Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase in ALL Records

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?

The most important assumption behind the hypothesis that human activities are causing global warming is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The assumption became almost the total focus of the IPCC because of the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The definition predetermined the method and procedure of the IPCC, which in turn, eliminated a logical scientific approach to consider human impact on climate and climate change in the larger context of natural, that is without the human portion, climate, and climate change. The definition and the structure of the IPCC excluded the scientific method, which requires the hypothesis be disproved. Instead, everything was done to prove the hypothesis. The definition did not allow for consideration of a null hypothesis. The structure accepted the very limited, untested, conclusion of Working Group (WG) I as the basis for the research done by Working Groups II and III. This means WG II only considered the negative impact of warming. They did not consider the positive impact of warming, nor the possibility of global cooling. As a result, WG III only offered policies and remedial actions on the negative impact of global warming.

The definition given to the IPCC should have required them to examine the entire issue of climate and climate change. Then and only then, should they have considered the possible human-caused portion of climate change. Apparently, after the debacle of the 2001 Report in which a deliberate attempt was made to rewrite climate history, the IPCC acknowledged the problem of the definition by offering a better one. However, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the simplified and exaggerated Report produced for the politicians. It said,

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

The problem is this appeared in the SPM not in the WG I Report. It was impossible to apply it to “IPCC usage” in the 2007 WGI Report because that document is cumulative and built on the limited material of all previous Reports. To apply it in the 2007 Report required starting the entire process over. It appears it was presented to mislead the policymakers reading the SPM. It appears it was included so IPCC could point to it and say to those who questioned the limitations created by the original definition that their work was a result of consideration of, “natural variability or as a result of human activity.” It is, in effect, a most remarkable phenomenon, a retroactive deception.

As I recall, nobody at the time challenged the assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. Rather, the challenges focused on how the definition allowed the IPCC to downplay the much greater volume and importance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. It allowed the IPCC to effectively overlook it because while humans produce water vapor, the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume.

In 1999 the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Earlier cores were in the record, but as I recall, the one by Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-year core drilled to 3623 meters. I recall Lorius warning people not to rush to judgment. One of his concerns was the size of the graph depicting such a long record. Lorius reconfirmed this position in a 2007 article.

“…our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”

In the original article, as Euan Mearns notes in his robust assessment, the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase.

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are (sic) therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

The question is how did the interpretation become that, the Antarctic ice core record confirmed that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It could be the nature of the graph as Lorius said.

Joanne Nova expressed that concern in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote,

“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”

The Lorius warning didn’t prevent people automatically assuming it confirmed the CO2 preceding temperature increase relationship. However, Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.

How about considering carbon dioxide’s role is non-existent? Fortunately, after the 1999 paper was released, a few people didn’t accept everything at face value and began to test the data. By 2003 Caillon et al., (including Jouzel) produced “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III.” Here the concern was more with the “gas age-ice age” difference. This speaks to the problem that it takes decades for the gas in the bubble to become enclosed or trapped. In a 2006 paper, the authors state,

Gas is trapped in polar ice at depths of ~50–120 m and is therefore significantly younger than the ice in which it is embedded. The age difference is not well constrained for slowly accumulating ice on the East Antarctic Plateau, introducing a significant uncertainty into chronologies of the oldest deep ice cores.

They add;

In the case of slowly accumulating East Antarctic ice cores, this difference is very large, up to 7 kyr during glacial periods, and the timing of climate changes recorded in the two phases will not be accurate unless the gas age–ice age difference can be well constrained.

To put the best spin on it, they conclude,

The uncertainty in the Vostok gas age–ice age difference is still ~1 kyr, complicating an accurate assessment of climate phasing between Greenland and East Antarctica during the last ice age.

This means the only thing we can conclude agrees with Nova that temperature increases before CO2. It is important to note that more precise correlation between temperature and CO2 is made difficult by the application of a 70-year smoothing average to the raw data. The impact of this smoothing on the elimination of data that would help resolve the relationship and lag time. It is seen in the 2000-year comparison of different measures of atmospheric CO2 (Figure 1).

clip_image002

Figure 1: The original caption provides source and explanation.

It is reasonable to say that virtually all potential diagnoses are eliminated by the removal of annual variation, but especially the sequence of events. Notice that the overall atmospheric average of CO2 is different, approximately 260 ppm to 300 ppm. This is a difference that the IPCC claim took us from about 50% CO2 control of global temperature in 1950 to 95% + today.

A really good indicator of the validity and threat to the IPCC dogma of this claim were the immediate attacks by proponents of the evidence and their conclusion. They knew it struck right at the heart of their claims, their most fundamental assumption. I will not mention any specific sites and give them more credit than they deserve, but a simple keynote search for CO2 lag will suffice. The fact they knew this and deliberately tried to downplay the evidence was seen in the deception Al Gore used in his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It was an inconvenient truth that he could not allow a sharp-eyed audience to see, so he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make visual juxtaposition of the graphs difficult. He then masked it even more with the histrionics of riding up on a forklift to the exaggerated 20th century reading.

All this came into question after 1998, rarely because people were examining what the few scraps of empirical evidence, but mostly because of what Huxley called the great tragedy of science; a beautiful hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact. Up to that point in the modern record, the levels of atmospheric CO2 appeared to align with the rising temperature. Almost everybody overlooked the inconvenience that from 1940 to 1980 when the human production of CO2 increased the most, global temperatures went down. After 1998 the global temperatures stopped increasing while CO2 levels continued to increase in contradiction to their hypothesis. The excuses began quickly. It was a brief pause; it was an aberration; it was not a trend because it needed to last for an extended period to be significant. Santer said at least 17 years was required. Informatively, his fellow AGW proponents couldn’t wait as they faced the PR nightmare that the public began to notice the discrepancies between what they were saying and what was happening. Cartoons appeared.

clip_image004

clip_image006

clip_image008

clip_image010

The reaction was not to re-examine the science but to change the name of the hypothesis from global warming to climate change. A few noticed, but basically it took AGW proponents off the hook of explaining empirical evidence in the context of the theory. What appeared to allow them to point to any change as evidence of AGW became a trap. Now, every single change or piece of evidence had to fit the broader climate change hypothesis. As we know, many remained focussed on the original hypothesis because, although they changed the name they did not change the hypothesis.

The disconnect after 1998 between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued and was called either the “pause” or the hiatus. The 17 years came and went, and cartoons again showed a wider audience were aware.

clip_image012

A growing amount of empirical evidence indicates the AGW hypothesis assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is wrong, but it continues its sway even among many so-called skeptics. A few, like Anthony Watts, occasionally ask the question. Under the headline, “Claim: CO2 effects felt on decadal time scales, rather than centuries” he writes,

“But, why if that is true, why are we in a pause, when there’s been an increase in CO2 the last decade and no correlation with temperature?”

In the study he is reviewing, the lead author provides one explanation.

“Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration.”

A year later in 2015, the abstract for an article in Environmental Research Letters says,

In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.

Apparently, in case anyone interpreted this to say there is no need to act now or even precipitously, the authors add,

Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

In a “plain language” summary by Nic Lewis on Judith Curry’s website of a paper released by a group from the UK Met Office under lead author Andrews we learn,

The simulations show that the models’ effective climate sensitivity is substantially lower when driven by an observationally-based estimate of the evolution of SST and sea-ice over the historical period than when responding to long-term CO2 forcing. This finding underlies the authors’ conclusion that climate sensitivity estimates based on observed historical warming are too low.

The fact that this is presented as “plain language” explains why so many don’t understand what is going on and why the deception that AGW is proven and occurring continues. As the first comment on the Lewis piece says,

I’m sorry but I need a “plain English” translation of the “plain language” summary.

Climate sensitivity is the effect on global temperature of a change in forcing, in this case, the forcing is an increase in CO2. You can read the IPCC definition here. This accepts the assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. The Andrews et al., although done using a model, shows that when the authors used empirical data the CO2 increase was “substantially lower.” Don’t forget, this is for just two variables, sea-ice and Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). Is it possible that with many more empirical values the climate sensitivity would go to zero? That is the empirical evidence based on studies and decrease in sensitivity over the last few years (Figure2).

clip_image014

Figure 2

The issue of CO2 climate sensitivity is central to the entire history of scientific examination. Academics, including those in the natural sciences, love to use argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) to bolster their studies. Proponents of the AGW hypothesis cite the work of Svante Arrhenius as their basis. Unfortunately, and especially nowadays in this age of the Internet and access to billions of pieces of evidence, it is hard to cherry-pick, or take information out of context. Again, Watts and others were in the forefront of this healthier and more rigorous research. His 2009 article identifies many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius.

A similar analysis was undertaken by The Friends of Science when they translated from the German a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,

Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.

The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero is being ignored. Therefore, my view aligns with some of his colleagues who, “rejected any effect of CO2 at all.”

I am not saying there is no greenhouse effect. I am saying that the empirical evidence shows that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. Further, it appears that the entire greenhouse effect is reasonably explained by water vapor. Besides variation in water vapor is just one variable in a complex array of variables that cause climate change, which can cause global warming or global cooling.

As an exclamation mark I conclude,

clip_image016

Advertisements

280 thoughts on “Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase in ALL Records

    • Agree broadly with your observation, CJ, and I appreciate as always Dr Ball’s contribution, but I’d like to emphasize, not for the first time, that he goes too far laterally in his claims, thereby giving his adversaries the excuse to pick up on the many hostages to fortune that this creates, and sidestep the main point.

      If the piece had been confined to the subject in the header “Empirical evidence shows temperature increases before CO2 in all records” we could have had a decent and very instructive discussion on a crucial issue. Instead a lot of tangential stuff is introduced which leads to… well, just look at the posts below. I’m not finding much to take strong issue with in the article, but it tries to cover far too much. This is one of the few weaknesses of Anthony’s brilliant blog, and is by no means confined to Dr. Ball’s contribution.

      • small minds can’t follow multiple strings of though and complex arguments. small minds also have difficulty recognizing patterns. This is not a problem with which Dr. Ball needs to be concerned.

        If the readership of his work are too dense to tie it all together (and most on this site don’t have to worry about that, clearly) and see the bigger picture, then there ain’t much gonna help them in life anyway. Not our problem.

        Thanks Dr. Ball!

        • I must have a small mind, because I cannot follow the arguments put forward by Skeptical Science.
          https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html

          Where is the logic?

          “Firstly, the relatively weak warming from orbital changes isn’t enough to take our climate out of an ice age.”

          Theory: CO2 coming from the oceans creates a feedback effect that amplifies the warming, and this spreads out across the globe.

          So the ‘relatively weak warming’ IS enough to heat massive bodies of water to cause the CO2 to rise in the first place??

          And then, if orbital changes cause relatively ‘weak warming’, why do orbital changes suddenly become strong enough to overcome the strong warming caused by CO2, in order to initiate an ice age??

          “This amplification and spreading of the warming also works in reverse when the planet enters into an ice age. …. when ice sheets spread in the Northern Hemisphere, this cools the northern oceans. The result is the oceans absorb more CO2, leading to a dramatic drop in atmospheric CO2. This amplifies the cooling and spreads it across the globe. ”

          So what caused the ice sheets to spread, when the CO2 amplification effect had heated the globe?

          Am I missing something?

          • Nope. You asked good questions. One of the very few times I ever posted a question on RealClimate, it was in hopes of clarifying what it was that had always prevented catastrophic warming in the past. I had pointed out that the lag was likely due to oceans warming, but that also, past CO2 levels had been up to 25 times current levels without a catastrophe in sight. AGW is nonsense as currently framed and contrary to emplirical, real-world observations.

      • AGW is famous for going off on tangents. That’s why there has to be more information provided than necessary. They will go down any side road, which has to be refuted before or if the central point can every be regained.

      • From a lay perspective, a limited and focused discussion of increases in temperature preceding increases in CO-2 would be very helpful. I have seen this discussed in other presentations and frankly was puzzled by why this was not hammered on more by those who challenge the AGW thesis. Dr. Ball’s article does seem to cover tangential issues diminishing the utility of the work. The audience in the political arena are not scientists; but reasonably intelligent people who can follow a logical commonsensical discussion of facts. And, then feel comfortable if they have confidence in their veracity in relaying those facts to other open minds. They cannot do that if they are confused by too much extraneous information. The IPCC, Gore et al are not shy about simplifying their efforts down to ridiculous memes such as “CO-2 goes up; planet dies!” Those who have the expertise to challenge the IPCC propaganda or narrative machines have a burden of integrity and an obligation to simplify. Further, a discussion of the mechanisms at work such as accelerated organic decomposition or ocean’s reduced absorption of CO-2; or whatever mechanism causing heat to precede or precipitate CO-2 increases would also be very helpful.

    • The reason for the CO2 – Temperature relationship is coupled is thus: When the atmosphere of the planet warms up, it warms the upper layer of the ocean waters. This causes the oceans to release CO2 into the air in order to feed plants since the planet is warming. When the planet cools, the plants die off plus the oceans cool. The oceans being cool, absorbs CO2 from the air since it is not needed to feed plants that will not grow when it is cold. It is a perfect regulator for the needed chemistry.

  1. Spot on as usual, Tim Ball. As Feynman said, “One ugly fact will ruin a string of beautiful theories”. My “Road to Damascus” moment was when first saw the Hockey-stick graph. Up until then I was as worried as the rest of the world about CO2. But I knew as a fact that for 200 years Greenland was much warmer than now. There were about 400 farms, several villages (you can still see the remnants of buildings). There were churches, they even had bishops. They had sheep, grew vegetables – and traded successfully with Denmark and Norway and other European countries. Michael Mann dismissed those reports as “anecdotal”. Well, that was when I became a convert to vile denialism. ONE UGLY FACT …………..

        • Gary,

          They had to make hay to carry their cattle over the winter. I suppose that all their hay was grass hay. Alfalfa, while known in Medieval Europe, probably wouldn’t work even in balmy Medieval Warm Period Greenland.

          • Nick,

            No one today makes hay at the site of the Garden under Sandet, which, as I note, is still under permafrost tundra.

            Vatnahverfi, the site of your photo, was far more productive during the Medieval WP than now. Hay making is only possible there now because of modern techniques.

            The areas of Vatnahverfi most favored by the Norse are less populated today, but still in use by modern Greenlanders, primarily for sheep farming and a bit of agriculture, as your cherry picked photo shows. Most sheep of course now don’t overwinter in Greenland, or if they do, rely on hay imported from more clement climes.

            How to lie with pictures is like how to lie with statistics. Such as posting a picture of a hay field in a low lying coastal part of Greenland today, and concluding from that that it is warmer there now than during the Medieval WP. Norse settlements were farther up the fjords, at their heads.

            Bad.

          • “cherry picked photo”
            You seem pretty insistent that all that matters is that Garden Under Sandet is under permafrost. This is a special site, because it is only a few km below a receding glacier (Kangaurssassup), which has its own time scale. But you don’t give any evidence. In fact, the main data is from a 1997 thesis titled “Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet, a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site”. Apparently the melting permafrost was, even then, a big preservation problem.

          • Nick,

            That site is hardly the only example. It’s still under permafrost now, despite archaeological digs.

            No one is raising dairy cattle on Greenland today, as the Norse did for centuries during the MWP. As noted, even sheep couldn’t be raised there now, under Medieval conditions.

            How you imagine that a hayfield in one small area “proves” that Greenland is warmer today than during the MWP, is beyond me. Only a true believer in the Church of CACA could possibly be so divorced from all physical reality.

          • Thanks for the reference, John. It’s interesting that in several places in the article they mention the increased storminess while temperatures are decreasing. That seems to go against the current speculation of the AGW crowd that storminess should/will increase with increased temperature. I guess they they either don’t see or just ignore data that counters their theories. Nothing like a set of blinders to limit having to think too much.

          • Ice cores were taken from Greenland that go back 700 years to the MWP. Before that, there was no ice at those locations.

          • John, note that warmists always use th hackneyed argument that life was very hard on Greenland back then, letting it deliberaltey slip their tiny minds that life was hard all over the world back in the day, thank goodness for fossil fules, they’ve savedthe wales you know! 😉

          • Always love a pretty picture! I can only assume that if indeed it is of Greenland (funny name for a land covered in ice, always puzzled me from my O’Level Geography days) it must have been taken in that land’s Summer!

          • I, too, was once puzzled by the name Greenland. It turns out that the first explorers (including Eric the Red?) found a green, flourishing land well back onto the island, including areas now under glaciers. Calling it “Greenland” was sort of like a real-estate ad, and people flocked there in response. It was about the same time that wine vineyards were planted successfully in Scotland, where that crop is totally impossible now. The Medieval Warm Period is, as I understand it, what enabled the building of many of the magnificent cathedrals people go to visit now, to say nothing of other accomplishments of the late Medieval and early Renaissance eras. Once the MWP ended and the more usual cold weather succeeded it, most farmers had (reluctantly, I would guess) to leave Greenland, and the grape vines in Scotland were removed. It was not long afterwards that 15th- and 16th-century Dutch masters painted scenes of winter carnivals on the ice. Thank God that we no longer have ice on our major rivers for extended periods! (In 1862, I think, Hampton Roads in Virginia froze over to such an extent that railroad tracks ran from Norfolk to Portsmouth on the ice, and train traffic ran on those tracks for some weeks or months.)

          • John,

            Not questioning your info or anything, but I was born and live in Norfolk. In the 1970’s (the last time it was cold), the Elizabeth river froze thick enough one winter that we could walk on it (though not more than few 10’s of feet from the shore), and a friend’s dog ran so far on the ice that we could hear the tags clinking but couldn’t see the dog. However, I’ve never heard any story of railroad tracks from Norfolk to Portsmouth on the ice. If you have a link to any info, I’d love to learn something new about local history.

          • Phil, had a Christmas dinner early 1960s as a guest of friends at Diss, near the Norfolk-
            Suffolk border (can’t remember which side). We walked across lightly snow covered fields to a small church for Christmas service, the church apparently built by Chaucer’s grandson who was an architect. Thence to the smallest pub perhaps in the world for a glass of ale. Lovely.

          • It has been known for decades that Greenland in it’s albeit brief Summer, becomes very green & lush indeed. Even arch-warmist & anti-Humanist Sir David Attenborough showed as much in one of his then good quality tv progs several years ago! However, such greening is restricted to coastal areas but not the interior!

          • The fact that they can grow stuff in Greenland now, proves that now is warmer than 1000 years ago?
            Come on Nick, you are usually better at making up stuff.

          • Mark,

            When there are yet again dairy farms in Greenland, relying totally on local resources for fodder, pasture and hay, with unheated barns, then we’ll know that it’s as warm there now as 1000 years ago.

