can pile on theoretical epicycles all day long…

What would happen if, during the Milankovitch cycle, while 23Nd latitude(roughly the center of the Queen Elizabeth Islands), atmospheric oscillations similar to the one that is occurring now where the jet stream settles into a relatively stable convoluted stream occurred. That would bring the snow line far south of 23N across broad reaches of the North America, Greenland, Russia, and Canada. With the sun relatively high in the sky much of the snow cover would last longer and reflect more sunlight. A couple of back to back or multiple occurrences could easily result in a semipermanent snow cover resulting in the beginning of a glaciation. That would be consistent with the ice cores which show that glaciations happen over a long period of time. Then, relatively suddenly, they disappear over a relatively short period- 1-2000 years.
Since weather would trigger the actual transitions that would also explain some of the variation in glacial periods and interstadials. It might take a century or 1000 years for the chance weather to occur.

Ben of Houston

That’s true. This article requires the underlying assumption that CO2 is responsible for all temperature increase. I think that’s a good starting point to calculate worst case estimates, but given the circumstantial evidence that we had natural warming at the same time, this should be looked at as an upper bound.
Is it perfect, not even close. However, it is serviceable.

Alan Tomalty

No it isnt serviceable. To be credible a computer model must have an underlying theory which is testable in the real world; NOT in the world of computer simulations. Any computer model that does not have the above is a joke.Every one of the climate computer models are a joke. Dr Pat Frank has proved this.

Gabro

Arctic sea ice has been increasing since 2012.
This estimate of climate sensitivity implies a slight positive feedback from the experimentally-derived lab value of 1.1 to 1.2 degrees C.
I can live with that, although on a homeostatic water planet, net negative feedback makes more sense.
In any case, the effect on global temperature of CO2 after its first 100 or 200 ppm is negligible, being logarithmic.

Gerald Machnee

Still graphs. we have no measurements of how much warming is caused by CO2.

Best estimate: zero.

AndyG55

Almost certainly the closest estimate, 🙂
Absolutely zero sign of any CO2 based warming in the satellite data.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

Phillip
Indistinguishable from zero. It might be negative.

Doug in Calgary

Also, how do they measure what temperature variations are due to the various multi-decadal oscillations so they can remove them?

AndyG55

What temperature series are they using ?
Does it have the 1940s peak totally removed ?
Does the series show cooling from the 1940’s to a cold point in the late 1970s ?
If you use a temperature series deliberately adjusted to match CO2 rise, then the whole exercise is totally meaningless.comment image

AndyG55:
As a goal for 2018 to complement
people more often, when they deserve it:
I have read your comments here, and
at Jo Nova’s website, and wanted to
take the time to tell you they are
a positive addition to any article.
I recall one article I didn’t care for
where your many comments,
and a huge number of charts
you presented,
added up to a very good
counter article, that I saved
… after deleting the nonsense
in the main article that someone
else wrote.
Keep up the good work.
PS:
Just a wild guess about your moniker:
Does the “G” stand for your last name,
and does the “55” stand for 1955?
It’s okay if you keep a secret.
I use a moniker too: “Richard Greene”
is not my real name — it is really
Melvin A. Shitsheimer

afonzarelli

Mel, i can certainly understand why you might want to hide your name 😉 Have to agree with you,
ANDY ROCKS!!!

AndyG55

“Does the “G” stand for your last name, and does the “55” stand for 1955?”
Not necessarily.

AndyG55

ps.. Thanks for the encouragement. 🙂
I do sometimes get a bit “narky”, but that is something people will either get used to…… or not. !!
This whole AGW farce has been stated, by their leaders, as being aimed at bringing down modern society.
I see absolutely ZERO sense in being nice or polite to supporters of this politically based agenda..

Extreme Hiatus

“I see absolutely ZERO sense in being nice or polite to supporters of this politically based agenda.”
You have another fan here Andy, both for the graphs and data you bring with your arguments and for this most appropriate attitude. The same two things make me a big fan of Tony Heller.
I do think that the gullible misinformed CAGW supporters who are simply manipulated useful idiots do deserve a bit of niceness, as in: ‘Forgive them… they know not what they do.” But those running this Big Lie and their ‘scientist’ enablers are [self-snip, snip, snip, snip] who should [self-snip, snip, snip], if you know what I mean.
P.S. In this case I am being nice to the moderators, not the [self-snip, snipping, snipheads]!
[The mods appreciate your pre-pruning the snipped comments. .mod]

Well that would blow the “More CO2 equals more heat” narrative. Lower CO2 with high temperatures seeing a cooling as CO2 levels rise. Sounds suspiciously like an inconvenient truth the Warmists gloss over

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

Gareth
Why wouldn’t painting a radiator blacker increase the rate of heat loss? Adding CO2 to the air increases the ability of the molecules to absorb energy from nearby molecules and radiate it away in all directions, just over half of which are “away”.

JohnWho

Wait, so ALL the warming is directly attributed to atmospheric CO2 increase?

M Courtney

This assumes that at most ALL the warming is directly attributed to atmospheric CO2 increase.
However the Guardian has reported in the past that more than ALL the warming can be directly attributed to atmospheric CO2 increase, as the world could be cooling otherwise.
Thus this Worst Case assumption would be disparaged as too optimistic by the more Alarmist media.

Meanwhile, if it really would be cooling without our contributions, cooling is the last thing in the world anyone should want, so yay us!

johchi7

Frankly I would rather hope that CO2 had a warming effect. But as with a common I made elsewhere on here…it does not to any significant degree cause warming and what it does have would be to little to measure in the atmosphere. And…that what humans contribute is so minute to all natural contributors, makes the AGW even more useless. At this point I am way past being skeptical.

afonzarelli

Suit yer self, Bart. It snowed twice this year in New Orleans (and i’m luvin’ it… ☺)

AndyG55

Yep, suddenly the Sun has no effect whatsoever, despite the strongest series of cycles in several hundred years.

Richard M

Latitude, while the paper I referenced is focused on the Little Ice Age, what the data shows is the complete temperature profile of the last 4K years from other proxies can be produced by looking at ocean currents (THC) as a proxy. This includes warm periods as well as cold ones.
Of course, one can argue the change in ocean currents is driven by the temperature which itself has a different cause, but that seems unlikely.
It is also interesting that Dr Bill Gray viewed the THC as the cause of warming many years ago.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

Richard M

Wong place.

Not my understanding of the post. Wu 2011 removes the natural warming component in ocean oscillations. A back door way to eliminate the attribution problem observatiinally. What is left should be mostly AGW.

afonzarelli

http://i.imgur.com/yvrMXFy.png
As long as there is uncertainty about solar forcings, there will always be uncertainty about attribution as regards modern warming(*) As the data shows, high solar activity equals warming, and low activity cooling. (obviously a good chunk of modern warming is due to el sol)…
* this concept of uncertainty due to solar forcings brought to you courtesy of the good doctor curry

Richard M

That of course is key to the final number. What was used for this natural component and how was it removed. I doubt very much this included factors for Arctic warming which is influenced by this natural component but probably not part of it. It also precludes factoring in the warming from the LIA.
A new paper may show a way to compute the natural warming from the LIA.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4

RM, completely agree that Wu is essential to the post result. Have not yet read Wu to form an independent quality opinion. BUT, judging from the results of this post, Wu cannot be that bad. What I dunno is the uncertainty around its central estimate of removed natural oscillation. Big uncertainties can hide many sins of cherry picked paper ‘central’ results.

“ristvan January 28, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Not my understanding of the post. Wu 2011 removes the natural warming component in ocean oscillations. A back door way to eliminate the attribution problem observatiinally. What is left should be mostly AGW.”

Just how does Wu 2011 verify, validate and prove their ocean warming oscillation assumptions represent natural warming; or represent any proportion of natural warming?
Inherent in that claim is a gross assumption that a miniscule atmospheric component, CO2, is responsible for the entire remainder of atmospheric temperature effects after an assumed “natural warming” is removed.
Normally, that requires definitive observational evidence as proof for every component, not just the popular causes.
From your description, Wu 2011 is a classic argument from ignorance, where a position is determined because one assumes they know all of the components.
Without detailed explicit and easily replicated tests/measurements that leave zero doubt of each atmospheric component contribution and subsequent effect on temperature, such claims are assumptions, not science.
Fancy formulas may be fun to play with, they are still just self-satisfaction formulas without direct replicable evidence.

Latitude

“A new paper may show a way to compute the natural warming from the LIA. ”
The biggest ruse going……who decided that 1850 was the end of the LIA and it was the perfect temp?
We could just as easily still be recovering from the LIA..and any temp increase is perfectly normal

Richard M

Latitude, while the paper I referenced is focused on the Little Ice Age, what the data shows is the complete temperature profile of the last 4K years from other proxies can be produced by looking at ocean currents (THC) as a proxy. This includes warm periods as well as cold ones.
Of course, one can argue the change in ocean currents is driven by the temperature which itself has a different cause, but that seems unlikely.
It is also interesting that Dr Bill Gray viewed the THC as the cause of warming many years ago.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

co2islife

That was my point. Global temperature is a single variable model. What a complete joke.

Alan Tomalty

Another problem with this paper that RichardM pointed to is the following quote
“We stress that structural uncertainties, such as the choice of calibration equations, stationarity of the δ18Osw-SSS relationship, and changes in calcification temperature and habitat might still affect the stacked reconstruction”
Use of computer simulations again. Agggggggggggggggggggggggggh
Of course the paper that this whole thread of responses is based on is a joke because it is 100% based on computer simulations.

co2islife

CO2 is near linear, temperatures are not. The model is a joke.

Scarface

“When we start to see a steady increase in arctic sea ice in the 2020s that continues until the 2050s, what would happen to the “Theory of Man Made Global Warming”?”
Using ‘When’ implies a certainty, and that’s ok, because cooling will start any time soon, just like in the seventees. It’s all part of the natural cycles that are running the show. And I still think the effect of a doubling of CO2 is zero, because the feedback via clouds etc. is negative. Something else is causing the warming/cooling. So far, no one has shown me anything that convinces me to accept the CO2-meme.
Wrt to the question: don’t worry, cooling will be the new warming. AGW will turn in AGC.
Man will be to blame, who else can you tax?

Michael Jankowski

There have already been some claims that global warming will cool the Antarctic for the next few decades, then start warming it…

Alan Tomalty

Are you serious? please provide a reference. If what you say is true then AGW has gone beyond a joke and is approaching the Spanish Inquisition

Alan Tomalty

I started out a believer then some doubt crept in and then became a skeptic. After Dr.Pat Frank’s study I am now a full blown mad as hell “denier” and I am now dedicating a good part of my life to overturn this massive largest scam in history, this side of religion.

I learned the math used here
in college when
studying to be an engineer.
for two years,
and I forgot it in five minutes
when i decided I preferred
to study finance.
The author of this article has
no idea what he is talking about.
I have no idea why it
deserved to be here.
There is no way to take haphazard
temperature measurements,
more than half infilled (wild guessed),
repeatedly adjusted over the years,
that could have a margin of
error of +/- 1.0 degrees C.,
OR MORE
and use any amount of math
to come up with any useful
conclusion about the effect
of doubling CO2
from 400 to 800ppm
The simple closed system
CO2 lab experiments
suggest +1.0 degrees C. warming
excluding unknown feedbacks,
and almost certainly NOT
positive feedbacks.
There is nothing unusual in the
ever-changing temperature record
in the last half of the 20th century
that even hints at anything but
natural climate change — because
the second half of the 20th century
had a warming period
almost identical to the
warming period in
first half of the 20th century !
In addition, if it was true that
CO2 took over as the
“climate controller” in the second
half of the 20th century, then
don’t we at least deserve an
explanation of how, and why,
4.5 billion years of natural
climate change suddenly
stopped, and man made
CO2 mysteriously “took over”
as the “climate controller”?
I criticized a Larry Kummer article here
a few days ago — I’m going back
to apologize — this article is the
worst of 2018 so far — makes
Kummer look like a genius!
The author has taken garbage data,
and applied enough math
to confuse most readers,
and come to a garbage conclusion.
This article is
a huge pile of steaming farm animal
digestive waste products, from an
author with a PhD, trying to baffle
us with BS —
proof that after
enough years of studying
to get a PhD.
that person will eventually
know everything
about nothing.
If I am wrong,
then the author
has single-handedly
solved the mystery
of exactly what
CO2 does to the atmosphere,
so this website can close down and
everyone can go home —
there is nothing more to debate !
Climate common sense
does not require advanced mathematics
because what difference can math make
when the causes of warming are still unknown ?
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

rbabcock

There is no way to take haphazard temperature measurements, more than half infilled (wild guessed), repeatedly adjusted over the years, that could have a margin of error of +/- 1.0 degrees C.,
OR MORE
and use any amount of math to come up with any useful conclusion about the effect of doubling CO2 from 400 to 800ppm

Au Contraire .. that is exactly what they did..

