New Paper–NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

I didn’t vet this before posting and have no idea as to its real strengths or weaknesses. Have at it.~ctm

From Arvix

J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

1. Introduction

The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific literature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the climate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1]. As a response to the comment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.

2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature

The basic task is to divide the observed global temperature anomaly into two parts: the natural component and the part due to the green house gases. In order to study the response we have to re-present Figure TS.12 from Technical Summary of IPCC AR5 report (1). This figure is Figure 1. Here we highlight the subfigure “Land and ocean surface” in Figure 1. Only the black curve is an observed temperature anomaly in that figure. The red and blue envelopes are computed using climate models. We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other.

Figure 1. Figure TS.12 on page 74 of the Technical Summary of the IPCC Fifth Assessment report (AR5).
Figure 1. Figure TS.12 on page 74 of the Technical Summary of the IPCC Fifth Assessment report (AR5).

In Figure 2 we see the observed global temperature anomaly (red) and global low cloud cover changes (blue). These experimental observations indicate that 1 % increase of the low cloud cover fraction decreases the temperature by 0.11°C. This number is in very good agreement with the theory given in the papers [3, 2, 4]. Using this result we are able to present the natural temperature anomaly by multiplying the changes of the low cloud cover by −0.11°C/%. This natural contribution (blue) is shown in Figure 3 superimposed on the observed temperature anomaly (red). As we can see there is no room for the contribution of greenhouse gases i.e. anthropogenic forcing within this experimental accuracy. Even though the monthly temperature anomaly is very noisy it is easy to notice a couple of decreasing periods in the increasing trend of the temperature. This behavior cannot be explained by the monotonically increasing concentration of CO2 and it seems to be far beyond the accuracy of the climate models.

Figure 2. [2] Global temperature anomaly (red) and the global low cloud cover changes (blue) according to the observations. The anomalies are between summer 1983 and summer 2008. The time resolution of the data is one month, but the seasonal signal is removed. Zero corresponds about 15°C for the temperature and 26 % for the low cloud cover.
Figure 2. [2] Global temperature anomaly (red) and the global low cloud cover changes (blue) according to the observations. The anomalies are between summer 1983 and summer 2008. The time resolution of the data is one month, but the seasonal signal is removed. Zero corresponds about 15°C for the temperature and 26 % for the low cloud cover.
Full paper here.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
401 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 12, 2019 2:44 am

This is not a journal paper. It is on ArXiv, which is not peer-reviewed. Anyone can put anything there.

They claim a correlation between temperature and low cloud cover. I couldn’t see the claimed source for the 25 years of low cloud data, which would be hard to assemble, and would have great uncertainty. But anyway, cloud cover is not itself a driver. It actually responds to temperature, among other things. So a claim that cloud cover is driving temperature immediately invites – well, what is driving cloud cover.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:10 am

CR

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 12, 2019 5:33 am

Nick Stokes – July 12, 2019 at 2:44 am

But anyway, cloud cover is not itself a driver (of temperature). It actually responds to temperature, among other things. So a claim that cloud cover is driving temperature immediately invites – well, what is driving cloud cover.

Nick Stokes, …… are you just pretending to be totally ignorant of the physical properties of water (H2O) or are you actually afflicted by a miseducation in/of the natural sciences?

If it is the latter of the above two, …… you can remedy said miseducation by studying my following commentary, …… to wit:

The influence of – clouds, fog and mists are all forms of water vapor which have collected into larger “droplets” of water and are visible to the naked eye, …. and are the same as humidity which cannot be seen with the naked eye. And that is because of the density of the larger “droplets” of water and the fact that any source of visible light that strikes them will be absorbed more readily and/or reflected away from them more easily.

But now the effects of clouds, fogs and mists relative to incoming solar energy and re-emitted energy from the earth’s surface ….. are quite different (extremely more pronounced) than the effects of humidity. Again, this is because of their density (mass).

Clouds, fogs and mists act as a unidirectional buffer to both the incoming solar energy and the re-radiated IR energy from the earth’s surface. And the best way to explain this is by examples.

Night time cloud cover or fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from cooling off as fast because they per say buffer the re-radiated IR energy from the earth’s surface.

Day time cloud cover or morning fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from warming up as fast because they per say buffer the incoming solar energy.

And this conundrum is what confuses the ell out of scientists who are trying to calculate “average surface air temperatures” ….. and which wrecks havoc with their Climate Modeling Programs ….. because it is such an important but indeterminate variable.

And thus, because they cannot accurately calculate the effect of the aforesaid radiated energy transfers, …… nor can they accurately calculate the effect of the bidirectional molecule-to-molecule conduction of thermal energy between the surface and the atmosphere, ……they completely ignore and omit said from any of their calculations …… and attempt to CTA by blaming everything on atmospheric CO2.

HotScot
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 7:49 am

One of the enduring mysteries of alarmist climate science. 100% of scientists admit they don’t know how clouds work, but 97% of ‘scientists’ maintain the science is settled.

Which ones are lying?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  HotScot
July 12, 2019 9:39 am

:<)

nw sage
Reply to  HotScot
July 12, 2019 6:23 pm

All 197% of them? The rest are unsure!

Andy May
Reply to  HotScot
July 15, 2019 11:18 am

Hot Scot, LOL!!

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 11:40 am

“From Arvix” : dyslexia rules KO.

@ Samuel C Cogar, which part of your post contradicts what Nick posted? Wind down the rage level a little and try to challenge what he said if that is your intention.

Just being triggered by the presence of the name Nick Stokes does not count.

I was also surprised by the claim in the paper since I was unaware of any cloud data of sufficient accuracy to make such claims.

So, instead of low cloud cover we can use the
changes of the relative humidity in order to derive the natural temperature anomaly.

Fig 2 says it is “low cloud cover”
Fig3 refers to the “low cloud cover shown in fig2”

Now I may have missed some detail in reading the paper but I did not see the slightest reference to where this “cloud cover” data actually came from. Let alone any discussion of its global coverage and uncertainty. If you are going to claim a change of 1% you need some damned accurate data to start with.

Are they using humidity as a proxy all the way through ? Until I see some proper attribution of this data I’m duly skeptical of their graphs and claims.

@Nick :
“Anyone can put anything there.” That is not true. What is the basis of that claim. Find out what happened to Dr Paul Laviolette’s attempt to post non orthodox cosmology papers there.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 12, 2019 12:51 pm

Greg,
There is no systematic editing process, let alone review. The fact that a paper like this can appear on ArXiv without any sourcing of its data says it all.

TomB
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 12, 2019 1:06 pm

Agreed, that was over the top. Nick’s comment was reasonable and cordial.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2019 12:05 pm

Nick got smashed and left talking about the “journal”.

Gives Nature science a free pass when it publishes seriously flawed study after seriously flawed study, as if there is no peer review.

Then Greg projects emotion, rage of all things.

Both Nick and Greg are mentally weak. Mind you, Nick demonstrates this very often, I don’t read most of what Greg posts, because most of it is off point and usually nonsense.

There are many factors not included in GCMs, from cloud to multiple solar effects, and all of the change from those effects are blamed on CO2.

Greg
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2019 1:43 pm

I don’t read most of what Greg posts, because most of it is off point and usually nonsense.

Thanks Mark, good to know we have psychic clairvoyant on board. You claim to know what “most” of my posts are about despite the fact that you don’t read “most” of them. Impressive. Of course not reading most of them will absolve you from the need to cite anything I actually said and make a credible criticism of it. I have to consider such a position “mentally weak”.

“Nick got smashed” . No Nick got a rather vitriolic reply which totally failed to address anything he had written.

Greg
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2019 1:57 pm

Nick Stokes” There is no systematic editing process, let alone review. ”

I never said there was. I was challenging your claim that “anyone can publish anything” in ArcXiv. That is not true. The fact that you are now trying to walk that back instead of replying to my request to state where you get that idea from and are trying divert the question into discussing something different makes it pretty clear you realise you made a false statement but are not honest enough to fess up and admit it.

I welcome your knowledgeable but warmist contributions on WUWT, but that quickly falls apart if you lose integrity.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2019 3:30 pm

Greg,
I acknowledge that my initial statement was inexact, and I provided a better stated version.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 16, 2019 6:22 am

Nick is basically calling this a fraud. The fraud claim rests on the data not being easily available.

Anyone who can get global cloud cover data, or humidity data at the proper altitude can easily replicate this for themselves.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
July 16, 2019 7:52 pm

Mark Pawelek July 16, 2019 at 6:22 am

Nick is basically calling this a fraud. The fraud claim rests on the data not being easily available.

Anyone who can get global cloud cover data, or humidity data at the proper altitude can easily replicate this for themselves.

The issue is NOT that the data is not “easily available”.

The problem is that we have NO IDEA which of the many global cloud cover datasets he used, or which humidity dataset he is working with. We also have no clue what he is calling “low clouds”.

If you think that this study can be “easily replicated”, how about you do just that and then come back and tell us your results? I mean, after all, since the replication is “easy”, it shouldn’t take you long to do it.

We’ll wait …

w.

Gwan
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 1:54 pm

100% Samuel Cogar,
I have spent my entire life farming in the country side in New Zealand and have depended on keeping a close eye on the weather from day to day and month to month .
Clear nights in winter ,the temperature drops as the heat from the sun during the day escapes to space and the result is frosts .
Same sunny days and cloud builds up in the late afternoon and the night time temperature stays well above freezing as the suns heat is trapped by the cloud cover .
Elementary my dear Watson .
Cloudy days the temperature never rises to extreme levels as the sun light is reflected back into space by the clouds .
We get a clear night and a frost then a fog comes in and the sun can not push any heat through to heat up the surface and we get a black frost and record cold .
Water vapour is far the most significant driver of temperature around the world and CO2 is very much left on the side line as any affect of increasing CO2 is swamped by clouds and fog .
That is my opinion for what it is worth .
Graham

PJ Moran
Reply to  Gwan
July 12, 2019 5:47 pm

I do wonder about the idea that cloud cover generally as opposed to low cloud cover below 1000 feet, keeps in heat that developed during the day. You give an example where clouds build in the afternoon and the sun has heated the surface before clouds develop. Clouds that develop in the afternoon tend to be high and continue to move higher as the evaporation form the surface moves through the cycle. The adiabatic lapse rate for temperature is about 3 degree F per thousand feet. So surface water that was heated and evaporates will drop 30 degrees per 10,000 feet it rises. On warmer days and in summer afternoon clouds are often at 25,000 to 35,000 feet and temperatures in those clouds often are below freezing. Of course, in summer we do see clouds as high as 65,000 and clouds in the 40,000 feet are seen regularly. I can’t recall ever being at 25-30,000 feet where the OAT was higher than about -10 F in clear air. In winter at 35,000 feet the OAT is usually below -30 F even in clear air. I’m flying out of Texas and rarely go further north than Indiana. Although inversion occur, they are rare and ground fogs with low lying clouds tend to be in transitional seasons, mostly March through May in Texas. Even without addressing rain as a surface cooling process, clouds seems primarily a cooling process that does not only afford ‘shade’ below to the surface and rising air/water from blocking afternoon solar ‘rays’ but ‘pulling’ and dispersing surface heat from below. Even thin clouds and possibly aircraft contrails suggest a role in ‘cooling’. None of our computer simulations seem to be able to account for the functioning of clouds, though the Russian model is doing something that makes it the only model to run with reality. And what about wind ….

Bernard Lodge
Reply to  Gwan
July 13, 2019 7:42 am

Gwan,

You say “the night time temperature stays well above freezing as the suns heat is trapped by the cloud cover”

Clouds are invisible water vapor condensing into visible water droplets. It is the latent heat released from the condensing that warms the earth below the clouds, not ‘reflected IR’ from the surface.

wadelightly
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 4:19 pm

So Samuel, what is DRIVING cloud cover? That was Nicks point which you did not address in your rant. Care to try again?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  wadelightly
July 13, 2019 4:23 am

wadelightly – July 12, 2019 at 4:19 pm

So Samuel, what is DRIVING cloud cover? That was Nicks point which you did not address in your rant. Care to try again?

Wadelightly, …… jumping into a discussion you know nothing about, just to offer your silly criticisms, makes you look quite foolish.

Iffen you ACTUALLY want to know ….. “what is DRIVING cloud cover?”, ….. then re-read, … with comprehension, ….. Nick’s original statement, to wit:

[Nick Stokes – July 12, 2019 at 2:44 am] “But anyway, cloud cover is not itself a driver. It (cloud cover) actually responds to temperature, among other things.

“DUH”, clouds, etc., are both a “driver” and a ”responder” to temperature. And that is why, in my per se “rant”, I specifically stated that …. “Clouds, fogs and mists act as a unidirectional buffer to both the incoming solar energy and the re-radiated IR energy from the earth’s surface.

CloudMind
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 18, 2019 7:15 am

I am no scientist but sometimes you’ve got to look at the bleeding obvious evidence right over your head. I live inland NW US. Humidity in the Summer here is usually low. Standing on the ground in my backyard where I usually am, it is not uncommon to get a 20 degree drop in temperature when a large cloud full of water blocks out the Suns Ray’s. The temp difference just with that one cloud is very notable for just that brief moment with one cloud.

Prjindigo
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:18 am

Heat input causing evaporation drives cloud cover… which reduces heat input to things that evaporate. It is literally just as stable as gravity at sea level regulating convection.

F1nn
Reply to  Prjindigo
July 12, 2019 6:06 am

Lika a good thermostat should.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Prjindigo
July 12, 2019 11:43 am

“Heat input causing evaporation drives cloud cover”

Yes, but other things also drive cloud cover. For example: oil pollution of the surface will reduce wave breaking which will produce fewer salt aerosols on which clouds form; oil-smoothed surfaces will engage less with the wind leading to less stirring and less food for plankton; oil-smoothed surfaces reduce turbulence which lofts the moist air less readily to the condensation height; an increase in dissolved silica run-off will feed the spring diatom bloom for longer, delaying the phytoplankton bloom and thus delaying the production of dimethyl sulphide, a great source of CCNs.

To see how aerosol numbers affect cloud cover Google ‘NASA ship tracks’.

Cloud cover is driven, among other causes, by heat input.

JF

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Julian Flood
July 12, 2019 12:08 pm

so no clouds in the Antarctic I guess …

Greg
Reply to  Julian Flood
July 12, 2019 12:36 pm

Yes, that is part of the problem with this rather lightweight paper.

Discovering that there is a relation between humidity and temperature probable belongs in the 19th century.

It rather misses the point of what causes the change in temperature, which I think was Nick’s main point.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Greg
July 13, 2019 12:07 pm

What irks about people like you is, the litany of junk papers that make it to Nature and the rest, that you and Nick appear to miss with criticisms.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
July 13, 2019 1:49 pm

If you read “most of” my posts instead of claiming to know what I write while not reading them, you would know that I am very critical of most of the junk which gets posted under the heading of climate science and have heavily critcised Nature’s blatantly anti-science” policy decision not accept ANY papers skeptical of AGW, irrespective of content or scientific merit.