          • Well, that wasn’t my downcheck in the last couple of minutes there. What can one do when an idiot links to the very post that lays out the incompetent data manipulation that underlies his assertion?

            I just can’t kick a guy that is already punching himself in the face…

          • “incompetent data manipulation that underlies his assertion?”
            There is no data manipulation of any kind here. It is just a picture of a current farm in Greenland, with numerous hay bales.

          • No, Nick, there is data manipulation. You are manipulating the data by making proclamations in direct opposition to copious amounts of factual evidence uncovered regarding archeological sites, specifically illustrated by John Tillman.

            I still can’t understand your refusal or inability to employ logically sound arguments. If you claim a site is special, when in fact it is not, that is considered ignorance or outright lying. Regardless, not accepting valid data or being unaware of it and making claims against said data is manipulation. It is ok to be wrong. I’ve seen plenty of folks on here admit when you called them out. Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes? Is it ego or financial?

            Nick: “I suppose that all their hay was grass hay.”
            It still is. A modern Greenland scene, from here:

            John: No one today makes hay at the site of the Garden under Sandet, which, as I note, is still under permafrost tundra.

            Vatnahverfi, the site of your photo, was far more productive during the Medieval WP than now. Hay making is only possible there now because of modern techniques.

            Nick: “cherry picked photo”
            You seem pretty insistent that all that matters is that Garden Under Sandet is under permafrost. This is a special site, because it is only a few km below a receding glacier (Kangaurssassup), which has its own time scale. But you don’t give any evidence.

            Nick,

            That site is hardly the only example. It’s still under permafrost now, despite archaeological digs.

            No one is raising dairy cattle on Greenland today, as the Norse did for centuries during the MWP. As noted, even sheep couldn’t be raised there now, under Medieval conditions.

            So again Nick, while you are clearly the most polite adversary on this site, it is a frustrating endeavor to see you consistently obfuscate and manipulate information to suit your needs. Sure, sometimes we are guilty of it and maybe that is where you bring levity and thank you for that balance. However, its about maybe 25% of the time, the other 75% you are deceiving yourself and look quite foolish.

            Why do you defend such an egregious con as if there was any accuracy or credibility left in the narrative or the field?

          • Nick,

            You’re being disingenuous or willfully deceitful again. You link to an article about lake sediment proxies that argues that at least one series (Igaliku) has been contaminated by modern agricultural practices which renders the recent portion of the Igaliku series (which shows significant warming) unusable as a climate proxy, you cherry-pick a photo from the article, and then you argue it shows that temperatures are warmer now.

          • “you cherry-pick a photo from the article”
            Ironically, the photo was chosen by Anthony W, not me, to claim that intrusive modern agriculture was interfering with interpretation of proxies in Greenland.

          • Erm…I think that was the point of both the article and the photo. And no, if you posted the photo then it was chosen by you.

            I don’t get it. You’re obviously a smart person with a lot to add to a conversation, but sometimes you act like a little kid who knitpicks and doubles down on irrelevant points. Have you ever admitted you’re wrong on anything, or at least acknowledged that someone who disagrees with you has a legitimate point?

          • Manipulation:

            2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully ·quantify our data and manipulate it statistically
            —S. L. Payne

            b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage ·being used and manipulated by the knowing men around him
            —New Republic

            definition 2b.
            In regards to your posting of a photo and making the claim it is a special case, when in fact, it is not. That is an omission of fact, or lying by omission, which can easily be considered manipulation. The “data” in this instance was a photo, and by your claims of special circumstance, you are manipulating the complete set of data, or maybe more accurate, massaging the data you present by refusing to accept that it is not special.

            That is manipulation Nick and for once I would appreciate that you recognize and take ownership of your tactics.

          • “It is just a picture of a current farm in Greenland”

            Which even you should know, says nothing about whether the area in the photograph is colder or warmer than it was 1000 years ago.

    • After doing about 6 years of IR scans trying to isolate H2O from C=O and C-O bands, told me something was amiss. The overlap is almost total and a bit like Chris Monckton’s view that you cant just look at the variance ie additional 120ppm of CO2 you need to look at 4000 ppm of H2O + 280 ppm of CO2 versus 4000 ppm of water +400 ppm of CO2. the impact of CO2 is very very minor if anything.

    • “Michael Mann dismissed those reports as “anecdotal”. Well, that was when I became a convert to vile denialism. ONE UGLY FACT …………..”

      My conversion started back in the 90s when I was “discussing” the MWP with one William Connolly on UseNet (ask your grandparents what that was).

      I say “discuss” in quotes, because it was basically him dismissing the MWP as a short-term European thing, and ignoring EVERY. OTHER. PIECE. OF. EVIDENCE. I gave him from all over the world.

      I had rarely seen such a display of confirmation bias from a professional scientist…until I read all the other alarmists posing as professional scientists.

        • I’ll have to check, not sure if there was a global warming/climate change group at the time. As you’ll know with UseNet, the cross-posting could get a little hard to follow.

          • That was the reason I asked because I couldn’t find a newsgroup that specialized in CAGW. I hung out in sci.space.policy and alt.politics, and would occasionally try to rebut some CAGW claim that came up in passing.

            I had not really been too interested in the CAGW dialogue because I thought it was obvious (to me) that the case for human-caused global warming had not been made. When I realized the CAGW narrative was out of control, I went looking on Usenet for a place to discuss it, and could not find a specific group, and then someone gave me a link to WUWT and I ended up here. 🙂

            If the powers that be ever try to censor websites we may have to return to the uncensored Usenet.

          • Yep. Those who think that Twitter is somehow the Wild West don’t know anything about UseNet. Other than a rogue cancel (i.e., someone who deletes your posts), there are no sheriffs.

    • I accepted the AGW thesis as presented in Gore’s movie as reasonable. It was pretty natural as a Community/Redevelopment guy in municipal government. It was all the rage. We were indoctrinated in the stuff in the land use regulatory world. Would watch anything on TV regarding Climate Change. I remember turning on the History Channel and watched a show on how the Viking colonies in Greenland were derailed by the encroaching Little Ice Age which of course than related back their colonization during the Medieval Warming Period. Oh! Maybe there is more to this global warming stuff than I have been told? So, started looking online and then ran into the Wikileaks of the Climategate emails. Been around politics and government long enough to have a nose for the “Bums Rush” in public policy. The rest is history.

  2. Just a small nitpick.

    To the best of my understanding the IPCC are not in charge of any research whatsoever. Their remit is not to research what climate change is caused by, or even whether it exists.

    They assume that CAGW exists, and their job is to collate the models outputs and research then misrepresent it as a policy document that makes money for those who sponsor them.

    • Nevertheless the IPCC inform the politicians who control what money is expended for research on what. Once that gets going the feedback from the research stimulates the politicians further and away the whole juggernaught rolls.

    • That’s too forgiving by a mile. An iron clad rule of politics is that you never assemble an investigative group without knowing what its conclusions will be. The politicians put the IPCC together to generate cover for what they want to do. It is not an accident that a bunch of Socialists launched it and protect it.

  3. “A lot of people say this is a well-established (greenhouse) effect. It was known to Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, etc. But they don’t mention that all these people did it wrong…” – Prof. Lindzen

    • The above video link unfortunately is one that is a part 1 (13 minute) segment of Lindzen’s lecture. Here is the full 45 min lecture.

  4. The AGW argument states that the initial temperature rise was caused by the relatively weak effect of variable solar heating caused by Milankovich cycles. This in turn caused CO2 release which caused warming far beyond that caused by the increased solar heating. If the effect of solar heating is so weak, how was a subsequent decrease in solar heating able to override the still increasing CO2 levels (and the resultant heating)? Isn’t this like using a match to set a house on fire and then expecting the fire to stop once the match is removed?

    • The lack of any tipping point in all of Earth history, of any of the major catastrophes of volcanism, plate tectonics, asteroid or comet impactors, giant solar flare or nearby supernova…or anything else…to have ever been reached, the fact that noting like it has ever occurred, is, in my mind, one of several lines of evidence that ALL BY ITSELF wrecks the CO2 as global atmospheric thermostat/positive feedback loop hypothesis.

    • This is what I wonder as well. I guess ice age is only very little directly affected by CO2, but dust-albedo feedback is the thing. And possibly structural changes like rising sea level during melt period, vs. increasing NH land elevation during the interglacial.

      Who knows? I think we really should listen to people who understand glaciations, but not necessarily mr James Hansen, who stole the fame.

    • This very weak argument was stated with admirable economy of words by Steven Mosher in a comment here on WUWT “CO2 is both a cause of warming and a response to warming“. It is a weak argument precisely because it’s a rearguard action, cobbled together by the warmist community in the face of observations by skeptics about the whole glacial-interglacial temperature and CO2 cycles thing

      In the beginning of the global warming movement, the earth had no history before about 1850. Pre-industry, it was the Garden of Eden before whatshername ate the apple. There was the inconvenient MWP that Jones wished he could disappear, and Mann et al heroically strove to do just that with the hockey stick. Then the paleo data started circulating; they had to do something, and this really was the best that they could do.

      As pointed out by Joanne Nova, quoted by Tim Ball in the post, the idea that CO2 and temperature are both causes and effects of each other is logically absurd because it describes a regime that is inherently unstable. If it were true, global climate would be racing uncontrollably towards one extreme or the other.

      We do know that a warmer world will cause the oceans to emit some of their CO2. It’s Henry’s Law, an established part of physical chemistry. Therefore, increased CO2 cannot be the primary cause of warming. It really is that simple. Logic 101.

      Apologies to Mosher if I didn’t get his exact words right. He might have said “CO2 is both a response to warming and a cause of warming”

    • Kevin asks

      If the effect of solar heating is so weak, how was a subsequent decrease in solar heating able to override the still increasing CO2 levels (and the resultant heating)?

      And this is exactly the right question.

      So “other” processes initiated the warming and CO2 pushed the temperatures up higher …then “other” process decreased the temperature from top to bottom because CO2 again followed with a lag. There’s no CO2 control knob evident in that process.

  5. I’m a sceptic, but I’m not prepared to accept a proposition to support my view if it isnt to a rigorous standard. That’s is one of my complaints with our opportunistic catastrophic warming friends. It isnt a smoking guns that ice cores show CO2 lags temperature rises in gross, coarse multimillennial records given the problems with the record cited by the author of this piece and given the multifacited adventures the magic molecule goes through.

    In one of CO2’s lives, if the ocean warms it evolves CO2 and if it cools it dissolves it. In another, extensive massive eruptions of volcanoes occur and we we get loads of CO2 injected into the atmosphere with accompanying cooling because of aerosols. At the same time, we can get a period of warming because of ash covering ice reducing albedo. We can have extensive fires during glacial drying and die-back of vegetation that adds CO2 and soots up the ice causing melting …comets, asteroids, lightning…

    The evolution and redissolution of CO2 is what gives us the major flux of CO2 as seen in ice cores and this lags temperature changes on a grand scale a la Milankovic orbital effects. However, I see no contradiction that CO2 could also have a modest effect on temperatures, too. Hey it does absorb and re-emit IR radiation which slows the egress of it to space. This cant help but be rather a short term response.

    What isn’t given adequate place by catastrophic warming proponents is the reaction of the earth system to resist the warming (Le Chatelier Principle), enthalpy considerations in phase changes of water, Eschenbach’s and others’ “climate temperature governors, the reaction to increasing CO2 of the biosphere exemplified by the Great Greening and related doubling of harvests. Hey this is an endothermic process (imagine that, a cooling effect caused by this sequestration of this wonder molecule). Not the least, this is happening against a backdrop of substantial natural climate variations from sources unknown that have demonstrated that CO2 is, at best, a second or third order factor.

    Malthusian neomarxbrothers believe in a petri dish world of resources and a storm in a teacup climate.

    • However, I see no contradiction that CO2 could also have a modest effect on temperatures, too.

      I would hold this position too … except, there is NO EMPIRIC evidence to show that increases in CO2 would increase temperature within the Climate System. As stated in the original article, ALL of the greenhouse effect very may well be due to water vapor. There simply may not be any IR left for CO2 to absorb … thus is floats around, in and out of oceans, in and out of biomass, but really contributes nothing at all to the Climate. The Greenhouse effect itself may be a very tightly constrained phenomenon, capable of a maximum increase in surface temp and no more. Thus, Greenhouse in total itself, may have absolutely NOTHING to do with temperature “change”. Note, I said “change”. Thus, the GHG effect contributes to the end result that the temperature is about 15 or so C above what it should be, but has nothing to do with changes, and the climate going in and out of ice ages and interglacials.

      The Warmists flipped the null hypothesis without merit. For them, the null hypothesis is that CO2 is the control knob without any proof …. and demand the rest of science disprove a disprovable … ie., disprove the CO2 theory as the new null hypothesis when its never been proved to begin with. This is very dishonest.

    • I don’t know about you, but I don’t add bicarbonate to my tea water.
      I always thought it was the condensation of water vapor that was coming out.

      • Jim, obviously you never attended chemistry classes?
        to remove dissolved CO2 and HCO3- for water for a standard solution you had to boil for 10 minutes…

        oh, and after that you had to neutralize the water, remember?
        that explains my initial reaction?

  6. I am saying that the empirical evidence shows that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature
    Well, that’s wrong. What you should be saying is that the empirical evidence does NOT show that CO2 causes an increase in temperature, or that the alarmist claims of the effect of CO2 on the planet’s temperature, while theoretically valid, is not based on empirical evidence. Or, you could say that it shows that it is not a major factor affecting temperatures, i.e. it gets easily masked by many other factors. But evidence definitely does not show that CO2 does not affect temperatures. There is way too much noise in the temperature record to conclude that. And then there is the last 150 years of noisy temperature records trending up without an identified cause. The fact that we don’t know the natural cause that we presume exists behind most of the warming makes it very easy to blame the CO2 for it.

    • Nylo says @ 9:44 pmThe fact that we don’t know the natural cause that we presume exists behind most of the warming makes it very easy to blame the CO2 for it.

      Blame? Blame implies a problem. Warmer weather isn’t a problem.

      If you control the language, you control the argument
      If you control the argument, you control information
      If you control information, you control history
      If you control history, you control the past
      He who controls the past controls the future.” – Big Brother, 1984

    • No, this is logically mistaken. If you show that A precedes B, you have definitely proved that B does not cause A.

      If the CO2 rise followed the warming, it did not cause it. If the cooling preceded the fall, the fall did not cause the cooling.

      If you say this on AGW activist sites you will be greeted with howls of rage, rather as you would have been in the Soviet Union if you pointed to evidence which contradicted Lysenko. But you will get no arguments to show that your logic is wrong. Nor will you get any evidence showing that the CO2 rises preceded the temperature rises.

      Its a very emotional topic, because it was one of the first things cited by early AGW skeptics, and if correct it is logically decisive, and so its a very contentious point, where to cite it or express reservations about it is now taken as a clear mark of being of the denialist tribe. So the response you get is always, Oh no not that again.

      But there is never any proper evidence cited.

      Yes, I have come across the argument, though no evidence to support it, that an initial warming led to a rise in CO2 which then drove subsequent warming. I have not come across any proper evidence for this, and I haven’t heard any argument explaining how subsequent falls in temperature occurred.

      • Michael,
        If you show that A precedes B then all you have shown is that A can have multiple
        causes such as C, D, and even possibly B. In the past global warming was caused by other effects than rising CO2 levels but that does not imply that rising CO2 levels won’t cause global warming. Nor does the fact that temperature rises cause a rise in CO2 mean that CO2 won’t cause a rise in temperature.

        • “Michael,
          If you show that A precedes B then all you have shown is that A can have multiple
          causes such as C, D, and even possibly B. In the past global warming was caused by other effects than rising CO2 levels but that does not imply that rising CO2 levels won’t cause global warming. Nor does the fact that temperature rises cause a rise in CO2 mean that CO2 won’t cause a rise in temperature.”

          If A precedes B the one thing you know for sure is that B did not cause A. Causes must precede their effects. They cannot occur after them. If AGW needs to be defended by the argument that in this particular case, a cause can follow its effect, its all over.

          • Not only that, but PJ conveniently ignores that B CONSISTENTLY occurs AFTER A, and has never been shown to consistently PRECEDE A in a manner that could remotely be attributed a “causative” link. Correlation does not equal causation, but the lack thereof certainly proves a lack of the possibility of such a link.

          • “Percy Jackson

            Michael,
            If you show that A precedes B then all you have shown is that A can have multiple causes such as C, D, and even possibly B.”

            hahahaha! I have been reading through these comments for days and basically skimming. I can’t believe I missed this monumentally stupid statement. good grief. That is what common core gets you folks.

      • “you have definitely proved that B does not cause A”
        You have proved that B did not cause A on that occasion. Or strictly, that it did not initiate A.

        “I haven’t heard any argument explaining how subsequent falls in temperature occurred.”
        It’s the same in reverse. Something initiates cooling, CO2 is absorbed by the sea, thus cooling more. It isn’t a dominant effect, but it happens.

        • So removing CO2 isn’t a major contributor to cooling, but putting more into the atmosphere causes catastrophic warming?
          It is magic!

          • It just depends on how much is removed or added. At deglaciation, CO2 goes from about 180 to 280 ppm, and the temperature rises 5-6°C. The CO2 rise is significant, but the resulting warming is only a fraction of the total. It would be big enough on its own, but is not the major contributor because the deglaciation change overall is so great.

            With burning FF, we’ve gone from 280 to over 400 ppm, and will go a lot further.

        • ‘“you have definitely proved that B does not cause A”
          You have proved that B did not cause A on that occasion. Or strictly, that it did not initiate A.’

          You have now fallen into another branch of failing logic. To give an analogy, its like someone looking at cholera outbreaks. He says, OK, we have no idea why they happened in the past. But on this particular occasion they were due to the appearance of a bright star.

          Someone says, that is most implausible because there have been lots of outbreaks with no bright star. What makes you think it is the cause on this occasion?

          You reply look, these things are complicated. Cholera can occur without bright stars. Sometimes bright stars happen after cholera. But what I am saying is that on this particular occasion, the star caused the cholera.

          What on earth makes you think it?

          We are looking at a series of warming and coolings which are pretty much of a muchness, so its likely that the same thing caused them all. It may be that there is a small warming effect from CO2, but its tiny.

        • Nick writes

          Something initiates cooling, CO2 is absorbed by the sea, thus cooling more.

          Something didn’t “initiate” cooling. Something drove cooling from top to bottom over long timescales. And yet the belief is that CO2 was somehow heavily involved on the other warming side of the equation…

      • michel,
        If the CO2 rise followed the warming, it did not cause it. If the cooling preceded the fall, the fall did not cause the cooling.