AndyG55

“to come up with any useful conclusion ”
“that is exactly what they did..”

No, they didn’t. !!

Sheri

Yes, they did. Your idea of useful is not the same as theirs. Their conclusion was/is very useful to them.

AndyG55

If they think so.

gnomish

get the climate scientists to convene in Las Vegas.
the casinos will eat their statisticians right up.

Sheri

I didn’t know climate scientists had statisticians.

Extreme Hiatus

Yes Sheri, they do have “statisticians.” That’s what drives their ‘science.’ But they spell it slightly differently.
As in statist-icians.
“statist
DEFINITION
noun form of statism
stat·ism
[ˈstādˌizəm]
NOUN
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:
“the rise of authoritarian statism”

Richard M

While I don’t particularly like this approach because it still leaves out a lot of variables it should be noted that it agrees quite closely to Christy/McNider 2017. I believe they came up with .096 C/decade for UAH 5.6 which would be around .08 C/decade for UAH 6.0.

“Richard Greene January 28, 2018 at 12:24 pm

I criticized a Larry Kummer article here a few days ago — I’m going back to apologize — this article is the worst of 2018 so far — makes Kummer look like a genius!”

I wouldn’t go that far…

Rainer Bensch

I don’t read Kummer’s articles any more but agree with RG insofar as I can imagine it. Math applied to Sh!t.

I got carries away !

johchi7

All of those calculations are meaningless when they start with the flawed experiments of 18th century science, that the apparatuses themselves caused the warming affects and not the CO2 being tested. This was a total waste of their time doing it and mine for reading and commenting here on it.

johchi7
I liked your comment — it was concise and right,
unlike my own long-winded comments!

johchi7

I prefer the comments section of these more than the articles themselves…because of people like yourself. So thank you.

AndyG55

When you release CO2 from a pressurised bottle, of course it absorbs energy. !!

Roger Clague

Pressure is energy/volume. So C02 at high pressure and reducing in pressure is losing energy.

Nice post. In addition to proving the math by inserting IPCC assumptions and outputting IPCC results, there are two other reasons to really like this result as sound work.
First, we know there is a natural quasi 60 year temperature oscillation. See AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4, summarized in 2017 guest post here Why Models are Wrong. Removing that natural component (Wu 2011) gives ~1.4, with some undiscussed uncertainty based on Wu.
Second, Nic Lewis reworked Lewis and Curry 2014 energy budget method in 2016 using the ‘new’ lower aerosol forcing estimates from Steven’s paper and got 1.54. See his post at Climate Etc for the details. Given the forcing uncertainties in Lewis 2016, this post and Lewis 2016 post can be viewed as strongly mutually confirming via different ECS derivation methods. And, both estimates are above the ‘best’ observational estimate of TCR ~1.3, as they should be by definition of TCR and ECS.
This post result is also yet another way to show that most CMIP5 models run about 2x hot.

Wim Röst

Ristvan, (Rud), I always read your comments. You are always well informed and you always try to be as close to reality as possible. Thanks!

Wim, I try even if do not always succeed. And have been generally heeding your quite on point past admonition about use of acronyms without first defining them for non-native English speakers. Highest regards to you in Europe.

Wim Röst

Yes Rud, I remember your comment. Thanks again!

ristvan seems well informed …
until he declares with great certainty
that he knows the exact effect
of a doubling of CO2 —
something that no one else knows —
but each time he declares
“+1.4 C.” per doubling of CO2
it makes him like
a road runner bird (cartoon)
running off a cliff.
There is no evidence in
20th century temperature
measurements of ANYTHING
that looks different than natural
climate variations, therefore
the effect of CO2 could be ZERO,
or the simple lab experiments
could be right, and the effect
is about +1 degree C. per doubling,
excluding what I would expect
to be negative feedbacks.
(and I’m ignoring the
huge amount of wild guess infilling,
repeated “adjustments”
and unknown UHI warming
that makes any real science
conclusion doubtful).
As long as Ristvane continues to “know:
the effect of CO2, then his posts
become propaganda for the warmunists,
because +1.4 is close to
their lowest estimate
… and they have no idea what
they are talking about, with their bogus
“water vapor tripling the CO2 effect
positive feedback theory”
backed by absolutely no science
at all !
The effects of CO2 are a mystery.
That’s why we are here, I think.
Anyone who claims
he “knows” the answer,
beyond stating he BELIEVES
the CO2 lab experiments
apply to the real world,
is ignoring the little
real science that exists!
Even more important,
only one of many
signatures of real greenhouse
warming exists
— the Arctic warming!
There is no Antarctic warming.
There is no tropics hot spot.
There are long periods of
cooling (1940 to 1975) and
moderate periods of a
flat trend (1998 to 2015)
So the warming in not consistent
from decade to decade,
and
The warming is not global
(much less warming in
southern half of the
Southern Hemisphere
than in northern half
of Northern Hemisphere.)
In 4.5 billion years
there is a mere
10 years (early 1990s to
early 2000s)
when both CO2 levels
and average temperature
rose a lot at the same time.
Ice core studies
show temperature increased
hundreds of years before
CO2 did.
So why not throw
all these observations
going back 800,000 years
in the garbage can, and
wild guess the effect of CO2
as Ristvane does?
Ristvane’s +1.4 degree C. per doubling
is his wild guess speculation,
stated with great certainty,
just like the warmunists
state their own BS beliefs
(+1.5 to +4.5 C.).
Ristvanes +1.4 C.
is better described
as Ristvane’s BS.

Richard M

The big problem is this still ignores the millennial cycle sometimes referred to as the recovery from the Little Ice Age. This may now be possible using Thirumalai et al 2017 (link in comment above).
I would love to see this applied to Christy/McNider 2017. That might start to get us close to reality.

“ristvan January 28, 2018 at 12:34 pm
Nice post. In addition to proving the math by inserting IPCC assumptions and outputting IPCC results, there are two other reasons to really like this result as sound work.
First, we know there is a natural quasi 60 year temperature oscillation. See AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4, summarized in 2017 guest post here Why Models are Wrong. Removing that natural component (Wu 2011) gives ~1.4, with some undiscussed uncertainty based on Wu.
Second, Nic Lewis reworked Lewis and Curry 2014 energy budget method in 2016 using the ‘new’ lower aerosol forcing estimates from Steven’s paper and got 1.54. See his post at Climate Etc for the details. Given the forcing uncertainties in Lewis 2016, this post and Lewis 2016 post can be viewed as strongly mutually confirming via different ECS derivation methods. And, both estimates are above the ‘best’ observational estimate of TCR ~1.3, as they should be by definition of TCR and ECS.
This post result is also yet another way to show that most CMIP5 models run about 2x hot.”

Just how is a quasi cycle accounted for?
By using quasi math?
A simple question which bypasses the other cycles that have been evident, including the here again, missing again really quasi cycles.
This post nor Nic Lewis’s excellent post prove anything.
Nic narrowed the ECS possibilities, logically.
Nic did not prove CO2’s atmospheric effects, he refined and narrowed the wild-ass ECS guesses, using observations and IPCC theory.
No one has successfully defined exactly what and how much contributes to warming or eventually to cooling.

WB Wilson

Rud,
It looks to me like Oressengo is saying IPCC guesstimate is running 2 to 3 times hotter than observations for the last 70 years.
“In conclusion, we found a time-invariant CO2 doubling GMT of 1.4 oC (Eq. 4 & 5). We also showed that the higher CO2 doubling GMT values reported in IPCC (2007) are for secular GMT trends of 0.2 and 0.3 oC/decade that are inconsistent with the observed secular GMT trend of about 0.1 oC/decade (Delsole et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011). Note that as the annual GMT has been reported to have a multi-decadal oscillation (MDO) of about 55 to 70 years for the last 8000 years (Knudsen et al., 2011), a linear trend of at least a 70-year period should be used to remove the contribution of the MDO to determine the secular GMT trend, which gives about 0.1 oC/decade for the latest 70-year period from 1946 to 2016.”
1 degree C per century seems supportable and is nothing but beneficial. And he/she recognizes that we are entering another cool phase of the MDO, which the CHIMP5 models do not handle at all well.

tadchem

The most important factor in atmospheric temperature variations is gravity – g. As anyone who has ever used an air compressor should know, when you compress a gas it heats up. As anybody who has ever used an aerosol can should know, when you decompress a gas, it cools down.
Gravity pulls atmospheric gases toward the surface of the earth, compressing them. Thermodynamics names this the ‘adiabatic process’. Compressing a gas puts energy into it, and with no place else for the energy to go, the gas gets warmer.
The change in temperature of the atmosphere as the altitude changes is called the ‘adiabatic lapse rate,’ and it is an exercise in sophomore chemistry/physics classes to show it’s relationship to the composition (specifically the Heat Capacity at Constant Pressure – Cp) of the gas. The change in temperature T with the altitude h is given by
dT/dh = -g/Cp
For Earth’s (dry) atmosphere the value (valid from sea level to about 11 km altitude, about 80% of the atmosphere) is 1.98 °C/1,000 ft – about 9.8 °C/km. The lapse rate for moist air is variable, but typically is about half of that for dry air.
The heat capacity is the ONLY part of this equation that depends on the composition of the atmosphere (i.e. how much CO2 is present).
CO2 has a Heat Capacity that is *less* than that of oxygen or nitrogen, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
so the doubling of the CO2 concentration from 0.02% to 0.04% would actually decrease the heat capacity of the air from 1.01 kJ/kg-K by about 0.02%.
In any case, you will experience more atmospheric temperature change (about 1°C) by moving between the tom and the bottom of a 50-story building.

Jer0me

I’ve always been a bit confused about that argument. If I start up my compressor, it compresses tge air abd it heats up. If I leave it, it cools down again, yet the air in it is still compressed.
Isn’t the atmosphere just like that? You only get heat while actually compressing air, not long term?
A genuine question, I’d like to know.

birdynumnum

So what happens to the air when exiting the valve after the tank has cooled down?

Tom Dayton

Jer0me: You are correct. Air warmed by any cause rises. As it rises, it expands, cooling due to the expansion. The cool air sinks, warming by compression. Warm air rises. And so on. Net warming from the compression and expansion is zero. The only actual addition of energy to the atmosphere from gravity comes from material from outside the atmosphere (e.g., meteors, or gas or dust from space) being pulled into the atmosphere. There are lots of rebuttals to this ridiculous gravitational heating myth, for example https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/tag/ned-nikolov/ and http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/08/making-elephant-dance-as-performed-by.html and even http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/. But the simplest empirical demonstration is that your car tires do not remain warm from the compression of filling them merely because they remain at that pressure.

commieBob

Most of the heat is developed by compressing the gas in the compressor’s cylinder(s). They get hot, which means the air is losing heat. The tank doesn’t get hot. In fact, if the pressure from the compressor exceeds the pressure in the tank, the air will expand as it enters the tank and the temperature might actually go down a bit. You would think that, since the air is being compressed into the tank, it would get hot. I’ve never felt the tank while the compressor is on but I don’t think it warms up much.

the missing ingredient is the conversion between PE and KE due to convectios.
because only KE determines temperature, convection changes the temperature of the atmosphere without changing the energy content.
this is overlooked under the assumption that a change in temperature involves a change in watts/m².

menicholas

I hate to contradict another skeptic, but wrong is wrong and right is right.
“The change in temperature of the atmosphere as the altitude changes is called the ‘adiabatic lapse rate,’ ”
As a matter of definition, this is incorrect.
The change in the temp of the atmosphere with height is called the Environmental Lapse Rate, or ELR.
The change in temp of a rising parcel or air, on the other hand, IS called the adiabatic lapse rate. But…there are two such rates, dry and wet, depending on whether or not the water vapor in the parcel has condensed out yet or not.
First year physical geography…or just middle school how to use a dictionary.
Just sayin’.

menicholas

BTW…this is very important as a distinction because the next thing taught is the implications of the ELR vs the Adiabatic Lapse Rate (ALR).
When the ELR is higher than the Dry ALR, a parcel of air heated at the surface that begins to rise will keep rising because the atmosphere into which it is ascending is cooling faster than the parcel is cooling as it rises, so the rising parcel will remain warmer than the air that surrounds it, it will thus continue to be buoyant and keep on rising.
If the ELR is lower than the Dry ALR, then the rising parcel will get to a point that it is no longer warmer than the air into which it is ascending, and will stop rising.
If the rising parcel gets to the level at which it has cooled below the dew point of the air in the parcel (the Lifting Condensation Level or LCL), the water vapor in the parcel will begin to condense out as droplets of water, and a cloud will form. At that level, the air in the rising parcel will begin to cool at the Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate, since the condensing water within the parcel is releasing the latent heat which it absorbed when it evaporated or transpired from the surface. At this point, what happens next continues to depend on the ELR, which can and does often vary with height, and so determines whether there will be fluffy white fair weather cumulus, or towering cumulus clouds growing into a thunderstorm.