In short you are talking out of your backside and seem to mainly be “irked” by the fact in some way sided with Nick Stokes … without even saying I agreed with him.

Prjindigo
Reply to  Julian Flood
July 12, 2019 2:50 pm

Yeah, bout that… evaporation works differently since 2015. Tho technically long chain hydrocarbons on the ion tensor increases transrelativity of lower frequency temporal energy bubbles.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Prjindigo
July 12, 2019 3:44 pm

Oh, do you mean that new carbonated evaporation they’re selling? 🙄

Javier
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:19 am

Yes, this must be some type of joke. Is it April, 1st already?
That’s not a paper but a pamphlet. They don’t even say where they got the data. And the problem with clouds is that we are terrible at measuring them.

This doesn’t deserve an article.

Editor
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 8:46 am

Javier –
1. It does appear to be a paper, albeit a non-peer-reviewed one.
2. It looks like they do cite their data sources by reference numbers – [2] etc – but I haven’t checked.
3. Something which everyone seems to have missed (apologies if someone has stated this, but I didn’t see it): The paper uses circular logic. They derive the figure “-0.11 deg C” from the relationship between temperature and cloud cover, so they cannot use that figure to determine how much of the observed warming was naturally caused by changes in cloud cover.

Javier
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 12, 2019 9:34 am

Appearances can be deceiving.
– No methods section and no data sources, so it is not reproducible.
– All the references but two are to themselves.
– It doesn’t even use scientific language. “In addition, this paper proves that the changes in cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.” It obviously doesn’t prove such thing. A correlation doesn’t prove anything except that there is a correlation.

This work can be safely ignored, and it will be.

If there is something more pathetic than climate science is most of skeptic climate science. And WUWT readers that complain so loudly about the lack of quality of climate science are surprisingly cheerful of even worse, clearly wrongful, skeptic climate science like this piece. If it can be even called science.

It is about time that skeptics accept what other skeptics have been saying all along, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, as we have produced double the amount required for the increase, converting all natural carbon stores into sinks for the other half.

Mr.
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 11:31 am

Javier, if you’re saying that in the proper scientific method – “one size fits all”, I totally agree.

(“One science fits all” ?)

Kenji
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 2:31 pm

Javier … please explain to this novice WHY climate science has not performed robust investigation of cloud/H2O influence on climate, but have focused exclusively on Co2? Please give me a scientific reasoning for that.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 4:25 pm

Kenji,

Climate is very complex, and we can’t do clouds very well. Cloud cover is three-dimensional and has a continuous variability from very light clouds that can’t be distinguished in satellite pictures yet must have some effect to heavy clouds that have different effects at different altitudes, and they can be made of ice or water and have different effects at night or at different hours during the day.

So nobody knows what clouds are doing with sufficient precision or what effect they have. There are obviously articles dealing with changes in precipitable water, which are related to clouds, but even that is confusing, as precipitable water over oceans appears to be increasing, but the situation over land is unclear, and it might be decreasing.

Why CO2 is favored as an explanation? Because most scientists believe that is the main cause of the warming, so they have no incentive to look for a different cause. But that is how science works. The only problem in my opinion is that dissenting scientists are being silenced since climate became a politically charged issue. That is what is disrupting the normal scientific process. Journals and editorials are gatekeeping, scientists are not being fair as reviewers, committees are not allocating funds, universities are not appointing positions. Being a skeptic scientist is personally and professionally damaging to most.

Kenji
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 7:45 pm

Thank you, Javier for that explanation. However, I still don’t quite understand the piling-on Co2 as the ONLY progenitor of Global Warming because “that is how science works”. When I look at the science of cancer research, perhaps the most difficult of all scientific/medical problems to solve … I see multiple directions of research from immunotherapy to genetic markers. The research is literally looking at every possible source and trigger of a highly complicated disease that manifests in so many different forms and attacks different organs. Certainly as complicated as clouds? The complications don’t dissuade the research.

Yet … ONLY Co2 … is studied as a “cause” of Global Warming. It wouldn’t have anything to do with access to research Grant funding … would it?

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Javier
July 13, 2019 1:24 am

It is about time that skeptics accept what other skeptics have been saying all along, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, as we have produced double the amount required for the increase, converting all natural carbon stores into sinks for the other half.

So what? You are changing the subject.

We have an increase of CO2 in the air. IMNSHO the source doesn’t matter except when we need to do something about it. But we don’t. All is fine with more CO2.

If you disagree, prove it.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Javier
July 13, 2019 3:53 am

Javier:
“This work can be safely ignored, and it will be.
If there is something more pathetic than climate science is most of skeptic climate science. And WUWT readers that complain so loudly about the lack of quality of climate science are surprisingly cheerful of even worse, clearly wrongful, skeptic climate science like this piece. If it can be even called science.”

Sounds like an alarmist prejudiced rant against most sceptical science, talk about wrongful. Given a decline in low cloud cover since the mid 1990’s, it would be your comment that can be safely ignored, along with your unscientific solar predictions for the next few hundred years.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 6:55 am

Please explain to me why the central idea in climate science – the basic greenhouse gas effect model – descended from Manabe & Wetherald, 1967 has:
— never been tested nor validated.
— has no falsifiability criteria
— is written down nowhere in a canonical scientific form but everywhere are pseudo-scientific poetry “CO2 traps heat”
— makes absurd assumptions which defy known physics (including 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)
— does not take account of the real behaviour of CO2 in absorption/emission of infrared radiation
— is entirely unsupported by observational evidence.

When you can answer my points I might believe the whole of so-called climate “science” is not post-normal science, or just activist ranting with numbers.

Tom Moriarty
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 10:17 am

From Cornell University (www.library.cornell.edu/arxiv)…

“ArXiv
The world’s premier e-print repository in physics, math, computer science and related disciplines enabling scientists worldwide to share and access research before it is formally published. Cornell University Library has provided operational support and stewardship for this open-access service since 2001. A planning grant from the Simons Foundation facilitated the development of a sustainability model with input from a wide range of stakeholders to position arXiv as a collaboratively governed, community-supported resource and to strengthen arXiv’s technical, service, financial and policy infrastructure, The Simons Foundation has also provided funding to encourage matching institutional contributions. http://arxiv.org

By the above squote I am neither endorsing nor rejecting this particular article. But please don’t reject it because it is from ArXiv.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:25 am

How credible is the peer review process if those who preview an article do not attach their names to the article? How credible is the peer review process when there is no way to discredit reviewers and publishers of shoddy and inaccurate work and to hold them accountable? How credible is the peer review process when journals benefit financially and where those who are part of the science community old boys club receive preference when having their work accepted?

The best I have seen are open source publications with articles that have a couple of brief peer reviews – some pretty critical – attached with details of the reviewers and relevant comments welcomed. The day I see this widely adopted for climate articles is the day I will begin to give more credibility to articles by those who are climate alarmists and begin to seriously look at their claims.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 12, 2019 5:03 am

“The best I have seen are open source publications with articles that have a couple of brief peer reviews – some pretty critical – attached with details of the reviewers and relevant comments welcomed. The day I see this widely adopted for climate articles is the day I will begin to give more credibility to articles by those who are climate alarmists and begin to seriously look at their claims.”

you mean like this

https://www.climate-of-the-past.net/

WBWilson
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 7:31 am

Thanks for the link, Mosher. Good site, good articles.

Max Dupilka
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 10:40 am

For Meteorology

http://ejssm.org/index.html

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:38 am

Of course changes in low cloud cover drive changes in temperature. The changes in cloud cover are driven by ocean phases, which change inversely to changes in the solar wind.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616300360

rah
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:45 am

According to the preponderance of evidence it appears that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans responds to temperature. So I guess by your definition that CO2 “is not it’s self a driver”.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  rah
July 12, 2019 9:34 am

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

Guest
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:46 am

It’s unfair to ArXiv, to characterize it so. Generally the quality of papers is quite strong. There is a reasonable screening process.

I have no idea about this paper – however I can see how peer review in conventional climate science would not be favorable.

Another Paul
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:49 am

“well, what is driving cloud cover.” Well, what is driving ENSO? Is there even a clue.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Another Paul
July 12, 2019 7:24 am

The MJO.

Another Paul
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 12, 2019 10:22 am

“The MJO.” Thanks Robert, would you happen to have a link?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 13, 2019 5:03 pm

I am not exactly saying I doubt there is any such thing as a Madden Julian Oscillation, but for something that is supposed to be a well defined pattern of rain travelling around the globe, there is a paucity of visual documentation.
By that I mean I have tried for years to find one single video time lapse of the actual thing described, seen from space, travelling around the globe.
Animations, descriptions, talk of how it is poorly defined some years, it fades out in parts of the Eastern Pacific, it is mostly only evident in the Western Indian to mid-Pacific ocean…
In other words…if it is so well defined, why is it not visible on radar or satellite pictures?
Or is this simply the only well known and well understood phenomenon of the surface of the Earth which no one has ever bothered to make a video of?
Discussions of it typically start by proclaiming it effects of even controls everything from polar vortexes, tropical cyclones, monsoons, snow in Boston…Hell, the list includes everything, so let’s just say it controls pert near everything, but no one can actually point to it except in simulations.
Just sayin’.

Javier
Reply to  Another Paul
July 12, 2019 9:56 am

Solar activity

Another Paul
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 10:25 am

“Solar activity” Thanks Javier, so far it’s MJO or the Sun. A link to any reference material would be good.

Javier
Reply to  Another Paul
July 12, 2019 11:33 am

Or both, as the MJO is itself affected by solar activity:
Hood, L. L. (2017). QBO/solar modulation of the boreal winter Madden‐Julian oscillation: A prediction for the coming solar minimum. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(8), 3849-3857.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL072832

The link between solar activity and ENSO is a classic one, already reported by Anderson in 1990:
Anderson, R. Y. (1990). Solar-cycle modulations of ENSO: a possible source of climatic change.
http://aquaticcommons.org/15567/1/Roger%20Y.%20Anderson.pdf

Theodor Landscheit was capable of predicting several events in 2000, but he passed away soon after and was completely ignored:
Landscheidt, T. (2000). Solar forcing of El Niño and La Niña. In The solar cycle and terrestrial climate, solar and space weather (Vol. 463, p. 135).
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000ESASP.463..135L
(the double point kills the link. Copy and paste)

I have studied the issue in detail myself, and there is no doubt.
comment image
The chances of La Niña conditions after the solar minimum when solar activity is rapidly increasing are very high, and the probability of not being due to chance are of 99.3% according to the Montecarlo simulations.

Greg
Reply to  Another Paul
July 12, 2019 12:56 pm

I have studied the issue in detail myself, and there is no doubt.

In detail? Where’s that detail. If it is that clear, why do you not write it up in more scientific terms? A graph where someone shades in the bits he likes to guide the eye is one of my red flags for claiming correlation where none exists.

This inevitably leads to conscious or unconscious cherry picking. Provide a mathematical rule for drawing those coloured bands and post what that looks like. That may be more convincing.

I’m not saying you are wrong about that correlation, it seem perfectly plausible, but I need something objective to convince me, not hand drawn coloured bands.

WBO modulating MJO + seasaonal cherry pick ? Two poorly define pseudo-oscillations modulating one another … in the winter only.

I’m sure there is a Latin name for that but I can think of a couple or English terms.

Javier
Reply to  Another Paul
July 12, 2019 2:19 pm

Greg, I already posted the data in a thread at WUWT where you participated.

I use the ONI (Oceanic Niño Index) from NOAA:
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
And the monthly smoothed sunspot dataset from SILSO:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_ms_tot_V2.0.txt

I define the period of rapidly increasing solar activity when going from 35% to 80% of solar activity (sunspots) for each cycle.

My 35-80% upslope sunspot comes with an average ONI value of -0.649, which is full fledged La Niña.

Here is the data:
Month Sunspots ONI
SC19 35-80%
1955.874 103.5 -1.7
1955.958 114.8 -1.5
1956.042 125.8 -1.1
1956.124 139.4 -0.8
1956.206 154.7 -0.6
1956.29 168.1 -0.5
1956.373 180.4 -0.5
1956.456 193.9 -0.5
1956.54 206.1 -0.6
1956.624 211.8 -0.6
1956.708 214.5 -0.5
1956.791 220.6 -0.4
1956.874 226 -0.4
SC20 35-80%
1966.538 71.4 0.2
1966.623 80.3 0.1
1966.707 89.5 -0.1
1966.79 95.8 -0.1
1966.874 99.4 -0.2
1966.958 103 -0.3
1967.042 106.2 -0.4
1967.123 111.6 -0.5
1967.204 116.5 -0.5
1967.288 119.8 -0.4
1967.371 123.9 -0.2
SC21 35-80%
1978.204 98.7 0.1
1978.288 109 -0.2
1978.371 117.8 -0.3
1978.455 126.6 -0.3
1978.538 138 -0.4
1978.623 147.3 -0.4
1978.707 153.6 -0.4
1978.79 157.3 -0.3
1978.874 160.4 -0.1
1978.958 166.7 0
1979.042 175.2 0
1979.123 185.4 0.1
SC22 35-80%
1988.206 84.9 0.1
1988.29 93 -0.3
1988.373 101.4 -0.9
1988.456 114.3 -1.3
1988.54 128.5 -1.3
1988.624 141.1 -1.1
1988.708 151.2 -1.2
1988.791 156.9 -1.5
1988.874 164.4 -1.8
SC23 35-80%
1998.204 72 1.4
1998.288 76.9 1
1998.371 80.8 0.5
1998.455 85.4 -0.1
1998.538 89.8 -0.8
1998.623 93.5 -1.1
1998.707 96.4 -1.3
1998.79 98.2 -1.4
1998.874 102.3 -1.5
1998.958 110.4 -1.6
1999.042 118.4 -1.5
1999.123 122.5 -1.3
1999.204 122.3 -1.1
1999.288 125 -1
1999.371 132.6 -1
1999.455 136.3 -1
1999.538 138.1 -1.1
1999.623 142.9 -1.1
SC24 35-80%
2010.958 42.5 -1.6
2011.042 45.7 -1.4
2011.123 48.8 -1.1
2011.204 53.8 -0.8
2011.288 61.1 -0.6
2011.371 69.3 -0.5
2011.455 77.2 -0.4
2011.538 83.6 -0.5
2011.623 86.3 -0.7
2011.707 86.6 -0.9
2011.79 87.4 -1.1
2011.874 89.4 -1.1
2011.958 92.5 -1
Average ONI -0.648684211

With the data above, my 100,000 Monte Carlo runs analysis with the average of six random 12-continuous-month periods in the ONI dataset only came below -0.64868 in 0.696%, significant at p<0.01.

The occurrence of La Niña when there is a 35-80% increase in solar cycle activity is not due to random.