        If the CO2 followed THE warming, it did not initiate THE warming. That one warming in particular. Which is a different thing from not causing warming at all.

        Let me give you an example easy to understand. A country may be in a very difficult economic situation, and this may end up leading to delinquence, street riots, organised crime, etc. (talking Venezuela here). It is a fact that the economic situation, that one in particular and among many other things, PRECEDED all of that delinquence, street riots, organised crime etc, and therefore was not caused by them. However, it would be very wrong to say that this proves that delinquence, street riots and organised crime DO NOT make any economic situation worse than it was before. Got it?

        • Your argument is that there may be feedback. That is, the rise in temp caused the rise in CO2 which then caused further warming.

          Yes, this is a logically coherent theory. It is something we see all the time in social events as your analogy shows. An initial rise in the price of bread in 18c France prompts riots, which in turn damage harvest and productivity, and lead to more riots… It can happen. The question is, whether this is a plausible explanation of the MWP and RWP.

          No. Because it would imply a sensitivity of the climate and temperature to small fluctuations which we do not in fact see. The RWP did not lead to continued increases of CO2 which then led to future warming. Neither did the MWP. In fact, in the pre modern era, the climate has reverted to the mean. Small rises in temperature have not led, by CO2 or any other mechanism, to larger ones.

          Your account not only calls for rises to be self accelerating, it also cannot explain why they appear to be self limiting.

          Remember, we are trying to explain the supposed role of CO2 in future warming. So what we are claiming is that whatever operated in the past to damp down an initial warming will not occur this time. This is the only way we get to predictions of disaster.

          The argument is then something like this. There have been warming episodes just like today’s. Unlike today’s they were not powered by CO2 initially, though CO2 took over as the driver after the initial trigger of warming for unknown causes. Then previous episodes encountered some unknown damping mechanism which reverted temperature to the mean.

          This time, your argument says, its different. This time the initial cause is supposed to be CO2. Then the damping that was previously temperature driven is not going to happen, on the contrary there will be acceleration.

          Fine, show the evidence. There really is none. The key to the problem is that the present warming is exactly like lots of other instances, and the default theory is that it will result in the same damping and reversion.

          The argument is like the cholera argument. We know there have been lots of outbreaks, we know they ended, we do not know why or how, but believe me, this one is due to that terrible bright star which is a sign of the wrath of the Lord, so go find some virgins and erect a scaffold….

          • “Your account not only calls for rises to be self accelerating, it also cannot explain why they appear to be self limiting.”
            Positive feedback simply amplifies change, positive or negative, by a factor. If the change was limited, the amplified change will be limited (unless runaway is reached). The feedback from CO2 from differential solubility is fairly small. The end glacial rise from 180 ppm to 280 ppm is about 0.64 of a doubling. At ECS=3, that would be a 2°C rise, probably mostly attained, since the change takes centuries. But the overall rise was about 6 °C, so CO2 is perhaps responsible for 1/3.

          • The illogicality in this account is: if previous rises were due to secondary CO2 rises, and were self limiting, why will not the present supposedly CO2 rise also be self limiting like all the others?

            What you’re doing is assume that CO2 caused the previous ones, without any evidence. This makes the previous ones identical to the present one. But this leads to the conclusion that it will probably turn out the same way, by reverting to the mean.

            The more you claim the mechanisms are the same, the more you are open to the argument they will end the same way. But if you go the other way and claim that this time its different, you have to explain why.

            Maybe the climate god is up there, sniffing the CO2, and if its human, he gets annoyed and reacts with fire…?

      • Yes, I think their (ridiculous) argument goes like this – once the 800 year lag is made up (with temperature rise going on for roughly 800 years before CO2 levels start rising) and both temperature and CO2 levels are rising, they claim CO2 “contributes” to the warming.

        But this is based on their “beliefs” rather than any actual supporting evidence, and is easily shown to be the nonsense that it is. For even if we can’t see the alleged “contribution” based on the scale of the graphs, there is one place where CO2 alleged “contribution” (or more correctly, the complete lack thereof) cannot hide. When whatever is (excuse me) REALLY causing the temperature to rise stops, what we SHOULD see, if CO2 has any effect whatsoever, and assuming CO2 continues to rise (it does) is this: as long as CO2 levels continue to rise, we should see temperature continue to rise at a lesser rate, said lesser rate being the alleged “contribution” of CO2 to the cause of rising temperature.

        Instead, what we see is that temperature starts FALLING, WHILE CO2 LEVELS CONTINUE TO RISE, and then CO2 begins falling with a similar 800 year-ish time lag. Which shows empirically that CO2’s “contribution” is NOTHING.

        • Thank you very much – AGW is not science

          This may well be the best argument for how low sensitivity CO2 must have. If early days heating had a steep curve should fall in temperature had a less steep curve, if CO2 had some power at all. Co2 should actually have prevented that temperature drop over years before the power (or lack of) that causes the fall in temperature eventually took over.

          Again, hope my attempt at good English is understandable.

        • AGW is not Science

          Yes, your logic is correct. Previous warmings and coolings are a real logical problem for the theory.

  7. The difference in timing of Temperature and CO2 can be explained by the length it takes for the thermocline to warm and expand. As the thermocline expands and the top of the oceans warms, the ability of the top of the ocean to retain CO2 is reduced and CO2 expires from the ocean.

    The water vapour from the oceans warms the atmosphere and a feedback loop to warm more. To me the greatest thing humans do that affect the atmosphere is irrigation. Adding rivers of water back into the atmosphere has changed our world as far back as the dawn of agriculture with irrigation. Perhaps part of the reason for the deep cold of the LIA is the reduction in populations in the Americas that were doing irrigation as high population centres were wiped out by disease.

    Dawn of agriculture and climate change:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/07/study-claims-global-warming-induced-by-ancient-farmers-may-have-staved-off-ice-age/

    • Keith, I am interested in your speculation that water vapor ‘warms the atmosphere’ and would like to know how you think that happens.

      Temperature is the incorrect metric for energy content. The metric should be kilojoules per kilogram. After all you are talking about energy absorption not temperature absorption – so use the right units.

      In reality, water vapor (humidity) raises the atmosphere’s enthalpy; moist air holds a lot more energy than dry air. 100% humid air (say in a misty Bayou after an afternoon rain shower) at 75F holds twice the energy of dry air at 100F (say Death Valley) in kilojoules per kilogram.
      Moist air is also lighter than dry air, so naturally convects upward until the water condenses and then freezes at each state change releasing heat to be radiated away to space. Water cools the Earth in the hydrologic cycle it does not warm it. This is why there is such effective homeostasis at the equator.

      • This is yet another factor that is avoided by the AGW “science” crowd. It makes their obsession with “record” high temperatures and “global” temperatures ridiculous.

  8. It would appear that Tim Ball has completed misunderstood the recent paper by Andrews et al. In it the
    show that the pattern effect leads to a reduction in the predicted value of the climate sensitivity and when
    this is properly accounted for the actual value is 2.8 degree Kelvin for a doubling of CO2. Which if plotted on Tim’s figure 2 would suggest that the value is going up not down.

  9. Humlum et al. (2011, 2013) used data on atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures for the period of January 1980 to December 2011 to investigate leads/lags between them. They found that changes in CO2 always lag changes in temperature by 9.5e10 months and lag sea surface temperature by 11e12 months.

    In general, Humlum et al. (2011, 2013) found that the CO2 lag in surface temperature changes and lower troposphere temperature changes suggest a temperature sequence of events from the surface to the lower troposphere. Because cause must always precede effect, their observations demonstrate that modern changes in temperatures are not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2, but rather, the opposite -changes in temperature drive changes in atmospheric CO2. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with changes in human emissions.

    • Don,
      There are also two comments in the same journal in response to the 2013 paper saying that the conclusions were wrong, violate conservation of mass, ignore the effects of El-Nino amount other errors.

      • I recently re-read these criticisms of Humlum et al 2013 – they concerned the Mass Balance Argument, and thus were peripheral to Humlum’s primary Temperature-lead vs. CO2-lag conclusions and were mostly irrelevant – “the flea on the elephant’s back”.

    • Thank you Don,

      You are correct, but hardly anyone wants to talk about this – it spoils their party – the great global warming (aka climate change) circle-jerk.

      I’ve written all this previously on wattsup, but have (hopefully ) tidied it up here – this is pre-coffee, so put down your weapons, good people.

      I have also – hopefully – dealt with the pernicious “Mass Balance Argument”, to spare my friend Ferdinand some grief – let’s hope so.

      Regards to all, Allan 🙂

      REFERENCES AND NOTES:

      “CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING:
      THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST”
      By Allan MacRae, January 2008
      http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

      This is my January 2008 discovery paper that proved that dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and thus CO2 trends lag temperature trends by ~9 months in the modern data record. This figure is the proof – the correlation is remarkable:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

      A similar lag of CO2 trends after temperature trends was observed by Humlum et al in their 2013 paper.
      “Highlights:
      – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
      – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
      – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
      – Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
      – Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

      This figure summarized their main conclusions – criticisms of Humlum et al 2013 were peripheral to their main conclusions and largely irrelevant:

      https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1551019291642294&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

      THE PHASE RELATION BETWEEN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
      Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim
      Global and Planetary Change, Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51-69
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

      I suggest that the correct relationship of temperature and CO2 is as follows:
      [A] There is a “base increase” of atmospheric CO2 of about 2 ppm per year, generally assumed to be from man-made causes.
      [B] There is a clear signal on top of [A] that the velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral CO2 also varies with global temperature but LAGS global temperature by about 9 months.
      [C] The sensitivity of CO2 to temperature must be greater than the sensitivity of temperature to CO2, or the clear signal described in [B] would not exist but would be drowned out; also, the magnitudes of both sensitivities are small and not dangerous to humanity or the environment.

      The climate science community still does not want to acknowledge this lag of CO2 trends after temperature trends because:
      – even if temperature drives CO2 .AND. CO2 drives temperature, the former clearly exceeds the latter and climate sensitivity to atm. CO2 (TCS etc.) must be very small.
      – since temperature primarily leads CO2 rather than lags CO2 at all measured time scales, from ~~800 years in the ice core record to ~9 months in the modern data record, the future (CO2) cannot primarily drive the past (temperature).
      – this observation should effectively end the scientific debate about the multi-trillion-dollar global warming/green energy scam.

      The reason the lag of CO2 trends after temperature trends is approx. 9 months is explained here – 9 months is one-quarter of an approx 36 month natural cycle, it is basic calculus:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/11/nasas-jimbridenstine-has-reversed-his-position-on-climate-change-and-can-no-longer-be-trusted/#comment-2376151

      • Allan,

        There is no lag of the 110 ppmv CO2 increase since about 1850, CO2 leads T since that time.

        The 9 months lag is only for the +/- 1.5 ppmv “noise” around the current trend which is near entirely caused by the twice as high human emissions…

        • Ferdinand – I wrote this section to address your concerns about Mass Balance – could I have made it any clearer?

          Please read it again. Repeating from above:

          (excerpt)

          I suggest that the correct relationship of temperature and CO2 is as follows:
          [A] There is a “base increase” of atmospheric CO2 of about 2 ppm per year, generally assumed to be from man-made causes.
          [B] There is a clear signal on top of [A] that the velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral CO2 also varies with global temperature but LAGS global temperature by about 9 months.
          [C] The sensitivity of CO2 to temperature must be greater than the sensitivity of temperature to CO2, or the clear signal described in [B] would not exist but would be drowned out; also, the magnitudes of both sensitivities are small and not dangerous to humanity or the environment.

          (end of excerpt)

          The base increase [A] of ~2ppm/year in atm. CO2 is practically irrelevant – it does not do much of anything, except of course make the flowers and trees and crops happy – and maybe it drives a tiny bit of warming.

          If it [A] was of any significance to the driving of global temperature, the clear signal [B] of dCO2/dt vs Temperature and the nine-month lag of CO2 trends after temperature trends would not exist – it would be drowned out by [A].

        • Allan,

          I didn’t mention mass balance in my response at all, I only responded on the lead/lag point, which in general is right, but doesn’t include the 110 ppmv rise since about 1850.

          Your [B] is wrong, as dCO2/dt lags dT/dt, but doesn’t lag T, thus the integration of T has nothing to do with the increase of CO2. dT/dt has no trend, only a small offset from zero, which integrated gives a small, about linear increase in T and stil all the variability and also in CO2 at a maximum of about 16 ppmv/K, that is the change in solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature. The variability in CO2 then is only +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend with several months lag, that is all.

          Your [C] is discutable, as the variability in CO2 rate of change is near entirely caused by the T rate of change and short lived and after 1-3 years returns to (near) zero. That is largely independent of the T increase, no matter natural or caused by the extra human CO2. Different processes are at work, where the variability is mainly the response of vegetation to short lived temperature changes (that includes the seasons), while a longer trend in temperature mainly reacts on the CO2 solubility in the oceans. So do the oceans also for CO2 pressure changes in the atmosphere. The yearly CO2 increase increased a 3-4 fold in the past 60 years, while the variability remained the same:
          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

          Anyway, you are right that the effect of the CO2 increase on T is small…

    • Sorry Don,

      What Humlum e.a. have done is looking at the noise of +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90 ppmv trend in the past 60 years. That shows that the noise in CO2 rate of change follows the T rate of change with several months. But that says nothing about the cause of the 90 ppmv trend itself:
      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_der.jpg

      As you can see in that graph: indeed in the derivatives CO2 variability follows T variability with several months lag (as good as CO2 variability around the trend follows T variability), but there is zero trend in the T variability, only a small offset from zero. That is from a small linear trend in T, which may cause maximum 16 ppm/K temperature increase, that is the change of the solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature.

      Of course there is no correlation between a straight line (human emissions) with a lot of trend and a lot of noise in T with hardly a trend. But that doesn’t prove that the correlation between the noise in T and the noise in CO2 is the cause of the trend in CO2…

      Humlum’s theory indeed violates the mass balance ans several other observations. Thus needs some thorough revision…

      • Ferdinand you wrote:
        “Humlum’s theory indeed violates the mass balance and several other observations. Thus needs some thorough revision…”

        Humlum et al 2013 concluded, and I quote from the paper:
        “Highlights:
        1– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
        2– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
        3– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
        4– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
        5– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

        All Humlum’s points are correct, as far as they go.

        Here is where you make your error with Humlum 2013 – and even more with me:
        You ASSUME that Humlum is saying, like Murry Salby, that temperature is the PRIMARY driver of increasing atmospheric CO2. His words do not say that – please re-read point 5.

        I make it even more clear in my post above – I ASSUME that “something other than temperature” can be causing the base increase of ~2ppm/year in CO2 – call it fossil fuel combustion, and/or deforestation and forest fires, and/or volcanoes and witch doctors – it does not matter much, because there is no CREDIBLE evidence that this base increase in CO2 has any major or even any significant impact on global temperature. The decline in global temperature from ~1940 to ~1977, even as fossil fuel combustion and atm. CO2 strongly increased, disproves the “CO2-drives-major-warming” hypothesis, as does the recent ~18-year “Pause”.

        Not only is the lag of CO2 trends AFTER temperature trends apparent and obvious, but so is the causative mechanism, which is the close correlation of dCO2/dt vs temperature as plotted here:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

        People who criticize Humlum and me confuse our position with Salby’s, and then construct a false “straw man” rebuttal. This has been going on for years, and it’s getting old.

        BTW, my 2008 paper predates Salby’s as well.

        Regards, Allan

        • Allan,

          I have no problems with points 1-3, as these are true, but only are right for the +/- 1.5 ppm change in CO2 around the trend, not for the trend itself.

          Not only is the lag of CO2 trends AFTER temperature trends apparent and obvious, but so is the causative mechanism, which is the close correlation of dCO2/dt vs temperature as plotted here:

          Have a better look at your plot: there is zero lag between dCO2/dt and T. Thus dCO2/dt may be the cause of T changes as good as reverse, which both is nonsense. The point is that this correlation is completely spurious: you compare T variability + trend to CO2 variability which is largely detrended by taking its derivative.

          The real comparison is between T and CO2 (here enlarged for Pinatuo and El Niño):
          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
          and between dT/dt and dCO2/dt:
          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_der.jpg
          In both direct and derivatives you see a clear lag of CO2 changes after T changes.

          That makes that points 4 from Humlum is wrong, as the oceans are currently a net sink for CO2, not a source and the effect of the temperature increase is largely overwhelmed by the effect of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.

          And it makes that his point 5 is wrong too: the CO2 trend follows the trend in human emissions, nothing to do with the +/- 1.5 ppmv temperature caused variability around the trend… See:
          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg

          • Ferdinand, you have been making the same point for a decade, which is to confuse what I am saying with Salby and others. I explicitly stated my assumption that temperature is NOT the only driver of atm. CO2, and you consistently ignore that assumption and launch into an assault on Salby’s position using the Mass Balance Argument. Your point is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

            You make a similar mistake with Humlum et al 2013 – although their point 4 may be overstated.

            You say above that you can agree with Humlum points 1, 2 and 3.

            Your paragraph that follows is nonsense:
            “Have a better look at your plot: there is zero lag between dCO2/dt and T. Thus dCO2/dt may be the cause of T changes as good as reverse, which both is nonsense. The point is that this correlation is completely spurious: you compare T variability + trend to CO2 variability which is largely detrended by taking its derivative.”

            Your two referenced graphs provide little or no insight. You are actually confusing the subject rather than resolving it.

            It is obvious that some factor related to temperature drives the rate-of-change of the CO2 trend, which overlies the 2ppm/year CO2 base increase.

            The close relationship of dCO2/dt vs. Temperature cannot be lightly dismissed – it exists, the correlation is stunning and certainly not spurious. Why do you not try to explain it better than I did, rather than confuse the issue?

            I have recently developed a credible explanation of why the lag of atm. CO2 trends after temperature trends is ~9 months – have you even read it?

            I am sure that I could improve this interpretation further if I had more time.

            Why don’t you try to put together the pieces of the puzzle, rather than simply creating confusion?

            Regards, Allan

          • Allan,

            Please, there is NO relationship between dCO2/dt changes and T changes, the relationship is between T and CO2 changes or between dT/dt changes and dCO2/dt changes.

            The correlation between T and dCO2/dt is entirely spurious, as that is the result of taking a derivative from a sinusoidal variable: that shifts the sinusoid some pi/2 backward, which makes that the variability of dCO2/dt and T exactly synchronise. Thus there is NO lag between the two variabilities and you can’t say which leads the other.

