Home/BlogThe following comparison between the 20th Century runs from most (15) of the IPCC AR4 climate models, and Levitus observations of ocean warming during 1955-1999, further bolsters the case for a relatively low climate sensitivity: estimated here to be about 1.3 deg. C for a future doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is quite a bit lower than the IPCC’s best estimate of 3 deg. C warming.
But the behavior of the models’ temperatures in the deep ocean was not at all what I expected. They say “too many cooks spoil the broth”. Well, it looks like 15 climate modeling groups make spaghetti out of ocean temperature trends.
Deep Ocean Spaghetti
The deep-ocean temperature trends in the 15 models which had complete ocean data archived for the period 1955-1999 are surprising, because I expected to see warming at all depths. Instead, the models exhibit wildly different behaviors, with deep-ocean cooling just as likely as warming depending upon the model and ocean layer in question (click for the full-size version):
Three of the models actually produced average cooling of the full depth of the oceans while the surface warmed, which seems physically implausible to say the least. More on that in a minute.
The most common difference between the models and the observations down to 700 m (the deepest level for which we have Levitus observations to compare to) is that the models tend to warm the ocean too much. Of those models that don’t, almost all produce unexpected cooling below the mixed layer (approximately the top 100 m of the ocean).
From what I understand, the differences between the various models’ temperature trends are due to some combination of at least 3 processes:
1) CLIMATE SENSITIVITY: More sensitive models should store more heat in the ocean over time; this is the relationship we want to exploit to estimate the sensitivity of the real climate system from the rates of observed warming compared to the rates of warming in the climate models.
2) CHANGES IN VERTICAL MIXING OVER TIME: The deep ocean is filled with cold, dense water formed at high latitudes, while the upper layers are warmed by the sun. Vertical mixing acts to reduce that temperature difference. Thus, if there is strengthening of ocean mixing over time, there would be deep warming and upper ocean cooling, as the vertical temperature differential is reduced. On the other hand, weakening mixing over time would do the opposite, with deep ocean cooling and upper ocean warming. These two effects, which can be seen in a number of the models, should cancel out over the full depth of the ocean.
3) SPURIOUS TEMPERATURE TRENDS IN THE DEEP OCEAN This is a problem that the models apparently have not fully addressed. Because it takes about ~1,000 years for the ocean circulation to overturn, it takes a very long run of a climate model before the model’s deep ocean settles into a stable temperature, say to 0.1 deg. C or less. While some knowledgeable expert reading this might want to correct me, it appears to me that some of these models have spurious temperature trends, unrelated to the CO2 (and other) forcings imposed on the models during 1955-1999. This is likely due to insufficient “spin-up” time for the model to reach a stable deep-ocean temperature. Until this problem is fixed, I don’t see how models can address the extent to which the extra heat from “global warming” is (or isn’t) being mixed into the deep ocean. Maybe the latest versions of the climate models, which will be archived in the coming months, do a better job.
Of course, we would like to exploit process (1) to get an estimate of how sensitive the real climate system is, using the Levitus observations (green curve in the above plot). Unfortunately, the 2nd and 3rd processes causing temperature trends unrelated to upper ocean warming seem to be a real problem in most of these models.
Choosing the Best Subset of Models
Obviously, using models that produce a global net cooling of the oceans during a period of surface warming (1955-1999) cannot be expected to provide a useful comparison to observations. Maybe someone can correct me, but it appears those models do not even conserve energy.
For quantitative comparison to the Levitus observations, I decided to accept only those models whose monthly mixed layer temperature variations during 1955-1999 had at least a 0.7 correlation with the Levitus observations in the 0-50 m layer over the same period. In other words, I omitted the models that behaved least like the observations.
The remaining 4 models’ trends are shown in the next plot, along with their average (click for large version):
Note that the 4-model average (black curve) shows warming down to about 2,500 meters depth. Now that we have excluded the models that are the most unrealistic, we can make a more meaningful quantitative comparison between the Levitus observations (which I have extrapolated to zero warming at 3,000 m depth) and the models.