Solar variability control of ENSO is a fact. Given the importance of ENSO to tropical climate we can say that solar variability is an important climatic factor.

I am predicting La Niña conditions when solar activity reaches its upslope phase. I estimate that could happen before the year is over, but more certainly by next year, depending on when the solar minimum actually takes place.

Reply to  Another Paul
July 12, 2019 4:48 pm

Javier, I tried to replicate that but I could not. The problem is that if you draw lines at 35% and 80% of the sunspot peaks on the upslope, you don’t get all months between those because the monthly sunspot record goes up and down. Here’s the first cycle showing what I mean.

You can see the problem.

Also, how are you determining the “peak” of the sunspot cycle when there is often a double peak?

Regards,

w.

Javier
Reply to  Another Paul
July 13, 2019 2:30 am

Willis,

If you are trying to replicate what I did you should start by using the same sunspot database I used, which was linked in the comment.

This is the monthly smoothed sunspot number, that has less noise. It is the red line in the SILSO figure:
http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfjmms.png

And the highest value is used as 100%, even if it is in a second peak as in SC24. The 35-80% values always define the rapid increase at the start of the cycle.

Reply to  Another Paul
July 13, 2019 10:44 am

Javier July 13, 2019 at 2:30 am

Willis,

If you are trying to replicate what I did you should start by using the same sunspot database I used, which was linked in the comment.

This is the monthly smoothed sunspot number, that has less noise. It is the red line in the SILSO figure:
http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfjmms.png

Sorry, I missed that because it never crossed my mind that anyone would actually use smoothed data as input to a formula. It’s a huge statistical no-no.

The first problem is that the autocorrelation of such data is through the roof.

The second problem is the Slutsky-Yule effect. Look it up if you’re not familiar with it.

The third is that the smoothing filter used, a 13-month boxcar filter, is generally a very poor choice because it often inverts peaks and valleys.

The fourth is that you are introducing a new tunable parameter into your data, the smoothing length … so you’ll need to apply the Bonferroni correction to any results.

Please see here for details from someone who does statistics for a living, and here for a discussion with examples of the problems.

And the highest value is used as 100%, even if it is in a second peak as in SC24. The 35-80% values always define the rapid increase at the start of the cycle.

Unfortunately, even with the smoothed data, I get the same problem that I demonstrated above, where the smoothed line goes above and below the 35% and 80% lines.

w.

Javier
Reply to  Another Paul
July 13, 2019 12:15 pm

Willis,

All those silly objections indicate that you have not understood the issue. I don’t know if you are being obtuse on purpose. The sunspot data is used only to define the periods when solar activity is rapidly increasing at the beginning of the cycle in a consistent manner between cycles. It is irrelevant if the sunspot data is smoothed or not, because the analysis involves only the Niño data (ONI) at certain times versus at all other times.

The fact remains that the ONI values during the periods:
1955.8-1956.8
1966.5-1967.3
1978.2-1979.1
1988.2-1988.8
1998.2-1999.6
2010.9-2011.9
These periods are chosen on solar activity criteria, and they have an average ONI of -0.65 that cannot be explained by random chance. By choosing 6 similar contiguous periods at random such low ONI value is only obtained 0.7% of the time.

I cannot make it any simpler. If you still don’t understand I pass.

Greg
Reply to  Another Paul
July 13, 2019 2:46 pm

Thanks for the reply Javier but this 35-80% had nothing to do with the graph you posted above and which I was commenting on. That seems to be talking about early vs late solar min.

https://imgur.com/mfCuhAt

Since the periods derived from 35-80% are not 12mo periods that makes your MC comparison a bit pointless. Another tuning parameter is the choice of those limits. They hardly seem like arbitrary values. Did you have to play with several different ranges before finding the result you expected. This smells strongly of p-hacking.

If you have already explained all this before why not at least link to the thread? Was it also poorly received? I would expect that if I was involved in that discussion my comments would have been of a similar nature.

Now my gut feeling would be to expect something like more El Ninos around solar min and more La Nina around max. so I’m not against this kind of hypothesis and would not be surprised if there is something of this kind. But I am critical of the way you are doing it because, like Willis, I do not think it is legit and thus does not show anything one way or the other.

Also ONI is another of these damned sliding averages which adds noise to the data. That will tend to reduce any real effect there may be. If they do not provide “unsmoothed” version, I would suggest going back to the underlying Nino 3.4 record.

Probably what you should be randomising for the MC is the %age points for the interval.
You may even find a complementary result for more El Ninos vs SSN.

Javier
Reply to  Another Paul
July 13, 2019 4:37 pm

Since the periods derived from 35-80% are not 12mo periods that makes your MC comparison a bit pointless.

Quite the contrary. If ENSO is dependent on solar activity as it appears, then the correct comparison is by phase of the solar cycle. As solar cycles do not have the same length and can go from 9 to 13 years, their phases don’t have the same length either. The best way to compare different solar cycles is by dividing the cycles into the same number of parts, regardless of their duration. The 35-80% activity phase has an average duration of 12 months, but can be slightly shorter or longer depending on the cycle.

When aligned in such way, the average ONI value of the 35-80% phase is incredibly negative. You can slice that any way you want, but the conclusion is clear and statistically significant. It is not due to random chance as it would be if there was no connection between solar activity and ENSO.

To make matters even more improbable to be due to random chance, the period leading to the solar minimum also has a very high ONI value indicative of the presence of El Niño conditions at a frequency much much higher than random chance alone would allow.

I have no interest in convincing anybody of what my analysis shows. I haven’t written an article on it yet and I don’t care if it is convincing to you or Willis or not. I offer what I see and learn to others in case they are interested. The ENSO-solar connection has been published multiple times as the bibliography above indicates. It appears the world is not ready for it yet, like it was not ready for Wegener’s continental drift in 1920.

Discussing complex subjects in WUWT is now pointless as figures can’t be displayed. It’s like a digital stone age place. I don’t bother any longer.

Greg
Reply to  Another Paul
July 15, 2019 4:41 am

Thanks Javier. It is not a case of convincing Willis or myself but you should be able to address technical challenges, whoever brings them up. ( That is why services like Arxiv exists. It’s not peer reviewed but provides an initial airing where interested parties can contact authors to refute, question or improve prior to formal publishing. )

Quite the contrary. If ENSO is dependent on solar activity as it appears, then the correct comparison is by phase of the solar cycle.

That is exactly the problem. You start with a “result” then try to justify it. That is what has been wrong climatology for the last 40 years.

The null hypothesis is that solar cycle has no effect on ENSO , you should then run an unconditional test to see whether you can dismiss the null, not chose a segment you think matches ENSO in order to stay up your hunch.

I agree that the lack of images on WUWT now makes comments a lot more boring and hinders technical discussions. I’ve complained on the contacts page, anyone else who regrets the lack of image posting for comments should do the same.

I have no idea why this was done but it seems Anthony has relatively little to do with running the show now and has delegated.

Yawrate
Reply to  Javier
July 12, 2019 1:27 pm

You win.

Wilson Dawson
Reply to  Yawrate
July 13, 2019 4:03 am

I read somewhere that Florida State researchers theorize that fewer sunspots result in more hurricanes. The sunspot and UV activity being less, the upper atmosphere isnt warmed by heated ozone, and the system becomes unstable with cold over warm. That was the theory in a nutshell.
I studied chemistry and pharmacy, so this is not my area. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on this theory.

Carly
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:54 am

“well, what is driving cloud cover.”

Ask Henrik Svensmark.

ATheoK
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 4:04 am

Not “peer-reviewed”; boohoo, whine, whimper, boohoo!

Cease and desist with the whining about the corrupt choked constipated useless “peer-reviewed” process.

That whine and whimper goes for the rest of your comment, too.

beng135
Reply to  ATheoK
July 12, 2019 8:34 am

Agree. Disagree w/the post? Go for it, but be specific & stop playing the “pal review” card. Pal review for “climate science” has been corrupted for decades now. Look at the nonsense that comes out of it constantly.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  beng135
July 13, 2019 5:15 pm

It is meaningless. It has nothing to do with veracity or verification.
It is a sort of proof reading that was deliberately hijacked by the climate science mafia, as revealed in the climate gate emails, in order to blockade publication of anything deemed inconvenient or contrary.
It has nothing to do with the scientific method, and was never meant to.
It merely has to do with how literature is published.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 12, 2019 1:19 pm

One thing peer review does do is make sure you state your data source.

Latus Dextro
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 15, 2019 3:11 am

Peer review in the considered domain is as objective as the revolutionary courts in the French Revolution. Fortunately, Dr Guillotine is no longer with us.

SteveW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 18, 2019 2:44 am

“…Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?…”

Yep, peer review certainly ensures the sharing/publishing of the data required for replication…

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 4:34 am

peervreviewed? Lol like that means anything any more.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Bob boder
July 12, 2019 9:36 am

Unless, of course, you’re defending your religious dogma against the heretics. In which case it’s critical.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 6:26 am

Are you able to put me, & other doubting Thomas’s, in touch with a peer (not pal) reviewed source that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt, as to why the previous four Interglacials dating back 500,000 years, were warmer than today without the Human emissions of CO2? Much appreciated!

Gwan
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 13, 2019 12:22 am

100%Alan the Brit
Graham

ironargonaut
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 7:07 am

el Nino? Which begs question what drives el Nino. el Nino seems to be able to change the temperature of the earth by a century of warming in just one year.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 7:37 am
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 12, 2019 2:03 pm

The abstract of that paper, which might be the source, says:
“An analysis of cloud amounts in two higher altitude bands shows that they, and the surface temperature, are roughly in phase with each other. The suggested mechanism to explain this result is that a warming of the Earth’s surface causes low clouds to rise and to be reclassified in the next upper category. “
IOW, the low cloud cover change is a response to temperature, not a driver.

But it also makes clear that it is a classification issue – what is low? These authors have nothing to say on that.

John Tillman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 4:00 pm

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C1883%3AVILCCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

LCC is defined as the portion of the sky covered by clouds whose base heights are below two kilometers.

Reply to  John Tillman
July 12, 2019 5:57 pm

But how do you know that is the definition these authors are using? They don’t say.

jarves
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 5:13 pm

Authors ( Kauppinen & Malmi ) make it more clear in their other paper:

MAJOR FEEDBACK FACTORS AND EFFECTS OF THE CLOUD
COVER AND THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON THE CLIMATE

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.11547.pdf

“On the other hand, the sun and the change in the vegetation are probably
controlling most of the changes in cloudiness and humidity.”

“Using our theory we are able to calculate the change of G ( proportionality coefficient ) and R ( sensitivity ) due to the change of the low cloud cover and the relative humidity. These changes indicate changes of the water mass flow. Most of water is condensating at the altitude of low cloud cover, see Fig. 9. That is why we use the observed changes of the low
cloud cover and the corresponding changes of the relative humidity at 700 mbar
and 850 mbar. The result is that a 1 % change in the low cloud cover changes the
temperature by −0.11◦C. This result is in very good agreement with the paper by
S.H. Schneider [14].”

jarves
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 5:35 pm

A_wa_it_ing mo_de_ra_tion kills the fun / hypertexting.

Authors ( Kauppinen & Malmi ) make it more clear in their other paper:

MAJOR FEEDBACK FACTORS AND EFFECTS OF THE CLOUD
COVER AND THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON THE CLIMATE

“On the other hand, the sun and the change in the vegetation are probably
controlling most of the changes in cloudiness and humidity.”

“Using our theory we are able to calculate the change of G ( proportionality coefficient ) and R ( sensitivity ) due to the change of the low cloud cover and the relative humidity. These changes indicate changes of the water mass flow. Most of water is condensating at the altitude of low cloud cover, see Fig. 9. That is why we use the observed changes of the low
cloud cover and the corresponding changes of the relative humidity at 700 mbar and 850 mbar. The result is that a 1 % change in the low cloud cover changes the temperature by −0.11◦C. This result is in very good agreement with the paper by S.H. Schneider [14].”

jarves
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 6:03 pm

More from the above mentioned paper:

“IPCC has used in their estimations for example the results of the paper “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity” by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald [12]. The authors have used in their calculations a heat capacity of air as a heat capacity of the whole atmosphere. The heat capacity of the mere air is about 10 MJ/m2K. However, in a correct calculation we have to use the capacities 10.8 MJ/m2K over land and 325 MJ/m2K over ocean. They have not added the heat capacity of a thin layer of the ground over land and the mixing layer (75 m) of the ocean. Taking into account the fact
that the earth consists of 29 % land and 71 % ocean we can estimate the effective heat capacity of the whole climate. It is about 60 MJ/m2K or six times bigger than the value used by Manabe et al. …”

“… Because they have used only the sixth part of the real heat capacity they obtained six times bigger sensitivity.”

jarves
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 6:13 pm

Moderator(s).

My comments are not getting through.

(Because you had ZERO approvals, it requires a Moderator to make the approval for valid members first comment) SUNMOD

jarves
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 11:09 pm

And yet.

“According to Physics the response time is the product of sensitivity and capacity. …”

“… If the climate sensitivity were the IPCC value ∆T2CO2 ≈ 3.2 ◦C, the warmest time of the year would be around September 15 in the northern hemisphere, but according to the observations it is around July 25. This is a strong proof against the results of the circulation models.”

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 7:47 am

That would be peer review, which The Lancet claims 50% of which is non reproducible and Bayer claims is 75% non reproducible.

And medical research is probably way better than climate science in that respect.

LdB
Reply to  HotScot
July 12, 2019 10:20 am

I have to credit Prof Tommaso Dorigo for this one

10 tips on what to do when “everything else fails in you science theory”.

10. Subtract Infinity
9. Add heavy fermions
8. Set all fermion masses to zero
7. Invent another symmetry
6. Throw it on the lattice
5. Blame it on the Planck scale
4. Recall the success of the SM
3. Invoke the Anthropic Principle
2. Wave hands a lot, speak with a strong accent
1. Manipulate the data

Climate Science has reached stage 2 they have clear paths to follow.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
Reply to  LdB
July 13, 2019 1:41 pm

The climate alarmist ‘scientists’ likely don’t even know what numbers 3 through 10 are, so after confusedly scratching their heads for awhile in trying to figure out 3 through 10, they chucked them and threw all their efforts into numbers 2 and 1.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  LdB
July 16, 2019 7:22 am

11. Blame knuckleheads to think 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is some kind of thing. Discard that pseudo-thing.

Joe Chang
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 7:52 am

There is no argument cloud cover has a large effect on energy input. Average global cloud coverage might be something on order of 56%. A change of 1% could have a 3W/m2. The direct effect of doubling of CO2 is most probably less than this, if not much less, as the claims of C-AGW is based on CO2 + a strong amplification, CO2 by itself being far to weak.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Joe Chang
July 12, 2019 11:47 am

So wouldn’t it be a really good idea to do some blue sky* research on other possible causes of cloud cover reduction?