            That was extensively discussed some years ago at WUWT:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/

          • Thank you Ferdinand for clarifying your position as follows:

            “The correlation between T and dCO2/dt is entirely spurious, as that is the result of taking a derivative from a sinusoidal variable: that shifts the sinusoid some pi/2 backward, which makes that the variability of dCO2/dt and T exactly synchronise. Thus there is NO lag between the two variabilities and you can’t say which leads the other.”

            I will re-read your reference out of courtesy to you, but to me it fails logically – it has no rational coherence.

            I submit that your interpretation is wrong, my friend.

            I say that temperature, some factor closely related to temperature, drives the rate-of-change dCO2/dt and does so without a significant lag, and as a result its integral, the CO2 trend (above the “base increase” of ~2ppm/y) lags the temperature by ~9 months.

            As you know, the CO2 Keeling curve has a “seasonal sawtooth” shape, it is complex, and yet this beautiful correlation, which you say is spurious, shines through.

            Let me ask you to consider the question another way:
            – IF the dCO2/dt relationship is spurious as you say, what is driving the ~9 month lag of CO2 trends after temperature trends?
            – What makes it all happen?

            Regards, Allan

          • Allan:

            some factor closely related to temperature, drives the rate-of-change dCO2/dt

            Yes! That factor is the variability of dT/dt which drives the variability of dCO2/dt. The variability is about the same in T, dT/dt, CO2 and dCO2/dt, that is a basic performance of any sinusoid, whatever you do: taking the derivative or the integral… The same variability only shifts forward or backward with 90 degrees.

            Have a look at the variability of dT/dt and T in the same graph with dCO2/dt:
            WoodforTrees
            T variability and dT/dt variability have, at least for the extremes, the same waveform, So, which one of them drives dCO2/dt?

            There is zero lag between dCO2/dt variability and T variability. Thus T variability doesn’t drive dCO2/dt variability.

            There is a lag between dCO2/dt variability and dT/dt variability. Thus dT/dt variability drives dCO2/dt variability and the integrals of both also show a lag: T variability does drive CO2 variability, which is not more than +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90 ppmv trend.

            what is driving the ~9 month lag of CO2 trends after temperature trends?
            There is only a ~9 months lag of CO2 variability after temperature variability. There is no lag of the CO2 trend after the T trend, it is reverse: CO2 leads with 110 ppmv the ~1 K temperature trend since the LIA.

            What makes it all happen
            A large part of the variability is the reaction of mainly tropical vegetation on short term temperature changes (with extremes like the 1991 Pinatubo eruption and the 1998/2016 El Niño’s). That is proven by the opposite δ13C and CO2 variability and thus overwhelms the similar reaction of CO2 from the oceans on temperature.
            The CO2 trend is near entirely from the twice as high human emissions.

            Regards,

            Ferdinand

          • Hello again Ferdinand,

            I first note that we both agree that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is low. This is the most important aspect of the fractious climate change debate.

            I further believe that due to the aforementioned low climate sensitivity, there is no real global warming crisis and any warming that results from the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 will be mild and beneficial for humanity and the environment. The huge benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 is greatly-improved plant and crop yields.

            We agree on the most important point, low climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2; we are arguing about the scientific details.

            My previous statement said:

            “I say that (atmospheric) temperature, or some factor closely related to (atmospheric) temperature, drives the rate-of-change dCO2/dt and does so without a significant lag, and as a result its integral, the CO2 trend (above the “base increase” of ~2ppm/y) lags the temperature by ~9 months.”

            You expressed concern that there was no significant time lag between atmospheric temperature T and the rate-of-change of atmospheric dCO2/dt and concluded that therefore this relationship was “spurious”. I disagreed and I still disagree.

            My above-quoted statement is correct in part, but ignores the prior events in the causative mechanism.

            Let me expand, as I have posted several times over past years:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/30/game-over/#comment-2317276 (new server)

            The correct mechanism is described as follows (approx.):

            Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature up –> Equatorial Atmospheric Water Vapor up 3 months later –> Equatorial Temperature up -> Global Temperature up one month later -> Global Atmospheric dCO2/dt up (contemporaneous with Global Temperature) -> Atmospheric CO2 trends up 9 months later.

            What drives Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature? In sub-decadal timeframes, El Nino and La Nina (ENSO); longer term, probably the Integral of Solar Activity.

            The base CO2 increase of ~2ppm/year could have many causes, including fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc, but it has a minor or insignificant impact on global temperatures.
            [end of post]

            Humlum 2013 makes a similar statement of sequence of events, and I quote:

            Highlights:
            1– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
            2– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
            3– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
            [end of excerpt]

            So Ferdinand, contrary to your concern that dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with atmospheric temperature with no lag, there ARE prior causative events in this mechanism, namely: “Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature up –> Equatorial Atmospheric Water Vapor up 3 months later –> Equatorial (Atmospheric) Temperature up -> Global (Atmospheric) Temperature up one month later…” as quoted from above. I will find my supporting posts if you request – there were many.

            As you know, there are both physical causes that drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations (the solution and exsolution of oceanic CO2 – Henry’s Law), botanical causes (Seasonal photosynthesis and oxidation, etc.), zoological causes (plankton, termites, etc.) and human causes (fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, other land use changes, etc.).

            In this huge global-scale equation, certain beautiful relationships shine through – this is one of many, which I suggest is anything BUT spurious correlation:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

            It so happens that this relationship is more beautiful than some of the others, and I have a certain affinity, not only for beauty, but for simplicity – Occam’s razor.

            There are still a few details to be answered in this huge equation, but I think this is a good start.

            Regards, Allan

            “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”
            – “On a Grecian Urn”, John Keats, 1819.

          • On Simplicity – here are some references: 🙂

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/01/new-research-highlights-the-key-role-of-ozone-in-climate-change/#comment-1803578 (old server)

            Those who suggest the future can cause the past (aka CO2 significantly drives temperature) are up against some formidable opposition:

            William of Ockham: “Plurality must never be posited without necessity.”

            Aristotle: “We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.”

            Ptolemy: “We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.”

            Thomas Aquinas: “It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many”.

            Isaac Newton: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.”

            Bertrand Russell: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.”

            Karl Popper: Our preference for simplicity may be justified by its falsifiability criterion: We prefer simpler theories to more complex ones “because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable.”

          • Allan,

            Still it is possible to have a two-way enhancement without a runaway effect: as long as the overall positive feedback factor is (far) below one, there is no problem and each fortifies the other just a little.
            That includes a -small- influence of CO2 on T…

            Karl Popper: “and because they are better testable”

            The theory that T drives dCO2/dt is tested and falsified: it violates several observations…

            A theory should be as simple as possible, but not too simple and fulfill all observations…

          • Ferdinand, you wrote (my comments follow, in CAPS)

            Still it is possible to have a two-way enhancement without a runaway effect: as long as the overall positive feedback factor is (far) below one, there is no problem and each fortifies the other just a little.
            That includes a -small- influence of CO2 on T…
            I AGREE

            Karl Popper: “and because they are better testable”
            YES

            The theory that T drives dCO2/dt is tested and falsified: it violates several observations…
            NO – NOT EVEN CLOSE – UNLESS YOU MISREPRESENT WHAT I WROTE.

            A theory should be as simple as possible, but not too simple and fulfill all observations…
            YES

          • Allan:

            I say that (atmospheric) temperature… …drives the rate-of-change dCO2/dt and does so without a significant lag

            Allan, if there is no lag between the two, then T does NOT drive the rate of change of dCO2/dt and there is nothing to integrate. It is dT/dt that drives near all the variability of dCO2/dt, but nothing of the trend in dCO2/dt and T drives only a small part of the increase of CO2 and the small variability around the trend.

            Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature up –> Equatorial Atmospheric Water Vapor up 3 months later –> Equatorial Temperature up -> Global Temperature up one month later -> Global Atmospheric dCO2/dt up (contemporaneous with Global Temperature) -> Atmospheric CO2 trends up 9 months later.

            Apart from the point that the first items are preceded with dT/dt up, then:
            Global Atmospheric dCO2/dt up (contemporaneous with Global Temperature)
            Yes, but 9 months after dT/dt up.
            -> Atmospheric CO2 trends up 9 months later.
            Hardly, as CO2 follows T trends with maximum 16 ppmv/K, while 110 ppmv increase is observed. The variability around the trend doesn’t say anything about the cause of the trends themselves.

            Variability and trends are caused by different processes: the varibaility around the trend is mainly caused by the response of (tropical) vegetation on short lived T changes, but the trend is NOT caused by vegetation, as that is a net sink for CO2 on periods longer than 1-3 years. The earth is greening.

          • Your following comment is true but specious:
            “Apart from the point that the first items are preceded with dT/dt up, then:…”
            Of course the derivative dT/dt precedes its integral in time, as all time derivatives do wrt their integrals. You could keep on doing this forever – what about d(squared)T/dt, etc.

            The rest is your same old Mass Balance Argument that is irrelevant to this discussion.

            All of your concerns were dealt with in my above posts but you have not either read, understood or addressed them.

            You are covering the same old ground again and again. I understood what you were saying ten years ago – repeating, that’s not what I am saying.

  10. The CO2 error was hard-wired by the IPCC.
    “Criteria for Selecting Climate Scenarios”
    Sourced from:
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_scen_selection.html
    16 May 2011 [Link no longer works]

    “Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).”

      • Nick says:
        ” It is, as it says, a criterion for selecting climate scenarios.”

        hmm, how have those selections panned out so far regarding accuracy?

        • I see Percy and another of the climate clergy decided to downvote my comment. 😉
          You do realize, right, that you are religious in nature? I sure hope you don’t claim to be an atheist boys… oh wait… folks with your worldview only operate under glaring inconsistencies so it is not surprising.

    • Thank you Martin – I believe your above statement is correct.

      The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are wildly and deliberately exaggerated, to produce a very-scary false result.

      Global warming alarmism is a deliberate fraud, in fact it is the greatest fraud, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.

      Properly deployed, the tens of trillions of dollars squandered on global warming alarmism could have:
      – put clean water and sanitation systems into every village in the world, saving the lives of about 2 million under-five kids PER YEAR;
      – reduced or even eradicated malaria – also a killer of millions of infants and children;
      – gone a long way to eliminating world hunger.
      ___________________________________________________

      Notes and References:

      Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is low – probably less than 1C/(2xCO2).

      Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures.

      Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures (ST). These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, etc.

      Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors.

      Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
      (*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+)

      The slightly higher sensitivity values in Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 surface temperatures versus UAH LT temperatures.

      Practically speaking, however, these maximum sensitivity estimates are similar, about 1C/doubling, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.

      Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have no credibility. There is no real global warming crisis.

      Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.

      Conclusion:
      The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any scientist or politician who contradicts this statement is destructive, acting against the well-being of humanity and the environment.

  11. “What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero is being ignored. Therefore, my view aligns with some of his colleagues who, “rejected any effect of CO2 at all.””

    A great question indeed.
    If we get it wrong, (the notion that CO2 mitigation must take place at all cost) then we will spend billions on a problem that doesn’t exist while simultaneously failing to address real issues that would benefit mankind.

    Making the leap that the warming trend is anthropogenic:
    It surprises me that anthropogenic sources of water vapor question is never considered. From strictly burning fossil fuels; CO2 and water vapor are produced in near equality. However, there are far more human produced sources of water vapor than CO2, such as irrigation and cooling towers. Heck, even fire suppression is an unnatural act unless it is raining.

    But then again, I don’t think there is much money to be made in telling people they can’t use water.

  12. “The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up.”
    The warming effect of CO2 has been known since Arrhenius, who quantified it. He did not use a computer model.

    “The Lorius warning didn’t prevent people automatically assuming it confirmed the CO2 preceding temperature increase relationship.”
    People didn’t assume that at all. Since Arrhenius, it has been known that CO2 added to the air will cause warming. That does not mean, and has never meant, that every occasion of warming is caused by adding CO2 to the air. In fact, that is extremely unlikely cause of those past events, since adding new carbon requires massive mining etc which has never happened before. But it is happening now.

    Just two years after Petit et al, the IPCC AR3 noted (2.4.1)
    “From a detailed study of the last three glacial terminations in the Vostok
    ice core, Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started
    600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming.”

    No assumption of CO2 preceding there.

    • Nick, first off, as a matter of history we know that Arrhenius was wrong about the magnitude of the CO2 forcing effect. Its not the warming effect, that is not settled by the properties of CO2, its the forcing effect. Just as we cannot know the mileage of a particular car by the energy of the fuel in its tank, so we cannot predict the warming effect on earth’s climate of a given forcing effect.

      More fundamentally as to the logic.

      We have occasions of warming and cooling before human emissions had increased CO2 significantly. The question is what bearing these have on the argument that recent warming is due to CO2 rises.

      Previous warmings have always presented a logical problem for the alarmists, because the counter argument has been that, for instance, the MWP shows warming on roughly the scale of contemporary warming can occur and has occurred with no influence from CO2 increases.

      So one approach has been to deny that these warmings happened. The MWP, its argued, was regional. There is now so much evidence to the contrary that this line of argument has largely lapsed.

      A second approach was to argue that the contemporary warming is unprecedented. Yes, there were previous warmings, RWP, MWP. But current warming is faster and higher. This was the argument of the Hockey Stick, which is still devoutly defended on some sites, but has also largely lost credibility, including in the IPCC. It too is untenable given the historical evidence. Indeed, you do not have to go to the MWP and RWP to find such evidence, you can see it plainly in the evidence of the first half of the 20c.

      One key refutation of the theory would occur if rises in CO2 were to have followed and not preceded previous warmings. So the argument to try to save the theory that CO2 is the main climate driver was that there were other sources of warming, which in turn triggered releases in CO2, and that this CO2 was the main driver.

      For this to be true, there would have to be a very sensitive feedback loop. Any initial warming of any sort would have to trigger a CO2 caused rise in temperature, and the logical difficulty one encounters is that if CO2 is so powerful, and if it rises so rapidly in response to small levels of other forcings, then the climate should be much more unstable than it has been. The MWP should have continued into hothouse territory.

      And this defence also makes it impossible to account for subsequent cooling episodes. How, if this account is correct, did the MWP become succeeded by the LIA? There is no explanation which will give a causal role to CO2.

      Your own argument is the last ditch of the theory. It is to say that there have been previous warming and cooling episodes of roughly equal magnitude to those of the last 30+ years, and they were admittedly not caused by CO2 fluctuations, but that the present warming is.

      The problem with this argument is that as long as the cause of previous fluctuations is unknown, we cannot rule out a contribution to present warming. How do we know that what caused the MWP has not caused present warming, if we do not know what it is? The traditional argument is similar effect, similar cause.

      Your argument is basically, never mind what happened in the past, we know that this time its different and its CO2. Usually the argument made in support of this is, because physics. But then we encounter the difficulty that the actual forcing effect of the CO2 rise is rather small, and even a doubling will, of itself, produce no more than 1C warming. So you have to invoke feedbacks from water vapour and albedo reduction, and there is little or no evidence for these happening on any scale that will make much difference.

      Curry and Lewis 2018 have made a serious effort to get to the bottom of this from the empirical evidence, and it seems pretty clear, warming from a doubling will be real, but will almost certainly be small, and at levels which are on the whole beneficial.

      What is happening if you follow the logical is that the argument for alarm is becoming weaker and weaker, and has finally reached the point of weakness where it is pointing only to an interesting natural phenomenon which does not justify any kind of expensive intervention in CO2 emission reduction.

      Which is just as well, since no-one has any intention of doing that anyway!

      • “Your own argument is the last ditch of the theory. It is to say that there have been previous warming and cooling episodes of roughly equal magnitude to those of the last 30+ years, and they were admittedly not caused by CO2 fluctuations, but that the present warming is.”

        It isn’t a last ditch. Your earlier versions are straw men, not backed by actual quotes. No-one has ever disputed that the climate fluctuates even when nothing much is happening to CO2, as in, say, the millennium before 1850. The proposition ever since Arrhenius has been, simply, that if you burn a whole lot of carbon, it will cause warming. That is additional to whatever else happens. We did burn a whole lot of carbon, and it did warm. It hasn’t stopped warming, and we’re likely to burn a whole lot more.

        • So, if I understand you correctly, the warming during the Roman and Medieval periods was not caused by raised atmospheric CO2, but the modern warming is.

          Strange, that.

          • Nothing strange at all. Most people die from something other than snakebite. That doesn’t mean snakes can’t kill you.

            For CO2 to force warming, something has to force CO2 increase. This is actually unusual, and wasn’t happening at MWP time etc. But it is happening now.

          • “Excellent, so you agree that the earlier warmings were NOT caused by CO2. Progress!”
            Read my initial comment:
            “That does not mean, and has never meant, that every occasion of warming is caused by adding CO2 to the air. In fact, that is extremely unlikely cause of those past events, since adding new carbon requires massive mining etc which has never happened before. But it is happening now.”
            You aren’t following the argument very well.

          • The problem is, if we have lots of instances of A which happened in the absence of B, they had causes. We do not know what these causes were. Now we are confronted with another instance of A, looks exactly like all the dozen or so in the past.

            We claim this is due to some different cause, B, which has never operated before. And we claim, without knowing what the previous causes of other instances of A were, that they are no longer operating.

            Watch the pea under the thimble. It is one thing to argue that there is a small additional forcing from our emissions. Maybe. But this does not prove, cannot prove, that these emissions are the key driving factor in the actual warming.

          • “Excellent, so you agree that the earlier warmings were NOT caused by CO2. Progress!”

            Not “progress” at all – climate science has long known that (why is it a surprise to you?)
            Try reading the literature. Of course (most) previous warmings were not “caused” by CO2.
            CO2 should be a feedback (as NS explains) – and it is normally (unless from far distant past volcanic outpourings) – it comes after warming is driven by orbital eccentricities.
            However if it comes first – as in now – then, as it is a GHG, it will cause warming on it’s own account (via a reduction in the cooling of the climate).

          • Who is arguing from correlation? As Arrhenius explained from basic physics, if you put a whole lot of CO2 in the air (which in 1896 we hadn’t), it will warm. We did it, and it warmed. That isn’t correlation, it is consequence.

          • So you’re saying that all climate science since Arhennius has been a waste of time?
            I think I could agree with that!

        • ” if you burn a whole lot of carbon, it will cause warming. ”

          No, it will cause forcing. It may or may not cause warming, depending on the design of the apparatus to which this forcing is applied.

          This is not physics, or not only physics. Its primarily engineering. The amount of the forcing is physics. The amount of the warming depends on features of the system. It is entirely possible, without any breach of any laws of physics, for the forcing to produce no or negligible amounts of warming.

        • Nick says:
          We did burn a whole lot of carbon, and it did warm. It hasn’t stopped warming, and we’re likely to burn a whole lot more.