John F. Hultquist

dry and wet, == unsaturated and saturated

Tadchem, I view your post as mostly Skydragon nonsense. Gravity does have something to do with air density so lapse rate, but is hardly the only or most important lapse rate factor as high and low pressure weather systems prove. Your air pump analogy is completely logically wrong. Pumping adds mechanically derived energy to the enclosed system (pump plus tank or tire) and the system will roughly follow the ideal gas law PV=nRT. Since R is a constant, increasing P in a constant volume (tank, tire) must increase T. Simple algebra, basic math. But the only gravity ‘pump’ adding energy to earths atmosphere was as earth formed and consolidated 4.5 billion years ago. For sure increased P per V in the planet formative ‘dust disk’ around formative sun. And that heat (T) from gravitational collapse/ earth planet formation has had ~4.5 billion years to escape. Please do not bring such misunderstood nonsense to a serious discussion forum like WUWT. Please. Cause I will call it and you out every time in terms a high schooler could understand.

Brett Keane

Rud, there is another source of energy, but misdirection really seems to be the name of your game. Gravity just makes a lapse rate and, indeed, an atmosphere, possible. Show us where slayers said otherwise. or quit the straw-manning please.

Brett, I already did. Your problem is that gravitational energy input stopped billions of years ago. So claim that such climate energy input persists to now is just nonsense. No matter how much you vehemently protest.

Mike McMillan

Here’s my take on gravity causing the temperature lapse rate.
Temperature for all practical purposes is the speed or kinetic energy of the air molecules bouncing off the thermometer bulb. That’s why the speed of sound depends only on the temperature – it’s how long it takes one molecule to travel to the next to pass along the sound wave.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/lapse_rate_rgbatduke2.jpg
A – We take an insulated container with air at some temperature in the absence of gravity. Density and temperature are uniform throughout.
B – We turn on the gravity. The air heads for the bottom, compressing and heating the air at the bottom. The air at the top thins and cools. Big temperature gradient.
D – Certain of us hold that after time, through convection and conduction, the heat makes its way back up through the container so that although density and pressure are different, the temperature is again uniform throughout.
C – I hold that the heat does head back up, but it continues only until it has reached the lapse rate gradient. How so? Why would gravity cause this?
An air molecule in this container has, by virtue of the gravity, an amount of potential energy. If it is moving downward with gravity, it converts the potential to kinetic energy, speeding up, heating up. A molecule moving upward against gravity slows down, cooling, converting kinetic to potential energy. When molecules collide, they transfer energy, the molecule getting hit from above gains temperature, the molecule hitting one below loses. Net result is that temperature is constantly being shuffled downward.
This temperature gradient is very slight, and it doesn’t take much to overcome it, campfires, hot air balloons, plowed fields in sunlight, etc., so we have convective weather. But the atmosphere is always trying to regain the lapse rate.
The initial heat from gravitation gathering our atmosphere is long gone, but this process shuffles heat downward regardless of the source. Any planet with an atmosphere of any composition, with or without greenhouse gasses, will be warmer than it would be without one.

comment image
Pressure and density fall off faster than gravity, mostly because they start at the surface and gravity starts at the center of the earth.

Ben Wouters

gymnosperm January 28, 2018 at 9:40 pm

Pressure and density fall off faster than gravity, mostly because they start at the surface and gravity starts at the center of the earth.

Not sure what your graph shows, but gravity at 70 km is just slightly less then at the surface (~9,6 m/s^2 vs ~9,8 m/s^2.
The reason for the fall off of pressure and density is the Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity the atmosphere is in.

“Net result is that temperature is constantly being shuffled downward.”
Well, heat is. But not by that mechanism. The thing is, if heat is constantly moving downwards against a temperature gradient, that is a heat pump. Heat is moving from colder to hotter, and that requires a heat pump. A heat pump requires energy. The energy comes from the kinetic energy of motions of the air. Not molecular motion, but turbulence. And it is regenerated by whatever makes the air move – basically temperature differences, like equator-pole. A still atmosphere could not provide that energy.
“Any planet with an atmosphere of any composition, with or without greenhouse gasses, will be warmer than it would be without one.”
No. I’ve written about that here, also explaining the heat pump. A lapse rate determines a temperature differential, but not a temperature. That is fixed by something else. With no GHG, that would be radiative balance at the surface. For black-body, that is determined by S-B, regardless of the air. The lapse rate determines how fast it cools with altitude, from that fixed base temp.

the tropospheric lapse rate is driven primarily by convection. which is driven by the sun. gravity converts between PE and KE during convection. high KE and low PE is warm. low KE and high PE is cold.
thus the effect of gravity is to change temperature based on altitude without changing total energy.
this is often overlooked under the assumption that a change in temperature involves adding or removing energy. it does not. only certain forms of energy affect temperature. this allows one to change the temperature of an object without changing total energy.

Any planet with an atmosphere of any composition, with or without greenhouse gasses, will be warmer than it would be without one.
======
only if their is a lapse rate. otherwise the atmosphere is isothermal and their is no net energy to warm the surface.
energy has to come from somewhere. to net warm the surface requires that you make something else colder. and that something is the upper half of the convecting atmosphere.
the real question is whether the lapse rate is driven by GHG. would a pure N2 atmosphere for example show a lapse rate. if so then we would see warming of the surface without GHG. which would mean the greenhouse effect is due to convection as in real greenhouses. not due to blocking radiation as was taught in schools.

menicholas

You have to be careful to keep in mind the difference between temperature and energy.
When a parcel of air expands and cools adiabatically, the parcel still contains the same amount of heat energy, called Q when performing calculations in, say, a physical chemistry class.
One way to look at the process is that because there is the same amount of Q in the expanded parcel, but it occupies a larger volume, the temperature must drop.
If you mix up the concepts of temperature and heat energy, you will be…well…all mixed up.

Ben Wouters

tadchem January 28, 2018 at 12:34 pm

For Earth’s (dry) atmosphere the value (valid from sea level to about 11 km altitude, about 80% of the atmosphere) is 1.98 °C/1,000 ft – about 9.8 °C/km. The lapse rate for moist air is variable, but typically is about half of that for dry air.

Both Adiabatic Lapse Tates (Dry and Moist) are ONLY valid for air that is rising or sinking within an atmosphere that is in Hydrostatic Equilibrium, and the rising or sinking air is supposed to do so adiabatically.
So the ALR’s have nothing to say about the actual lapse rate (better: temperature profile) of the atmosphere.

menicholas

Environmental Lapse Rate.
It varies, which is why some days rain showers will form with afternoon heating, and some days not.
I cannot believe that anyone that professes knowledge of these subjects does not know these terms and how they are defined and how they differ.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Atmospheric_lapse_rate

Ben Wouters

menicholas January 29, 2018 at 3:30 pm

I cannot believe that anyone that professes knowledge of these subjects does not know these terms and how they are defined and how they differ.

Lot of confusing use of the term “lapse rate”. The air above every square (centi)meter on Earth has its own vertical temperature profile, indeed referred to as Environmental Lapse Rate. I prefer “vertical temperature profile”
Lots of people seem to believe that the Adiabatic Lapse Rates have some meaning for this vertical temperature profile. They don’t. The ALR’s describe the change of the (internal) temperature of rising or sinking air, assuming the surrounding atmosphere is in Hydrostatic Equlibrium and the process is adiabatic.
What is truly amazing is that a lot of people believe that the low temperature, low density, low heat capacity atmosphere can somehow INCREASE the temperature of (deep) ocean water (and soil) and is the reason for the over 90K higher average surface temperatures on Earth vs those on the moon.

The Reverend Badger

I draw readers attention to the three links provided by Tom Dayton earlier (rebuttals of the gravito-thermal theory/explanation).Do read them. Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with the gravito-thermal theory or are a true agnostic (don’t know) they deserve consideration.
They deserve consideration from the point of examining whether they are treating the argument in a fair scientific manner (that’s their claim after all effectively). Do they argue logically ? Do they make assumptions ? Do they explain what assumptions they make? An so on. These three are VERY worthy of your consideration as a general excercise in how to conduct a scientific argument.
Hopefully you will see what I see fairly quickly. In each case it takes no more than a couple of minutes. Once you have seen it you will know what to do next!
I’m trying to make more of you THINK for yourselves a bit more, It’s better than just reading and liking the ones you like (which is facetwit) and MUCH better than just understanding the things you KNOW(which is religion). Try REAL critical thinking which leads you into SCIENCE and then (TaaDaa!) Mr.Feynman will let you throw in a GUESS (or two).

A C Osborn

You are easily impressed.
I quote DR Christ.
“If the temperature at one Earth atmosphere depth into the Venusian atmosphere is indeed about the same as the Earth’s surface temperature, I would guess that is coincidence. ”
You actually accept this as “Science”?
Dear God, I am appalled.

rebuttals of the gravito-thermal theory
=======
there are many versions of that theory. the real question is this. would there be a lapse rate without ghg. is convection sufficient to create a lapse rate.

menicholas

Of course there would be a lapse rate.
In a high pressure cell, air is descending and spreading out and warming by compression.
In a low pressure system, air is flowing towards the low center, ascending, and cooling by expansion.
The lapse rate is because of gravity.
If there was no gravity, warm air would not be buoyant, and there would be no change in pressure with height to cause expansion and contraction of air masses as the, for instance, were forced up the side of a mountain and back down the other side due to the pressure gradient.