Estimating Climate Sensitivity from the Levitus Observations
As reported by Forster & Taylor (2006 J. Climate), the average surface warming produced by 2100 in these 4 models (based upon the SRES A1B emissions scenario) is 3.9 deg. C. If we scale that by the smaller amount of warming seen in the observations, you get the following plot for estimated warming by 2100 based upon averaging of the trends to various depths (click for large version):
While the Levitus observations in the mixed layer are consistent with the model predictions of about 3 deg. C of warming by 2100, the much weaker warming in the entire 0-700 m layer suggests a much lower rate of future warming: about 1.3 deg. C or so.
If I loosen the requirements on the number of models accepted, and include 9 (rather than 4) out of 15, the predicted rate of warming increases a little, to 1.5 deg. C.
Discussion
Since this result uses the IPCC models themselves to “calibrate” the Levitus observations, it cannot be faulted for using a model that is “too simple”. To the extent the average IPCC model mimics nature, the models themselves suggest the relatively weak ocean warming observed during 1955-1999 indicates relatively low climate sensitivity.
Previous investigators (as well as the IPCC AR4 report) have claimed that warming of the oceans is “consistent with” anthropogenic forcing of the climate system. But they did not say exactly how consistent, in a quantitative sense.
The IPCC AR4 report admits that the climate models tend to warm the deep ocean too much, but the report puts error bars on both the models and observations which overlap each other, so then it can be claimed the overlap is evidence of “agreement” between models and observations.
The trouble with the ‘overlapping error bars’ argument – which seems to be a favorite statistical ploy of the IPCC – is that it cuts both ways: the other ends of the error bars, where there is no overlap, will suggest even larger disagreement between models and observations than if no error bars were used in the first place!
Nothing is gained with the statistical obfuscation of using overlapping error bars…except to demonstrate that the models and observations do not necessarily disagree.
That is very different from saying they do agree.
THE BOTTOM LINE
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the results, if they hold up to scrutiny: The observed rate of warming of the ocean has been too weak to be consistent with a sensitive climate system. This is demonstrated with the IPCC models themselves.
The resulting climate sensitivity (around 1.3 deg. C) just happens to be about the same sensitivity I have been getting using the simple forcing-feedback-diffusion model to match the Levitus observations of ocean warming during 1955-2010 directly.
Finally, it should be mentioned the above analysis assumes that there has been no significant natural source of warming during 1955-1999. If there has, then the diagnosed climate sensitivity would be even lower still.
I would be surprised if none of the climate modelers have performed a basic analysis similar to the one above. But since the results would be so damaging to the IPCC’s claims of much greater climate sensitivity (greater future warming) I would expect those results would never see the light of day.
Dr. Roy, you say:
“Finally, it should be mentioned the above analysis assumes that there has been no significant natural source of warming during 1955-1999. If there has, then the diagnosed climate sensitivity would be even lower still.”
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is roughly? I presume you believe it’s less than 1.3 C?
Another interesting analysis.
All climate models exhibit spurious temperature trends even in their surface and atmospheric results. This is due to chaotic variations arising from the nonlinear complex systems structure of the models. As a result the IPCC and relevant lead authors routinely compute the multi model ensemble average and do statistics on that average. This glosses over the fact that different models have different physics, embodied for example in their different parameterizations of sub grid size phenomena.
This practice stands in opposition to the scientific tradition of treating each model as a falsifiable scientific theory and comparing it to experiment, throwing out the ones that don’t make the grade. Instead IPCC draws the wagons around ALL the models, so we are always presented with the results of “the models,” as if they are speaking with one voice. Therefore, when Dr. Spencer selects the subset of models that come closest to observations in order to try to learn something new, he is aligned with the long tradition of scientific practice. IPCC does not do this.
Let’s face it, the IPCC has become a joke to anyone that really understands the basic fundamentals of sound science. History should be harsh on them, but I have a feeling it won’t get reported and documented as scathingly as it should.
Nice analysis.
I wonder how would these 15 models place in the sensitivity vs trend chart beside the first two analysed models – I guess they’d not follow any linear trend but I’d still like to see the result.
I wonder why so many climate models should be needed.