          Nick, it hasn’t stopped warming? Interesting. Was this before or after the raw data temperature adjustments?

        • So 1850 is the number now, Nick? It used to be 1950. But then it became inconvenient that the warming has been ongoing since at least 1800. So moving it back to 1850 takes us back far enough to cover enough of that to make the ugly questions go away?
          What was the chance in atmospheric CO2 from 1800 to 1850? 1850 to 1900? Does this tell us something about sensitivity?

        • Nick Stokes:

          You say “If you burn a whole lot of carbon, it will cause warming”

          If you reduce dimming atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions, it will ALSO cause warming.

          This is proven after every large volcanic eruption, which initially causes cooling due to the injection of SO2 into the atmosphere, which quickly forms SO2 aerosols.

          When these aerosols eventually settle out, temperatures rise to pre-eruption levels, or often higher, causing a volcanic-induced El Nino.

          The same warming also occurs whenever anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions are reduced due to Clean Air efforts, and this, too, can cause an El Nino.

          The premise that the removal of SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere will cause warming has been validated over and over.

          The premise that CO2 will cause warming has never been validated, it is all a hypothesis.

    • “since adding new carbon requires massive mining etc which has never happened before. But it is happening now”

      Nick. The statement “adding new carbon requires massive mining” is not true. There is a totally natural process capable of completely removing coal seams from the subsurface and “adding new carbon” to the atmosphere. This is the process of coal seam burning that consumes the buried carbon and results in the geological process known as “secondary reddening”. This diagenetic process is well documented in the Carboniferous rocks of northern England, particularly in those strata close to the overlying younger desert rocks located above the base Permian unconformity. Let me explain further:-

      When I was growing up in my native Lancashire in the 1950s it was common to see spontaneously burning tips of colliery waste, the ignition process that set these tips alight was the exothermic oxidation of pyrite. Coming from a region of England where real toxic industrial pollution was a pressing problem was part of the motivation that led me to study Environmental Science at Lancaster University. In one lecture, during my course at Lancaster, we were challenged to identify the geological process that caused numerous land surface factures in a mid-west American desert. The correct answer was void creation by subsurface coal seam burning.

      After graduation I was fortunate to obtain employment as a geoscientist in the British Geological Survey (then called the IGS). There I met an experienced field mapping geologist who commented on the geological puzzle that no detrital coal had ever been found laid down in the desert Permian sediments above the unconformity that marked the end of the Carboniferous. I told him the story of the modern burning coal seams in America and he agreed that this process was a plausible explanation for the lack of detrital coal in the ancient Permian desert sediments.

      During a later project studying boreholes drilled offshore in the East Irish Sea basin my project leader was able to use this same information to recognise the presence of secondarily reddened Carboniferous strata in rocks previously assumed to be of Permian age. The sequence of red oxidised fluvial sandstones interspersed with grey reduced shales matched the expected pattern of air penetration into the ground in a mixed sequence of porous and impermeable rocks located above a desert water table. The porous strata allowed oxygen from the dry desert air to oxidise the Carboniferous sediments up to 1,000 feet below the ancient desert surface (the unconformity) and remove all evidence of coals and other carbonaceous material from them. Consequently it would be the subsequent erosion in the early Permian of this oxidised ancient desert surface that accounts for the lack of detrital coal in any younger overlying Permian desert sediments.

      So this geological example demonstrates that the modern burning of coal is not an unprecedented or indeed an unnatural process. Our industrial activity in consuming carbon is simply enhancing the natural recycling of reduced carbon that results from the spontaneous combustion of coal in desert regions; a natural environmental process that has occurred throughout the geologic ages when carbon rich rocks are exposed to oxygen by surface weathering processes.

      Reference: Trotter, F.M. 1953 Reddened Beds of Carboniferous Age in North-West England and their Origin. Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. Vol 29 (1) 1-20.

      • Philip,

        Good example of nature at work oxidizing hydrocarbon to produce vital plant food.

        Not to mention vast, continental forest fires under the oxygen-rich Carboniferous atmosphere. Also an icehouse world for much of the period and into the Permian.

        And it’s thought that coal fields burnt during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.

      • Philip,
        “This is the process of coal seam burning that consumes the buried carbon”
        There is no evidence that natural coal seam burning is generating carbon on anything like the scale of our mining, nor that it has increased recently. And there is very good reason to doubt that it could. The coal has been there for many millions of years. There is no evidence that it has been substantially depleted in that time. It has very clearly been depleted by our mining activity.

        Your “reddened beds” link simply indicates that oxidation of ferrous iron occurred, and probably some “carbonaceous matter”, which caused the original reduced state. It does not imply the oxidation of great masses of carbon, and even if it did, the rate when spread over those many millions of years would be nothing like our current burning rate.

        • Sorry Nick, but you’re wrong about the coal. It is physically missing in the zones of secondary reddening, consumed by oxidation in the desert environment of the early Permian. We know this because for example records from the coal mining on the concealed Neston Coalfield on the Wirral record that as the seams being won from below were mined up-dip towards the base Permian Unconformity, the coal physically disappeared as the zone of Permian reddening was reached.

          In addition we have this from Totter (1953, p14) discussing the age attribution of the Carboniferous strata in the Solway Basin and the mostly concealed Canonbie Coalfield.

          These Upper Coal Measures straddle the English border with Scotland and the primary surveyors of both countries classed them with the Lower Carboniferous (Geological Survey Scotland, Lin. Sheet 11 and England Lin. Sheet 12). Kidston (1903), however, on the basis of fossil plants assigned them to the Upper Coal Measures. Many of Kidston’s localities lie on the English side of the border north-east of Riddings, and the Upper Coal Measures age of red rocks in this neighbourhood was confirmed when the English side of the border was re-surveyed in 1922·23. Later Barnett and Richey (1945) found zonal Coal Measures mussels in these rocks.
          Are these red Coal Measures rocks of secondary origin like those of the adjacent Carboniferous Limestone Series or are they of primary origin?
          At the surface red-beds have yielded tenuie and phillipsi zone mussels and Radstockian plants; and alternating red and grey beds of the Lower similis-pulchra zone have been found in the River Esk, north of Canonbie, and in Archer Beck with nearby sinkings in each case proving their association with coal seams.

          So where did the coal go to? Pyrite in the presence of air oxidises in an exothermic reaction that produces sufficient heat to naturally ignite carbon. The ground surface collapse associated with coal seam burning in the modern example from the American mid-west desert clearly demonstrates void creation and the physical removal of coal as it is converted to carbon dioxide gas.

          Nick, I have handed you a gift argument here and yet all you can do is reply with the tired old rate argument. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

          p.s. Do I now have to rebrand coal mining and coal fields as “carbon mining” and “carbon fields” to match your politically correct message of calling carbon dioxide gas “carbon”?

          • Philip,
            What is lacking here is any quantification of amount. We know that in recent times, we do not see large scale emission of CO2 from burning coalfields. And the issue of rate is not “tired old”. It is critical. A large part of Britain’s remaining coal has been mined in the last century. If as much again was oxidised in the previous 100 million years, that is a millionth of the recent burning rate. If even ten times as much was oxidised, that is 1/100000 of the recent emission rate.

          • Nick,
            So you do now admit that coal seam burning that converts buried carbon into carbon dioxide gas is a natural environmental process that permits the return to the atmosphere of CO2, the primary gaseous resource that allows Earth’s biosphere to survive?
            p.s. The Early Permian Epoch lasted about 30 million years. The Aessilan Stage, the likely one in question, lasted about 5 million years.

  13. I have read that early that before it was know the CO2 laced the temperature increase at the end of the ice age that scientist graph the CO2 and temperature and then extended the graph for To see how much warmer the world would get as CO2 increased. If I recall correctly they estimated a 2 to 8C increase based on the extended graph (computers were not available then).

    It is interesting that in 2013 that the projected temperature increase is still about the same.

    • By “extended graph”, you imply extrapolation? If so, you do realise that extrapolations can be a very dangerous thing?

  14. We should remember that the CAGW hypothesis relies on the fact that water is a much more effective heat absorber than carbon dioxide.

    Hansen’s theory is that a small temperature increase due to carbon dioxide causes an increase in evaporation. The atmospheric water increases and that causes the temperature to increase even more. That’s positive feedback.

    Hansen’s feedback model was fatally flawed. CM et al pointed out that the feedback should apply to all previous warming, not just the warming that happened in the last little while. In other words, Hansen misstated the reference point of his feedback ‘amplifier’. CM et al properly conclude that the analysis, when properly done, indicates that although there may be positive feedback, it is tiny.

    Global warming due to CO2 alone with almost no positive feedback due to water vapor is small and not at all alarming.

  15. Is it possible that with many more empirical values the climate sensitivity would go to zero?
    [Figure 2]

    First chuckle of the day.

  16. The graph that was in the net showed the reverse pattern. That is after raising the temperature, ocean releases CO2 and vice-versa is not true as presented in the present report.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
    .

  17. Dr. Ball concludes: “I am not saying there is no greenhouse effect. I am saying that the empirical evidence shows that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. Further, it appears that the entire greenhouse effect is reasonably explained by water vapor. Besides variation in water vapor is just one variable in a complex array of variables that cause climate change, which can cause global warming or global cooling.”

    If there is an GHE, then there should be an enhanced GHE associated with rising GHGs.

    Why should water vapor produce a GHE when CO2 doesn’t? Moronic, isn’t it? In fact, CO2 is the dominant GHG in the upper atmosphere. At the tropopause, CO2 is still 400 ppm, while water vapor has decreased exponentially from 10,000 ppm to 3 ppm. The truth is that both are important GHGs.

    On our planet, chaotic fluctuations in the currents that exchange heat between the deep ocean and the surface can produce substantial changes in temperature in the absence of changes in TOA energy imbalance. One of those chaotic fluctuation is associated with ENSO. Changing winds reduce upwelling of cold water off Peru and the subsiding of warm water in the Western Pacific. That causes temperature rises and falls of about 0.3 K in six months, a rate of change of 6 K/decade. (The average rate of warming over the last half century is a little less than 0.2 K/decade.) When unforced variability is this high, a decade or so with no warming is meaningless. Given the confounding effect of chaos, the best we can do is look at the longest possible period when warming might have been driven by GHGs. We’ve experienced 0.85 K of global warming in the past half century while CO2 rose 22% from about 340 ppm to 410 ppm. This is between 1/3 and 1/4 of a doubling of CO2, but other GHGs have risen too. In the historical record of 200 half-centuries of warming, you wont find many examples of 0.85 K of warming.

    • Frank,

      I doubt very much that Earth has warmed 0.85 K in the past 50 years, ie 1969-2018.

      That’s not a meaningful period, since Earth warmed from the 1910s to ’40s, then cooled dramatically from the ’40s until 1977, when the PDO flipped.

      There is no statistical correlation between steadily rising CO2 since the end of WWII and fluctuating temperature. Since 1945, Earth cooled for over 30 years, then warmed slightly for around 20 years, then stayed about the same for another 20, all under increasing CO2.

      The hypothesis of man-made global warming was born falsified.

      • All your numbers are wrong, according to UAH the Earth has warmed (4 x 0,13C) 0,53C in forty years (august 2018 is just a bit under the trendline, july 2018 was a bit above,) the period between 1945 an 1975 did not coole dramatically, it should have cooled much more in line with the natural decadal variations after the 1920 – 1940 increase.

        [4x 0.13 deg???? 1x 0.19 degree. .mod]

        • Unfortunately we don’t have UAH numbers for the period between 1945 and 1975 so you really can’t say the Earth did or didn’t cool dramatically during that period. The numbers are estimates at best and certainly not to any value to hundredths of a degree C. What was the 2M air temperature 500 km directly west of Easter Island on November 12, 1951 (to the hundredth of a degree C)?

          Then throw in all the adjustments and the temperature record is even more suspect for that period.

        • Rune,

          I shouldn’t have to point out that we don’t have dedicated satellite data from before 1979, so how can my numbers for before 1979 be “wrong”?

          Even if we’ve warmed 0.53 K since 1979, that says nothing about the pronounced cooling from the 1940s to 1977, when the PDO flipped. Nor about the early 20th century warming, which is practically identical to that of the late 20th century.

          Hence, it’s likely that Earth has warmed less than 1.0 K since the end of the LIA.

      • John says: “I doubt …” Why doesn’t he know before opening his mouth.

        The HadCRUT trend for July 1968 to Jul 2018 is: 1.68 +/- 0.19 K/century. 0.84 +/- 0.1 K of warming in the past half century (without any cherry picking the start and end dates). Six other global temperature indexes give the similar results, including BEST, a project started by a group of skeptics and funded by the Koch brothers. (I find some of the adjustments in these records questionable, but the adjustments total about 0.2 K over the entire century and perhaps 0.1 K over the last half century.

        https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html Click on the triangle to get the starting and ending dates approximately right. Adjust dates with the red and blue arrows.

        Nick Stokes is a supporter of the consensus. You can go to woodfortrees.org and work harder to get the same results by adding a linear trend.

        We just had an El Nino. Let’s try 1/1963 to 1/2013, and keep the Pause but get rid of the El Nino. 1.57 K/century or 0.78 K of warming. Trivial difference.

        As for 1/1910 – 1/1940, the trend is 1.35 +/- 0.39 K/century, or a total change of 0.40 +/- 0.12 K over this period. So the warming over this period was HALF as big as over the past half century. The warming rates for the two periods are barely within experimental error of each other, mostly because the confidence period is wider for the shorter period The 1910-1940 starting dates are cherry-picked to represent the period with the greatest warming rate in the first half of the century.

        John also misinforms us: ” then cooled dramatically from the ’40s until 1977, when the PDO flipped”.

        It didn’t cool dramatically. The trend for 1/1940 to 1/77 (another cherry picked period) is -0.25+/-0.22 K/century, which is barely statistically significantly different from zero. The total drop was 0.09 K, one tenth of the warming that has followed since.

        Since our planet’s climate varies chaotically (due to chaotically fluctuating ocean currents exchanging heat with the deep ocean, one CAN NOT falsify AGW theory using short periods of stable or slightly falling temperature. Chaotic systems change without apparent cause. For exactly the same reason, one CAN NOT use warming over any short period to validate AGW theory. However, if you look over the 200 half-centuries of Holocene climate variability, you won’t find many changes of 0.85 K. That about the size of the LIA, which appears to be at least partially cause by weak solar activity. Changes half this size (like 1910-1940) are found. This doesn’t PROVE anything, but it SUGGESTS it isn’t stupid to look for a cause for warming over the last half-century.

        The AGW hypothesis is actually based on the law of conservation of energy and quantum mechanics. Laboratory measures and QM indicate that rising GHGs will reduce radiative cooling to space, something the law of conservation of energy says must cause warming. How much warming is the key question.

        • Frank,

          Of course I’ve checked HadCRU, but it is a pack of lies.

          Back in 1995, the gatekeepers estimated 0.5 K since AD 1850. Since then, there has been practically no warming in the real world. So the “warming’ in the cooked books is “man-made” in the sense of made up.

          Quite apart from the fact that it’s essentially impossible to take Earth’s average “surface” temperature from above ground land stations, combined with various methods of underwater measurements at ever-varying locations.

          And in any case, the vast majority of whatever warming has actually occurred since 1850 must be natural, not man-made, on a global basis.

          Under rising CO2 since WWII, Earth cooled dramatically for 32 years, warmed slightly for about 20, then stayed the same for around that same amount of time.

          • John: If HadCRUT were a pack of lies and temperature had been flat since 1995, don’t you think UAH would be showing no warming since 1995? The climate establishment hates Christy and Spenser, but UAH shows 0.92 K/century, or a total of 0.21 K since 1995 – despite the Pause.

            Richard Muller accused the authors of the Climategate emails of scientific malpractice and arranged for funding from the Koch brothers. If the temperature had been flat since 1995, don’t you think BEST would be reporting that fact? The BEST land record (they haven’t dealt with ocean temperature) shows a warming rate of 2.72 K/century since 1995, 0.64 K of warming!

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/

            Steve Mosher and Judith Curry were associated with the BEST project. Mosher was a close friend of McIntyre, author of a book on the highly critical book on the Climategate emails, and the first to identify characteristic phrases pointing to Peter Gleick as the thief who stole documents from the Heartland Institute. Don’t you think these people would be telling you where BEST went astray, if indeed they did? BEST found tens of thousands of temperature records that had never been used by HadCRUT, devised a new strategy to make use of these shorter records and came out with an answer similar to HadCRUT. They also explored every possible way of separating urban and rural temperature stations and constructed a purely rural temperature record without UHI. Didn’t make any difference.

            I was personally skeptical that changing the time of day (morning or night) a min-max thermometer was read would bias the trend at a station. So I got two months data with readings every hour. It makes a big difference.

            It’s easy these days to shout “Fake News” and not believe in anything that disagrees with your preconceptions. But it won’t change the fact data showing significant warming since 1995. As Feynman says, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

            Perhaps you have been fooled by Lord Monckton, who reported nearly monthly the last years of the Pause how long it had been since there was “statistically significant warming”. Of course, the absence of statistically significant warming didn’t mean there was zero warming. A typical confidence interval of +/- 0.7 K/century for a 17 year period makes a warming trend of +0.6 K/century not statistically significant – but it still added 0.10 K to the warming from periods outside the Pause.

            And the change from ERSST3 to ERSST4 meant that about 0.05 K of warming that was formerly recognized as occurring before 1995 was shifted to after 1995.

          • Frank,

            BEST is a pack of lies.

            I don’t think that temperature, to the extent that it can be measured, which is hardly at all, since 1995 has been dead flat. Thanks to two super El Ninos, there has probably been a tiny, but possibly statistically significant gain since then.

            But it hasn’t warmed a whole degree C since the end of the LIA, and much, if not most, of that increase in beneficial warmth occurred before CO2 started rising after WWII.

            There is no discernible CO2 footprint in actual data, without the bogus adjustments and book cooking of rent-seeking politically- and career-motivated ideologues. The early 20th century warming is statistically indistinguishable from the late 20th century warming.

            Arrhenius and Callendar thought that AGW would be a good thing.

            As noted, during the postwar rise in CO2, Earth cooled dramatically for for 32 years, warmed slightly for about ~20 years, then stayed about flat for ~20 years. No correlations means no causation.

            What do the Koch Brothers have to do with anything? Mann has gotten more Big Oil money than any skeptic you care to name.

            All that matters are the facts, which plainly show that CACA is a crock, cooked up by Communists.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

            After the Marxist God failed, where could totalitarians go but to take over environmentalism, in order to continue the fight against humanity, liberty and capitalism?

          • Dave,

            Please see the comments of Judith Curry, who participated in the effort before she realized what a scam it was.