David L. Hagen

tadchem
To understand the physics/thermodynamics involved see <a href=http://en.formulasearchengine.com/wiki/Lapse_rate#Thermodynamic_SS.2FRadiative_GHG_lapse_rateLapse Rate For quantitative thermodynamics see Essenhigh’s SS Integral based model

Thermodynamic SS/Radiative GHG lapse rate
Robert H. Essenhigh developed a comprehensive thermodynamic model of the lapse rate based on the Schuster-Schwarzschild integral (S-S) Equations of Transfer that govern radiation through the atmosphere including absorption and radiation by greenhouse gases.,.[11][12] “The solution predicts, in agreement with the Standard Atmosphere experimental data, a linear decline of the fourth power of the temperature, T^4, with pressure, P, and, at a first approximation, a linear decline of T with altitude, h, up to the tropopause at about 10 km (the lower atmosphere).” The predicted normalized density ratio and pressure ratio differ and fit the experimental data well. Sreekanth Kolan extended Essenhigh’s model to include the energy balance for the lower and upper atmospheres.[13]

Robert H. Essenhigh. “Prediction from an Analytical Model of: The Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere; and Potential for Profiles-Perturbation by Combustion Emissions”. Paper No.03F-44: Western States Section Combustion Institute Meeting: Fall (October) 2003.
Robert H. Essenhigh (2006). “Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S-S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions”. Energy & Fuels 20: 1057–1067. doi:10.1021/ef050276y. DOI: 10.1021/ef050276y.
Jump up ↑ Sreekanth Kolan (2009). “Study of energy balance between lower and upper atmosphere”. Ohio State University. osu1259613805.

afonzarelli

At 3C ECS, CO2 would account for about one third of the warming from glacial to interglacial. That’s 1/3 of a pie that is also shared with water vapor, ice albedo and m-cycles (& whatever else). Tiny CO2 having to compete with water vapor alone is enough to falsify an ECS of 3C…

a, no. Temp in the equation is change from all sources, CO2 plus feedbacks like water vapor and clouds. That is, once Wu 2011 oceannoscillation is removed. The ECS for CO2 alone is 1.1 IPCC AR4 to 1.2 Lindzen. Using Moncton’s equations and parameter estimates posted here in previous years, the ‘best’ estimate without feedbacks is 1.16. That this post derives 1.4 for everything related to AGW forcings is very consistent with that, and a number of other considerations I have commented on here concerning ECS.

afonzarelli

(istvan, i hope you make more sense to your wife and kids than you do to me… ☺)

a, perhaps,you should study moee before saying I make no sense to you. Can you use Monkton’s posts to derive 1.16 no feedbacks? Can you cite Lindsen’s no feedbacks 1.2? Have you read Lewis and Curry 2014? Do you know how to calculate TCR? What are the two main feedbacks? Which table in AR5 WG1 shows most other feedback forcings net to roughly zero, and that CO2 is >70% of all primary AGW forcings. I have all that stuff not only archived, butndigested and footnoted in ebook chapters and essays on CAGW and ‘climate science’. You just brought a rubber knife to a gunfight.

afonzarelli

istvan, from the looks of the solid rebuttals to your shallow argumentation on this thread, it looks as though you’ve showed up at the “gunfight” with a squirt gun. Look, all that i’m getting at here is that if you’re going to reply to one of my comments, then at the very least present me with a well articulated counter to what i’ve said. (not some gobbledygook that sounds like it came from a fuzzy little foreigner who just got off the boat at ellis island)…

A did so twice. Can you read?

afonzarelli

Can you write?

Latitude

hogwash…..CO2 levels have increased….the rate of warming, sea level rise, etc etc…should have increased
..even if you believe their best adjusted to hell and back measurments….nothing is showing an increase in rate

L, I agree with your basic observation in this century. But you cannot conclude from those facts that there is no CO2 AGW. Only that the attribution problem is a very large one because of co-existing natural variation. See my 2017 guest post Why Models run Hot for a quick summary of the unassailable argument.

Latitude

I’m not thinking no CO2/AGW…..but temps and sea levels didn’t get the memo….they should both be on a rapidly increasing curve

Agree. And that is a set of observations that will uktimately destroy the warmunist ‘religion’.

Alan Tomalty

Ristvan Can you please explain to the unwashed masses here in 150 words or less why the CO2 molecule has anything to do with affecting water vapour in the atmosphere and please dont try to tell me that 400ppm CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric temperature ?

menicholas

I bid 140 words on the Istvan!

ristvane:
“you cannot conclude from those facts
that there is no CO2 AGW.”
Another smarmy Ristvane (non)argument.
There has been 4.5 billion years
of NATURAL climate change.
Where is the proof,
from 20th century observations,
that man made CO2
has taken over
as the “climate controller”,
or is even an important
variable out of many?
I’ll answer the question for you,
because you’ll probably get it wrong.
There is NO evidence that the mild
warming in the second half of the
20th century, especially with the
haphazard measurements and
the infilled (wild guessed),
repeatedly adjusted numbers,
had a different cause
than the very similar mild warming
in the first half
of the 20th century.
Anyone who claims natural climate change
suddenly ended after 4.5 billion years,
and man made CO2 took over as
the “climate controller” in the second half
of the 20th century, with no explanation
of how, or why, that happened,
does not know what they are talking about.
You believe that “CO2 took over” fantasy,
Ristvane.
Therefore, you do not know
what you are talking about !
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Girma

The secular deep ocean warming results in the secular increase in the atmospheric CO2. For example, Bacastow et al (1980) reported:
“The rate of change of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the South Pole and at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, has been shown to be significantly correlated with a southern oscillation index (SOI) … The correlation is such that low SOI corresponds to a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, as would be produced by a net transfer of CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere. High SOI corresponds to falling CO2 concentration.”
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.210.4465.66

Girma,
The CO2 rate of change is heavily influenced by ENSO (El Niño), but is mainly the reaction of (tropical, Amazon) vegetation on too high temperatures and drought. The deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges are much too slow to perform such fast changes, but probably are the cause of the long lags between temperature changes and CO2 changes in the pre-industrial past.

It’s only more graphs based on temperature records adjusted to match CO2 concentrations matched with mathematical models. We are yet to see proof that CO2 causes warming affecting the temperature at sea level.

If you study the available real data enough with enough statistical techniques, you will find that the natural water cycle not only controls the surface temperature and OLR but also the natural emission and sink rates of CO2 into and out of the global atmosphere. Burning of fossil fuel has no measurable effect on global climate change.

Since the Earth has not become a permanent ice ball, nor has it become a boiling Venus, it is pretty obvious that feedbacks kick in to keep the planet within a fairly narrow temperature band. One of those feedbacks may actually be CO2 but based on volume alone I would consider water (in all its forms) to be dramatically more dominant. One clue is that the volume of water (in total) does not vary. Some part of it just changes phases for varying periods absorbing or releasing heat in the process. Since there is no way to quantify any effect on planetary scales, mathematical equations or models can only be right by accident.

Brett Keane

Yes Rocky, and they admitted that CO2 was insufficient. So they slide sideways and claim it activates water magically to do the heavy lifting. All refuted, but this is a Power game using pseudoscience now……

I used the change in day to day temp as a function of changing length of day with the seasons, and the know amount of change in insolation.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/

I used the change in day to day temp as a function of changing length of day with the seasons, and the know amount of change in insolation.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/

What are you, a random comment generator? Good luck here

Bevan Dockery

A linear trend can be fitted to each and every time series. Thus correlation of the linear trends of two time series is going to give either a positive or negative result. However this says nothing about causation unless one wishes to state that everything is causing everything else.
Statistical analysis of satellite lower troposphere temperature compared to atmospheric CO2 concentration using the First Order Autoregression Model clearly shows that the correlation between the two is zero to a high degree of statistical significance. That is, increased atmospheric CO2 concentration does NOT cause global warming.
However applying the same analysis to the satellite lower troposphere temperature compared to the annual rate of change of the atmospheric CO2 concentration gives a positive correlation of high statistical significance. That is, increased temperature causes an increase in the rate of production of CO2. Both time series show autocorrelation functions with the same 42 month period. This is about the period for the El Nino events and is probably the heat source that causes the event. It is the synodic period of the Sun, Earth, Moon configuration.
This result suggests that climate change is driven by the change in the relative configurations of the Sun and Earth with respect to the Moon and the planets and is nothing whatsoever to do with the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Bevan,
There is a high correlation between temperature and the noise (+/- 1.5 ppmv) of CO2 around the 90+ ppmv trend in the past 60 years of Mauna Loa and South Pole data. That is because besides the seasonal influence, temperature is also the short time driver of CO2 uptake/release of (mainly tropical) vegetation.
Point is that the noise levels off to near zero in 1-3 years after an El Niño or Pinatubo and vegetation is a longer term net sink for CO2, not the cause of the CO2 increase.
Further both the long term influence of temperature on CO2 (~16 ppmv/K) and reverse (1.5 K / 2*CO2) are small, thus you need a lot of good data over much longer periods to show any correlation in the huge year by year noise of temperature.

Bevan Dockery

Ferdinand,
My analysis of the UHA satellite lower troposphere temperature relative to the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration gave :-
for Mauna Loa, a correlation coefficient of 0.26 with 460 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 5.76, implying an infinitesimal probability that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test,
for Macquarie Island, Southern Ocean, a correlation coefficient of 0.25, 285 deg. of free., t statistic 10.79, infinitesimal probability of zero correlation for a one month lag of the CO2 annual rate of change relative to the annual average temperature for the Tropics Ocean zone, latitude 20S to 20N,
for Mt Waliguan, Tibetan Plateau, a correlation of 0.14 for 290 deg. of free., t statistic 2.5, probability of zero correlation of 1.3% for a two month lag of the CO2 annual rate of change relative to the annual average Tropics Land temperature.
As the Tropics is the area of greatest average temperature, it generates the greatest increase in rate of change of CO2 which disperses North and South towards the Poles showing as a lag in the above results.
The correlation is so definite that spectra from Fourier Transform analysis of temperature and d(CO2)/dt give corresponding results re the synodic period of the Moon and the inner planets.
The spectrum for the weekly data for the CO2 rate of change from the Mauna Loa Observatory showed local maxima for the synodic period of the Moon of 29.5 days and the draconic period of 27.2 days. I consider that result to be remarkable.
As I wrote earlier, climate change is due to the modulation of the Sun’s irradiance of the Earth by the motion of the Moon and the planets NOT CO2 concentration.

Bevan,
The correlation is between dT/dt and dCO2/dt, not between T and dCO2/dt. The latter is completely synchronised as is the case for any sinusoid where the lagging variable follows the leading variable with 90º. That correlation is completely spurious. Here the real correlation where dCO2/dt follows dT/dt with 90º or 5-6 months:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
The main effect of the temperature variability is on tropical vegetation (as CO2 and δ13C derivatives change in opposite direction) because of changed rain patterns and too high temperatures in the Amazon and other tropical forests. On the 90 ppmv increase in the atmosphere, it has only a small +/- 1.5 ppmv effect around the increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
Thus any high correlation between T and CO2 (or their derivatives) is entirely on the small noise and doesn’t tell us anything about the longer time effect of T on CO2 or reverse…

Bevan Dockery

Ferdinand,
Your statement, Jan.29, 11:04 am, ‘The correlation is between dT/dt and dCO2/dt’ implies via integration, that there must be correlation between T and CO2. Statistical analysis of the two variables being UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration using the First Order Autoregression Model has been done for the following CO2 recording stations:
Mauna Loa Observatory,
Macquarie Island in the Southern Ocean,
Mount Waliguan Observatory on the Tibetan Plateau,
Point Barrow in Alaska, the South Pole Station and
Cape Grim in Tasmania.
The results gave small amplitude correlations, both positive and negative, when applied to both Land and Ocean components of the relevant temperature with high probability that the correlation was zero. That is, there was no detectable measure of any relationship between satellite temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The validity of my, previously stated, positive correlation between the satellite temperature and the rate of change of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is shown in the amplitude spectra of each of these variables. They are practically identical and both reveal synodic periods of the Moon and the Planets not noise. Hence my conclusion remains:
climate change is due to the modulation of the Sun’s irradiance of the Earth by the motion of the Moon and the planets NOT CO2 concentration.

Bevan,
Your statement, Jan.29, 11:04 am, ‘The correlation is between dT/dt and dCO2/dt’ implies via integration, that there must be correlation between T and CO2.
Yes, there is, but only for the noise +/-1.5 ppmv noise: dT/dt has zero slope and only a small offset as T increases more or less linear. On the other side, dCO2/dt has a nice slope, caused by the about twice as high human emissions, both in total as in the derivatives: both emissions and increase in the atmosphere are increasing slightly quadratic over time:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
By comparing T with dCO2/dt, you are comparing the full variability of T with the full variability of the detrended CO2 curve, thus where almost all of the increase is removed… You can’t conclude anything about the cause of the CO2 increase in that case, only what the cause is of the variability around the increase.
You are falling in the same trap as many before you: there is a high correlation between T and the CO2 derivative and there is the same high correlation between the derivatives of both, for the simple reason that T and its derivative both have exactly the same variability, only 90º shifted.
The correlation between T and dCO2/dt is entirely spurious and only the result of the 90º shift back by taking the derivative of CO2.
That all was discussed some years ago here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/
Or with better readable graphs here (without the discussion):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_variability.html

Coeur de Lion

I pay great attention to ristvan and Dr Deepa whoever. wrt the bit about “statistions” note that the only examination of the Climategate disaster that wasn’t a whitewash – the Wegman report- remarked that the conspirators did’nt have a statistician on board. I wonder why not.
btw my name is not Richard!!!