JF
*Sorry, sorry…

Dan Griswold
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 8:39 am

Peer-review, at best, signifies the paper is strong enough to argue over.
Peer-review says little about ultimate validity.
All you are saying is that the authors aren’t vetted club members.

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Dan Griswold
July 12, 2019 9:12 pm

Dismissing a paper because it has not been properly peer reviewed is an argument based on authority not on the science. What is happening in these comments at WUWT is a form of peer review and should argue the merits of the procedure, the accuracy of the observations and the validity of the interpretation. Proper science does not blow it off because it wasn’t vetted by anonymous critics, it improves procedures, takes more careful measurements and seeks to replicate the results.
Peer review does not validate the findings of a paper, it just sends back or eliminates a lot of useless dreck so that scientists have less meaningless paper to wade through.

Sparky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 9:39 am

Even you Nick,.. can put anything there. Here too i guess,.. Lack of review by the Climate Cult Priesthood is a denial of Cloud Theory with about as much data/facts as 95% of the peer published stuff? IPCC simply dismissed cloud cover saying – -‘we don’t understand it enough, so we disregard.,..”,.. and yet they acknowledge ‘water vapor’/clouds are 80%+ of important GHG’s (as compared to the trace gas C02).

Hum,,,… denying who? what? what’s that again?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 9:41 am

NS
Surely you are familiar with the concept of feedback!

https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-010-electronic-feedback-systems-spring-2013/textbook/MITRES_6-010S13_chap02.pdf

Charles provided an appropriate caveat. Something is not automatically correct just because it manages to get into a peer-reviewed journal. The real reason for publication in a journal is to allow it to be critiqued by real peers, not just gate keepers. Journal publication is big business and it is important for those journals to maintain a reputation. Thus, they tend to be very conservative in what they allow to get set to ink. That means a paper like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity would probably never get published in a ‘prestigious’ journal in today’s world. So-called ‘peer review’ generally keeps the wing nuts out, but it does so at the cost of also suppressing truly revolutionary thinking. That is, it promotes mediocrity and perpetuates the prevailing paradigm.

Jordan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 11:42 am

Nick Stokes: “So a claim that cloud cover is driving temperature immediately invites – well, what is driving cloud cover?”

Not just temperature Nick. Latent heat will have a part to play. So will pressure. In answer to your question, I would suggest enthalpy.

Reply to  Jordan
July 12, 2019 3:42 pm

OK, so what is driving enthalpy?

Jordan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2019 2:59 pm

Why do you assume anything must be “driving” enthalpy?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 11:52 am

A: Radiative forcing. cloud cover is the feedback response controlling further surface insolation.

Conclusion: sensitivity to [GHG] fluctuations of the real climate, not a human-contrived unverified model, is thus low.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 12:11 pm

Nick just showed he is similar to IPCC. Neither has any accurate data on climate sensitivity. They rely on assumptions to calculate forcings which are not accurate.

William Astley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 12:16 pm

Too much whining/arguing, too little content and no interest in the actual subject.

The CO2 warming theory is that humans caused the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 which is not correct and that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will directly cause ‘global’ warming, not a reduction in cloud cover that will in turn cause warming.

A draft paper is useful as the analysis and data are simple as is the conclusion.

This is the referenced peer reviewed paper, by two of the authors, that has the cloud cover data from 1983 to 2008.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.25.2.389?journalCode=eaea

Influence of Relative Humidity and Clouds on the Global Mean Surface Temperature

Jyrki Kauppinen, Jorma Heinonen, Pekka Malmi

….and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. There are a dozen independent observations and analysis results that disprove CAGW and make AGW almost unmeasurable.

Did you forget there is the unexplained paradox that CO2 increased post 2000 yet temperature stopped warming, for example?

Are you aware that atmospheric CO2 changes do not correlate with temperature in the paleo record?

Why was there cooling in the 1970s?

Martin Cropp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 12:54 pm

Nick, Charles
There is an email contact at the bottom of the paper why not send an email to find out.

I know you shouldn’t have to ask, but hey, that’s life.

Denis Ables
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 2:56 pm

It’s a bit more difficult than just cloud cover.

For more details investigate Svensmark’s theory (in part confirmed by CERN). Cosmic rays influence the level of cloud cover. However, sun activity, when stronger, deters some of the cosmic rays from entering the lower atmosphere so less impact developing cloud cover. When there is (on average over an extended duration) lower sun activity, there is more cloud cover which leads to cooling. When sun activity is higher over an extended period there is less cloud cover hence more sunlight reaching the earth’s surface, hence more warmth.

Denis Ables
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 3:08 pm

Check out Svensmark’s well-known theory. It’s really the universe causing our global warming.

Cosmic rays influence the level of cloud cover. But the level of cosmic rays entering the lower atmosphere are controlled by sun activity. When the sun is more active during an extended period it deters some of the cosmic ray entry, so less clouds. Less clouds lead to more sun striking the earth surface, which leads to a warmer period. When the sun is less active during an extended period more cosmic rays enter the lower atmosphere, so more cloud cover (on average), so the earth experiences lower temperature.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Denis Ables
July 13, 2019 11:44 am

The ocean produces the low clouds the Finns claim and Svensmark claims for his cosmic ray theory, during increasing MEI/decreasing Central Pacific OLR conditions, as observed here using figure 10 from Svensmark’s latest paper.

The strong OLR-cloud relationship is plotted here and here.

Cosmic rays exhibit almost no correlation with ISCCP clouds

Clouds (and CO2) are ultimately outcomes of solar cycle TSI variation.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 5:28 pm

The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) jumped to mind as a possible source.

Similar-looking chart here https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Low-level-cloud-cover-estimated-from-ISCCP-and-MODIS-adapted-from-Laken-et-al_fig3_287209825 in which the blue-line is from ISCCP. It took all of about 5 seconds once I hit “search” on google to spot a similar image and a few more seconds to confirm it was very likely from the same source.

You think it would be “hard to assemble?” ISCCP data is readily available here https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/ . Not all climate scientists are challenged when it comes to computers like Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Scott Rutherford historically have been.

John Dowser
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2019 6:26 am

Nick, as for mechanisms, some news reports are linking that more speculative paper to another recent one in Scientific Reports from Yusuke U. et al. “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition”. Which argues for ti being a driver for the East Asian winter monsoon at least.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

John Dowser
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2019 7:26 am

Nick, source for cloud cover seems to me very close or similar to ISCCP output. It’s very dubious not to name the source indeed. This is where peer review can help too 🙂

Any reference to the discussion on uncertainty, in case it’s indeed ISCPP?

Ron
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2019 7:58 am

@Nick Stokes
Satellite data is going back more than 25 years so it is possible to get humidity data for this time period. Though they should tell their data source and processing, I agree.

But your claim that cloud cover reacts to temperature and is not a driver is a conjecture that has not been proven. It could easily be the opposite.

That is my big problem with a lot of things in climate science:

Claiming a causation where there is only correlation and no experiments that discriminate between those two and if there is a causation to figure out in which direction. It’s just poor science if science at all.

David
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2019 7:33 pm

“‘The fact that a paper like this can appear on ArXiv without any sourcing of its data says it all.”

Actually it says nothing. Everyone in physics puts their papers up on the ArXiv. That has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the claims in the paper.

cohenite
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2019 10:40 pm

Really Nick? I read the paper as a critique of IPCC conclusions using the IPCC material and revealing the contradictions in the IPCC material and conclusions. What are you blaming them for: for not using data or code? They used the IPCC data and code didn’t they?

Reply to  cohenite
July 13, 2019 11:35 pm

Cohenite, not sure what paper you’re reading. It does NOT say that they are using “IPCC material”. It does NOT say that they are using “IPCC data and code”.

It does NOT say where they got their cloud data. It says nothing about their code.

Look, I disagree with Nick a reasonable amount, but in this case he’s 100% right. The paper is meaningless because it cannot be replicated.

w.

Kevin Jensen
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 14, 2019 12:05 pm

Where were those clouds during the previous five mass extinctions?

JohnB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 14, 2019 5:32 pm

“But anyway, cloud cover is not itself a driver.”

I keep seeing that stated, but I’ve not seen anyone prove it.

Daniel Agelavu
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 16, 2019 5:29 am

It was published by Nature, get with the program

Robert of Ottawa
July 12, 2019 3:20 am

I would change the word experimental to observational in the headline.

ozspeaksup
July 12, 2019 3:24 am

hope some of you boffins can trek through it..but I hope its ok and gets legs

ozspeaksup
July 12, 2019 3:40 am

!!! this!!!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

finnish and japanese and published in Science Daily journal..
??same/different??

John Tillman
Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 12, 2019 5:16 am

The Japanese study on Asian monsoons was reported in Science Daily, which isn’t a journal of original research but a summary news periodical. Further to confuse matters, the paper was published in Science Reports, which is such a journal.

The Finnish study mentioned is indeed that cited here by the esteemed CTM.

The IPCC itself acknowledges that GCMs can’t actually model clouds, so they’re “parameterized”. That means their effects can be whatever the Planet GIGO computer gamers want or need them to be.

Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 3:44 am

this is funny

get the paper.

Look at the citations. have a laugh.

now go find the data they used?

they give no data, no source for the data.

pretty much a arvix joke

no data. no code. no science. no cookie

Sheri
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 4:45 am

So the same criteria we find in many of the global warming advocate “papers”, Steven.

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  Sheri
July 12, 2019 6:41 am

If that is the case, yes. Steven is not wrong.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Sheri
July 12, 2019 6:45 am

sheri maybe you dont know me.
since 2007 I have said 1 thing
no code. no data. no science.

That’s why I supported Willis in his for FOIA for data
Thats why I FOIAd Jones
Thats why I help organize about 50 or so FOIA requests to CRU

Since 2009 the only people who have denied my requests for data and code’
are skeptics

HotScot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 8:02 am

Asked Michael Mann yet?

Steven Mosher
Reply to  HotScot
July 13, 2019 4:41 am

why? Paleo aint my thing.

you see like willis I dont just randomly ask for data and code to play a gotcha game
I ask for it when I intend to actually use it and investigate it because it is related
to what I study.

some skeptics demand code and data and then never actually look at it.

not me

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 8:27 am

Let’s see those lists.

frankclimate
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 8:53 am

BUT: not all! 😉

Barclay E MacDonald
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 12:04 pm

I can vouch for Mosher on this. I recall agreeing with him, “free the code”.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 2:22 pm

Didn’t Jones say he would rather destroy the data than comply with a FOI?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 5:03 am

Steven Mosher – July 12, 2019 at 3:44 am

Stephen, most any honest person could say the same things about the IPCC Reports and similar “papers” published by CAGW claiming authors, …….. such as paraphrased below, to wit:

this is junk science

get the paper.

Look at the citations.

have a laugh.

now go find the H2O vapor data they used?

they give no H2O vapor data, no source for the H2O vapor data.

pretty much a H2O vapor joke

no H2O vapor data. no H2O vapor code. no H2O vapor science. no H2O vapor cookie

Steven Mosher, …… when all the pro-CAGW per se “experts” close their eyes and their minds to the powerful warming/cooling effect of water (H2O) and/or atmospheric water (H2O) vapor then their scientific credibility is relegated to being lower than whale feces.

F1nn
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 5:30 am

Well, what do you have Steven? Skyhigh blowing models, no science, perhaps? Your broken twisted eliminated data?

You are not funny. Get the paper and wipe your tears.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  F1nn
July 12, 2019 6:47 am

sorry f1
I publish data and code.

F1nn
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 7:13 am

Thank you sir. So it is broken, twisted, and eliminated data. There´s all kinds of everything data, the real one and the IPCC believers wet dreams. The last one is yours.
It must be painful when nature don´t follow your dreams, but don´t worry, it´s not warming. So, who care?

Chris
Reply to  F1nn
July 12, 2019 10:26 pm

F1nn, why are you trolling here and wasting people’s time?

HotScot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 8:04 am

Steven

But you’re not a scientist. Other than being awarded the title by your employer.

LdB
Reply to  HotScot
July 12, 2019 9:42 am

What is even funnier is he is obviously proud of his publications, which rate as little more than junk. It is interesting when looking at the published paperwork of Berkley I can’t find any reference to him other than as a consultant and there is nothing to say that anybody refers to him as a scientist, at this stage it appears to be only his word.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  HotScot
July 12, 2019 10:03 am

And you think the parchment currently given to climate science graduates today is worth more than that? Get serious…

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 6:32 am

Steven, isn’t “no science” far better than “outright incorrect and misleading science” such as that presented in the IPCC ARs?

ironargonaut
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 12, 2019 7:18 am

It’s the same thing. Ie make it up as you go. Bias this way bias that way what difference does it make. Two wrongs don’t make right. But two “rights” make a plane. 😉

Bob boder
Reply to  ironargonaut
July 12, 2019 9:57 am

What exactly is a scientist?

I don’t have a ton of respect for Mosher any more, but he does do the Science thing, so in my book he is a scientist, some of the greatest scientist in history are not classically trained as such, frankly most great scientific discoveries came from people who weren’t classically trained.

Please leave the personal attacks and slandering to the experts like Griff.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 10:30 am

Why should I give sources of data and code if you are only going try and find something wrong with it
Michael Mann

Reply to  Bryan A
July 12, 2019 12:53 pm

Source?

clipe
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 2:26 pm

Why should I give sources of data and code if you are only going try and find something wrong with it
Michael Mann Phil Jones

https://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-have-25-years-invested-in-this-work/

Reply to  Bryan A
July 12, 2019 1:54 pm

Not Michael Mann. That was Phil Jones replying to Warwick Hughes:

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ”

w.

SOURCE

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 12, 2019 4:10 pm

That was the moment I became a skeptic. Any real scientist would have said “Here’s my data. Study it, investigate it , marvel at it! Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.”

You can’t find something wrong with something that has nothing wrong with it.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 12, 2019 4:02 pm

That wasn’t Mann, it was Phil Jones of the CRU

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 12:08 pm

When Mosher says the same about IPCC I may start to agree. IPCC has NO MEASUREMENTS of any amount of temperature change caused by CO2.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2019 12:22 pm

Yeah but….
it made DrudgeReport via an InfoWars link.

Climate change stopped being about science, ethics, and honesty back around 1995 when Ben Santer got away with his attribution edit dishonesty. Been downhill ever since.

Nothing but messaging and perception now. Why there has been such a rise in “climate communications” programs at universities to cash in on new age scientism of post-modern science consensus. 1984 stuff.

Bill Marsh
Editor
July 12, 2019 3:48 am

The title, as written, is 100% correct and is a perfect example of Daniel Dennett’s ‘deepity’ or a ‘Troll’s Truism’ (troll in this title does not refer to the now ubiquitous ‘internet troll’) coined by Nicholas Shackel of Oxford.