            All so-called “surface data sets” are necessarily packs of lies.

          • Comments are not evidence. Again, what evidence do you have that BEST is a “pack of lies”

            Additionally, what data sets do you accept as “valid?”

          • Dave,

            The surface “data” sets which came closest to being valid were those assembled before c. 1980, and after that date, the satellite observations of UAH and balloon data.

            It’s easy to show how cooked are the “surface” (which aren’t surface) “data” sets since Karl, Hansen, Jones, Schmidt, etc have gotten a hold of them.

            Let alone the insurmountable problems with trying to concoct a GASTA in the first place.

            BEST, like all such exercises in political correctness, necessarily must invent out of whole cloth “data” for most of the planet. Their algorithms to adjust for UHIs heat rather than cool the data. They warm the oceans to bring them into alignment with the previously cooked land station books.

            They cool the 1930s, warm the postwar interval before 1977 and get rid of historic heat and cold records. Along with the Medieval and other WPs, of course.

            It’s not science. It’s politics, which has cost the world millions of lives and trillions in treasure.

          • Excellent response Tillman. So, according to you, there is no such thing as the MWP and the LIA since the data sets assembled before 1980 didn’t have data that went back that far.

          • Dave,

            It should be obvious that you can’t possibly be more wrong.

            1) We do have instrumental data for the LIA from the 17th century, and defensible reconstructions based upon historical records back to the MWP. “Climatereason”, aka Tony Brown, can help you there. Thermometer readings show that the depths of the LIA occurred during the Maunder Minimum, c. AD 1695.

            2) We also have good paleoclimatic proxies, as well as other documents, for cycles even before the MWP.

            These observations, ie data, clearly show that the Holocene Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman and Medieval WPs were global and generally warmer than now, with regional variations, and the the intervening cool periods also, sadly, show a declining trend.

            Prior interglacials are similar.

            So the situation is that we have satellite observations from the 1960s (dedicated from 1979), instrumental data from the 17th century, and before that good paleoclimate proxy and historical records before that.

            The main point is that the supposed “surface data sets” aren’t of the surface and aren’t data, but made up garbage from above the land surface at mostly bad sites, mated to even more imaginary numbers from below the sea surface, collected in a variety of ways, all bad, and none at the same place over time.

            That’s not science but fiction. Or fantasy.

          • Dave Burton:

            You ask.
            “what data sets do you accept as “valid?” ”

            There are no “valid” data for global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) because

            (a) there is no agreed definition of GASTA and the different teams that provide values of GASTA each uses a unique definition that each team changes almost every month; see e.g. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif

            and

            (b) if there were an agreed definition of GASTA then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for measurement of it.

            Please note that the three graphs in the link are all equally “valid”. They demonstrate that global temperature data can be – and are – whatever its compilers want it to be.

            Richard

          • Climatereason,

            Apparently you can’t say what you find wrong about my comments.

            Could you please be a little more specific as to what you imagine to be idiocy?

            Thanks.

          • Climatereason (Tony),

            I have to turn in and will be busy tomorrow, so regret that you weren’t able to respond to my query.

            I’d have liked to see your defense of the bogus “surface data” sets, and to have had the chance to respond, letting readers decide for themselves where the idijiocy resides.

          • John: You say BEST is a lie, but provide no rational for why they are lying. This group of non-climate scientists expected to prove that the existing records showed too much warming and that it was perturbed by UHI. They weren’t planning to find what they found. BEST constructed a temperature record using only rural stations, so the trend couldn’t be perturbed by UHI

            You are correct in one thing you say: “All that matters are the facts.” But you have no fact, just preconceptions that don’t change when you hear the facts. That works for our President, who is sure his inaguration brought larger crowds that Obama’s. The facts are what Trump needs them to be, not the pictures of the crowds. Likewise, you need there to have been no warming since 1995.

          • Frank;

            Please read my above post in this sub-thread. It explains that there are no valid data for GASTA.

            Richard

        • Gee Frank, I’m confused:

          You and your brethren claim all of these wildly disastrous scenarios but the data I find doesn’t seem to fit:

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/extreme-weather-page/

          downward trend in days over 90, 100. downward trend in major hurricane landfall, tornadoes, frequency and severity, etc etc.. Ok, maybe that is the result of a slightly warmer world than during the LIA… good. it is slightly warmer. Nothing catastrophic and nothing catastrophic will come of it. This isn’t about saving the planet with you folks. It never has been. As if the planet needed saved.

          You people couldn’t add it up if you mastered addition

          Notice…everyone, that currently the EPA website is “updating” and blaming it on President Trump and Administrator Pruitt.

          “Thank you for your interest in this topic. We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA’s priorities under leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt. If you’re looking for an archived version of this page, you can find it on the January 19 snapshot.”

          Wow. what a bunch of whiney little crybaby losers. This is a dead ringer for all of you leftists who claim there is no bias in media and government reporting. These people are responsible for simply relaying the data, not aligning themselves with political ideology. FFS you folks will lead to another mass culling if us not on the left don’t band together.

          it is getting harder and harder not to hate you people.

      • John Tilman:

        “That’s not a meaningful period, since Earth warmed from the 1910s to ’40s, then cooled dramatically from the ’40s until 1977, when the PDO flipped.

        There is no statistical correlation between steadily rising CO2 since the end of WWII and fluctuating temperature. Since 1945, Earth cooled for over 30 years, then warmed slightly for around 20 years, then stayed about the same for another 20, all under increasing CO2.

        The hypothesis of man-made global warming was born falsified”.

        An excellent comment, but no explanation as to why the cited temperature changes actually occurred, since they could not have been caused by CO2.

        Here, I believe, are the actual reasons:

        The warming from the 1910’s to the 1940’s was due to natural warming of the Earth as it recovered from the volcanic-induced Little Ice Age cooling (fewer dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols emissions in the atmosphere).

        The cooling between the 1940’s to the mid-1970’s was due to a huge increase in global anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions (from 57 Megatons in 1940 to 131 Megatons in 1977).

        After 1977, due to global Clean Air efforts, these emissions began falling, declining to 107 Megatons by 1999, and the 24 Megaton drop in emissions was responsible for the PDO flip from cooling to warming.

        Between 1999 and 2014, Western reductions in SO2 emissions were largely offset by increased emissions from the Far East, so that yearly emissions to 2014 varied by only 1 to 5 Megatons per year, resulting in the near pause in global warming. Emissions in 2014 were 111 Megatons.

        Between 2014 and 2016, they fell by approx. 30 Megatons, causing the 2014-2016 super El Nino. It’s demise was due to increased coal-fired power plant construction in the third world, and volcanic eruptions, such as Barabunga (11 Megatons of SO2 emissions) which put off-setting cooling SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere.

        Going forward, since there are roughly 80 Megatons of anthropiogenic, SO2 aerosols still in the atmosphere, if they continue to be reduced we run the risk of temperatures soaring again, if there are no off-setting volcanic eruptions.

        • Quickly,

          Those are plausible and possibly even correct explanations, but I’m satisfied that solar insolation variation, modulated by oceanic and atmospheric circulation, plus even Milankovitch orbital and rotational parameters adequately explain climatic observations.

          • John Tilman:

            Solar insolation variation CANNOT be measured from the surface of the Earth by using ANY proxies because of intervening SO2 aerosol layers which intercept incoming cosmic particles.

            Apparent changes in solar insolation are simply due to changes in volcanic-induced atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels.

            Thus. your reliance on them with respect to Climate Change is completely unfounded.

    • Why should water vapor produce a GHE when CO2 doesn’t?

      1 – There’s a lot of water vapor and not a lot of CO2.
      2 – Water absorbs way more wavelengths than CO2.
      3 – The most important CO2 absorption wavelength is already absorbed by water.
      link

      • “Why should water vapor produce a GHE when CO2 doesn’t?
        1 – There’s a lot of water vapor and not a lot of CO2.

        There is but not in the upper atmosphere and water condenses out of the atmosphere, while CO2 does not.

        “2 – Water absorbs way more wavelengths than CO2.”

        It does, but the one that matters (~15 micron) is only partially and Co2 mops it up.

        “3 – The most important CO2 absorption wavelength is already absorbed by water.”

        No it’s not…

        https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/Iris/Images/greenhouse_gas_absorb_rt.gif

        CO2 also absorbs at 4 micron and water does not….

        https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0160932716300308-gr3.jpg

          • Ok this is good. I recognize that pattern and now I’m interested in seeing folks who have the requisite knowledge discuss this:
            It appears you claim 15um is significant because of the overlap of the Earth’s maximum emission at 255K.

            CO2ISLIFE suggests otherwise.
            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/why-co2-is-irrelevant-to-the-earths-lower-atmosphere-you-cant-absorb-more-than-100/

            I am going to comment on his site and his post where I found this, requesting that you both discuss this back and forth so I can read each side and determine with my own satisfaction which is more accurate. Or, maybe, I won’t and then I’ll have to keep researching. Thanks.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/10/arctic-sea-ice-not-cooperating-with-doomsday-climate-predictions/#comment-2452829

          • Honest Liberty I responded on the other site, but these two essays may help better understand this issue:
            Why CO2 is Irrelevant to the Earth’s Lower Atmosphere; You Can’t Absorb More than 100%
            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/why-co2-is-irrelevant-to-the-earths-lower-atmosphere-you-cant-absorb-more-than-100/
            Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists
            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/comprehensive-climate-change-debating-points-and-graphics-bring-it-social-media-giants-this-is-your-opportunity-to-do-society-some-real-good/

          • Honest Liberty: You are being confused by alarmist propaganda about GHGs “trapping” heat by absorption. The alarmists don’t tell you that GHGs emit, as well as absorb, thermal infrared – they certainly do not trap it. So the simplistic skeptical argument that more CO2 has no effect after 100% absorption is also incorrect.

            The simplest way to understand the effect of GHGs is to recognize that the photons that escape to space must have been emitted from a higher altitude when there are more absorbing GHGs along the path to space. In the troposphere (but not the stratosphere), higher means colder and colder means fewer photons are emitted. Most of the absorption and emission goes on in the troposphere. So the net effect of rising GHGs is to slow the rate of radiative cooling to space.

            If the temperature of our atmosphere didn’t decrease with altitude, our planet wouldn’t have a GHE.

          • Thanks Frank for the comment. That seems to be my limited grasp of the specifics regarding the physics involved, but I don’t understand how CO2 emits anything. As I thought it worked was that the energy from the sun comes directly to Earth, passes as SWIR and doesn’t get redirected by CO2 much if anything until after it contacts the surface, and redirects back to space as LWIR, at which point it contacts the gasses like CO2 that then bounce it off itself in all directions, with the supposed contribution from that effect being that extra energy radiated back through water vapor somehow makes it amplify its energy insulation value or something? I don’t know. I still don’t quite understand the official theory and obviously…the proper words. I’ve seen enough corruption and collusion, mixed with the origination of this whole official climate science narrative to know CAGW is a massive scam, but I’m not sure about the very specific claims of the fundamentals.

            I try my best to read through all the varying opinions and the math but it just gets laborious. I was a political “science” major, after all. brain wasn’t made for complex mathematics apparently.

          • Honest: On Earth, GHG molecules occasional collide with enough energy to be excited from the ground state to the first vibrationally excited state. Most of the time, another collision relaxes them back to the ground state. (It takes an average of 1 second for an excited state of CO2 to emit a photon, but collisions occur about once a nanosecond. Not every collision relaxes an excited state back to a ground state.) So, there is an equilibrium set up with a fraction of CO2 molecules in an excited state at any time and that fraction depends on the temperature (which controls how hard collisions are.) We call this equilibrium a Boltzmann distribution. And a small fraction of the excited states emit a photon before they are collisionally relaxed.

            On the sun, it is hot enough for collisions to excite gases into excited electronic states that emit visible light.

            The wavelength emitted is determined by the energy difference between the excited and ground state. Any wavelength that is absorbed is also emitted. Think of absorption as emission running backward in time.

            If you are interested, the website scienceofdoom.com covers the physics of climate science comprehensively and correctly. No BS there, and despite the website name, the host has an open mind about climate science. The host of ClimateAudit recommended the site many years ago. Many of his posts come from a relatively cheap paperback book by Grant Petty called “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation”, intended for people studying meteorology. It doesn’t mention AGW at all, just the physics of what happens when radiation and gases interact in the atmosphere. Some, but certainly not all posted are more comprehensible if you’ve taken calculus-base physics.

        • Anthony
          you are clueless as to the science concerning this
          the absorption between 4-5 um is in the sun’s spectrum?
          so it is one of the CO2 absorptions that cools the atmosphere.
          learn here
          http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf

          you should keep the link somewhere to prove that the various GH gases (e.g. ozone, water, methane, CO2) also cool the atmosphere by deflecting certain radiation off from earth.
          Essentially they used the dark side of the moon as a mirror to see what is bouncing off from earth into space, at least for a small portion of the sun’s spectrum.
          So the rays went:
          sun-earth-moon-earth

          • HenryP: The (near infrared) solar rays that bounce off of the earth are being reflected by clouds. These visible wavelengths have nothing to do with the LWR (infrared, 5-100 um) wavelengths that radiatively cool the Earth. Rising GHGs slow down radiative cooling to space at infrared wavelengths.

            Reflection of SWR is also important in controlling the planet’s temperature

          • you did not get it.
            anything in the sun’s spectrum 0-5 um [where there is absorption in the molecular spectrum of the gas] is bounced off from earth, 62,5 % in the direction where the radiation came from/
            read the quoted paper and try to figure it out,
            especially fig. 6 bottom which proves that the GH gases, e.g, ozone, water, CO2 and methane also cool the atmosphere,

          • Henry: I looked at Figure 6, which covers wavelengths from 0.65 um to 2.5 um. I look at Anthony’s Figure above for the wavelengths emitted by the blackbodies at 5780 and 255K, models for the sun and Earth. No significant fraction of the Earth’s radiative cooling to space occurs via the wavelengths in FIgure 6, they are irrelevant to the radiative cooling to space slowed by GHGs. For a blackbody at 300 K, the shortest wavelength putting out a significant amount of power is about 3 um, instead of the 4-5 um shown above.

            Looking further, I suspect you are talking about the absorption of a tiny fraction of the sun’s incoming power by these GHGs. More GHGs has a slight impact on the power reaching the surface at these wavelengths, but absorption by the atmosphere warms the Earth just as much as absorption by the surface. You need to remember that the surface is receiving far more radiation (about 160 W/m2) than it can get rid of through LWR (OLR-DLR is about 60 W/m2). That is why convection is needed to remove about 100 W/m2. Without it, surface temperature would soar to nearly 350 K, and perhaps slightly higher if GHGs didn’t absorb between 0.65 and 2.5 um. Convection lower surface temperature to an average of 288 K and transports that heat to the higher altitudes were GHGs absorb a little incoming solar radiation. So it doesn’t really make any difference whether SWR at these wavelengths reaches the surface of is absorbed in the troposphere. All absorbed energy needs to escape as LWR, mostly from the upper troposphere. The temperature of the upper troposphere controls the rate of radiative cooling and a 6.5 K/km carries that temperature to the surface.

        • The graphs do indeed tell the story but not in the way that Mr. Banton is looking at them.
          1) CO2 has a maximum time in the atmosphere of something like 4 years. The proof of that from 2 arguments. a) Mankind’s emissions of CO2 equivalent gases is is ~ 6 to 7% (compared to natural sources) when you consider the true rate of emissions of land use and the 17% of farmland in the world. b) The total amount of CO2 exchange % out of the atmosphere per year is ~28%.
          The IPCC guess of thousands of years is ludicrous given the above 2 facts.

          2) The lowest % amount that CO2 has dominance over H2O is at ~13 microns. At that wavelength you can see that H2O is only absorbing ~ 25% that of CO2. However since H2O dominates in ppm over CO2 by a factor of up to 50 to 1 and sometimes 75 to 1.

          Therefore divide those figures by 4 and you see that H2O dominates CO2 even at 13 microns.

          3) Same thing happens at 15 microns. At that wavelength H20 is over 60% as good as CO2. So divide the 50 to 1 and the 75 to 1 by 1.66 and you see again why H2O dominates CO2.

          • Yes, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and dissolving in water fairly quickly. And the plants die just as quickly and CO2 outgases from the ocean. So there is a rapid equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere, the mixed layer of the ocean and in plants (as carbohydrates. The CO2 isn’t gone, it is exchanging quickly with other CO2.

            When CO2 is converted to CaCO2 in the ocean, precipitates onto the ocean floor, and becomes part of ocean sediments, that CO3 isn’t going to return to the atmosphere for millions of years. Under high heat CaCO3 releases CO2, which is emitted by volcanos. If CO2 in the mixed layer subsides into the deeper ocean, it takes about 1500 years for that water to upwell back to the surface. In the Carboniferous era, a lots of plant material got buried in the earth and converted into today’s fossil fuels. That CO2 remains out of circulation for millions of years.

            So CO2 emitted today exchanges with other CO2 within a few years and returns just as quickly. Slower processes remove it from the atmosphere “permanently”.

        • The best treatment of the subject I have found is a 2011 WUWT story by Ira Glickstein. link

          It’s amazing that, when you search for specific technical details about climate science, WUWT often pops up on the first page of results.

      • commieBob: Anthony Banton is correct. However, I suggest you go to this website and see for yourself effect of radiative cooling to space from changes in water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. You can adjust them as you see fit, but you will discover changes in CO2 (and CH4) produce significant changes. For comparison, saturated water vapor changes 7% per degK of warming.

        http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

        These changes are calculated based on absorption spectra measured in the laboratory. However, these calculations accurately predict the spectrum we observe from space and the DLR spectrum of the sky, which changes with temperature and humidity.

  18. Carbon dioxide radiates in the infra red region, but what I want to know is does it radiate when mixed in nitrogen and oxygen at 400ppm? The reason I wonder is because when I take clear sky measurements with my infra red thermometer I get a reading around 33C below the near ground air temperature. I should be see a much higher reading than this if there is any back radiation. The temperature I get for the clear sky is also around the temperature that is seen from satellites. Yes I can measure higher temperatures from clouds, but my readings would also suggest I am not seeing any back radiation from water vapour when the sky is clear. The stated band width of my IR thermometer is the same as the atmospheric window.

  19. Don’t think I need read this one.
    Mechanism, (for the nth time by me)
    1. Soil gets old, plants nutrients decrease. It’s what happens. No escape. Live with it or die.