It would make sense if they looked at varius parts of the climate, but i have not seen such limitations or describtions.
I can see the point in running a single model with different start conditions, but running a lot of models and then expect to get some sort of best guess or reliable average shows in fact that the models are inadequate.
The modelers and IPCC claim they are all build on the best known physical and dynamical processes, but the fact that they come up with different results, even with only small changes in start conditions, makes me suspect that it is all dreamwork.
I am more and more convinced that climate is chaotic no matter what timescale you use.
What have confused the “believers” is that there are some external influences, but to say that GHG’s are the only ones is like closing your eyes.
Dr Spencer’s post is partly governed by an attempt to estimate the climate sensitivity. While this is perhaps the main over-all aim of the work, it seems he is asking the principal question too early in the dialectic, before housework and preliminary logic has been done. This may be what mediaeval scholars meant by their term ‘petitio principii’ according to Jaakko Hintikka (The fallacy of fallacies, Argumentation 1:211-238, 1987).
Surely restricting his dialectical move to a bit of preliminary logic would be safer and more effective at this stage of the dialogue? Dr Spencer would do best just to focus on the top 700 meters of the ocean, for which it seems that acceptable data are available, than to extend the discussion to include deeper water, for which it seems the acceptable data are not available.
It seems that Dr Spencer has a nearly unassailable case that the best IPCC AOGCMs are very far wrong about an essential thing. Surely at this stage it is better to leave it at that.
For Dr Spencer to take it further at this stage is to give the IPCC people huge opportunity to obfuscate and distract attention from the basic and apparently established fact that their models are very far wrong about an essential thing. A model that is very far wrong cannot be relied upon. Full stop. Christopher Game
Interesting perspective, Christopher. But if I ended the story at 700 m depth, then people like Trenberth could say that the extra heat from global warming must be deeper down.
OK, so I wanted to address that possibility. Levitus has presented data which suggests virtually no warming below 1500 meters, so I think that at least addressing the possibility of warming to 3,000 meters — just to see what it means in terms of changing the diagnosed sensitivity — is (I believe) a useful exercise.
Responding to Dr Spencer’s post of August 14, 2011 at 4:33 PM.
Dr Spencer notes that an opposing interlocutor might respond to Dr Spencer’s demonstration of observation-AOGCM contradiction for depths only down to 700 m by saying “Oh, but what about what happens below 700m?” That would be an attempt by the interlocutor to distract attention from Dr Spencer’s apparently unassailable case that the IPCC AOGCMs are very far wrong in an essential thing.
Dr Spencer could then respond that his thesis is not about what the opposing interlocutor is talking about, and that the opposing interlocutor is trying to set up a straw man, to commit the fault of argument called ignoratio elenchi, the fallacy of the irrelevant refutation. Perhaps it might then degenerate into a question of who has the louder voice? But Dr Spencer’s reasoning would be superior, whoever had the louder voice.
Dr Spencer would like to head off the opposing (IPCC) interlocutor before IPCC interlocutor has a chance to make his attempt at distraction. Dialectically better I think for Dr Spencer to wait for the interlocutor to actually make that attempt. Let the interlocutor make his attempt to set up a straw man, don’t try to anticipate exactly what kind of straw man he will attempt to set up. In making that attempt, the interlocutor is likely to show his hand and so to expose a more effective way to counter his distraction. Christopher Game
Well, I’m sure some interlocutor will interlocute with some interlocutory argument when they feel interlocution is necessary.
RW said:
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is roughly? I presume you believe it’s less than 1.3 C?
I´ve heard that difference between inactive sun and the most active sun is less than 0.3 W/m2. Is that correct? I don´t know, i didn´t measure it anyway. But if that´s the caSe, there must be some mechanism that causes positive feedback to solar irradiance.