Willem Jan Goossen
July 12, 2019 3:50 am

Mmmm… NOT Peer Reviewed is an given, because it would never get passed the Gate Keepers of the High Church of Climate Change. I think this is the beginning of the end, the first “serious” climate scientist are dropping evidence that will prove in the coming colder times, that they tried to tell the truht, but… It is called …”…leaving the sinking ship”

INGIMUNDUR S KJARVAL
Reply to  Willem Jan Goossen
July 12, 2019 6:48 am

Ditto.

Edim
July 12, 2019 3:56 am

”But anyway, cloud cover is not itself a driver. It actually responds to temperature, among other things. So a claim that cloud cover is driving temperature immediately invites – well, what is driving cloud cover.”

Nick, you don’t know that cloud cover is not itself a driver. What is your evidence? What about the variability in latitudinal cloud cover, not to mention seasonal/diurnal? Any research on that? Science does not have to know everything immediately. Some things remain unknown until new evidence is found.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Edim
July 12, 2019 9:45 am

”But anyway, atmospheric CO2 level is not itself a driver. It actually responds to temperature, among other things. So a claim that atmospheric CO2 level is driving temperature immediately invites – well, what is driving atmospheric CO2 level.”

There – fixed it for him! Amazing what he could figure out using HIS OWN LOGIC if he merely removed the blinders…

Reply to  Edim
July 12, 2019 12:59 pm

“What is your evidence?”
To say something is a driver means that you can predict what will happen to it without having to take a whole lot of other variables into account. CO2 is currently a driver because it is produced by our mining and burning, which are not in turn dependent on latent heat, cosmic rays or whatever. In the same way, volcanic CO2 is a driver; there just isn’t nearly as much of it. But if all you have is an association, you can’t identify a driver.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 4:17 pm

Nick,

Wouldn’t a “driver” have to be a primary and PROVABLE cause of some result? It’s not what happens to it that should be predictable, but what effect it causes by its increase and decrease.

Reply to  James A Schrumpf
July 12, 2019 5:30 pm

To be a driver, it has to be primary. “Low cloud” here fails that basic test. Once you can identify a driver, you can argue about what it is driving.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 10:31 pm

Thanks, Nick. Here’s the problem with that. You’d think that say the amount of sunshine actually absorbed by the surface would be a “primary driver” in your terms. The more sunshine is absorbed, the more the surface temperature would rise. Simple physics, as fools often say about the climate …

Here is the correlation of surface absorption of solar energy and temperature.

Now, you’d think that as the amount of sunshine absorbed by the surface increases, the temperature would also increase. And in many parts of the world, including virtually all of the land, that’s true. So the sun is clearly driving the temperature …

But over much of the tropical ocean, when the amount of sunshine absorbed increases, the temperature actually decreases …

Obviously, as the temperature rises in those parts of the world, it acts to rearrange the clouds in such a way as to DECREASE the amount of sunshine hitting the surface.

So who is driving who here?

As I said before, in many parts of the climate system there is no “cause and effect”, there’s just what I call a “chain of effects”.

And I fear that hopelessly muddies up your simplistic definition of what is a “driver” …

w.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2019 12:40 am

Willis,
I think that illustrates what I was saying, which is really about the meaning of the word. A driver has to be what economists would call exogenous. It is something that varies in a measurable way that doesn’t seem to be a consequence on other variables in the system. In your system, one might think that over land, absorption depends more on surface albedo, which would be exogenous. And there, yes, it seems to drive temperature there.

Over oceans, especially tropical, there may well be an interaction as you describe. So there it can’t be said to be exogenous, and so isn’t a driver there.

That ambiguity is seen with Arctic albedo. It is reduced if snow or ice melts due to warming. That is a feedback. But it may also reduce because of blackening (carbon) due to pollution. That would be exogenous, a driver.

My point in this thread is that low cloud variation fails the test of being exogenous (primary), even if it correlates with temperature.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 12, 2019 5:14 pm

IPCC associates clouds with radiative forcing. And NOAA here https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing says, “Another way to refer to climate forcings is to call them climate drivers.”

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 12, 2019 5:36 pm

“associates clouds with”
I wish you’d give a proper quote. What does that mean? They do quote a forcing element “Cloud adjustments due to aerosols”. But that identifies the driver, which is aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The cloud adjustment is a consequence.

Lewis P Buckingham
July 12, 2019 3:59 am

Some of the conclusions are quite challenging to the prevailing narrative.

‘The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because
a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models.’

It would be appropriate for this site to ask the authors to discuss their conclusions
here so they may be peer reviewed with feedback and not noplatformed.

Stephen Duval
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
July 12, 2019 7:43 am

@ Buckingham

Excellent suggestion. And apply Moshers criteria as well. Publish the dataset and the code used for the analysis. And not just for this paper, but for the other four papers by the author that form a complete set.

Whether or not alarmists are scientists or propagandist is not relevant to whether or not Kauppinen is a scientist. If he is a scientist, then he will be willing to publish his data and his code so that qualified people can tear into it and it is either discredited or the Climate Change hoax is exposed.

The sooner the better.

Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
July 12, 2019 9:07 am

There’s a reason the clouds are missing – it’s because if they’re included they don’t get a link to CO2

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
July 12, 2019 4:52 pm

They need a translator and/or better writer.

Leitwolf
July 12, 2019 4:06 am

Clouds have never been and will never be modelled correctly in the context of climate change. The problem is very simple: you can either account for clouds correctly, or you can theorize global warming, but you cannot do both!

A simple look at empiric weather data is enough to reveal the harsh truth. Surface temperatures have a strong positive correlation to cloudiness. The more clouds, the warmer it is. And that is espescially true for low clouds in the tropics!

In other words: CLOUDS ARE WARMING EARTH

Sure one could re-do all climate models based on this insight, and then hope to get a better outcome. The attempt however is fundamentally futile, since the whole GHE has been lost on the way.

The GHE theory is based on the notion clouds were massively cooling Earth and it would take GHGs to heat it back up to the temperatures we observe. Since clouds in reality do the opposite and heat the planet, GHGs lose their destined purpose (except for about 5K of total GHG induced GHE).

https://de.scribd.com/document/414175992/CO21

WXcycles
Reply to  Leitwolf
July 12, 2019 5:23 am

During the day when the sun is out and it is overcast the surface temperature is MUCH COOLER than when there are no clouds present. Clouds shade the earth and increase albedo while decreasing T – duh!

dylan
Reply to  Leitwolf
July 12, 2019 6:41 am

How do clouds produce the radiation required to warm the earth?

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Leitwolf
July 12, 2019 6:45 am

Basic physics says that atmospheric clouds will effectively COOL (actually, reduce heat input to) the Earth’s surface during the day by reflecting the driving incoming solar radiation, which has far more energy flux than Earth’s daytime outgoing surface radiation, and will effectively WARM (actually, reduce heat loss from) the Earth’s surface during the night by blocking a portion of Earth’s outgoing surface radiation that would otherwise “see” 3K deep space.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Leitwolf
July 12, 2019 7:31 am

Right, by night 😀

Bellman
July 12, 2019 4:12 am

This part of the paper is complete nonsense.

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law.

Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2019 5:04 am

Scott W Bennett
Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2019 7:02 am

That’s right but what about the “slow” carbon cycle? I guess they mean the rivers in that diagram but there are plenty of places I’ve seen here in OZ where the landscape is taking up carbon and it isn’t reaching a river any time soon! Countless carbon rich underground systems ultimately flow into the great aquifers*, where the CO2 level is also high because it can’t escape to the atmosphere. The exit age of the groundwater ranges from several thousand years to nearly 2 million years in the south-western discharge zones.

*Great Artesian Basin

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2019 8:55 am

Interesting paper. However, whilst you’ve shown that cloud cover and temperature are related, what you have not shown is that it is not man-made, because in the 1970s when most temperatures start rising we saw a reduction in CLOUD CAUSING man-made pollutants like SO2 (aka acid rain).

So, what you’ve actually shown is that the warming after the introduction of the clean air acts was due to a reduction in cloud cover which almost certainly was at least in part influenced by cloud/smog causing pollutants like SO2 which were cleaned up in the 1970s.

However, I do agree that when you factor in cloud, it’s impossible to attribute any warming to changes in CO2 with any certainty.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2019 9:58 am

David
Other than randomly observing a few Black Smokers, and being surprised by an occasional undersea volcano sticking its head above water, we know very little about the CO2 contribution from the continuous mountain range called the Mid-Ocean Ridge system that is almost 40,000 miles long. It may be that the Mid-Ocean Ridge system contributes directly to the ocean out-gassing, but the typical Carbon Cycle cartoon simply doesn’t address the issue.

https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/seafloor-below/mid-ocean-ridges/

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 12, 2019 10:36 am

We can’t know what we can’t know. We really don’t have a way to globally measure total volcanic outgassing of CO2 and CH4… But most estimates put it around 0.1 PgC/yr.

It has to be much more complicated than the diagrams indicate. If I take the numbers in the image below and add 0.1 PgC/yr for volcanoes, I get a deficit of more than 300 PgC from 1751-2014…

And that deficit includes the CDIAC emissions data. There should be a large enough surplus to account for the rise from 280-400 ppmv. The warm-up from the Little Ice Age has to account for the difference.

I haven’t finished the math yet… But I might write a post on it, if I can come up with a decent model.

Julian Flood
Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2019 11:57 am

When a coccolithophore converts dissolved bicarbonate to chalk, what happens to the spare CO2? What C isotope is it?

Any human input that changed ocean biology could have an immense effect on carbon flows, and our nitrate production in the last century has been prodigious. Have we altered the rate of chalk precipitation?

JF

Reply to  Julian Flood
July 12, 2019 12:48 pm

We’ve probably altered a lot of things.

I don’t think we’ve altered the rate of calcium carbonate precipitation. Although by increasing the volume of CO2 in the oceans, we’ve probably altered the calcite compensation depth a little.

Calcium carbonate precipitation doesn’t release CO2.

Water + carbon dioxide yields carbonic acid.

H2O + CO2 –> H2CO3

This is an equilibrium equation.

CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca+2 + 2HCO3

Adding more Ca+2 (or Mg+2) and/or raising the temperature causes more calcium carbonate to precipitate. Adding more CO2 and/or lowering the temperature causes more calcium carbonate to dissolve.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  David Middleton
July 13, 2019 6:31 am

David,

In the diagram showing “microbial respiration and decomposition” they don’t show erosion.

40% of global land is now either crop or range land.

For cropland plowing, discing, etc. trigger significantly increased microbial activity and also significantly increased wind and rain erosion.

Plowing is the most intense, thus it releases the most soil carbon. I’ve seen farmers discuss 2 tons of carbon loss/acre for every pass of a plow. Often cropland is plowed after harvest to incorporate plant debris into the soil and before seeding to remove weeds.

If true and all 3.6 billion acres of cropland were plowed just once a year, that would be over 6 GT carbon/year. Almost as much as fossil fuel emissions just from global cropland.

But, plowing cropland is significantly less common now than 50 years ago. Per the USDA 2017 farm census only 25% of US cropland is still “intensively tilled” (ie. Plowed).

In fact over 30% of US cropland in 2017 was no-till managed (per the same census). Studies show no-till land management triggers carbon accumulation in the soil up to 4% SOM (2% carbon), but it takes a couple decades to go from 2% SOM to 4% SOM if the only action is to eliminate tillage.

Current agricultural research into using cover crops to accelerate soil carbon uptake has proven soil carbon sequestration can be accelerated and the 4% SOM maximum ignored. What the maximum is is as of yet unknown. One field has seen “cover crops” in use for about 20 years and is now over 10% SOM. More typically 7% SOM seems achievable in 2 decades with hip-hop and cover crops.

For range land, the elimination of predators (wolves, lions, etc) has drastically changed herd behavior. That has drastically changed the lifecycle of grasses. Historically grasses spent their life in an almost mature status fighting to achieve seed out. Ruminants would graze the grass prior to seed out occurring and the grass would aggressively perform photosynthesis in order to race to seed out prior to the herd returning. Up to 50% of the plant sap the grass created via photosynthesis was exuded out of its roots in a symbiotic relationship with soil organisms. The result was SOM levels of 7% in pristine grasslands prior to predator removal.

After seed out, grasses drastically reduce photosynthesis rates. Or if over-grazed / mowed there isn’t sufficient grass blade area for optimum photosynthesis rates.

Today’s typical quality pasture is at 4% SOM (see also no-till above). Ranchers are adopting managed grazing techniques which mimic roaming herds. A ranch in Georgia first adopted the practice a little under 20 years ago. They started with poor soil (1% SOM) and have built it up to 5% SOM via managed grazing. SOM levels are still increasing every year so it isn’t known what the peak will be for that ranch (White Oak Pastures – Google it – it is much studied.)

There is roughly 7.5 billion acres of global range land. (~25% of global land).

Any quality analysis of the annual carbon cycle would need to take the above human impacts into account. I can’t find such an analysis.

Next month (Aug 2019) the IPCC is releasing a report on land and climate. The last time they did that was the year 2000. I’m hopeful (but doubtful) they incorporated recent science about the above into their work.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  David Middleton
July 13, 2019 8:24 am

David,

I should have said numbers are hard to find, so consider these possible values:

GLobal range and crop land 300 years ago likely averaged about 6% SOM as it wasn’t managed by humans yet. If 250 tonnes carbon per acre, that was about 12 billion acres * 250 tonnes/acre, or 3,000 GT carbon in soil.

Today it averages about 3% SOM, so 1,500 GT carbon has been removed from the global agricultural land carbon repository.

That more than accounts for 100% of the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 300 years. Good luck in finding reasonably accurate quantifications for my guestimates, but I am not off by a factor of 5 or more.

Global agricultural land has been a major source of CO2 over the last few centuries.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  David Middleton
July 13, 2019 11:16 am

One last comment about soil carbon:

If you thin my numbers are crazy high, that’s because most of the time farmers and even climate scientists focus on carbon in the top 30 cm of soil, or the top meter.

The White Oak Pastures ranch that has been using managed grazing to improve the health of their pastures for about 20 years says that their perennial grasses now have roots 8ft deep. Native prairies and savannah across the globe would have had carbon resident in the top 8 feet of soil, not just the top foot that most agricultural scientists currently concern themselves with.

From what I can tell it is close to a linear drop-off in carbon density from the surface level that is typically discussed and the bottom of the root zone.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
July 14, 2019 8:19 am

David,
If you are going to delve — or should I say “dive” — into this topic, I might suggest reading the following article:
https://theconversation.com/deep-sea-carbon-reservoirs-once-superheated-the-earth-could-it-happen-again-113518

Martin Wilt
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 14, 2019 12:02 am

The reason there has been very little attention to the Earth’s CO2 emission is because scientists are drawing their conclusions about man’s involvement of CO2 production based on the proportional increase in the C14/C12 ratio.

Assuming the stratospheric production of C14 has not changed, an increase in the C14/C12 ratio is assumed to be the result of burning Fossil fuels. This statement makes a number of questionable assumptions that I would like to see resolved.