I agree with Richard Green, this one is a clunker. No attempt has been made to calculate the warming from first principles, and the “logarithmic” nature of CO2 effect on temperature is misrepresented. CO2 is saturated with IR from the ground within three meters of the ground, so increasing it at ground level has a negligible effect.
The significant effect of CO2 occurs at TOA, where increasing CO2 raises the altitude at which the atmosphere becomes completely transparent to outgoing IR, thus lowering the temperature at which the atmosphere freely radiates to space. No one has ever calculated the magnitude of this effect, and good luck if you try. Even measuring the temp at which the Earth’s atmosphere radiates to space is extremely complex.

The significant effect of CO2 occurs at TOA, where increasing CO2 raises the altitude at which the atmosphere becomes completely transparent to outgoing IR

This is an assumption that ignores that the optical window is open to the ground, and that it’s WV that varies net radiation likely not blocking anything.

Micro????.
What now?

I know a Mike Moon from work???
If it’s about my reply, we have to look at the multiple independent paths/band that cool the planet. The first issue is that there are two entities that warm and cool independently, well 3, land, oceans, and water vapor cloud in the troposphere. They each have their own cooling trends, and it was confused as a single surface with a fixed 24hr average emission.

I just got a call from the Mike Mood that worked at the same company as I did a while back. Lol

I think you better look at some text books about heat transfer and radiation. CO2 emitting at the TOA is never going to heat the surface, as this radiation would be thermalized by water vapor long before reaching Earth. Did you know that the entire atmosphere, each individual molecule, is radiating all the time in every direction? Apparently lots of people on here don’t either…

Not necessarily, or not in bands that matter anyways. For instance the atm is clear because photons in the optical wavelengths don’t interact with the air.

Michael Moon January 28, 2018 at 2:09 pm
I agree with Richard Green, this one is a clunker. No attempt has been made to calculate the warming from first principles, and the “logarithmic” nature of CO2 effect on temperature is misrepresented. CO2 is saturated with IR from the ground within three meters of the ground, so increasing it at ground level has a negligible effect.

The Q-branch is saturated, however the P and R branches aren’t. Also I suggest you read Clough et al. for calculations from first principles:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/full
The significant effect of CO2 occurs at TOA, where increasing CO2 raises the altitude at which the atmosphere becomes completely transparent to outgoing IR, thus lowering the temperature at which the atmosphere freely radiates to space. No one has ever calculated the magnitude of this effect, and good luck if you try. Even measuring the temp at which the Earth’s atmosphere radiates to space is extremely complex.
Again read Clough et al.
Michael Moon January 29, 2018 at 4:32 pm
I think you better look at some text books about heat transfer and radiation. CO2 emitting at the TOA is never going to heat the surface, as this radiation would be thermalized by water vapor long before reaching Earth. Did you know that the entire atmosphere, each individual molecule, is radiating all the time in every direction? Apparently lots of people on here don’t either…

There’s a good reason for that, it isn’t true!

Javier

Nice article Girma, but it has a fatal flaw. It is based on the assumption that once MDO has been removed, the increase in GMT is due to the increase in CO₂ and its feedbacks.
When we approach the problem without assumptions what we observe is that temperatures respond very poorly to the increase in CO₂.
Antarctic ice cores show a relatively good correlation between CO₂ levels and temperatures over the past 800,000 kyr. The relationship shows that 1°C change in Antarctica corresponds to ~ 5 ppm change in CO₂. This data agrees well with the calculation that a 1°C warming of the oceans releases 8 ppm of CO₂.
But over the last 200 years the CO₂ level has been increased by 125 ppm, to a whopping 406 ppm, almost double the Late Pleistocene average of 225 ppm.comment image
This increase has caused zero increase in Antarctic temperature, a surprising discrepancy.
Moreover, while the increase in CO₂ is absolutely unusual for the Late Pleistocene, and probably unmatched in the last million years or more, the change in temperature for the past 300 years is not unusual within the last 12,000 years, as multiple lines of evidence indicate that we have not reached Holocene Climatic Optimum conditions.
As the world has been warming since ~ 1715 AD, and most of the warming acceleration took place between 1715 and 1900, before any significant human GHG emission, GMT change has a not well determined natural component.
All the evidence points to temperature responding weakly to CO₂ changes. Climate sensitivity cannot be 4, nor 3, nor 2, not even 1. Probably lies somewhere between 0-0.5.
Your article, thus, is fatally flawed. I’m sorry.

Richard M

Have you seen Thirumalai et al 2017. The SST changes shown there match many historic proxies and show we should be warming naturally from THC changes. I would very much like your views.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4

Javier

Thank you for the reference, Richard. I’ll read it.
Changes in SST and salinity are at the interface between atmosphere-ocean coupling, and are thus incredibly important for climate change. All the time talking about temperatures and climate change is a lot more.

Javier,
One small correction: the CO2/T relationship in the ice cores is more like 8 ppmv/K, based on δ18O in the ice (Vostok) and as that temperature is more likely influence by polar temperatures where the water vapor freezes out as snow, taking into account the “polar amplification”, the global ratio would be around 16 ppmv/K.
Not by coincidence the same value as the shift in solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature…
For the rest I agree that the ETC for a CO2 doubling is less than 1.5, maybe even less than 1.0.

Javier

Thank you Ferdinand,
I am using the latest CO₂ composite from Antarctic ice cores described in Bereiter et al 2015, and temperature estimates from EDC deuterium data from Jouzel et al., 2007. The relation might be slightly different than Vostok data.

Javier,
No problem with a different CO2/T ratio, but with a warning: Jouzel is quite determined to erase the lag of CO2 after T changes in the ice core data.
He used a “correction” on the temperature data which held the temperature longer high than the earlier scale by Petit e.a., thus bringing CO2 and T more together. It didn’t help much as even in his scale the temperature dropped long before CO2 dropped… Moreover, CH4 followed directly the Petit e.a. drop in temperature, thus even if there was an error in timing between ice and gas, the lag of CO2 still was behind CH4 and both were measured in the gas phase:
Here both T scales plotted for the end of the Eemian, where the dark blue line is T according to Petit and the light blue line (“corr”) by Jouzel:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/eemian.gif

Javier (January 28 at 2:18pm)
This “fatally flawed” article
was waiting for
your polite comment,
tearing it apart.
.
The words of a true statesman.
.
.
My own words,
slightly different,
from my
first comment here:
.
“This article is
a huge pile of
steaming farm animal
digestive waste products,
from an author
with a PhD,
trying to baffle
us with BS —
proof that after
enough years
of studying
to get a PhD,
that person
will eventually
know everything
about nothing.”
.
The words of a true New Yorker.

co2islife

Is this formula a joke? The global temperature is modeled using 2 variables? CO2 and Temperature?comment image
The climate is infinitely complex and would require countless variables to get a R^2 over 90.
Just look at global temperature:
1) CO2 is linear, temperatures are not.
2) The temperature in 1980 was 0.00, temperature today is0.4.
3) CO2 in 1980 was 325 today it is 407
4) There is way way way too much variability in the temperatures to be explained by linear CO2.
5) The oceans warm the atmosphere, the oceans are warming, CO2 doesn’t warm H2O.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

co2islife

Sorry, should have used this formula. The point remains, this formula is a joke, even for a controlled experiment. BTW, that formula could be tested in a lab. Where are the published results?comment image

Girma

The warming of the ocean releases atmospheric CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere. As a result, increase in the deep ocean temperature causes the observed increase in atmospheric CO2, because the solubility of CO2 in the ocean decreases with increase in the ocean temperature.
By the way, there is no oscillation in the deep ocean warming, as it has been increasing monotonically since the mid-19th century. The up and down in temperture you see is only in the ocean surface because of the noise and the multi-decadal oscillation.
The results presented in this article is regarding to the secular deep ocean warming only.

co2islife

What warms the deep oceans? Geothermal? Currents? Either way CO2 isn’t the cause. ANd yes, Henry’s law can explain some of the ocean degassing. What is warming the surface water is visible light, it has always been the factor that warms the surface water.

Girma:
increase in the deep ocean temperature causes the observed increase in atmospheric CO2
By far not. The solubility of CO2 in seawater changes with about 16 ppmv/K and is good for maximum 13 ppmv since the LIA. The rest (~100 ppmv) is from our twice as high human emissions (~200 ppmv) since about 1850.
The fast changes over 1-3 years are mainly from the reaction of tropical vegetation on fast temperature changes, more than of the ocean surface.

Wim Röst

Girma: “The up and down in temperture you see is only in the ocean surface because of the noise and the multi-decadal oscillation.”
WR: The ‘up and down in the ocean surface temperature’ might be due to ‘wind’. ‘Wind’ is both the big mixing factor for the upper layers of the oceans (there are many degrees of temperature difference in the upper hundreds of meters of the oceans) and ‘wind’ is also the ‘blow away factor’ of the warm upper layers in case of cold upwelling at the eastern parts of the oceans. In both cases the result of ‘more wind’ is ‘a cooling of the sea surface’ while the total heat content of the oceans remains the same (!). So ‘less wind’ could explain all (!) of last century surface warming. Easily. While ‘the Earth’ or the oceans as a whole could have had the same energy content as before. And there are at least indications of ‘less wind’ over the oceans. Resulting in ‘warming’.

Geoff Sherrington

Ferdinand E,
The Henry constant is derived from lab experiments where the liquid is fully mixed, contained and driven to a complete new equilibrium. Care is needed if you extrapolate to ocean conditions where the liquid is not fully mixed, is less contained and does not reach an equivalent equilibrium. For example, the rapid, continuing replacement of surface waters that have donated their CO2, with deep waters brought to the surface, more or less starts the lab experiment analogy anew and makes comparisons difficult. Rather like static versus dynamic experimental cases. Geoff.

Geoff,
Agreed that the ocean dynamics are involved, but that doesn’t change the ultimate equilibrium when the oceans and the atmosphere are in steady state, only the time needed to reach that state, if ever.
Lab results were confirmed by over three million seawater surface field samples for the single sample CO2/T ratio.
For the deep oceans, the ~40 GtC/year exchange does influence the CO2 levels in the atmosphere in both directions: any change of 1 K up or down at the main upwelling/downwelling sites changes the 40 GtC/year fluxes with less than 5%, due to the change in local ΔpCO2 between ocean surface and atmosphere.
As the current pCO2 in the atmosphere is about 110 μatm (~ppmv) above the steady state for the current average ocean surface temperature, that gives some 3 GtC/year more sink than source.
Here the calculated influence of 1 K increase in temperature on the deep ocean-atmosphere fluxes and the atmospheric CO2 levels:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg

Geoff Sherrington

Ferdinand,
You note “ultimate equilibrium when the oceans and the atmosphere are in steady state”.
Here we differ, since I do not assume that a proper equilibrium is observed in the many measurements made in the last century or less. I get a mental model of walking over a waterbed, where a foot placed here causes a bulge placed there. Too many researchers think this is the foreplay, that it is over, and that more measurements are part of the “settled science”. Even after your response, for which I thank you, I am not convinced that there is such a limit as 15 ppm or so of CO2 per deg C. It comes back to the matter I noted of static versus dynamic test beds. Geoff.

Geoff,
“Worst case” in a dynamic equilibrium is the same as for a static equilibrium.
In the case of the deep ocean – atmosphere that gives that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere try to follow the average temperature of the ocean surface, whatever the momentary supply and sinks from/to the deep oceans.
If the upwelling side gets hotter, thus releasing more CO2, the sink side must be cooler to maintain the same average surface temperature, thus the sink side absorbs more CO2. All what happens is that more CO2 is circulating, but the same CO2 level in the atmosphere is the “setpoint”. Maybe never reached and only temporarely much higher or much lower.
Currently we are 110 ppmv above the steady state, that was never the case over the past 800,000 years as even in the worst resolution ice cores that would be measurable, be it at a lower amplitude.

Alan Tomalty

Yah to think that a PhD wrote this report and other PhDs peer reviewed it and thousands of other PhDs may have read it and all of them approving or at least not taking the time to write a rebuttal or objection. Repeat that for thousands of other computer modelled climate reports. It makes me think What happened to the education system. Climate scientists using computer simulations are destroying the practice of science itself. Just like the theory of ether in the cosmos we must rid this world of this ridiculous theory of AGM.so that we can concentrate on the real evils 1) making the world a plastic dumpsite 2) polluting the hell out of our environment .