Martin-I’m not sure if that forcing figure is correct, as it corresponds a temperature change over a solar cycle commonly cited at .1 K, a “transient response” implied by, if your forcing figures are correct, almost exactly the no feedback value of sensitivity. This doesn’t seem quite right, as Daniel Kirk-Davidoff came here about a year ago IIRC saying the solar cycle response was “proof” of high sensitivity and positive feedback…which actually leaves the interesting inconsistency being that the solar cycle response also would indicate a very short system response time. If, and I stress if there are amplifying mechanisms of solar activity’s influence on climate that are not themselves responses to temperatures, then this apparent “positive feedback” is actually completely illusory. It’s simply a result of incorrect values for the actual “forcing” directly or indirectly related to the solar cycle.
Roy, have you seen Willis Eschenbach’s post at WUWT? If so, what do you think of his ideas?
“Interesting perspective, Christopher. But if I ended the story at 700 m depth, then people like Trenberth could say that the extra heat from global warming must be deeper down.”
Yes, & that’s what they do.
With no proof.
And they expect us all to just believe them.
Why do we continue to have these propositions when the data indicates that it is highly unlikely that there is any causal relationship between CO2 concentration and Lower Tropospheric temperature?
The first differences in the monthly CO2 concentration data from the Mauna Loa Observatory compared to the satellite Northern Hemisphere Lower Tropospheric temperature for the period December, 1978, to June, 2011, a string of 390 data vectors, gives a correlation coefficient of -0.00513, that is, an R^2 of 2.6E-05 for which the t statistic is 0.101062 which has a probability of 0.46. Clearly it is highly unlikely that there is ANY causal relationship between CO2 concentration, man-made or otherwise, and global temperature.
Why does the world continue to give any credence whatsoever to the IPCC and their ilk?
Regarding models that show cooling trends deep in the ocean, Dr Spencer said “it appears those models do not even conserve energy”.
Several objectors to CAGW have
That was my initial thought, but perhaps that’s the point.
Several objectors to CAGW have complained that the Hansen-like warming projected by some is non-physical, as the energy isn’t available to heat the surface by the predicted amounts.
Are these models in fact “borrowing” the required energy from the deep oceans? And of course ignoring the fact that there is no physical mechanism proposed to perform this feat?
Roy, Game does have a point even if you don’t care for his vocabulary. Why didn’t you simply wait until “people like Trenberth could say that the extra heat from global warming must be deeper down” and respond at that time? Your attempt to preempt what Trenberth, et al *might* say with this piece you’ve written might be an interesting exercise but save it for the classroom rather than posting it to the world where you know full well that most of the world won’t understand it so you’ll probabilistically end up with charlatans trying to take your post and run with it which would end up subverting the science. Please, don’t be a such a dork (how’s that for plain English?).
I’m not “preempting” Trenberth. He has already stated the the extra heat is hiding in the deep ocean. The gauntlet has already been thrown down.
Wikipedia on “dork”: “Often confused with nerd and geek, but does not imply the same level of intelligence.”
I think a retraction is in order.
Because of incorrect physics behind imaginary ‘back radiation’ and imaginary ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, also much lower net anthropogenic CO2 [80% lower if you believe Salby], no climate model can predict climate.
In 2007, Kiehl admitted there’s no experimental proof of any CO2-AGW outside the noise of the aerosol correction. Also, correct the physics and ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling is heating, another AGW: CO2-AGW falls even further.
What Spencer is doing is to show the disconnect between the modelled prediction for the oceans and reality, another way of showing the models are wrong.
Yesterday, in the UK, one climate science activist replied to me that until contrary ideas are published in the approved peer-reviewed journals, they aren’t science. Such people have ceased to be scientists.
This is exactly the same as the end of the Phlogiston debate when Priestley, who had also sold his soul by pandering to rich aristocrats with a simple but incorrect idea they could understand, emigrated to the US to hide!
This is good, and it is only going to get better as this decade proceeds and the data trends more and more toward colder conditions.
Dr. Spencer – is doing a good job, but can’t bring himself (which is fine) to accept Stephen Wilde’s theory and my phase in theory as having a very good CHANCE of being correct and being proven this decade.
Again I ask if not the above theory ,what is the alternative?I want to hear alternatives.