One, the decreasing planetary magnetosphere may be causing a significant increase in the C14/C12 ratio which would skew the data toward an anthropogenic conclusion.

Two, as the planet oceans warm, Henry’s Law would cause an increase in ocean degassing, but as the permanent Glaciers melt, the ocean volume would increase and cause a decrease in Ocean degassing. So long term measurements of Ocean degassing would have to be planetary and random.

Three, out of the 10,000 or more CO2 emission points on this planet, scientists are only measuring 33 volcanoes. A sample size of 33 would mean that the confidence interval was only 17 %, and that would only be if those few volcanoes were selected randomly; which they were not. An increase in C12 emissions from the Ocean floor would cause an increase in degassing, but not necessarily a C12 degassing because of the depth of the oceans.

Fourth, there is evidence that the earth’s atmosphere is slowly thinning. This would cause a very slow increase in degassing and slowly create temperature extremes on the planet.

Ian W
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2019 5:49 am

You have a disproof of Henry’s law?
Or different values for origin of CO2 in the atmosphere?

F1nn
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2019 5:56 am

Do we know how much is anthropogenic part from total? If we do, then we maybe can estimate nonsenses from both sides.

And after all, without warming, who cares.

Reply to  F1nn
July 12, 2019 6:18 am

We can “ballpark” it…

This incorrectly assumes that none of the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 200 years was due to the warming since the Little Ice Age… But it’s a decent “ballpark” estimate.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2019 10:11 am
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 12, 2019 3:31 pm

When you link to a journal page that beseeches readers to
“Join us as the lead guest editor.”
then maybe it isn’t worth reading.

Bindidon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 13, 2019 11:44 am

From the abstract

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere.

The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2.

To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow.

Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false.

IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows.

Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Maybe Ferdinand Engelbeen gives a few thoughts about that…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 13, 2019 5:57 pm

NS
You said, “… then maybe it isn’t worth reading” Maybe. Maybe not. You really can’t resolve your conjecture unless you read the paper. But, whatever the outcome, it may only be applicable to that particular paper and not all papers that have similar openings.

Bellman
Reply to  F1nn
July 12, 2019 9:31 am

F1nn,

“And after all, without warming, who cares.”

If there’s no warming than the authors claim that CO2 is increasing due to warmer oceans is obviously wrong.

Jl
Reply to  F1nn
July 12, 2019 3:53 pm

And not even that. It’s the effects of the warming, not just the warming.

Roger Clague
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2019 6:17 am

The authors are from Finland.
It is not quite standard English but he meaning is clear.
Extra CO2 is from oceans. So even if CO2 causes climate changes its not produced by us
We can do anything to stop it
There is no man made climate

Bellman
Reply to  Roger Clague
July 12, 2019 9:35 am

It’s the meaning I’m calling nonsense, not their syntax.

Alexander Vissers
Reply to  Roger Clague
July 12, 2019 12:16 pm

My guess is that the authors are anything but Finnish and someone is laughing his guts out that they got their joke on the best read science blog. Or in a conspiracy perspective they are warmists planning to use it to discredit the blog on which it was posted.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2019 6:19 am

Bellman – July 12, 2019 at 4:12 am

This part of the paper is complete nonsense.

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law.

Bellman, ….. me thinks you have been misnurtured as a result of your drinking the “CAGW flavored Kool Aide”.

It is estimated that termites produce 10 times more CO2 than humans are estimated to produce.

And the bi-yearly (sawtooth) cycling denoted by the Keeling Curve Graph is PROOF POSITIVE that the SH ocean water “seasonal” temperature is the “driver” of the aforenoted atmospheric CO2 as defined by Henry’s Law.

And the CAGW claim that the NH biomass “growth & decay” is the “driver” of the aforenoted atmospheric CO2 …… is in FACT a biological impossibility that directly violates the food-storage “laws of refrigeration”.

Bellman, …. just ask yourself …… “what is the purpose of my owning a refrigerator/freezer”.

Other than, of course, …. ensuring a ready supply of “ice cubes” for your mixed drinks and/or keeping your soda pop and beer cold.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 9:04 am

“It is estimated that termites produce 10 times more CO2 than humans are estimated to produce.”

Not that it’s relevant, but…

Nobody has estimated that. (If I’m wrong please produce a source). What people have done is repeat false claims without citing any actual estimates.

The very worse estimates I know of were from the early 80s and they only estimated that termites produced twice the CO2 of humans. These very crude estimates were quickly dismissed and shown to be off by at least a factor of 10. More detailed estimates suggest humans produce much more CO2 than termites, possibly closer to 10 times as much.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 13, 2019 4:40 am

Bellman, too bad all your fingers are broken, otherwise you could have Googled these, ….

While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined. This huge carbon flux from soil, which is due to the natural respiration of soil microbes and plant roots,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130140004.htm

https://www.iceagenow.info/termites-produce-co2-year-living-combined/

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 13, 2019 6:51 am

Too bad your reading comprehesion is broken.

Article 1 never mentiones termites, it’s talking a soil, microbes and plant roots.

Article 2 is just a rehash of a list of fun facts reported on a website for termite detectors. They rehash the claim of the 10x claim, without a citation. Other facts they quote put the temite output at more than twice human emissions, and at 2% of all emissions – which would be only about half of that for humans.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120515143722/http://termitedetector.com/detection.cfm

Reply to  Bellman
July 13, 2019 4:58 am

New York Times on October 31, 1982 interviewed scientists who estimated 150 million tons from termites…

Headline read:
“Termite Gas Exceeds Smokestack Pollution”

Bellman
Reply to  Dave Stephens
July 13, 2019 7:00 am

This is about the 1982 paper by Zimmerman, et al that said termites produced more than twice human pollution. The paper put the CO2 termite emissions at 50Gt, less than twice current human emissions.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563

The reasearch was based on very crude estimates, and even at the time it was suggested the actual emissions might be n order of magnitude less.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 9:16 am

Samual C Cogar

“And the bi-yearly (sawtooth) cycling denoted by the Keeling Curve Graph is PROOF POSITIVE that the SH ocean water “seasonal” temperature is the “driver” of the aforenoted atmospheric CO2 as defined by Henry’s Law. ”

My understanding is that the seasonal CO2 cycle is caused by changes in vegetation. The Keeling curve is based on Northern readings and so affcted by the NH seasons. NH CO2 levels go up during the winter when the NH oceans are coldest and there is less NH vegetation, they go down in the summer because of all the summer plants sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere despite the warmer oceans.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 13, 2019 6:42 am

Your understanding is the result of illogical and “junk science” nurturing.

DUH, the Mauna Loa CO2 data represents the global (both NH & SH) atmospheric CO2 ppm quantity.

And of course the NH (and SH) CO2 levels go up during the NH’s wintertime …. simply because it is SUMMERTIME in the SH and the ocean surface water temperature increases during the SH “summertime”.

And the fact that Southern Hemisphere’s surface is 80.9% water, compared with 60.7% water for the Northern Hemisphere, is the reason for the 6 ppm seasonal cycling of CO2.

That’s 20% more ocean surface to be ingassing/outgassing CO2.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 13, 2019 7:36 am

Mauna Loa is in the NH, it takes time for SH CO2 to mix with the NH. Observations from the SH show smaller seasonal variations. Why would this be if ocean temperatures were the main cause of variation?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 7:23 am

Bellman – July 13, 2019 at 7:36 am

Observations from the SH show smaller seasonal variations.

Whose observations, ……. Bellman, ……. yours?

There is no other place on earth, other than the Mauna Loa Observatory, where ACCURATE atmospheric CO2 measurements are made at an elevation of 11,161ft above sea level. The extreme cold air at high elevations PREVENTS “water (H2O) vapor” contamination of the of the air samples. And that is why Charles Keeling built his laboratory there, to wit:

A Scandinavian group accordingly set up a network of 15 measuring stations in their countries. Their only finding, however, was a high noise level. Their measurements apparently fluctuated from day to day as different air masses passed through, with differences between stations as high as a factor of two.

Charles David (Dave) Keeling held a different view. As he pursued local measurements of the gas in California, he saw that it might be possible to hunt down and remove the sources of noise. Taking advantage of that, however, would require many costly and exceedingly meticulous measurements, carried out someplace far from disturbances.

Keeling did much better than that with his new instruments. With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Bellman, the elevation at Jubany Station, Antarctica, is only 33 feet, but the extreme cold keeps the “water (H2O) vapor” contamination at a minimum,

See here – Daily CO2 measurements at 4 different locations.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html

Bellman, me thinks you have more excuses for NOT BELIEVING actual factual science than Bayer has aspirin pills.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 9:20 am

“See here – Daily CO2 measurements at 4 different locations.”

Which supports my argument, smallest cycles in the SH and in opposite phase to NH.

Here’s another my DDGing fingers found

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Greenhouse-gas-data

Cape Grim near Tasmania. This seems to show a seasonal cycle of around 1 ppm with a peak in September and a trough in March and April.

You can certainly argue that none of these are as good as Mauna Loa, but so far you’ve provided no evidence that the seasonal cycle is larger in the southern hemisphere and that it’s highest in the SH summer.

Maybe you should consider why you are so intent on BELIEVING ocean temperatures are the primary reason for the seasonal variation.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 11:15 am

“and in opposite phase to NH.”

You must be both cross-eyed and dyslectic.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 1:54 pm

“You must be both cross-eyed and dyslectic.”

I was looking at the south pole levels, very clearly rising when NH is falling. Granted American Samoa might be more in phase with the NH, though it isn’t clear.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the further south you go the less of a seasonal effect – the opposite of what you would expect if ocean temperatures were the primary reason for the seasonal changes.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 15, 2019 11:04 am

Bellman July 14, 2019 at 9:20 am

You can certainly argue that none of these are as good as Mauna Loa, but so far you’ve provided no evidence that the seasonal cycle is larger in the southern hemisphere and that it’s highest in the SH summer.

Maybe you should consider why you are so intent on BELIEVING ocean temperatures are the primary reason for the seasonal variation.

Here ya go Bellman, ….. the primary reason for me BELIEVING the seasonal variation is the direct cause of atmospheric CO2 quantities, ……. read it if you dare, to wit:

The “seasonal (biyearly) cycle” is 6 months, ….. steady and consistent just like “clockwork” for the past 59 years, ….. and would be the same for the past 100+- years iffen measurements had been taken.

Kelling Curve Graph with included Fall and Spring equinox designations
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

And defined on the above graph, the seasonal amplitude is an average 6 ppm at Mauna Loa because of its nearness to the equator and the high altitude of the Observatory.

And “Yes”, the seasonal amplitude is an average 16 ppm at Barrow Alaska simply because it is located at a high northern latitude and air samples are taken at an extremely low altitude, ….. which corrupts the “samples” due to seasonal human CO2 emissions and extreme seasonal variation in H2O vapor content, Why do you think Keeling built his laboratory atop Mauna Loa?

(Bellman, here is some factual data for your consideration, to wit)

Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 to May 2018
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May

year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38 (lowest CO2 ppm in 2017)

CO2 ppm will continue to increase during the month of April 2018 and during the 1st 17 to 21 days of May 2018, which will be the maximum CO2 ppm for fiscal year 2018, which I estimate will be 413.13 ppm.

The above data is proof-positive of an average 5 to 6 ppm decrease in CO2 that occurs between mid-May (5) and the end of September (9) of each calendar year …… and that there is an average 7 to 8 ppm increase in CO2 that occurs between the end of September (9) and mid-May (5) of the next calendar year as denoted on this modified copy of the Keeling Curve Graph, to it:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

And the average “annual increase” of 1 to 2 ppm in CO2 is a direct result of the ocean water warming up following the end of the LIA. El Ninos, La Ninas and volcanoes also effect atmospheric CO2 measurements.

The “Max” CO2 occurred at mid-May (5) of each year … with the exception of three (3) outliers, one (1) being in June 79’ and the other two (2) being in April 99’ and 2000.

The “Min” CO2 occurred at the very end of September (9) of each year … with the exception of eleven (11) outliers, all of which occurred within the first 7 days of October. (And today is October 4, 2017 and the atmospheric CO2 has surely already started its upward trend to a 2017/2018 “max” at mid-May 2018.)

And additionally, the following graph depicts the 1979-2013 UAH satellite global lower atmosphere temperatures …. on which is plotted the yearly “Max” mid-May CO2 ppm data as is listed above.

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png

originally posted here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/04/good-news-about-co2-emissions-progress-to-a-better-world/#comment-2172885

As anyone can readily see, via the above graph, …… there is absolutely, positively no association or correlation between near surface air temperatures and the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2.

Now for those not aware of the effect that an El Nino year and a La Nina year has on the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm, (see above listed years)……. the scientifically factual reason is, ….. to wit:

During La Niña years the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3 to 5 °C.

During El Niño years …….. the water in the Central and Eastern Pacific becomes as warm as the Western Pacific. …… (and) sea surface temperatures in the western Pacific are generally warmer, by about 8–10 °C (14–18 °F) than those in the Eastern Pacific

Excerpted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation

When the ocean surface waters “heat up” during El Nino years there is a greater outgassing than ingassing of CO2 into the atmosphere as per defined by Henry’s Law.

Whereas, when the ocean surface waters “cool down” during La Nina years there is a greater ingassing than outgassing of CO2 from the atmosphere as per defined by Henry’s Law.

The surface temperature of the Southern Hemisphere ocean water is the “control knob” for the bi-yearly and annual increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities as defined on the KC Graph.

Cheers

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 12:59 pm

OCO2 data proves that the source of atmospheric CO2 is not outgassing from the oceans. It’s coming from land. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 3:27 pm

To save time, can we agree that we both accept Mauna Loa data, that it shows an annual cycle peaking in May and reaching a low point in September and that this is clearly caused by seasonal changes. The issue is what seasonal changes are the most important?

As anyone can readily see, via the above graph, …… there is absolutely, positively no association or correlation between near surface air temperatures and the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2.

Help me out here. I thought it was your contention that most of the yearly increase in CO2 was caused by warming oceans.

Now for those not aware of the effect that an El Nino year and a La Nina year has on the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm…

No disagreement here. Large warming and cooling as seen during El Niños and La Niñas can have a detectable effect on CO2. The question though is, is this enough to, as you claim, prove that most of the seasonal change in CO2? This leads on to the more important question, can we then infer that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century or so was caused by global warming?

I think the answer to the first question is probably not. And the answer to the second is almost certainly not, for all the reasons I outlined at the start of this discussion.

You are free to disagree, but I see no evidence presented in the above post that explains why you are drawn to your conclusion, or anything that attempts to address the various counter-arguments.

For a start, I’d like an explanation for what has happened to all the carbon produced by burning fossil fuels, if it hasn’t caused the rise in atmospheric CO2.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 16, 2019 10:48 am

OCO2 data proves that the source of atmospheric CO2 is not outgassing from the oceans. It’s coming from land.