PhD
Piled high and Deep

Thermalization and quantum mechanics explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Ocean cycles, solar activity and water vapor increase explain the average global temperature rise 98% compared to measured 1895 to now. Water vapor trend is increasing twice as fast as calculated from surface liquid water temperature rise.

u.k.(us)

And then, just when you think you have Her game figured out, She changes all the rules.
Best to stay on your toes, cus the changes, they are coming.

This is already quite well known, kinda. Especially to cliamte so called scientists who reaaly don’t want to admit they ignored it in models. This lecture course confirms the agreement on the mechanisms involved. Rather tellingly, the logarithmic decay of CO2’s small effect on the overall greenhouse effect is rather telling.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming/lecture/CnAIV/the-band-saturation-effect
The answer is that its the same from 10-20 as 200-400ppm, or 400-800ppm.
Here’s a clip from the blackboard.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/33155983@N06/28174395149/in/album-72157663116338867/
Why not take the Album, it may come in handy?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/33155983@N06/albums/72157663116338867/with/28174395149/
No tipping point in this increasing negative feedback effect of the forcing due to increasing CO2, mosty all over at 400ppm, and in fact its only a tiny Watt or so/m^2 forcing in a natural and more widely varying 340W/M^2 of IR back radiation, mainly from the other “dangerous pollutant” H2O.
As far as I am aware, the modellers decided that this logarithmic roll off in effect was not really s understood in the discipline, as with the effect of plants, as their $3B pa was paid to build models that proved CO2 was the principal cause of any small global warming that could be detected, while minimising other effects so that any from CO2 would have to account for whatever change that could be detected – hence making CO2 appear as bad as possible. The harder science of open enquiry was clearly not part of this research, establishing a better understanding of the link between global temperature and its many drivers, mostly driven by solar and cosmic variation plus Milankovitch orbital variations in fact, is not the model for climate science..

Alan Tomalty

In the video the prof makes an incredibly stupid statement right at the end by saying” Its a good thing that there already was CO2 in the atmosphere before mankind started adding it or else we would have totally melted down the climate.” or words to that effect. I had a big laugh at that one. And again his results are based on computer simulations.

This figure (from the site of Hans Erren) shows the calculated values for the relative absorption over the 15 micrometer band for several CO2 optical thicknesses. 300 atm.cm corresponds to 373 ppm in the air column.
The range 5 – 600 atm.cm CO2 shows a logarithmic response. At 20 000 atm.cm saturation is reached.
It is tempting to calculate from this figure a climate response. Wikipedia learns that GHGs enhance global surface temperature by 33 degrees C, CO2 is responsible for 9-26%, i.e. 3-9 degrees C. The response for doubling CO2 is then ~0.3-1.0 degree C, all other things kept equal.
summed_CO2_absorption
If the figure doesn’t show up, it’s the 5th figure in the following link:
https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/over-de-verzadiging-van-het-co2-spectrum/

Urederra

Fig 1. The red line runs below the blue dots at the beginning and at the end of the curve. Around the centre the line fits with the blue dots quite well but not around the edges. It doesn’t seem to me that the correlation coefficient is 99.70 % as stated. It doesn’t fit that well.

rd50

This graph is deceptive.
It may give you the impression of a poor fit at the beginning and the end.
However what you think is a “poor fit” is simply due to the exaggerated Y scale.

Urederra
It is not cherry-picking. The annual atmospheric CO2 curve is nonlinear. As a result if you want to calculate the linear trend with the highest possible correlation, you can not take more than a 25 year period. For longer periods than 25 years, the curve is non linear as shown in Fig. 1.

Girma

Urederra
The CO2 trend of 1.46 ppm/year and R^2 = 99.7% is for the period 1970 to 1996, not for the whole period from 1959 to 2008.

Urederra

Ok, thanks for the info.
A bit misleading, though, cherry-picking the central period and throwing away the rest.

Don Easterbrook

The basic underlying assumption here is that CO2 causes warming, but, as we know from ice cores and modern measurements, CO2 ALWAYS lags warming, both over hundreds of thousands of years and in recent times, proving that warming causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around. So if you make a model that assumes CO2 causes warming and assume that an increase in CO2 will result in a certain amount of warming, the result you get is totally meaningless. You would be better off trying to calculate how much CO2 will rise per degree of temp increase.

petermue

+1000

DE, true on scales of thermohaline circulation. See essay Cause and Effect for mor details than you will ever need. But the issue is on centennial time scales. Ice cores and thermohaline circulation tell us Al Gore was wrong but nothing about whether CAGW ‘science’ is right.

Don Easterbrook

Oh but it does. There are many, many instances of global warming long before human emissions could possible have had any effect on climate. In all of thee cases, warming preceded CO2 increase.

“proving that warming causes CO2 to rise”
Warming can cause CO2 to rise, and that has been the cause in the past. There has been nothing much else to force a change in atmospheric CO2.
But what can also cause CO2 to rise is digging up Gigatons of fossil carbon and burning it. No-one has done that before. That can cause warming, and we need to know how much and when. And we have lots of information.

AndyG55

“digging up Gigatons of fossil carbon and burning it “
All that accidentally sequestered carbon being put back into the atmosphere where it belongs. 🙂
Which of course is ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS for all carbon based life on the Planet.
And the biosphere is LUVING IT. !!
No CO2 warming signature in the whole of the satellite data set.
No empirical evidence showing that CO2 causes warming in our convective atmosphere.
What do you get out supporting this farcical socialist AGW Agenda, Nick ??

Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 Gt (+/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y (+/- ??) flowing among those reservoirs.
Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1)
Mankind’s NET atmospheric contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1)
Seems relatively trivial to me with YUGE uncertainties.
IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?
BTW fossil fuel between 1750 and 2011 represented 0.34% of the entire biospheric carbon cycle.

Gerald Machnee

*** That can cause warming, and we need to know how much and when. And we have lots of information.***
Really. What information?
Show me ONE study that MEASURES warming caused by burning carbon.

AndyG55

“Show me ONE study that MEASURES warming caused by burning carbon.”
ummm.. you might want to rephrase that, Gerald… lol..
It is patently obvious the burning carbon is an exothermic reaction,. 🙂

Don Easterbrook

But that has nothing to do with the many, many cases that occurred long BEFORE digging up fossil fuel and burning it.

“But that has nothing to do with the many, many cases”
Exactly. And the many many cases have nothing to do with the present circumstances.
Colds cause coughing. So does TB. If the doc says your is caused by TB, it’s no use saying that you’ve had coughs dozens of times before, and it’s always been cause been preceded by a cold.

Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) “
5 sig fig? But that is a stretched definition. It includes deep ocean carbonates that take a long time to enter the cycle, and are not chemically free to do so without acidification. The air has about 500 Gt, so 240 Gt net is a big contribution. Biomass is of the same order. You can tell that we’re impacting the decadal cycle with your data that says that about half remained in the air.

Volcanoes have done that before. The Gt of fossil Carbon we burn were stolen from the atmosphere and sequestered by life forms. Our cold, Pleistocene oceans contain~40k Gt.
The Gt we burn origionally got in the atmosphere from volcanoes. If you multiply the current (IMO underestimated) .1 Gt/yr current yearly volcanic CO2 by, say, 4 billion years…you find there is a lot of Carbon missing from any reservoir assessment I have seen.
Many lines of evidence indicate that current volcanic CO2, whatever it may be, is below normal in earth history.

“1 Gt/yr current yearly volcanic CO2 by, say, 4 billion years”
No, that is just one side of the equation. Volcanoes emit CO2 by dissociating carbonates (CaCO3 is representative). That leaves basic oxides behind. Eventually (over 4 B yrs, say) those basic oxides left in lava react with CO2 after weathering, and the carbonates reform. It is a long term cycle, not a source of CO2.

But what can also cause CO2 to rise is digging up Gigatons of fossil carbon and burning it. No-one has done that before. That can cause warming, and we need to know how much and when.

What do you think comes belching out of volcanoes? Look at all of the carbon being consumed in subduction zones. It dwarfs what we’ve dug up.

And we have lots of information.

And then ignore the most important part of it.

Strokes:
So little warming in the second half
of the 20th century that it is nearly
identical to the pre-CO2 warming
in the first half of the 20th century.
Of course warming is good news
for humans — the warmer nights.
Of course more CO2 is good news
for green plants too — faster growth
with lower water requirements.
Only 3,000 studies to prove that.
I’m sure you missed them all, Strokes.
So anyone with sense would want more
CO2 in the air (800 to 1,200 ppm),
whether or not is caused warming,
to optimize C3 plant growth, and
feed the poorest people on our
planet, who do not have enough food.
I know ‘greening the Earth’
is over your head, Strokes,
so get back to your
tenth of a degree
temperature anomalies
and don’t look up.

Don
I agree.
CO2 lags temperature by 5 months (https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0), so CO2 is the consequence of the ocean warming. However, the two variables are correlated and when the secular GMT reaches 1.4 deg C, atmospheric CO2 will double to 530 ppm compared to its preindustrial value of 265 ppm.

co2islife

The obvious problem, by what mechanism could that model explain the start of or end of an ice age? That model only allows for a gradual increase in temperatures. Temperatures would never stop increasing. How would we ever fall into an ice age, and once into an ice again, how would we ever get out?

The obvious problem, by what mechanism could that model explain the start of or end of an ice age?

Co2(and maybe a little variation in solar).
Our climate is run by water vapor. Because it is currently warm enough for the water cycle to run.
But maybe it needs some GHG’s for that to happen, and we were close to out of co2. That’s how an ice age starts, it freezes or of the water cycle.
It ends after an ice ball earth has enough volcanic activity to accumulate a lot of co2, then the water cycle starts back up.

co2islife

That would mean volcanos are on a 100 year cycle. They aren’t. Also, we fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4000 ppm. There is no mechanism by which CO2 would increase before the ending of an ice age, and no mechanism for CO2 to decrease to end an ice age. Those are some pretty big unanswered questions for a settled science.

The mechanism to increase atm co2 to end an ice age, is that its not being absorbed into the ocean when irs covered by ice, so since it’s not going Into the ocean, it builds into the atm. Once the ice melts, co2 would enter the water again. But I’m not sure there isn’t additional tipping points, ie orbital influence.
And nothing I said has anything to do with a 100 year volcano cycle. We do not have 100 year ice age cycles.

co2islife

The oceans never totally freeze, CO2 blankets the globe. Even so, that puts a floor on the temperature, it doesn’t provide a mechanism for it to increase. Even if I give you that the entire globe is a giant reflective white ball, how would CO2 ever trigger an increase in temperature? You say the ice melts, why? By what mechanism, using CO2, does the earth warm? The ice cores demonstrate that the earth warms, then CO2 increases. Your cause and effect are reversed.

I’m not talking about now, or anything like now, we’re running the water cycle now. My suggestion is that in an ice ball conditions, co2 would build in the atm, and maybe after millions of years of it building in the atm, co2 could be high enough to warm the planet, to melt the ice, where the water cycle would resume, which would draw down atm co2. And it would do it the same way it supposedly causes warming now. It just doesn’t have water helping.

co2islife

“My suggestion is that in an ice ball conditions, co2 would build in the atm”
How? Volcanos? If that is your argument, how are Volcanoes on a 100,000/15,000 year cycle? Also, the earth doesn’t turn into an ice ball, the Glaciers make it down to about Kentucky, not the equator. Also. the glacier cycles isn’t millions and millions of years, it is 100,000/15,000. Your argument pretty much rules out CO2, you have to explain your cycle on a 100,000/15,000. You seem to be trying very hard to explain your theory. Don’t you think there must be a more obvious reason? BTW, CO2 doesn’t lead temperatures. That is game over for your argument.

The volcanoes don’t have to be on a cycle, if ice acts as a block to co2 uptake. And maybe it doesn’t have to freeze over the oceans, maybe they reduce uptake for other reasons.
You seem to be spending a lot of time trying to sink musings. That’s okay, I’m not that invested. I just think it’s interesring.

co2islife

OK, even if ice blocks the CO2 uptake, where is the extra CO2 coming from? It is far more likely that the giant reactor in the sky is one some cycle, or the earth’s orbit is on some cycle. CO2 doesn’t lead temperature.