    2. Plants grow less vigorously (as do people in a low nutrient environment – I’ll tell you about my latest ‘experiment’ sometime soon. maybe)

    3. At some point, fires will start. They are NOT a ‘normal thing’ nor anything to be encouraged

    4. Once fires do start, they weaken an already weak ecosystem and burn with ever greater frequency and ferocity. CO2 will start to rise – not by a lot to start with. Check out SoCal right now. Not today, not last month – check out the last few thousand years – THAT is the timescale.

    5. The fires leave dry landscapes – heading into desert conditions.

    6. Weather moves the warm air thus created around, heating up other places. (How Climate actually works but with the original ‘warm place’ being The Ocean)

    7. The extra warmth then triggers the main CO2 rise by increasing the rate that soil microbes (in places still with high organic soils, such as the rainforests now and witnessed by OCO Sputnik *AND* hidden by NASA) at which the microbes erode that high organic dirt producing colossal amounts of CO2 – easily 10 tonnes per acre per year even at high (cold) latitudes. Especially as the fires will be producing and releasing large amounts of water-soluble nitrogen and sulphur compounds. Microbes are VERY sensitive to temperature *and* nitrogen- why is our own body temperature so tightly regulated – to keep (right) the bugs happy.

    8. The reduced soil organic content over large areas (almost global) reduces the water content of the soils, allowing ‘unit content’ of solar radiation to cause ever greater rises in temperature and The World gets hot. Totally *nothing* to do with GHGE, even if there were such a thing.

    easy innit when someone tells ya….

    • Within all that you should see the temperature regulation system for Planet Earth..
      The extra warmth, plus the extra nitrogen & sulphur will stimulate plant growth in places that still have decent or fresh, hence nutrient-rich rock (thank you Mount Vesuvius)
      Nothing lives forever, the new plants die to become soil organic matter.
      Being made of chains comprising carbon atoms with one water molecule attached to each carbon (sugar basically), this stuff has an epic affinity for water.
      Hence why your bath-towel is made of cotton rather than polyester.

      Soil moisture content will rise in line with increasing soil organics and ‘per unit’ solar input will effect lessening temperature increases – bringing things back to what the plants and the microbes consider ‘normal’
      A very neat negative feedback situation.

      See what it depends on though – a supply of fresh rock.
      Earth is getting old, plate tectonics are slowing as the radio-isotopes fall down their half-lives. Hence mountain building slows, Vesuvius (recycling the old stuff and bring new) is less frequent and not so vigorous, interplanetary ploughs (the big meteor impacts) are fading as they all fall into either Jupiter or the sun. Will things last much longer?

      Then look who has arrived to witness it.
      Us.

  20. I am an EE, not a climate scientist. However, control theory is within my expertise.

    Methinks that CT may be used to prove/disprove the CO2 forcing “theory.” Since H2O as vapor and clouds are evidently 1000s X CO2 effects, then I expect CO2 to be noise level.

    Anyone who has studied CT knows it is mathematical and maddeningly difficult. However, it might just be the mathematical route to putting the kibosh on CO2 AGW. Hardest thing would be to setup the equation and then do a stability analysis.

    IF ONLY I had the time.

    • CT math is maddeningly difficult because of the feedbacks, so AGW simplified it by leaving out any and all negative feedbacks, Thereafter the only question was, “How much is it going up”?
      Oh yeah! And “How can we get money and political power out of this?”

  21. I have a basic question about the first chart. How do they derive temperature from the ice core sample?

    I assume that CO2 concentration is measured directly and it seems that there is some correlation between temperature and another measurement taken from the ice. Or is the temperature time series from an entirely different proxy?

    Can anybody shed some light on this?

    • There is a summary of Petit’s paper here which explains.
      “Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records”

      • Nick,
        I’ve attempted to follow your other posts today, and surprisingly, it seems that you do not see a necessity to prove that CO2 changes have always preceded temperature changes. Is that really correct, or am I overly optimistic?

        If the ice core gas bubbles are properly dated (and the oxygen isotope temperature proxy is likewise valid), then it demonstrates conclusively that at least in the past half million years, CO2 concentration has lagged temperature changes and cannot have been the main driver of temperature increases. You agree?

        Many of us have proposed the simple explanation that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a function of its solubility in ocean water to explain the ice core data. CO2 follows the temperature as it varies. Temperature varies not primarily because of CO2, but from other natural factors such as insolation variation caused by orbital mechanics. Unlike some others, I’m happy to concede that there is probably a minor greenhouse warming effect acting as a positive feedback on the way up and a minor negative feedback due to a reduction of GHE when CO2 is absorbed into the oceans on the way down. The reason why the interstadial periods only rise to about the same temperature is that any positive feedback from CO2 greenhouse effect is feeble compared to the main driving force which is changes in the insolation. Once the insolation decreases from a maximum, temperatures begin to drop, despite any positive GHE feedbacks.

        If I have followed your argument, none of the recent interstadials have been initiated by CO2, but there was significant positive feedback from the extra CO2 released when Milankovitch cycles warmed the oceans and outgassed CO2. Your argument is that a 120ppm excursion from equilibrium caused by fossil fuel burning has a big warming effect, similar to or greater than the 100ppm rise prior to human effects. This means that you think ECS is high and logically that also means that you think that most of the warming from the last peak glaciation is due to CO2 GHE feedback rather than Milankovitch cycle changes in insolation. Do I misrepresent your view?

        If CO2 has a major positive feedback such that our contributions are going to be harmful, why have the past several interstadials all reached similar temperatures and then stopped warming? What is that “brake” on runaway warming and why is it not still acting on the system?

        I guess my question to you is why did prior interstadials stop getting warmer and gradually revert to glaciation, and why is that effect not in play right now?

        • Rich
          “Many of us have proposed the simple explanation that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a function of its solubility in ocean water to explain the ice core data. CO2 follows the temperature as it varies. Temperature varies not primarily because of CO2, but from other natural factors such as insolation variation caused by orbital mechanics.”
          I agree. And yes, there is a minor CO2 feedback component.

          There was no CO2 forcing happening then. The rises were largely in response to temperature. But now there is. Our FF emissions are almost equal cumulatively to the amount of CO2 originally present in the air. Warming will result.

          “Your argument is that a 120ppm excursion from equilibrium caused by fossil fuel burning has a big warming effect, similar to or greater than the 100ppm rise prior to human effects.”
          It would be similar to the CO2-response component of the previous end glaciation rises, which is a relatively small fraction. But that can still be a significant rise, and of course we are far from finished emitting.

          “If CO2 has a major positive feedback…”
          No, this isn’t feedback; it is forcing. So “why is that effect not in play right now?”. It would be, but for our emissions, which add more than enough heating to counter.

          • So we have some substantial common ground here, Nick, but we still come to radically different conclusions.

            If the CO2 greenhouse gas effect contributed in your words, a “relatively small fraction of the end glaciation rise”, and our 120 ppm forcing should cause a “similar rise”, then you are saying that it will be a small fraction of the difference between the peak glaciation and the Holocene optimum (about 10C). Is a “small fraction” on the order of 10-20%, or 1-2C? Because that doesn’t sound very threatening.

            You didn’t give me an answer about what the “brake” is on runaway warming, but you state that “it would be [in play], but for our emissions”. If that is true, then after we have warmed by that small fraction of 10C, we should be back to the point where the natural brake is in control? No risk of a runaway warming. Or how am I going astray in my logic?

            Furthermore, whatever the natural effect is that counters warming once we are in the interstadial, we can see from the ice core history that over time there is a random walk down toward glaciation. We need to keep emissions going, just to avoid falling into the next ice age, isn’t that the case? Prior to our fossil fuel burning, we were already in that temperature decline, reflected by the trend from the Holocene optimum through the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods, each successively cooler than the previous. So the logic of what you have said seems to demand the conclusion that what we have done is to temporarily halt and perhaps slightly reverse the trend toward the next ice age. But the upper-end temperature rise should be similar to the small fraction of warming that was due to CO2 in the end glaciation temperature rise.

            If true, wouldn’t that constitute one of the greatest achievements of human history? It seems to me that apart from nuclear annihilation, the greatest risk to human civilization is the next ice age. Far from being concerned that we haven’t finished emissions yet, I’d be more concerned that we will run out of fossil fuels and will be unable to keep up the good work. Again, help me see where my logic has gone astray. (Disclaimer, I don’t actually credit us with this great achievement, because I think ECS is at most 1.2C and we still have a long way to go to 560 ppm and the first doubling. In my view, the ice age is coming no matter what we do. If we don’t want to see mass famine deaths, we had better hurry up with the fusion power because we are going to need orders of magnitude more abundant and inexpensive energy).

          • Rich
            “You didn’t give me an answer about what the “brake” is on runaway warming”
            I didn’t understand it. There are these separate processes
            1. End of glacial, as you have described. CO2 plays a minor part, mainly coming out of oceans as they warm, which then adds a little more warming. Maybe 1-2° out of 5-6.
            2. Interstadial – no reason to think CO2 has key role in past events. It’s basically insolation, maybe amplified by albedo and water feedbacks.
            I just don’t see where runaway warming comes in there. Then there is
            3. The present situation, where CO2 increases because we dig up carbon and burn it. It really isn’t related to any Ice Age events. Whether it will lead to runaway warming – we’ll just have to wait and see.

          • Nick,
            I don’t want to be harsh because you’ve been refreshingly reasonable in our dialogue thus far, but you seem to be unwilling to draw the logical conclusions of your own premises.

            I’m fine of course with the conclusion that we will have to wait and see. If we were not talking about wrecking the economies that are underpinning western civilization and dooming the rest of humanity to a return to, or continuation in grinding poverty, that is. Let’s stop all the madness of trying to end the use of fossil fuels and wait and see. Let’s return to building a more prosperous and peaceful world.

            The ice core records show repetitive examples of peak glaciation and transition to interstadials, each of which stop warming at about the same level. In all cases the warming is very rapid up to that point. Far more rapid than could be ascribed to gradual changes in Milankovitch cycles with a 100ka period. There must be positive feedback from albedo (loss of reflective ice) and amplified by water vapor effects. Yet it always has stopped and then it has fallen slowly in fits and starts but with roughly 1ka periods of warm cycles. The “brake” I refer to is the physical mechanisms that explain why the rapid warming runs its course and then reverses.

            I would say that the brake is when increasing albedo reaches diminishing returns due to the loss of most of the ice and begins to be countered by cloud effects. The warm periods are mediated by long-term ocean oscillations. Shorter-term ocean oscillations overlay those trends, giving us a ~60-yr cycle. Just my uneducated conjecture though.

            If CO2 played little role in prior ice age/interstadial cycles, then it cannot play a major role in warming now, due to human activity. If CO2 were warming our climate in the dangerous way that is usually claimed by today’s alarmists (happily not including you), then it would need to have had the same physical effects during the transitions from peak glaciation to interstadials. And that should have meant that the warming would have run away out of control, which did not happen.

            The cooling phase of the 60-yr cycle is upon us any time now. So I believe we will know a great deal more about the reality of human impact on climate in the next half decade.

          • Rich
            “If CO2 played little role in prior ice age/interstadial cycles, then it cannot play a major role in warming now, due to human activity.”
            This is the basic non sequitur that only sceptics seem to fall for. Why no major role? For millions of years, the total amount of carbon circulating through atmosphere, biosphere and surface ocean has been much the same. It moves passively in response mainly to temperature. That is why it played a minor role. But now it is totally different. We are injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere, sufficient to substantially increase this long near constant circulating mass. It is just a totally different situation.

            As to the positive feedback effects, in deglaciations they seem to follow the same period as a somewhat unsymmetric astable multivibrator in electronics. Switching between two quasi-stable states. That does indicate positive feedback, but nothing special about CO2. Yes, it’s probably mostly albedo and water vapor, and perhaps dominated by natural limits on how far ice can go. CO2 makes a minor contribution to feedback, with no special properties.

            I agree with Willis about 60 year cycles. Anyway, we’ve had 40 years of warming. The cooling, if it’s coming, is running very late.

          • Reading your sophisticated garbage is like salt in the eyes,….

            This over-blown nonsense for an increase of 1 molecule in every 10,000 molecules of mass, a 1/10,000th increase which you describe thus.

            We are injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere, sufficient to substantially increase this long near constant circulating mass.

          • OK Nick, first to where we agree. We agree on the deglaciation feedbacks being albedo and water vapor and not very much of CO2. You are correct that CO2 was in a range of 0.018 to 0.03% of the atmosphere for millions of years, looks like roughly 50 million, which is to say for about the last 1% of earth’s history.
            Refer to https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

            On the other hand, what about the prior 99% of earth history? CO2 was about ten times higher than today when it went into an ice age about 450 million years ago during the Ordovician, which is to say when earth had reached about 90% of its current age. Now I know that your go-to answer is that solar intensity was lower in the “young” earth, but I don’t think that you will argue that it was only 10% as intense? (And even if you do, then that would be arguing that we could easily go into an ice age with today’s CO2 levels).

            If the earth were a man with an 85-year life expectancy, then it would be about 64 years old right now. (It has about 2 billion years to go). The period that CO2 has been in this low range has been only since it was about 63-1/2. In other words, the earth is getting on in age and is suffering from low T. Recently, about a minute ago in the earth’s lifetime, it started taking supplements of fossil fuel burning, and has managed to get its CO2 slightly elevated. It’s still only a shadow of its former vigor.

            So, where we disagree–it is not a totally different situation. Throughout most of the history of life on earth, the Phanerozoic Era, CO2 has been much higher than it is today. During which period, there have been all sorts of climates including high CO2 ice ages and low CO2 warm periods and everything in between. CO2 is a trace gas and it probably has some limited capacity to trap heat. Correction, it definitely has that capacity. The question is what other myriad natural processes counteract that capability, and how significant is the NET warming (or cooling) effect?

            What is a non sequitur is to admit that 280 ppm of CO2 made minimal difference to our most recent deglaciation, but another 120 ppm will play a major role in catastrophic warming. The greenhouse effect of CO2 has diminishing returns in a logarithmic function. If anything, the 120 ppm must have even less impact. Like adding another coat of white paint to a white wall (to quote Richard Lindzen).

            Thanks for the discussion. I’m sure that we have to agree to disagree and just see how things go in the next few years.

          • Nick has no logical conclusion to your premise because his insistence on CAGW is built on one flaw and deception after another.

          • Nick says:
            “Why no major role? For millions of years, the total amount of carbon circulating through atmosphere, biosphere and surface ocean has been much the same. It moves passively in response mainly to temperature. That is why it played a minor role. But now it is totally different. We are injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere, sufficient to substantially increase this long near constant circulating mass. ”

            Was it? There is proxy data that suggest otherwise:

            https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046

            I don’t know how to just post one photo but the CO2 levels were much higher and this isn’t the only graph I’ve seen showing such. There are rebuttals to that below in the comment section as well

            Gentlemen I appreciate the discourse and it has been the best I’ve seen as of late, even though I disagree, once again, with Nick. I appreciate the polite discourse. Thanks!

          • honest liberty,

            One can’t compare the situation of even 100 million years ago with the situation of today: much of the high CO2 levels of the Cretaceous now are bureid into the nice carbonate rocks of Dover, South England, Normandy in France and a lot of other places.
            Another point is that the Panama isthmus got closed, which started the Gulf Stream and all its releated climate change.

            Over the past 800,000 years, there is no indication of much influence of CO2 changes on T changes in ice cores, thus I suppose that the effect of the current CO2 increase will be small, but probably not zero…

  22. As I stated on this site on 22 August and on Judith Curry’s site on 07 September, empirical data shows :-
    1. Temperature change across the Earth is independent of the CO2 concentration,
    2. The temperature level determines the rate of generation of CO2,
    3. This means that, as a mathematical necessity, temperature change precedes CO2 change so it is impossible for the later to be the cause of the earlier temperature change,
    4. Spectral analysis of temperature and annual rate of change of CO2 concentration produce practically identical amplitude spectra which have some maxima which correspond to the periodicities of the Moon and the planets indicating that the Earth’s insolation is determined, at least in part, by the Sun’s output modulated by the motion of the Moon and planets.
    See: https://www.climateauditor.com

    The only obvious CO2 climate sensitivity is the local change to climate resulting from the greening of the Earth.

    Finally, there is no Greenhouse Effect. All material objects absorb and emit radiation so what justification is there for asserting that local temperature is solely due to the radiation from the minuscule amount of atmospheric CO2 relative to the theoretical temperature of the ‘model’ Earth, a perfectly smooth sphere with no land or ocean or ice caps having the same thermal properties everywhere. It is simply the old fashion Universal Gas Laws in operation – temperature is greatest where the pressure is greatest, namely at the Earth’s surface.

    • Bevan,

      You made an essential error by comparing temperature changes with the CO2 rate of change changes. Either compare T changes with CO2 changes or the derivatives of both with each other. Not the original T with the derivative of CO2, as the latter largely has its trend – and thus its cause – removed.

      The variability in T and dCO2/dt have no lag at all: one can declare that changes in the derivative of CO2 cause T changes, which is of course nonsense, but the reverse conclusion is that too as the correlation is entirely spurious.

      That was discussed at WUWT some time ago:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/

      • Ferdinand, there is nothing erroneous about comparing temperature with the CO2 rate of change. Newton’s Second Law of Motion basically states that the rate of change of velocity of a moving body is proportional to the applied force. This is no different logically to saying that the rate of change of CO2 concentration is proportional to the applied temperature. Do you deny that the rate of evaporation of a pot of water is dependent on the temperature of the stove element upon which it sits?

        You state that taking the derivative of CO2 removes its trend and thus its cause. How so? A trend has no significance of itself. Every time series can be fitted with a linear trend. That does not mean that every time varying element is causally related to everything else. There is only correlation when the deviation from the trend of one element corresponds in time with the deviation of another element from its trend. Until we see that, we know nothing about the relationship between the two elements.

        Figure 1 at the start of the content at https://www.climateauditor.com
        plainly shows that the deviations from trend for temperature are completely independent of any deviation from trend for the CO2 concentration. This was confirmed on applying the First Order Autoregression Model to the two sets of data, satellite lower troposphere temperature and CO2 concentration thereby showing that it is highly improbable that CO2 has any causal effect on atmospheric temperature.

        Yes, the variability in T and dCO2/dt has no lag because there is a statistically significant correlation between the two. Yes, it is nonsense to declare that changes in dCO2/dt cause changes in T because that does not define a base. For example, a rate of change of 2 ppm CO2 does not reveal whether or not that is a change from zero to 2 ppm, 134 ppm to 136 ppm or any other numbers that differ by two.

        However the reverse is not nonsense nor is the correlation spurious as the web site content reveals. The autocorrelation functions of both variables and their Fourier Amplitude spectra are almost identical to such a degree that dCO2/dt has been used as a proxy for temperature. The 60 year record of weekly CO2 data when transformed to dCO2 per annum gives an amplitude spectrum that even shows the temperature effect of the synodic and draconic periods of the Moon due to their effects on insolation as the Moon passes directly between the Sun and the Earth.