GETTA clue, ….. Klipstein, …… satellites can neither see or detect CO2 in the atmosphere.

Said satellites can only detect the IR radiation that is radiating through the atmosphere directly at the satellite sensors. And iffen that detected IR radiation is a specific frequency, NASA just assumes its re-radiated source is an atmospheric CO2 molecule.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 16, 2019 11:05 am

Bellman – July 15, 2019 at 3:27 pm

As anyone can readily see, via the above graph, …… there is absolutely, positively no association or correlation between near surface air temperatures and the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2.

Help me out here. I thought it was your contention that most of the yearly increase in CO2 was caused by warming oceans.

You don’t need any help, …….. it is my contention (claim) that most of the yearly increase in CO2 (1-2 ppm) was/is caused by warming oceans, ….. namely the post-LIA warming.

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 16, 2019 11:49 am

For someone who claims to know science, your ignorance of how the OCO2 satellite works is amusing.
.
You say: ” NASA just assumes its re-radiated source is an atmospheric CO2 molecule.”
.
OCO2 is not measuring IR emissions from CO2.
.
Please learn the difference between “absorption” and “emission” to understand how OCO2 detects CO2.
.
https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/observatory/instrument/index.cfm

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 17, 2019 4:33 am

Donald L. Klipstein – July 16, 2019 at 11:49 am

You say: ” NASA just assumes its re-radiated source is an atmospheric CO2 molecule.”
.
OCO2 is not measuring IR emissions from CO2.

NASA stated …………….

OCO-2 will not be measuring CO2 directly; but actually, the intensity of the sunlight reflected from the presence of CO2 in a column of air. This measurement is unique like a fingerprint, and can be used for identification.

The instrument measures the intensity of three relatively small wavelength bands (Weak CO2, Strong CO2 and Oxygen O2) from the spectrum
https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/observatory/instrument/index.cfm

.Klipstein, if NASA is measuring “sunlight” that is reflected off of atmospheric CO2 molecules then shouldn’t everything be colored “red” on the graphics included in the following link? CO2 is in all the air over land and over the water.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 17, 2019 6:01 am

” then shouldn’t everything be colored “red” on the graphics ”

No

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 18, 2019 6:48 am

Why not, Donald L, ……. why not?

Are you inferring that atmospheric CO2 only exists in those areas that are highlighted in “red” on those cited graphics ……. and thus the only places in earth’s atmosphere that Sunlight can be reflected off of CO2 molecules.

Testify, Klipstein, testify, ……. don’t run n’ hide, …… explain your thinking.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 9:21 am

Samual C Cogar,

Sorry, missed your following paragraph:

“And the CAGW claim that the NH biomass “growth & decay” is the “driver” of the aforenoted atmospheric CO2 …… is in FACT a biological impossibility that directly violates the food-storage “laws of refrigeration”.”

But I don’t understand your point. Are you saying there is more vegetation during the winter because it’s cold? My own observations would contradict that.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 13, 2019 7:50 am

But I don’t understand your point. Are you saying there is more vegetation during the winter because it’s cold? My own observations would contradict that.

Bellman, if you keep pretending that you are “science stupid” as a CYA to avoid embarrassment for your asinine commentary, …….. I will assume that you actually are.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 13, 2019 2:34 pm

Maybe I am stupid, but I still don’t understand your point. What has refrigeration got to do with the “biological impossibility” of plants being the driver of seasonal change in CO2 levels?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 4:25 am

Bellman – July 13, 2019 at 2:34 pm

Maybe I am stupid, but I still don’t understand your point. What has refrigeration got to do with the “biological impossibility” of plants being the driver of seasonal change in CO2 levels?

“Ignorance can be fixed, ……. stupidity is permanent.”

Because it is “biological impossible” for the microbial decomposition (rotting/spoiling) of dead biomass (dead plants/animals) to be far, far greater during the Fall and Winter seasons than during the Spring and Summer seasons.

MAXIMUM microbial decomposition of dead biomass REQUIRES moisture and warm temperatures above 40F which means that 10 to 20 times more “rotting/decaying” of nature’s dead food items occur during the Spring and Summer seasons.

Which is the reason that humans preserve their items of dead food by either “drying” or by storing them in their refrigerators and freezers.

And iffen you don’t believe me then you and all your like-minded should un-plug your refrigerators and prove me wrong.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 6:04 am

The rise in CO2 during the winter is, I think, mostly down to the lack of plants absorbing CO2, not necessarily from decomposition.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 6:12 am

MAXIMUM microbial decomposition of dead biomass REQUIRES moisture and warm temperatures above 40F which means that 10 to 20 times more “rotting/decaying” of nature’s dead food items occur during the Spring and Summer seasons.

40F is only about 4.5°C – much of the world is warmer than this for much of the winter.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 8:07 am

Bellman – July 14, 2019 at 6:04 am

The rise in CO2 during the winter is, I think, mostly down to the lack of plants absorbing CO2, not necessarily from decomposition.

And therein is your problem, …… Bellman, ….. your lack of education in/of the sciences pretty much dictates that your only forte is “thinking that you might be correct”. Just like all the others who profess to being Biblical Religious/Religion “believers”.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 9:34 am

… your lack of education in/of the sciences pretty much dictates that your only forte is “thinking that you might be correct”. Just like all the others who profess to being Biblical Religious/Religion “believers”.

When I say “I think” something might be correct, I’m implying “but I could be wrong”. Maybe it’s a cultural difference but I don’t consider it to mean “I believe with a religious conviction”.

You, on the other hand, keep implying you know you are right about everything. You use phrases like “biologically impossible”, that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or has been brainwashed by junk science. You attack me for “for NOT BELIEVING actual factual science”. Are you sure you are not a religious believer?

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Bellman
July 13, 2019 8:35 am

Bellman, Cogar’s claim that refrigeration stops vegetation decay in winter shows he has no direct experience with winter. For example, after it snows 4 or 5 inches, one of the first places to become snow free is the compost pile out back. The compost pile is much warmer than the surround soil, and continues to emit CO2 as the prior season’s leaves, etc. decay. No matter how cold the air gets, there is something known as the “frost line” below which it never freezes. In fact the snow acts as a insulator between the colder air and the warmer soil.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 14, 2019 4:47 am

Klipstein, just how BIG is that decaying compost pile that is causing the average 8 ppm CO2 seasonal increase during the NH’s winter months (October to mid-May)?

Donald L, …… being a “cement-walking-around” ……. city slicker, you will already know this even though you don’t know you know it, to wit:

Ooooh, that smell! Odors rise with the temperature

Your nose doesn’t lie – odors intensify in the warm summer months, be they of rotting garbage on the sidewalk or fragrant flowers blooming in a garden.

The combination of heat and humidity allows bacteria to grow faster and smells to travel farther, said Victoria Henshaw, who researches urban smells throughout the world.

Read more @
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19524140-ooooh-that-smell-odors-rise-with-the-temperature?lite

Bellman
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 14, 2019 5:57 am

Klipstein, just how BIG is that decaying compost pile that is causing the average 8 ppm CO2 seasonal increase during the NH’s winter months (October to mid-May)?

I think I see your problem, you think that the increase in CO2 is meant to be coming from decaying vegetation. Whereas I think it comes from there not being as many plants to absorb CO2.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 14, 2019 7:35 am

I think I see your problem, you think that the increase in CO2 is meant to be coming from decaying vegetation.

Bellman, you are an “under 30 yoa” female, right?

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 14, 2019 7:39 am

MAXIMUM above 40F doesn’t mean it stops when temp < 40F…..it just slows down.

Also Bellman is correct about much of the world being warmer than 40F. For example in the dead of winter when the average temperature here is 28F, the daytime high average is over 36F…..and when sunshine hits decomposing biomass, it accelerates the decomposition.

Cogar, get a thermometer and stick it 6 inches into the soil, and tell me what it reads when the air temperature is 35F

Bellman
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 14, 2019 8:03 am

Bellman, you are an “under 30 yoa” female, right?

And you are someone not interested in arguing your case, and thinks calling someone female is an insult. So thanks for the fun but unless you are going to make a coherent argument I’m not sure if it’s worth pursing this discussion further.

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 14, 2019 8:06 am

Cogar: “under 30 yoa”

How about you forgo the juvenile ad-hominem attack? Try posting like you are older than a 15 year old.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 15, 2019 7:47 am

Donald L. Klipstein – July 14, 2019 at 8:06 am

Cogar: “under 30 yoa”

How about you forgo the juvenile ad-hominem attack? Try posting like you are older than a 15 year old.

Klipstein, you mean you want me to start posting inaccurate and delusional “tripe n’ piffle” just like you and Bellman have been posting, such as this, to wit:

Bellman – July 14, 2019 at 5:57 am “I think I see your problem, you (Sam C) think that the increase in CO2 is meant to be coming from decaying vegetation. Whereas I think it (increase in CO2) comes from there not being as many plants to absorb CO2.

Klipstein, …. Bellman was either being devious and dishonest …… or delusional …. to even suggest or infer that I have ever claimed or stated that ….. “(Sam C) think that the (seasonal) increase in CO2 is meant to be coming from decaying vegetation”.

And Klipstein, … for sure, …. Bellman was either being devious and dishonest …… or delusional, by his/her stating that “he thinks” that …….. “the increase in CO2 comes from there not being as many plants to absorb CO2”.

“DUH”, ….. Klipstein, only an inexperienced, misnurtured person would be foolish enough to claim the above, …… and/or to make a similar claim such as this one, …….. “the increase in cancer rates comes from there not being as many people being diagnosed with cancer”.

Klipstein, ……. wontcha help Bellman out, …… tell him/her and the rest of the world … “what causes the bi-yearly increase in CO2”, …….. cause no one wants to know the jillion different things that didn’t cause it.

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 15, 2019 8:33 am

Cogar, only an inexperienced, misnurtured (sic) person would be foolish enough to argue that the age or sex of their opponent is relevant to the discussion at hand. So, you ask, “wontcha help Bellman out?” I sure will. You ought to stop with the ad-hominems.

PS, ocean surface temperatures in the SH don’t swing enough seasonally to cause the seasonal variation in CO2, so there has to be a different explanation. But then, did it ever occur to you that there might be multiple reasons for this phenomena , both being valid?

Bellman
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 15, 2019 2:21 pm

Klipstein, …. Bellman was either being devious and dishonest …… or delusional …. to even suggest or infer that I have ever claimed or stated that ….. “(Sam C) think that the (seasonal) increase in CO2 is meant to be coming from decaying vegetation”.

I inferred that from you saying

And the CAGW claim that the NH biomass “growth & decay” is the “driver” of the aforenoted atmospheric CO2 …… is in FACT a biological impossibility that directly violates the food-storage “laws of refrigeration”.

So if you are not saying in the second quote that you believe that the decay in NH biomass is meant to be the driver of the seasonal changes in CO2, what did you mean? (Note, the use of the word “meant”, is not implying that you believe this is true, but that this is the point you are trying to disprove.)

And Klipstein, … for sure, …. Bellman was either being devious and dishonest …… or delusional, by his/her stating that “he thinks” that …….. “the increase in CO2 comes from there not being as many plants to absorb CO2”.

Maybe my wording was sloppy, but the idea that a reduction in photosynthesis during the winter is a big reason why atmospheric CO2 increases during winter is not dishonest or devious. Here for example was one of the first results of searching:

These latitudinal differences in fluctuation are the result of photosynthetic activity by plants. As plants begin to photosynthesize in the spring and summer, they consume CO2 from the atmosphere and eventually use it as a carbon source for growth and reproduction. This causes the decrease in CO2 levels that begins every year in May. Once winter arrives, plants save energy by decreasing photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis, the dominant process is the exhalation of CO2 by the total ecosystem, including bacteria, plants, and animals.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/05/07/why-are-seasonal-co2-fluctuations-strongest-in-northern-latitudes/

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 16, 2019 7:28 am

Bellman – July 15, 2019 at 2:21 pm

Maybe my wording was sloppy, but the idea that a reduction in photosynthesis during the winter is a big reason why atmospheric CO2 increases during winter is not dishonest or devious.

OK, …..if your posted responses are not dishonest or devious, …… then obviously they are delusional ( characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument).

Here for example was one of the first results of searching:

These latitudinal differences in fluctuation are the result of photosynthetic activity by plants. As plants begin to photosynthesize in the spring and summer, they consume CO2 from the atmosphere and eventually use it as a carbon source for growth and reproduction. This causes the decrease in CO2 levels that begins every year in May. Once winter arrives, plants save energy by decreasing photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis, the dominant process is the exhalation of CO2 by the total ecosystem, including bacteria, plants, and animals.

Bellman, those latitudinal differences are commonly referred to as “planting/growing zones”. And if you click that hyperlink you will note that “CO2 photosynthesis” by green-growing biomass in North America begins in the lower latitudes in January …… and progresses northward toward the higher latitudes by late June.

And Bellman, both you and the SCRIPPS Institute seem to have conveniently forgotten that the “warm” temperatures that permits the spring-summer photosynthesis ingassing of CO2 by the green growing biomass ……. ALSO permits and exacerbates the spring-summer microbial rotting/decay outgassing of CO2 by the dead biomass. “DUH”, if the truth was known, more CO2 would be “outgassed” than “ingassed” during the spring-summer months.

Of course, Bellman, as long as you continue to believe that the use of freezers and refrigerators during the warm/hot months of spring and summer is a complete waste of money and energy by the persons doing said, ……. then it is a waste of time discussing the subject with you.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 16, 2019 8:25 am

Donald L. Klipstein – July 15, 2019 at 8:33 am

Cogar, only an inexperienced, misnurtured (sic) person would be foolish enough to argue that the age or sex of their opponent is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Klipstein, I preferred using the word “misnurtured” rather than mistaken, misinformed, miseducated or misdirected simply because it is more inclusive of all age groups than any of the other noted ones. Now that you know what it “means”, …. you are now authorized to use it appropriately.

And Klipstein, it is utterly obvious that you are totally ignorant and sorely miseducated relative to the FACT that US Public School Administrators and Teachers have to constantly deal with “the age and/or sex of their enrolled students because the aforesaid is relevant to their assigned grade level and course of study”.

“YUP”, its obvious you don’t have a clue why you had to be “6 years of age” to be enrolled in a US public school. And “HA”, parental nurturing of their children has been so gawd awful during the past 40+ years that federal and state governments have tried to “fix it” by implementing Head Start, Kindergartner, etc., ….. early childhood teaching/learning programs. Trillion$ expended without much success

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 15, 2019 8:53 am

Bellman – July 14, 2019 at 9:34 am

When I say “I think” something might be correct, I’m implying “but I could be wrong”. Maybe it’s a cultural difference but I don’t consider it to mean “I believe with a religious conviction”.

Bellman, …..what you consider “it” to mean, …… is, more often than not, …… the same thing that “you believe with a religious conviction”.