Yes ,it is great to show how wrong the models are ,but I feel the important question is what might happen with the climate going forward and why? Why does the climate remain in a relaitvely stable state ,then switch to a new mode? I have attempted to explain it through the phase in of items that control the climate ,with the sun setting the tables ,which Stephen Wilde, articulates so well in this theory on how the sun might control earth’s temperatures,as the possible or I should say likely reason.
This board is great don’t get me wrong, but is mainly in the abstract ,with no one hardly ever trying to make a climate forecast or predicition, and the why behind it.
DR. SPENCER’S FUTURE CLIMATE POSITIONS.
As far as I can tell nothing dramatic going forward, one way or the other.SOI/PDO being the drivers essentially,and perhaps their effects on clouds.CO2 ,perhaps a small role, in any event, much less then what the models suggest. If I am wrong please correct me.
This could be correct ,however I don’t think so. I think it is much more then that,although that is part of it.
Given the prolong solar minimum and the consequences of it, which will ,I think,continue to be felt ,but in a greater way as the decade proceeds, the SOI/PDO will be one part of the process, but only part of the process that will bring about a change to earth’s climatic system.
I am standing by what I have said earlier until proven otherwise. If proven otherwise by data, or some break through going forward, I will admit to being wrong if it should come out in that manner.
SPARTACUSIFREE- Approved peer review journals ,don’t mean a thing when it comes to who may or may not be correct in this climate science debate.
What will matter is what happens to the climate going forward,and the why behind it, which I feel will be much clearer before this decade is out.
I could care less about peer review journels approving or not approving my or any other climatic theory. What I care about is what the climate will actually do going forward and if I am in the ball park as to why.
Dr. Spencer
This AM I read the following article:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/satellite-data-appears-to-confirm-model-predictions-of-storm-track-behavior.ars
The article focuses on storm tracks but at the end, it mentions that low cloud cover has apparently decreased 2-3% since 1983. Some time ago, you commented that such a change could account for all the recent warming.
Would you please comment?.
Yes, I had totally forgot that the NASA ISCCP cloud data supports my view of clouds forcing recent warming.
Dear Dr Spencer,
I thought you might like my most recent post on my blog; (prompted by a misguided fellow-scientific blogger who chose to cite something written by you in defence of his sceptical position). However, please be advised that your days are numbered; as we are onto you!; we know who is funding your misinfromation; and why they are doing it.
“I have the right to do anything”, you say—but not everything is beneficial… (1 Cor. 6:12a)
As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly. (Proverbs 26:11)
As pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18)
There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. (Proverbs14:12)
Regards,
Martin Lack.
Martin (Lack):
OMG! Conservatives tend to be global warming skeptics, and liberals tend to be global warming alarmists! Who would have ever guessed it!
Your mastery of the obvious is impressive.
(BTW, only the federal government funds my skepticism).
Regards,
-Roy
Mr Lack,
Your mastery of drivel is clear for all to see.
Equally clear is that your mastery of Science is…ahem…lacking.
Mike Edwards.
Salvatore del Prete:
I think that Dr Spencer is trying to figure out something like the worst case scenario and show people that there is nothing like grave danger or end of the world inherited in our lifestyle, except for health risks of being too lazy to cope without our SUV´s :-D.
Daaamn! I normally post something stupid on this blog around this time of day but now I hesitate to, as apparently Dr. Spencer is in particularly fine form today. :> Still, if it provides anyone else a laugh as good as the one I just had reading the blog maybe it’s worthwhile.
Does anyone know what the argument is about the significance of deep ocean heating? What I mean is, lets say for the sake of argument that the climate ~is~ sensitive like the IPCC guys suggest, but all the warming is being sucked up by the deep ocean 1300+ meters down. What’s the impact supposed to be? It seems to me that deep ocean water heating up from an average of near to 4C up to 4.02C or whatever isn’t going to have much near term impact, for a variety of reasons. (Note – I completely made the 4.02C up, I don’t have the first clue what the ‘real’ number is supposed to be. Obviously if it’s going up to 15C that would be likely to have a dramatic impact, but somehow I doubt that it’s that substantial…) I read that the ‘ocean conveyor belt’ takes about a thousand years to cycle for one – that’s a pretty decent interval right there. Another reason is – now that that heat is dissipated in the deep ocean, it isn’t coming back out in any scenario where we’d be alive to see it anyway. Are we imagining that the rest of our system will cool to below the average abyssal temperature so that energy will distribute back out? Obviously not. Maybe we’re worried that the depths will continue to warm? Seems like it’d take a substantial amount of time to get to anything significant. Some indirect effect maybe?