It would come from volcanoes. All the ice deforms the crust we get a run of volcanism with restricted co2 uptake. It is a greenhouse gas, and I also mentioned orbit/solar could have a part on both the start and finish.
But no one recorded what happened so we make guesses.
I think something like this could happen. Nothing more.
And it doesn’t now, because water vapor regulates temps at night.

Annual Global University of Alabama Hunstsville
Earth: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
I plotted the monthly global values 12/78 thru 12/17 in an Excel spreadsheet and applied a trend line.
Y = 0.0011x – 0.2191 R^2 = 0.3925
The slope is 0.0011 C/month or 0.0132 C/y or 0.132 C/decade or 1.32 C/century.
Seems to me the R^2 value suggests applying a trendline to this data is slightly better than a Ouija board at predicting future trends.

yet another article misusing the relation for a change in equilibrium temperature to a sustained step change in forcing. That is what Eq 1 represents, based on a log relation between CO2 and forcing. It is not a “linear mathematical model that relates the logarithm of the annual atmospheric CO2 concentration ln(C) to the GMT T”. That cannot be separated from the time course of the evolution of the variables. So the ratio of trends over 50 years or so cannot tell you ECS. It doesn’t tell you much at all.
Really, climate sensitivity has been a major study for many years now. If it was really this simple, don’t you think someone would have thought of it before? Even the many who have developed theories at WUWT?

John F. Hultquist

If it was really this simple, . . .
Stand an egg on its end
Just one example. Salt can work, too.
If simple, just about anyone can do it.
Cheers.

Nick, there are many approaches to ECS. Some simple, some complicated, some observationally based, some purely climate model based. What you need to do (as I have) is sort through them all, toss all the obviously flawed ones, and try to understand the differences or similarities in the rest. I did so in a simple comment above reconciling several,observational methods and discrediting models. A previous version with footnotes but without this new post method can be found in essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. Cheap on Amazon Kindle. Read it then get back.

“toss all the obviously flawed ones”
It sometimes seems to me that means – toss all the ones that don’t give the answer 1.6 🙁
But the main advice is, toss anything that doesn’t come to grips with the E in ECs. Equilibrium! You can’t get it with 50 years of data. Not, at least, without very careful accounting for long term processes. Which generally means, estimating and allowing properly for flux into the oceans.

Nick: +1 . What the author did was a rough estimation (maturbation) of TCR, his result has nothing to with ECS.

kribaez

Nick,
You are correct in saying that the author confuses TCR and ECS. However, you are wrong in your diagnosis. Specifically, Eq 1 has been used as a valid approximation for TCR by numerous authors -Otto et al for example. Analytically and empirically, for a linear increase in forcing, a crossplot of F vs T asymptotes after a short time to a straight line. So TCR is often estimated from observational data using simple linear extrapolation TCR = T * F2x / DeltaF where T and DeltaF are measured as the temp change and forcing change from arbitrary origin in time. If you substitute F = 5.35 * ln(C/Co) into this equation and rearrange, you will obtain Eq 1.

“Specifically, Eq 1 has been used as a valid approximation for TCR by numerous authors -Otto et al for example.”
Yes, but it depends on what TCR. It isn’t unique. And it isn’t an approximation; it is a definition.
The point is that Eq 1 does not represent a point by point relation of temperature and forcing, as people wrongly think. It couldn’t; no sensible person expects that temperature can immediately change if forcing does. What it says is that if you posit a particular evolution of forcing, such as a ramp, then a number which determines the scale factor is related to a defined number derived from the temperature response, like temperature at the end of the ramp, by a factor called the sensitivity. For ECS, the evolution is a step change, and the parameters are size of initial step change, and asymptotic temperature at long time.
So you can’t separate that relation between parameters from the assumed forcing evolution. And you certainly can’t use it to go matching trends of varying times and duration. That doesn’t return any definable TCR at all.

. It couldn’t; no sensible person expects that temperature can immediately change if forcing does.

LOL Never been in the Sun when a cloud passes in front of it?

Ever wondered why you have to wait for the kettle to boil, when the gas is already on full blast? In fact, the passing cloud changes the heat flux impinging on you, with little effect on ambient temperature.

LOL, the thermal capacity of water is a few thousand times larger than air, My SW facing patio will drop 20F in a few minutes when the Sun goes behind clouds on a Sunny day.

“The point is that Eq 1 does not represent a point by point relation of temperature and forcing, as people wrongly think. It couldn’t; no sensible person expects that temperature can immediately change if forcing does.”
You are just wrong in this, Nick. You are being blinded here by your (correct) recognition that Eq 1 can be seen as a simple statement of an assumed linear relationship between equilibrated temperatures and step forcing, under the assumption that CO2 forcing varies logarithmically with atmospheric concentration. Yes. In this instance, the variable C represents the atmospheric concentration held fixed to yield a step value of forcing and the temperature term represents the equilibrated temperature response due to CO2 forcing.
What you are missing is that Eq 1 can also be derived ab initio as a statement of the instantaneous relationship between the (transient) forcing due to CO2 and the transient temperature response due to CO2 UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CO2 FORCING IS INCREASING approximately LINEARLY WITH TIME.
Here you go…
Differentiate the energy balance for a statement of instantaneous flux:-
Net TOA flux = Rate of heat uptake = Forcing(t) – lambda*T
Two-body heating model with assumption of very slow change in deep ocean temperature (after Isaac Held and numerous others)
C*dT/dt + kT = F(t) – lambda*T (where T is the change in temperature from the arbitrary starting point)
Put rho = (k+lambda) for convenience.
We now wish to solve for T under the assumption that the forcing is increasing linearly with time.
We write F(t) = B*t where B is the rate of increase in forcing.
The solution can be obtained analytically { using the integrating factor exp(rho/C)}
The solution is then given by
T = B*t/rho – B*C*{1 – exp(-rho*t/C)}/rho^2
The exponential term disappears after a short time period and the equation asymptotes to a straight line of the form
T = B*t/rho – B*C/rho^2
But the B*t term is also equal to the forcing in this solution of the problem. Hence we expect to see a linear relationship between Forcing and Temperature response WHICH IS INDEPENDENT OF B, the rate of change of the forcing. Crossplots of GCM results confirm the validity of this approximation (numerous papers).
It is this fact which allows a statement of the now common formula for estimating TCR from transient data, via the simple equating of the linear gradients along the same straight line relationship between F and T, namely
TCR = (F2x/DeltaF) * T
Now we use the estimation that CO2 forcing varies logarithmically with atmospheric concentration.
We write F = 5.35 * ln(C/Co) (the C variable here is now changed to mean concentration rather than heat capacity)
F 2x = 5.35 * ln (C2x/Co)
DeltaF = 5.35* ln(C/Co)
Substitute into the expression for TCR and we obtain
TCR = {[5.35 * ln (C2x/Co)]/[ 5.35* ln(C/Co)] } *T
Rearranging this yields Eq 1 in the article.
In conclusion, despite your strong resistance, Eq 1 can be used as a valid statement of TRANSIENT temperature response due to CO2 forcing providing that we are dealing with an approximately linear increase in CO2 forcing with time.

Girma

Nick
you wrote, “yet another article misusing the relation for a change in equilibrium temperature to a sustained step change in forcing.”
However, we can see that a CO2 doubling GMT of T2x = 1.4 deg C is consistent with the observed secular global warming since mid-19th century.
Here is what Wigley (1983) reported: “Recent indirect data and direct measurements from ice cores point towards a ‘pre-industrial’ CO2 level of around 260-270 ppmv, considerably below the commonly assumed value of 290 ppmv. He also defined pre-industrial CO2 as: “the level which prevailed prior to the intense industrial activity which began in earnest in the mid-to-late 19th century” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02423528
Wigley’s report indicates that the mid-19th century central atmospheric CO2 is Ci = 265 ppm. From Fig. 2 of my article, the atmospheric CO2 for 2008 is Cf = 383.93 ppm. From these initial and final atmospheric CO2, the global warming for 2008 could be calculated using Eq. 1, which gives T = (T2x/ln(2))ln(Cf/Ci) = (1.4/ln(2)) ln(383.93/265) = 0.75 deg C. This result is identical to the global warming for 2008 reported by Wu et al. (2011).
This result shows, a CO2 doubling GMT of 1.4 deg C is consistent with observation.
Regarding your “equilibrium sensitivity”, it is unobservable and unverifiable quantity so it is a useless concept for science.

Pat Frank

I posted an empirical analysis at the Air Vent back in 2011, estimating the effect of CO2 doubling on global air temperature using AGW consensus data.
There is evidence of a 60 year oscillation in the temperature record. When that’s taken out, one is left with a linear temperature trend since 1880.
Squinting real hard at that data, the most generous empirical estimate of sensitivity to CO2 doubling implies about 0.4 C warming by 2100.
Be very afraid. 🙂

AndyG55

“the most generous empirical estimate of sensitivity to CO2 doubling implies about 0.4 C warming by 2100.”
And that is after all the known unknowns and all the unknown unknowns,
Well stated, btw,
….and certainly more likely to be correct than some linear or other calculation that assumes no other influences.

“There is evidence of a 60 year oscillation in the temperature record. When that’s taken out, one is left with a linear temperature trend since 1880. ”
I disagree. In my analysis, I also used the fit function T(t)= c0+c1*t+c2*t^2+c3*sin(c4*t+c5), where T ist the temperature, t the time, and ci are fitting parameters. These leads to better agreement with the data than the linear function c2=0.
“Be very afraid. :-)”
I agree.
[But how does that equation fit the 900-1000 year long-term climate cycle? /mod]

“But how does that equation fit the 900-1000 year long-term climate cycle? /mod]”
Reliable data for the global temperature anomaly exist only for the time interval 1850-2017 (HADCRUT 4.6.).

Girma,
A small addition:
The rise of CO2 is not linear (as the MLO curve already shows), but slightly quadratic. That can be seen in the derivative, the CO2 rate of change, which within the noise has an almost linear slope, as good as the human emissions are and the resulting net sink rate:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
If that will remain that way is a matter of ever increasing human emissions, which depends of industrial activity, transport and increasing wealth of people in general.
Another approach of estimating the influence of CO2 on temperature is that its influence on the cooling 1945-1975 was small (~35 ppmv increase since 1850), but on the 2001-current “pauze” substantial (~110 ppmv increase), thus the change in slope for the cooler period may be attributed to the CO2 effect.
That avoids a lot of non-CO2 influences.

James Griffin

There are a number of historical CO2 Graphs based around Geological Documents that clearly show that around 500 million years ago we had a CO2 rich atmosphere of circa 4,500 ppm.
Thus there is no way that the planet can have ever have been over-heated due to CO2. The reason is that the calculation regarding CO2 levels and heat is not a standard graph with lines up and down for it is in actual fact a Logarithmic Curve. You can double today’s 400 ppm and you may get an increase in temperature 1.5 deg C but if you double it again you it will be even less and so on.
Mother Nature will not be destroyed by a little more CO2 for it has coped with 4,500 ppm as noted above.
The plants that took hold over the Earth gorged themselves on so much CO2 that at the end of the last Ice Age 14,000 years ago, there was only 180 ppm left…scary, extiction level is 150 ppm. The warming of the planet saw re-growth up to 280ppm. Add in industrial production after WW2 and CO2 was on the right track again.
Double it from from today’s 400ppm to 800 pm you may well expect to see 1.5 C or so. Do it again and very little. as the measurement is as I said logarithmic..
If the moderator contacts me by email I have a copy of a Graph of Historical CO2.- I found the graph on the “Information Super Highway” and no doubt originaly came from a library.