And that is an absolute fact, …. because, ….. you have refused to even consider any of the science based “facts and evidence” that I have presented.

Bellman, both you and Klipstein have averted your eyes and your minds to most everything I have presented, …… and if that isn’t a prime example of “a religious conviction” I don’t know what would be.

Bellman –

You, on the other hand, keep implying you know you are right about everything. You use phrases like “biologically impossible”,

Bellman, ….. I am right on most everything I comment on. I earned my AB Degrees in Biological and Physical Science in 63’, ….. and during the 56 years since then I have greatly expanded my knowledge of the natural world around me.

Given said, I have probably forgotten more science than you have ever known.

And Bellman, ….. if you are truly interested in how your own brain/mind functions, then “click” the following WUWT link and read the commentary titled …….

A View of How the Human Mind Works
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/moonbat-being-moonbat/#comment-2680500

If you read it, …. which I doubt, …. you will surely be surprised at all the things you really didn’t about yourself.

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 9:26 am

I read your screed Cogar, and I think it is an excellent example of Dunning-Kruger.

To wit: ” I am right on most everything I comment on”

LOL

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 2:48 pm

Given said, I have probably forgotten more science than you have ever known.

I can believe that.

Bellman, …..what you consider “it” to mean, …… is, more often than not, …… the same thing that “you believe with a religious conviction”.

And that is an absolute fact, …. because, ….. you have refused to even consider any of the science based “facts and evidence” that I have presented.

I think I’ve gone out of my way to consider and question your presentations. I’ve asked you for evidence when I disagreed with you. You responded with insults and evasion. I can find little evidence you have considered any of my arguments.

Bellman, ….. I am right on most everything I comment on. I earned my AB Degrees in Biological and Physical Science in 63’, ….. and during the 56 years since then I have greatly expanded my knowledge of the natural world around me.

And I’ve a BSc and MA in Maths, but I don’t mention it because it’s irrelevant to the argument.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 16, 2019 9:50 am

Donald L. Klipstein – July 15, 2019 at 9:26 am

I read your screed Cogar, and I think it is an excellent example of Dunning-Kruger.

OH, my, my, … Klipstein, …… citing Dunning-Kruger as your CYA, ….. HUH?

Does that mean that your have a history of needing the “services” offered by the Psychobabblers or are you a licensed Member of their Organization?

One should pay little to no attention to what a Psychobabblers (Psychologist/Psychiatrist) says or does simply because they are avid believers and promotors of the teachings and writings of a late 19th Century heroin addicted author by the name of Sigmund Freud.

And about the only thing that the Psychobabblers have accomplished during the past 140 years is to coin a dozen or so new names … for the old diagnosed mental problem called “depression” …… and to authorize a “new” prescription drug every few years that does nothing more than to “mask” (relieve) the debilitating symptoms of those who suffer the effects of “depression”.

If the Psychobabblers are incapable of explaining ….. “why/how they were nurtured (mentally) to be what they are (personality wise)”, ….. then how in ell is it possible for said Psychobabblers to know “the reasons why/how a complete stranger was nurtured to be what he/she is”?

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.

Thus, Klipstein, it was utterly foolish of you to cite me as an “excellent example of Dunning-Kruger” when you are severely “learning disabled” in/on both the subject of CAGW climate change and the subject of environmental nurturing and self-programming of the human brain/mind.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 12, 2019 11:08 am

There’s another problem with arguing that the seasonal variation in the Keeling Curve demonstrates CO2 rising is caused by global warming.

The seasonal ups and downs are completely dwarfed by the long term rise. If the seasonal changes are caused by ocean temperature, and the long term rise is caused by ocean warming, then the long term warming would have to dwarf the seasonal fluctuations in temperature.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 13, 2019 7:37 am

GIMME a break, …..Bellman, ….. your claims are getting sillier by the minute, to wit:

The seasonal ups and downs are completely dwarfed by the long term rise.

“NO FECESS”, …… Bellman, …. where did you get your 1st clue?

One (1) year “up & down” of 6 ppm, …… verses …… 180 years of an average 1-2 ppm yearly increase.

Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade

year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
[March 03, 1958 …… Mauna Loa — 315.71 ppm]
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 1.9% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.8% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.7% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.2% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.4% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2017 – 7,550,262,101 – 9.80 % ____ 407 ppm – 4.4% —– 1.8 ppm/year

Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 13, 2019 2:46 pm

You insult me, then seem to agree with me – the seasonal changes are small compared with long term rises.

I’m not sure why you are showing world population, unless you are suggesting anthropogenic emissions should be proportional to global population.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 3:44 am

Bellman – July 13, 2019 at 2:46 pm

You insult me, then seem to agree with me – the seasonal changes are small compared with long term rises.

You needed to be insulted

I’m not sure why you are showing world population, unless you are suggesting anthropogenic emissions should be proportional to global population.

You don’t have a clue what is mean by “anthropogenic”, ……. do you?

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 5:54 am

You don’t have a clue what is mean by “anthropogenic”, ……. do you?

Well I think I do. I just don’t see why you are suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 emissions should be proportional to the human population. I’m worrying now that you think it means humans breathing.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 8:27 am

I’m worrying now that you think it means humans breathing.

Shur nuff, …. Bellmaan, ….. shur nuff, …… you dun got me figgered out, ….. you’re plenty much smart, you are.

“Ya buy them books, ….. send them to school”, …… and whatta ya get for the money expended?

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 14, 2019 9:21 am

Or maybe you could just answer the question.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 9:27 am

“Or maybe you could just answer the question.”

What question, …….. Bellman, …… you are not asking questions iffen you are always telling me the “answers” to explain your nurtured “religious conviction”.

The pseudo-questions you do post are little more than a silly attempt of a “gotcha” comment.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/new-paper-no-experimental-evidence-for-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/#comment-2745146

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 15, 2019 2:56 pm

What question, …….. Bellman, …… you are not asking questions iffen you are always telling me the “answers” to explain your nurtured “religious conviction”.

In this case the implied question was – what point are you trying to make listing human population is your list of CO2 data? Maybe it was just there for show, but I assumed you were trying to make some point that was going over my head.

Your response was to say I didn’t know what “anthropogenic” meant, so I made aguess as to what you were getting at, expecting you to confirm my hunch or explain what you actually meant, but was greeted with with a load of patronizing waffle.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 16, 2019 10:17 am

In this case the implied question was ….

And I responded with an implied answer to your implied question ….. and you get all pouty and hurt feelings, …… right?

what point are you trying to make listing human population is your list of CO2 data?

Bellman, if you are incapable of figuring that out for yourself, ……. then you shouldn’t be engaging in any discussions of a scientific nature. Stick to social subjects like music, sports, movies, fast-foods and clothing trends, etc.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 16, 2019 3:39 pm

And I responded with an implied answer to your implied question ….. and you get all pouty and hurt feelings, …… right?

Your only answer was,

You don’t have a clue what is mean by “anthropogenic”, ……. do you?

followed by,

Shur nuff, …. Bellmaan, ….. shur nuff, …… you dun got me figgered out, ….. you’re plenty much smart, you are.

I’m still not sure what answer I’m supposed to infer from that sarcasm (remember I’ve been misnurtered), but don’t worry, you haven’t hurt my feelings, only confirmed my suspicions.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 17, 2019 3:54 am

I’m still not sure what answer I’m supposed to infer from that sarcasm (remember I’ve been misnurtered) …..

Bellman, here is the complete text and if it still bedazzles you, ask your parent to explain it to you ………….

——————————–
I (Sam C) compiled the following statistics via reliable sources, to wit:

Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade

year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
[March 03, 1958 …… Mauna Loa — 315.71 ppm]
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 1.9% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.8% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.7% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.2% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.4% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2017 – 7,550,262,101 – 9.80 % ____ 407 ppm – 4.4% —– 1.8 ppm/year

Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Based on the above statistics, to wit:

Fact #1 – in the past 77 years – world population has increased 228% (5.3 billion people) – atmospheric CO2 has increased 35.7% (107 ppm)

Fact #2 – human generated CO2 releases have been exponentially increasing every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the population increase).

Fact #3 – the burning of fossil fuels by humans has been exponentially increasing every year for the past 60 years. (as defined by the population increase).

Fact #4 – a biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently occurring each and every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

Fact #5 – atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at an average yearly rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for each and every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

Conclusions:

Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 77 years (or the 60 years of the Mauna Loa Record) there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:

#1 – increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases:

#2 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and world population increases;

#3 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and the exponential yearly increase in fossil fuel burning;

#4 – the average yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 of 1 to 2 ppm and the exponential increase in fossil fuel burning;

#5 – there is absolutely, positively no, per se, “human (anthropogenic) signature” to be found anywhere within the 60 year old Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 Record.
=====================================

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 17, 2019 1:07 pm

Fact #2 – human generated CO2 releases have been exponentially increasing every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the population increase).

Fact #3 – the burning of fossil fuels by humans has been exponentially increasing every year for the past 60 years. (as defined by the population increase).

And there’s my problem. Population increase does not define anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

If you want to test the hypothesis that anthropogenic emissions are causing most or all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 you need to use figures for anthropogenic emissions.

Fact #5 – atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at an average yearly rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for each and every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

Your own chart shows that CO2 increase has not been increasing “consistently” – it’s increase has been accelerating for most of the time, from around 0.6 ppm/year in the 60s to 1.8 ppm/year at the current rate. Increasing around 3 times faster. Coincidentally, human emissions are about three times as large now than they were in the 60s.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 18, 2019 4:33 am

Bellman – July 17, 2019 at 1:07 pm

And there’s my problem. Population increase does not define anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

“OK”, then Bellman, ……..then you tell me, …….. what do you think defines anthropogenic CO2 emissions if not the activities of earth’s human population?

Is your thinking radically different from mine and from the “97% of all climate scientists”?

Testify, Bellman, testify, ……. don’t run n’ hide, …… explain your thinking.

If you want to test the hypothesis that anthropogenic emissions are causing most or all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 you need to use figures for anthropogenic emissions.

Bellman, I am not the person that is claiming that “anthropogenic emissions are causing most or all of the increase in atmospheric CO2” ……. so what gave you the silly and asinine idea that it is my responsibility to test that silly arsed hypothesis you speak of?

Testify, Bellman, testify, ……. don’t run n’ hide, …… explain your thinking.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 18, 2019 1:44 pm

“OK”, then Bellman, ……..then you tell me, …….. what do you think defines anthropogenic CO2 emissions if not the activities of earth’s human population?

My definition of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is CO2 released by such activities as burning fossil fuel and the manufacture of cement. It also includes to a lesser extent increases caused by land usage.

Is your thinking radically different from mine and from the “97% of all climate scientists”?

I suspect my definition is pretty much in line with how most climate scientists define it. Internet searches tend to confirm this. I’ve no idea what your thinking is, but the fact you keep quoting population statistics suggests you don’t understand that anthropogenic emissions are not proportional to the number of people on the planet. Not everyone burns the same amount of fuel as everyone else, and not everyone burns the same amount of fuel as they did in the 60s.

Bellman, I am not the person that is claiming that “anthropogenic emissions are causing most or all of the increase in atmospheric CO2” ……. so what gave you the silly and asinine idea that it is my responsibility to test that silly arsed hypothesis you speak of?

No responsibility. But if you are going to reject a mainstream hypothesis, and insult everyone who advocates it, you might want to look at the actual data beforehand, if only to avoid looking like an idiot. And if you are going to claim “there is absolutely, positively no, per se, “human (anthropogenic) signature” to be found anywhere within the 60 year old Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 Record.“, then you might want to demonstrate you’ve actually looked for it using appropriate data.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 19, 2019 3:22 am

I give up, Bellman, you win.

You are far too brilliant on subjects involving science for me to be engaging in contrary arguments/discussions with.

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 19, 2019 10:10 am

Testify, Samuel, testify, ……. don’t run n’ hide, …… explain your thinking.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2019 6:29 am

Any warming of the oceans is going to drive a lot of CO2 out of the oceans into the atmosphere.
I thought even climate trolls were aware of that.

stepehen duval
Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2019 8:00 am

@MarkW
“Any warming of the oceans”
If the ocean contains 3000 x the heat of the atmosphere, then it will takes 3000 units of heat in the atmosphere transferred to the ocean to increase the ocean temp by 1 unit assuming there is equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere.

How much does the ocean temp have to change to increase atmospheric CO2 by 20 ppm?
Does this level of temp change in the ocean make sense?
Given that the ocean is much colder than the atmosphere at depth, it would seem that the ocean is practically an infinite heat buffer for the atmosphere so that any fear of global warming is delusional.

I am really looking forward to Kauppinen’s paper on Henry’s Law and CO2 in the atmosphere.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  stepehen duval
July 12, 2019 1:12 pm

**“Any warming of the oceans”
If the ocean contains 3000 x the heat of the atmosphere, then it will takes 3000 units of heat in the atmosphere transferred to the ocean to increase the ocean temp by 1 unit assuming there is equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere. **
The oceans are not warmed by the atmosphere but mostly by solar radiation.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2019 9:27 am

MarkW,

“Any warming of the oceans is going to drive a lot of CO2 out of the oceans into the atmosphere.”

Define “a lot”.

I don’t have the figures to hand, but I think the IPCC report says more CO2 is being emitted from the oceans each year, but I’m not sure how much is due to them being warmer and how much due to the increasing levels of CO2 in the oceans. But they are also absorbing more CO2 each year despite being warmer, because there is more CO2 in the atmospher, and I think they have gone from being a CO2 source to a CO2 sink because of the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bellman
July 13, 2019 8:18 am

and I think they have gone from being a CO2 source to a CO2 sink because of the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Henry’s Law – explained for the benefit of the science ignorant

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/cheminter/chapter/henrys-law/

Bellman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
July 13, 2019 4:22 pm

Observations for the science curious

https://www.co2.earth/carbon-in-the-ocean

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2019 8:55 am

In answer to some of the comments, I should have been a little clearer in pointing out that the parts I consider to be nonsense are the claims that humans are only responsible for a small part of the increase in CO2, and that most of the rise is caused by the oceans. I’ve seen this claim a number of times, and have yet to see any serious evidence for it. In my opionion there are many reasons why it doesn’t seem to make sense, for example.

1. Total human emissions of carbon are more than enough to explain all the rise in CO2.

2. Ice core data suggests that temperature changes of 10 or so C changed CO2 levels by around 100ppm, and this was over many centuries. By contrast the above claim requires a rise of less than 1.5C produced a similar change in CO2, almost immediately.

3. This theory would require CO2 levels in the ocean to be declining, but according to the IPCC, whilst oceans are emitting more CO2, they are absorbing even more, and have gone from a net emitter to a net absorber of CO2.

4. Temperature changes don’t explain the smooth increase in CO2 levels. Temperatures fluctuate year on year and there have periods during the last 100 years when global temperatures where barely increasing, yet CO2 levels went up year on year at a pretty constant pace.