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).
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.
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.
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).
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,
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.
exactly there is no AGW. a myth.
true.
same conclusions here:
http://breadonthewater.co.za/2018/05/04/which-way-will-the-wind-be-blowing-genesis-41-vs-27/
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.
Exactly CO2 has always followed the temperature and therefore is a non factor when it comes to the climate.
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
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.
don
I found no empirical evidence that there is an effect of CO2, never mind whether that effect is cooling or warming.
http://breadonthewater.co.za/2018/05/04/which-way-will-the-wind-be-blowing-genesis-41-vs-27/
The logical solution to the problem of the correlation between CO2 and global T is that warmer oceans release more CO2 and colder oceans dissolve more CO2.
[remember there are giga tons of carbonates and bicarbonates dissolved in the oceans}
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.
Another excellent essay by Dr. Tim Ball.
And the cartoons were great!
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!
Cheer up eyesonu, I up-voted you.
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.
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.
It looks close to me – and what about all the other quotes cited?
“what about all the other quotes cited?”
Are they “close enough” too? How can we tell without sources?
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.” 🙂
Matt Ridley in a blog article had a nice graph of the Eemian temperatures and CO2 from the Vostok core.
It clearly showed CO2 lagging changes in temperature; in particular, higher levels of CO2 did not prevent temperatures from falling in the second half of that interglacial.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/eemian-Vostok-Co2.png
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/explaining-ice-ages/
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.
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?
Masterful! Dr. Ball.
Love the collude comic!
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!
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/
James Powell has a good post on the topic.
http://www.jamespowell.org/Stuff/Ourfault/Ourfault.html