I should probably have posted this on realclimate or something – probably hundreds of people just dying to explain it to me. Still, I think I’ve got a slightly better chance of a response that has something remotely to do with reality here…
Dear Dr Spencer;
You don’t have to publish the nutcase rantings of people such as Martin Lack.
Roy says, “The resulting climate sensitivity (around 1.3 deg. C) just happens to be about the same sensitivity I have been getting using the simple forcing-feedback-diffusion model “
Yes quite the coincidence, especially given that Drs. Bickmore and Smith have shown your tuned model to be wanting (and I am being diplomatic here). Even Roy’s own model when run properly also points to an EQS of near +3 K.
Roy also says,
“I would be surprised if none of the climate modelers have performed a basic analysis similar to the one above.”
Well Roy, you need to brush up on the literature. A similar comparison between in-situ observations and the models has been undertaken by Domingues et al. (2008, Nature):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html
“On average, the decadal variability of the climate models with volcanic forcing now agrees approximately with the observations, but the modelled multi-decadal trends are smaller than observed. We add our observational estimate of upper-ocean thermal expansion to other contributions to sea-level rise and find that the sum of contributions from 1961 to 2003 is about 1.5 +/- 0.4 mm yr-1, in good agreement with our updated estimate of near-global mean sea-level rise (using techniques established in earlier studies) of 1.6 +/- 0.2 mm yr-1.”
It seems that Roy believes that if his physically implausible simple model points to a lower climate sensitivity then models are OK, but if those those “evil” models from research agencies from around the world that are discussed in the IPCC point to a higher sensitivity then models, those models only, are bunk.
Regardless, Knutti and Hegerl (2008, Nature) clearly demonstrate multiple, independent lines of evidence (including paleo data) point to an equilibrium climate sensitivity (EQS) to doubling of CO2 near +3 K, and we will probably triple or even quadruple CO2 at this rate.
another man who speak to the world! But write your comments directly to roy is so hard?
Hello Steve.S,
He certainly doesn’t have to, but I found it … educational, I suppose. Martin Lack’s post (and blog post) consisted of little more than a juvenile taunt (I.E., I called you an ‘unreliable witness and said your results are dodgy on my blog, nyah- nyah!) and an almost comical parody of a threat? (We’re on to you, your days are numbered! Oooh solemn proverbs follow!)
You know abstractly that a man who bucks the popular trend and gets widespread notice in the press is going to be a target. It’s interesting (and mildly disgusting) to see how it works in action. Sort of like a tour of the sewer system in Athens I guess.
Regards,
Hi Roy,
Just a word of encouragement from down in New Zealand. It’s snowing here right now ( 50 year weather event ) and we’re about to start the rugby world cup. Keep up the great work. Your blogs are avidly read from all the way across the Pacific and I’m sure around the Globe – it’s great to see you fighting the good fight in the name of what is really happening.
Down here, we’ve already legislated a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by between 10 and 20 percent by 2020 on 1990 levels. Funnily enough, about 50% of our total emmissions come out of the backsides of cows. Yep it’s a kind of madness. Just shaking my head more and more – the more I read about the way things have been hijacked. I just read how difficult it was for Dick Lindzen to get his revised 2011 paper published. It does smack of an uneven playing field.
Anyway, I realize you’re busy keeping the Dessler’s and Trenbeth’s of this world on their toes. It will be tricky for them when they eventually have to admit they have been wrong. Bit like Mann revising his Hockey sticks and thoughts about the Medieval Warm Period. All the best Roy and Cheers.
Gerard
Auckland
New Zealand – most awesome country in the world.
Svend Ferdinandsen says:
“I can see the point in running a single model with different start conditions, but running a lot of models and then expect to get some sort of best guess or reliable average shows in fact that the models are inadequate.”