Sara

I found this article interesting because the author does ask: When we start to see a steady increase in arctic sea ice in the 2020s that continues until the 2050s, what would happen to the “Theory of Man Made Global Warming”?
Well, what would happen? The “theory” could/would collapse under its own weight.
Possibly, the “adjustments” with which we are all familiar could/would start to show up and creative excuses abound for why the “warming” isn’t happening.
It’s a valid question, aimed right at the issue you have all been discussing: how to deflate this theory without engaging in rancorous quarrels. You have to remember that there are diehards in everything, including this pseudo-scientific political game.
We must be watchful. We might get a good laugh out of the whole thing, in the end.

afonzarelli

Sara, climate change is already DOA. Nobody gives a damn about global warming except for climate change junkies. Politicians know this and, presumably, that’s why they crafted the paris paper tiger. (they know that if humanity is ever really going to have to pay for climate change, they’re going to be dumped like sack of potatoes)…

Alan Tomalty

You are wrong. The EU is fining Ireland because they didnt meet their targets. Around the world companies are going bankrupt because of the extra costs of carbon credits. Canada is also bringing in the carbon credit scam. We are doomed to the carbon credit trading scams under this scenario. All because of computer simulations.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh

Geoff Sherrington

The essential equation derived by the author does not incorporate a mass of CO2, merely a ratio of concentrations. If this ratio is set to 2 for a doubling, we have a general case where a change from 1 to 2 molecules in the whole atmosphere produces a change the same as would occur for 1,000 to 2,000 ppm CO2, or even 10% to 20%. This is counter-intuitive. We might benefit from lab measurements of temperature effects with different masses of CO2. Can readers give references to modern experiments of this type? They are of direct and high importance. Geoff.

Brett Keane

Geoff, Konrad Hartmann has done many experiments. The ‘Berthold Klein Mylar balloon’ Experiment is a modern classic. Tallblokes blog is a good place to find and discuss your query.and answers.

Walt D.

Model bias.
How do we know that CO2 is the independent variable? Historically, it is the other way round – temperature increase leads to CO2 increase. The “Young Earth” theory, implicit in most Climate Change research,,may not be correct.

Walt D.,
The historical influence of temperature on CO2 levels is about 16 ppmv/K. That means about 13 ppmv sicne the depth of the Little Ice Age, while we see an increase of ~110 ppmv since about 1850 (ice cores) or 90 ppmv since the accurate measurements at Mauna Loa.
At this moment CO2 levels lead the temperature increase, which is rather unknown territory. the article tries to estimate the influence of the extra CO2 on temperature, by attributing all increase to the rise in CO2. That can be seen as a maximum influence…

The Reverend Badger

The whole guest post & the whole blog thread are now saturated in comments and arguments and assumptions which have not been experimentally tested. Considering the vast sums of money being spent it would only take a tiny fraction of 1% to get some very useful lab experiments up and running, and probably less than 0.5% of the budget to get some full scale field ones going too.
And as I am getting rather disappointed in seeing certain contributors (you know who you are) engaging in disrespectful banter towards those whose theories they “dislike” I am going to insist , in the spirit of fairness, that ALL alternative theories of atmospheric physics be subject to the same experimental testing. This includes dragonslaying, gravity, pressure and planetary infuences.
Lets actually test them all and then when the work is done properly you can all stop insulting one another and actually get on and make some real progress on this stuff for the benefit of mankind using your knowledge of which bits are true from EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION (How Freaking novel!!!).
And while we are waiting could you PLEASE try to not be so disrespectful to one another. Most of us are here to try to understand things better, it distracts if we have to fend off insults and other chidlike behaviour.

The IPCC AR4 SPM report section 8.6 deals with forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the shortcomings of the models. Section 8.6.4 concludes in paragraph 4 (4): “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer? The IPCC itself said in 2007 that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability. That is, it doesn’t know what future temperatures will be and therefore can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way. The IPCC itself has now recognized this uncertainty in estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures.
Forecasts can only be tested against actual future outcomes.

Gerald Machnee

RE Dr Page
**There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures.**
Correct. The only problem is that politics dominates the Summary for Policymakers and in the last Report they were very certain of human influence. The next report should be interesting. Will the certainty exceed 100 Percent?? At their rate of progression it has to very soon. And all without any scientific measurements!!

Brett Keane

REV, in previous debates, lukies have shown they have no respect for empirical or straight experimental evidence. They just make things up like the defunct or nearly-so warmista blogs. But I will not return the sneers of those few here, because I know that time is telling the tale. Not my problem. Cheers, Brett

Reverend Badger
The coming climate catastrophe
has nothing to do with real science.
It is junk science —
such bad science
that it is laughable.
You can’t “verify” what CO2 does
when you don’t know what causes
climate change, beyond a simple
list of likely variables, with no
knowledge of how important each
variable is.
The lab experiments are done.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Might cause some harmless warming,
or maybe not — a closed system
lab experiment, with no feedbacks,
is not real life.
There are many things in life
where our understanding of them
is “We don’t know”, and
climate change is one of them.
But humans have a strong desire
to have answers — so they
jump to false conclusions.
Scary, and wrong,
wild guess predictions
of the future climate
stated with great confidence
every year,
for thirty years in a row
(ignoring the coming ice age
predictions in the 1970s)
are not real science.
Climate change is a political
strategy used to scare people
into wanting MORE GOVERNMENT
to fight the imaginary problem
of runaway global warming.
When, in fact, the actual climate
is better than it has ever been in
hundreds of years, for humans
and animals … and would get
better yet, especially for plants,
if we keep adding CO2 to the air.
I imagine everything I’ve just
typed is way over your head.
And I consider your comment
to be nothing more
than a science-free
smarmy scolding.
We skeptics face
a huge amount
of ridicule and character attacks
from leftists — we must practice
speaking to them in their own
language of ridicule
and character attacks,
because polite science
discussions do not work
(they won’t debate us).
Character attacks are
the Saul Alinsky method,
and in case you didn’t realize it,
that method made Trump president.
He fought back, and won.
So, in the Alinsky spirit,
I have re-read your comment,
and here’s what I say to you Badger:
Up your nose
with a rubber hose.

To understand where Orssengo and the majority of establishment climate scientists go wrong in their projections and calculations see Fig 12 at
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/26/analysis-the-coming-cooling-sea-surface-temp-data-confirms-cooling-is-on-the-way/
They make the two fatal schoolboy errors of first, using too small (short) a sample size ie ignoring the millennial cycle and using only 50 – 150 years of data and second of projecting straight ahead across the 2004/5 millennial peak and trend inversioncomment image
Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed.
Here is Orssengo’s version -which is very similar to Akasofucomment image
Orssengo is better than most in that he has amazingly discovered the 60 year cycle !! The establishment remain blind to the obvious millennial cycle.

I was wrong in this figure because I did not realise then that the secular GMT is quadratic, not linear.

Smart Rock

Haven’t read all the comments, so I may be repeating what soemone else has said. If so, apologies.
Girma quotes Wu et al 2011 as having determined the secular rate of warming by subtracting the 55-70 year MDO form “observed” GMT. As if that were the only periodicity in GMT. Oh, come on, please.
Anyone who’s looked at ice core paleotemperature reconstructions can see (no fancy fourier analysis needed, just eyeballs) that there’s a roughly 1,000 year cycle. That’s why we talk of the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods.
We’re close to the top of a 1,000 year cycle now (assuming that it is a cycle and is continuing).
So, how do you distinguish, in 120 years of data, between a secular variation and being on the up-slope of a 1,000 year cycle. You can’t. It’s just not possible.
Also, the premise that all changes in GMT are due to CO2 is totally unjustified. It appears that the only “justification” is a set of models that were written assuming that CO2 is the only driver of temperature.
And I haven’t mentioned the dreaded “adjustments” yet. No need. Girma’s otherwise fairly rigorous analysis is based on two very flawed assumptions.

I agree with the “Smart”,
Mr. Smart Rock:
Just wanted to add
the “1,000” year cycles
from ice cores
are really more like
1,000 years +/- 500 years.
Not as precise as you imply.

If you take unadjusted data from NOAA, apply a 1.2TCS CO2, a small solar input, small aerosol input, and a 0.23C variation from PDO/AMO with a 60 year period. You can simulate the entire historical record with almost zero error from 1880 to now. Using corrected data produces a horrible fit. I couldn’t get any value of TCS or other parameters to produce a good fit.
The way you have calculated this is the only way you can do it with any scientific legitimacy. The 70 year period from 1945-2015 shows a 0.4C change which is consistent as well with a TCS ~ 1.2. To suggest 2.2-2.8 as a recent paper suggested means that somehow over the last 70 years heat has been lost or stored in the system

joelobryan

Yes….Trenberth’s Lament, the missing heat.
The climate change religion is lost in the wilderness, stranded by the obviousness of the failure of their cherished hypothesis. The climate alarmism cult is unable to cope with the fact that anthropogenic CO2 is a complete non-problem.

nologic nologic nologic
What “unadjusted data” from NAAO?
What are you drinking?
Very few southern hemisphere
measurements before 1900.
Few southern hemisphere
measurements from 1900 to 1940.
Over half the grids, even today,
have no measurements.
So, a large majority of our planet’s surface
before 1940 had no measurements,
.
So, a majority of our planet’s surface
after 1940 had no measurements.
Substitute the phrase “no data”
for “no measurements”.
The majority of the average surface
temperature compilation
is derived from wild guess numbers
from government bureaucrats
who want to show more warming!
So, even if you could get
“real raw data”
from NAAO,
which I doubt,
a majority of the numbers
would still be wild guess infilling,
and wild guess infilling,
especially by biased bureaucrats
is not real scientific data.

Mike Bromley

Wow. What rigor. Mortis.

Doug

Doesn’t temperature lead, by a decade, the historical increase in CO2?

No. Per ice cores, it leads by ~800 years, the thermohaline circulation round trip. Makes sense.

ristvan,
Depends of the depth and speed of the change and the processes involved…
Seasonal: 2-3 months (vegetation dominant), CO2 opposite to temperature
Year by year: 6 months (vegetation dominant), CO2 parallel to temperature
MWP-LIA and other millennials: decades (ocean -surface- currents?), CO2 parallel to temperature
Glacial-interglacial: centuries to millennia (deep oceans), CO2 parallel to temperature

Using the mathematical model given by Eq. 3, if for a given middle year of a trend period, the GMT trend dT/dy and the relative atmospheric carbon dioxide trend (dC/dy)/C are known, the CO2 doubling GMT T2x could be estimated directly [from] observations.“.
No it couldn’t. The statement assumes that temperature (GMT-MDO) is driven solely by CO2.

It is just, that the global warming target of +2°C, or only +1.5 is from “pre-industrial” averages, whatever that means. With the claim, that temperatures had already increased by over 1°C, the “threat” is immanent and will not require additional evaluation.
Rather than the consequences of a further doubling of CO2, we could question the requirements for it. Natural CO2 sinks consume about 2% of elevated atmospheric CO2 levels every year. These are about 20Gt right now, with a concentration of about 405ppm.
To eventually get to (in the long run) and maintain a level of 800ppm, it would require (800-280)*0.02 =10.4ppm of CO2 emissions per year, or 81Gt of CO2. So we would need to double CO2 emissions, and then wait a long time (while holding emissions steady) to ever get to 800ppm.
I don’t say it is impossible, but would it take a huge effort by going into the “wrong” direction.

Bill Everett

Since satellite measurement of global CO2 reveals that the highest concentrations of CO2 are in the areas of most intense vegetation then increased global vegetation caused by warming probably accounts for the increased global CO2.

Bill Everett,
Would be difficult as the biosphere is a proven, growing sink for CO2, based on the extra O2 produced: the calculated O2 use from burning fossil fuels is more than what is measured as O2 loss in the atmosphere, thus plants produce more O2, thus take more CO2 out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis…

joelobryan

Ferdinand,
You have to ignore the OCO-2 data to still hold that belief. A decade of OCO-2 data will smash your existing paradigms of where the sources and sinks are.

joelobryan,
My impression is that the OCO-2 satellite still has a lot of problems, like a maximum CO2 level at the exact place where the maximum uptake of CO2 into the deep oceans is: the N.E. Atlantic, the main sink place for the THC. I suppose that it is because of these problems that we haven’t seen any updates in the past year…

willhaas

This article assumes that the only natural cause of climate change are ocean related occilations. If that is so them we should never had the ice age cycling or the warm period, cool period cycling during the Holocene but we did. The primary flaw in the AGW conjecture is that it is based on only partial science.

Kristi Silber