        • Bevan,

          Have a look at the variability in dT/dt, T and dCO2/dt plotted together:
          WoodforTrees

          Both dT/dt and T show about the same variability, thus the same correlation between their variability and the dCO2/dt variability. The difference is in the lag: dCO2/dt variability shows a lag with dT/dt variability, not with T variability. Further T has a slope, dT/dt not, only a small offset from zero.

          In your point 3. you wrote:
          as a mathematical necessity, temperature change precedes CO2 change
          Temperature change doesn’t precede dCO2/dt change, thus is not the cause of the dCO2/dt change… That they synchronise is for the simple reason that you did take the derivative of CO2, thus shifting any sinusoidal change in it with 90 degrees back in time. At the same time largely removing the cause of the linear slope: the slightly quadratic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

          Integrating both dT/dt and dCO2/dt shows a small linear increase in T and a slighlty quadratic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere – at about half the same increase of human emissions. The variability in T still is huge, but its effect on the CO2 increase is small: +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90 ppmv trend. That says nothing about the cause of the trends.

          Do you deny that the rate of evaporation of a pot of water is dependent on the temperature of the stove element upon which it sits?
          No, but that is a single variable process. The release of CO2 out of the ocean surface is at least a two variables process: temperature ánd pressure driven as main variables.

          If in your example the pot is a closed container, only a small amount of water will be released until the pressure within the pot is in equilibrium with the temperature of the stove element.

          The same for the T-CO2 relationship. If you have in your case a sustained small offset in temperature from a base line, that would release a certain amount of CO2/K per unit of time, continuously until eternity, while in reality the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere builds up until the pCO2 of the atmosphere is the same as the pCO2 of the ocean surface: a change of ~16 ppmv/K, no matter if that is for a single sample or for the full dynamics of the total ocean surface:
          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
          The about 16 ppmv/K is the change of solubility of CO2 in seawater, confirmed by over 3 million samples in different climates. And confirmed by 800,000 years of ice core T – CO2 relationship.

          …shows the temperature effect of the synodic and draconic periods of the Moon due to their effects on insolation as the Moon passes directly between the Sun and the Earth.

          Was observed by the late C.D. Keeling in the late ’90’s as an amplitude change in CO2 increase which was influenced by changes in the tides…

          • Ferdinand, take a closer look at that graph. The maxima in T coincide with the maxima in dCO2/dt and must, by mathematical definition, coincide with the zero in dT/dt. The maxima in dT/dt precede the maxima in T, that is basic high school mathematics. Thus maxima in dT/dt precede maxima in dCO2/dt so changes in CO2 concentration cannot cause changes in temperature.

            As for variability, if you mean population variance, that has nothing whatsoever to do with correlation. The time series for temperature and CO2 concentration each have their own population distributions while correlation is a measure of the relationship between the two distributions after adjusting for the different population means and variances.

            My example of the pot of water on the stove element had nothing to do with CO2. It was merely an example of a physical entity, temperature of the stove element, determining the rate of change of another physical entity being the rate of evaporation of the water in the pot.

            Then your last paragraph refers to tides. That is a daily event which cannot be recognised in weekly data. The weekly Mauna Loa CO2 data cannot determine events with a period less than two weeks, another mathematical necessity. The detection of the synodic and draconic periods of the Moon in the spectrum from the dCO2/dt time series must largely be due to temperature as the passage of the Moon diminishes the incoming radiation from the Sun.

          • Bevan,

            Some misunderstanding here:

            Indeed, dT/dt precedes T changes and dCO2/dt precedes CO2 changes, which makes that T changes and dCO2/dt changes synchronise, but that is only for the short term variability, not for the trends. By taking the derivative, you have largely removed the original, slightly quadratic increase of CO2, which gives a linear increase in the derivative.

            The same problem for your conclusion:

            changes in CO2 concentration cannot cause changes in temperature.

            Which is only clear for the short term (1-3 years) variability (+/- 1.5 ppmv) around the trend, not for the 90+ ppmv trend itself:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg

            All your conclusions are in fact based on the +/- 1.5 ppmv “noise” around the 90 ppmv CO2 trend itself, resulting in a similar short time variability in the CO2 rate of change as result of fast temperature changes, nothing to do with the cause and effect of the trends in both CO2 and temperature.

            Have a look at the trends of CO2 emissions and the increase in the atmosphere, compared to the temperature change over the same period:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
            Which one drives the CO2 increase?

            You can’t conclude from the synchronised T variability and dCO2/dt variability that the integral of T is responsible for the total increase in CO2, which is what you did do. The variability is largely caused by the response of tropical vegetation to short living temperature changes (Pinatubo, El Niño), while the trend is NOT caused by vegetation, as that is a proven, increasing, net sink for CO2. The earth is greening…

            Moreover, the CO2 increase as result of the integral of temperature violates about all known observations: the mass balance, the oxygen balance, the δ13C decline, the 14C decline…

            My example of the pot of water on the stove element had nothing to do with CO2.

            Not directly, but it is very similar: if you change another element in the equation, in both cases pressure, you will see a complete different picture.
            In the case of CO2, you have two input elements: one with a lot of increase over time (linear in the derivative) but no detectable variability (in its effect), while the other has a small increase over time and a lot of variability. Your conclusion is that the slope in the effect is from the second variable, but that is based on only its huge variability…

          • Ferdinand you are taking a very narrow view by only considering the past century instead of the preceding 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s existence. Since reaching a settled state, the Earth has periodically swung between ice age and inter-glacial with ice age being the more normal state. In spite of much higher CO2 concentrations in the past, the Earth has not fried.

            The most likely future is that the atmospheric temperature will drop suddenly but CO2 continue to increase. At some point the temperature will reach a critical point at which it no longer causes an increase in the concentration of CO2. I suggest that this will be zero degrees Centigrade whereby water freezes and is no longer available to sustain life, the source of the CO2.

            Thereafter both temperature and CO2 will decrease with CO2 being precipitated in rain, snow or as dry ice. At some point the temperature reaches a minimum and starts to increase due to changes in the configuration of the Solar System. Once temperature reaches a level at which microbes can regenerate, they will cause CO2 to start rising. This in turn will reach a concentration in CO2 at which plants can regenerate. Then as temperature and CO2 increase, herbivores will reoccupy the land and conditions will be well on the way to those we now enjoy. All of this because temperature determines the rate of change of CO2 concentration, an essential life forming element.

            Be grateful that we have been given the time and opportunity to install nuclear power generators that will enable us to survive when large areas of the Earth are covered in kilometre thick ice sheets.

  23. There is an obvious answer to the warmists dilemma with the observed data jndicating that temp increase precedes co2 increase. That is that the magical co2 molecule has time variant abilities which allow effects of co2 increases to go back in time and cause temperature increases prior to the co2 increases. General relativity tells us that time is not a constant but varies with velocity and gravity. So there, I have fixed it for the idiots who believe in co2 causing global warming or climate change or extreme weather or whatever they decide to call it.

    Note, no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, will change these people’s approach as their goal has nothing to do with science. It is money, power and politics which drive this bus.

    • “There is an obvious answer to the warmists dilemma with the observed data jndicating that temp increase precedes co2 increase. ”

      Not a dilemma at all as CO2 both follows (feedback) and leads (drives) temp.
      Depends on what comes first.
      It is a GHG.
      It absorbs and emits LWIR, which the Earth emits to space having converted SW solar.
      AND
      It is absorbed/emitted within the carbon cycle within the biosphere.
      That cycle is regulated by temp, especially via the oceans.
      The Earth warms via orbital eccentricity driving > less can be absorbed by the oceans > atmos CO2 rises > warms the atmos > etc etc until equilibrium.

      But now we have CO2 coming first (not put there by the biosphere following a temp rise and therefor a driver). It is still a GHG. It still warms the climate system.

      • it does not warm the atmosphere.
        it might cool the atmosphere
        as this paper proves:
        http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
        but nobody has shown me a test result showing me exactly how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2/

        keep the link somewhere to prove that the various GH gases (e.g. ozone, water, methane, CO2) also cool the atmosphere by deflecting certain radiation off from earth.
        Essentially they used the dark side of the moon as a mirror to see what is bouncing off from earth into space, at least for a small portion of the sun’s spectrum.
        So the rays went:
        sun-earth-moon-earth

  24. Temperature and atmospheric CO2 are coupled (linked) parameters in that a change in one leads to a change in the other, whichever changes first. Because each is the initiator, but not the mechanism of the other, there is an delay time. For glacial cycles, temperature change occurs first, for reasons other than CO2.

  25. Temperature change did indeed lag CO2 change from 450,000-plus years ago to the Industrial Revolution. Back then, the amount of carbon in the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere was essentially constant. Warming moved carbon from the hydrosphere and biosphere to the atmosphere as CO2, and cooling did the opposite. Atmospheric CO2 (and water vapor) was a positive feedback that reinforced temperature changes that were initiated by some other cause. Nowadays things are different, because we are transferring large amounts of carbon from the lithosphere to the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere.

    • I would hope that my comment above would trigger a response from more than just a few ‘down voters’. If I’m the one you don’t like then hit me here. Vote often and hit the ‘down’ key hard for emphasis! I love it when you do that. How else will I know whether you don’t like what I wrote or if is me! Hell, go ahead and write out a scathing reply. Hurt my feelings. Teach me a lesson with your bony fingers!

      • eyesonu,

        I should prefer to delete any voting, but that is up to Anthony, as it is only used by non-commenters who vote with their “gut feeling” but are too shy to use real arguments for why they agree or disagree with what you wrote…

        I did disagree with a few points in Dr Ball’s essay, but that is commented, not voted, as I respect everybody’s opinion, even if I disagree with it…

        (but I did vote you up to zero, as a negative vote for what you wrote has no merit)

      • Actually I was cheered up seeing that I had ‘down votes’ on such a simple comment! The easily ‘triggered’ were triggered, what’s not to like? I followed with another comment to pull their chain again and was hoping for more ‘down votes’.

        Anyway, I appreciate the votes of support.

  26. Go back to Maurice Strong, a Club of Rome member, and the starting of the United Nations Environmental Programme.
    Club of Rome “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….”

    The whole hoax was started to turn the United Nations into a world government based on socialist/totalitarian principles.

    • Now see, this is exactly the type of comment being down voted that really gets under my craw. Un-thinking simpletons who have placed so much faith in the system of government that they refuse to look at the words of those behind such institutions and see how reality has unfolded right as they claimed.

      It is a sign of either monumental naivety or monumental stupidity. If you haven’t researched the history and don’t understand that conspiracy is actually a constant within human organization, you are only fooling yourself. If you actively teach young children such things are “tin-foil” then you are guilty of child abuse because you are limiting the natural curiosity of children to examine everything, through your disgusting appeal to authority pulpit.

      LogicalChemist is spot on and if you down voted that comment, you are an unthinking simpleton

      • I didn’t up- or down-vote, but I think that a claim like that should include a citation because it sounds like it could be a made-up quote. And believe me, I totally suspect that Strong was motivated by the desire to destroy capitalism, but if there is proof he said this, the posting would be many times more effective with a reference to the source.

        • Rich Davis

          For Maurice Strong, as you requested – see the first quotation.

          Based on the evidence, the Greens are the great killers of our age – quotations like the following suggest that it is deliberate and planned.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/08/an-open-letter-to-nuclear-for-climate/#comment-2452227

          Quotations from http://www.green-agenda.com/

          It is truly amazing that the Green minions actually believe they are ethical, and of above-average intelligence.

          Regards, Allan
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
          industrialized civilizations collapse?
          Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
          – Maurice Strong,
          founder of the UN Environment Programme
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
          United States. De-development means bringing our
          economic system into line with the realities of
          ecology and the world resource situation.”
          – Paul Ehrlich,
          Professor of Population Studies
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “One America burdens the earth much more than
          twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
          In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate
          350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
          but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
          – Jacques Cousteau,
          UNESCO Courier
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
          as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
          – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
          patron of the World Wildlife Fund
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
          It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
          – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “The extinction of the human species may not
          only be inevitable but a good thing.”
          – Christopher Manes, Earth First!
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
          for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
          Phasing out the human race will solve every
          problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
          – Ingrid Newkirk,
          former President of PETA
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
          society, unless the parents hold a government license.
          All potential parents should be required to use
          contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
          antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
          – David Brower,
          first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

          • “For Maurice Strong, as you requested”
            What was requested was the source. And none is provided here; just someone else’s list of unsourced quotes.

            In fact, Strong did not say the first thing attributed to him; that was two characters called King and Schneider here. And there is no evidence that Strong ever said the second quote about “civilisations collapse”.

          • Nick – a one-minute search of found this – close enough:

            “If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

            Are you alleging that all the other quotes are false too?

          • “close enough”
            No, it’s not close enough. A quote is a quote. You are supposed to be able to see exactly what was said. And a source is a source, where you can see the context of the quote.

            In fact, it is not close at all.

          • Heh, this is hilarious. Makes me think of one of my professors years ago. Not referencing properly would get you in enough trouble, but if you didn’t provide proper referencing and you didn’t quote them accurately, or if you put someone else’s words in their mouth, then you were really in for it.

      • SATIRE:

        I agree with you HL – I’m getting old and hate the cold.

        Here is my climate change paranoid fantasy:

        Execrable socialist governments (Groucho Marxists) are doing everything they can to destabilize our electric grids and drive up energy costs, intent on increasing Excess Winter Deaths, which especially target the elderly and the poor.

        The socialists’ phony green-energy policies are intended to save the government a whole lot of old-age pension money, to be spent by them on private jets, Maybach’s. alcohol, drugs, hookers and toy-boys. Kind of like Zimbabwe – and every other Marxist dictatorship on the planet – of which there are many.

        Senior citizens create a “Terminal Cancer Club” (“TCC”) and assigned to its members the duty of hitting these scoundrels – the slogan of the TCC is “Let’s get them before they get us!”. “LGT-BTGU” is scrawled on walls all over the capital.

        It’s a satire, a black comedy – starring an aging Liam Neeson, v-e-r-y slowly stalking his prey – a repulsive socialist psychopathic sleazoid – Liam complete with his Walther – and his walker. Kind of like “Death Wish”, but add an oxygen bottle – Coming soon to a theatre near you.

        “Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.” 🙂

  27. Ha, I remember years ago, around early 2009 or slightly before, I got curious on this and started looking for a high-resolution graph of temp vs CO2 to see what comes first. I found one, enlarged it on my computer screen and spent about an hour trying to see if one of the graphs changed before the others. I concluded that I could kind of tell that temp changed first but wasn’t sure. Then I saw on the webpage, a note that said (I’m paraphrasing) that changes in temp precede changes in CO2 by hundreds of years.

    Was kind of mad I wasted an hour on this when it was right there in front of me.

    Being already highly suspicious of global warming ‘solutions’, this (and climate gate) made me all the more suspicious of what this issue is really about.

    All this said, I’m open to the possibility that someday, they’ll ‘find out’ that CO2 changed before temperature. I’m sure many dollars have been spent and are still being spent on trying to prove this connection.

    • “All this said, I’m open to the possibility that someday, they’ll ‘find out’ that CO2 changed before temperature. I’m sure many dollars have been spent and are still being spent on trying to prove this connection.”

      To paraphrase Nick S – it is amazing that naysayers assume/think that.
      It has long been known that CO2 within the carbon cycle follows temp and has a feedback factor as it does so.
      That is what the CC does.
      It is driven by temp UNLESS there is something that causes the CO2 levels to change that is independent of temp.
      Then being as it is a GHG (absorbs/emits LWIR – which the Earth has to cool via radiation to space) it will inhibit the Earth’s cooling.
      Now I wonder what that “something” could be?
      How about 280 ppm pre-industrial revolution and 400+ now.

      • Anthony B;

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/#comment-2452626

        [excerpt]

        The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are wildly and deliberately exaggerated, to produce a very-scary false result.

        Global warming alarmism is a deliberate fraud, in fact it is the greatest fraud, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.

        Properly deployed, the tens of trillions of dollars squandered on global warming alarmism could have:
        – put clean water and sanitation systems into every village in the world, saving the lives of about 2 million under-five kids PER YEAR;
        – reduced or even eradicated malaria – also a killer of millions of infants and children;
        – gone a long way to eliminating world hunger.

        Notes and References:

        Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is low – probably less than 1C/(2xCO2).

        Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures.

        Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures (ST). These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, etc.

        Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors.

        Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
        (*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+)

        The slightly higher sensitivity values in Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 surface temperatures versus UAH LT temperatures.

        Practically speaking, however, these maximum sensitivity estimates are similar, about 1C/doubling, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.

        Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have no credibility. There is no real global warming crisis.

        Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.

        Conclusion:
        The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any scientist or politician who contradicts this statement is destructive, acting against the well-being of humanity and the environment.

  28. Figure 2 is a perfect tell on “consensus science.” We are told by the click-bait alamist bloggers and cable news soap sellers that there is an irrefutable consensus, and therefore deniers. But Figure 2 shows that the IPCC climate sensitivity is far above most of the other’s. Exactly how should the consensus be defined? The mean? The average? The mode? Maximum? Minimum?

  29. I’m pretty sure the Gore graph as presented shows that temp forces atmospheric carbon… I was hoping this post was a proof. Someone qualified should do it soon!

  30. We no longer need Milankovtich cycles to trigger warming and a CO2 release. We do it all by ourselves. Over the past 2.5 centuries we have dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Using carbon isotope analysis the increase in CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

    • Really?

      The SkepSciBots call this a “fingerprint”…

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

      δ13C depletions (carbon isotope excursions) were associated with warming events ~5,000 years ago in India, ~9,100 years ago in Poland and ~150,000 years ago in the Indian Ocean. It appears to me that δ13C depletion has been a fairly common occurrence during periods of “global warming.” It also appears that δ13C increases have occurred during periods of global cooling…

      The red curve in Figure 5 is the Flinders Reef δ13C that was cited as “Human Fingerprint #1” in Skeptical Science’s The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism.  The rate of δ13C depletion is quite similar to that of the lacustrine deposit on the Yucatan.  The Flinders Reef data do not extend back before the Little Ice Age; so there is no way to tell  if the modern depletion is an anomaly, if the δ13C was anomalously elevated during the 18th and 19th centuries and the depletion is simply a return to the norm or if δ13C is cyclical.

      Is it possible that SkeptSci’s “Human Fingerprint #1” is not due to the Suess Effect? Could it be related to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age?

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/28/dusting-for-fingerprints-in-the-holocene/

Comments are closed.