I have recently been doing some work on the outputs of the AR4 climate models myself, and I had come to the same conclusion.
To me, the fact that the AR4 uses many models within each scenario, most of which produce vastly different results, is evidence that there is no consensus on the actual physics involved. The scenarios rely on errors within each individual model to cancel each other out and produce an average result, and even that isn’t particularly accurate. One problem is that it is difficult to evaluate which model is the most accurate, since many models are not even consistently inaccurate.
None of the models is correct because ‘back radiation’ and ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling are artefacts of mathematical/physics’ mistakes.
Net CO2-AGW is very low [<0.3 W/m^2] and could be net zero as the atmosphere controls greenhouse warming to a fixed level.
I am bewildered by the above entries, especially those submitted since my Response of August 14, 2011, at 07:37 pm where I point out that the correlation coefficient between first differences of each of the Mauna Loa monthly CO2 concentrations and the satellite Northern Hemisphere Lower Tropospheric temperatures is -0.00513 up to June 2011. That is there is no justification for rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no causal relationship between these two elements.
As there is no temperature change being caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere, surely it is futile to discuss climate sensitivity and climate models. If in doubt, please do the simple linear regression exercise yourself. The monthly CO2 data can be downloaded from the NOAA Web site and the monthly satellite temperature data from the NASA Web site. A spreadsheet application on a PC is all that is required to carry out the linear regression analysis. This is standard statistical fare.
Once you have a result, we can all start discussing where we go from here in a world where atmospheric CO2 does not affect the atmospheric temperature.
As each month passes by and the global temperatures fail to go up, it just makes the man made co2 global warming theory that much weaker.
I can’t wait until the down trend in temp. becomes established ,which is not that far off
Bevan,
I was going to have a stab at confirming your figures, but can you tell me why you are comparing Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations with only Northern Hemisphere temperatures?
CG really does have a good point. The strongest point of your argument, and one that is difficult to obfuscate, is that the IPCC models are not in good agreement with measured ocean temperature data. Trenberth’s unsupported assertion that the extra heat is hiding in the deep ocean doesn’t make up for the piss poor correlation of current IPCC models with the Levitus data set. This argument is simple, easy for even the layperson to understand, and requires the IPCC folks to go back and fix their models.
When you start guessing about what happens in the deep ocean, you weaken your argument and encourage obfuscation by Trentberth (what does the deep ocean have to do with the models being so off base in the 0 to 700 meter regime?).
The first rule of sales, is that as soon as you make the sale, you stop selling. More is not necessarily better, and in this case it is probably worse.
Dear Obscurity
The issue is not Roys “toy model”. The issue is that the IPCC models shown by Roy in his first figure above do not even agree amongst themselves, never mind the data. Anything from cooling to warming!
As Svend and Ray point out, such a large spread in predictions is evidence that the physics of global warming is far from understood.
You should start by explaining whats wrong with the IPCC models. At least Roy doesnt waste hundreds of hours of supercomputer time with his model
Let’s get real here. This winter is lkely to be extreme because the chances of a substancial -AO ,are high due to the following:
1. contiuation of low solar activity likely
2. easterly qbo likely
3. weak La Nina likely
4, continuation of high latitude volcanic activity likely
People do you realize the models for global warming are just about opposite of what I am saying. They don’t have a clue.
Do you realize OBSCURITY ,that all these factors are tied to the sun.
This decade ends it, for the nonsence global warming BS ,and their BS models,once and for all. My prediction.
If they dare try to make the excuse of increased volcanic activity ,independent of solar action,as a cause for global cooling, I will take them to task on that ,to the n’th degree. They are not going to spin themselves out of that, just lke they are not going to spin themselves out of the more zonal ,less extreme climate they had predicted in the past,only now trying to tie in this more meridional pattern to global warming. BS to the highest degree. Just look at what they wrote and said in 2000 or so.
Where is the lower troposheric hot spot near the equator, where are the El Ninos, where is the temp. rise, where is all the ocean heat??? Where is the cooler stratosphere? Where are all the positive feedbacks ,where,where ,where?
No where is the answer because all of it is false, and is being proven so as each day passes by.
DR. SPENCER- I wish you would take even a more negative stance toward the global warmers limke myself and Stephen.
I think you might as you see what the prolong solar minimum will be doing and then refer to the MAUNDER MINIMUM,DALTON MINIMUM ,along with Stephen Wilde’s theory, and my phase in theory.
If it is not this, what is it? The answer is there is no other answer, it is the sun setting the stage for the items that control the climate to phase into either a cold or warm mode and that is what determines earth’s climate. Most of the time the changes are small, but sometimes when the degree of magnitude is strong enough ,along with duration long enough ,thresholds will be met which will give a more dramatic change in climate. What do think has accounted for all the past climatic changes. It is this. Milankovich cycles also playing a role in the larger scale changes.
It isn’t as if the earth’s climate only changed in a dramatic fashion a few times, it is 100’s of times. This is the only explanation ,because through this explanation one can see how albedo can change, how the climate can reverse itself back and forth and stay stable for long periods of time, how abrupt climatic changes could happen if thresholds are met. Only this line of reasoning can explain earth’s past climatic changes and what is going to happen going forward.
Past history shows this to be so. Again, I take past history over any ridiculous mathematical model ,which knows nothing about nothing ,and who’s data is flawed and incomplete to begin with.
Mathematical models when it comes to the climate can not cut it, they have proven themselves to be USELESS.
One reason why I don’t get much into the model debate like so many of you do here, is because I think the conclusions already have been proven that the models can’t predict the climate. What more do we need, we have the answer already.
This is why I hope Dr. Spencer will start to focus his attnetions more on what the climate will be doing gong forward and why.
The other reason is much of the model discussions are based on mathematical theories which to me are to abstract to translate into the real climatic world.
Has anyone else noticed how quickly the AQUA CH5 temperature is currently falling?
Having threatened to reach 2011 levels a few days ago, it is now approaching “average” levels again, for the first time since late May.
YES I HAVE NOTICE.
EVERYDAY I MONITOR THE FOLLOWING:
SOLAR ACTIVITY
VOLCANIC /EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY
AO,NAO,AAO INDEX
DR RYAN MAUE GFS GLOBAL TEMP SITE
ARCTIC SEA ICE/ANTARCTIC SEA ICE
QBO
500MB MAP
ENSO LATEST TEMP.
SOI INDEX
AMSU A- TEMP SURFACE 600MB 400MB
Yes Ray,
I gave the result for the Northern Hemisphere because the Mauna Loa Observatory is at 19 degrees 32 minutes North Latitude.
For your information the correlation coefficients for the first difference of the monthly CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa with the first difference of each of the monthly average satellite Lower Tropospheric temperatures for global, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere and Tropical zones are -0.002, -0.00513, 0.002758 and 0.027196 respectively giving R^2 of 4E-06, 2.6E-05, 7.6E-06 and 0.00074 which transform to t statistic values of 0.039, 0.101, 0.054 and 0.536 which in turn have probabilities of 0.48, 0.46, 0.48 and 0.296. In all cases this implies that there is no justification to reject the null hypothesis that changes in CO2 concentration are independent of lower tropospheric temperature changes for all of the four geographic zones.
Another interesting aspect of the data set is to plot the Fourier Amplitude spectrum for each of the elements. That for the first differences of the monthly CO2 concentration show a marked peak about 30 times background at 12 months. All of the first differences of the monthly Lower Tropospheric temperature zones show something like blue noise, that is, maximum amplitude at the highest frequencies decaying to minimum amplitude at the lowest frequency. The 12 month peridicity obvious on the CO2 data is barely detectable amongst the noise in the temperature data again implying that there is no causal relationship.
Note that unfortunately I use a spreadsheet application on a PC so do not have access to an advanced mathematical routine for determining amplitude spectra but would like to see the results from such a routine.
Bevan:
Very cute statistical party trick. You choose to compare the monthly change in C02 with the monthly change in temperature.
CO2 is seasonal, so the monthly changes oscillate around zero with a period of 12 months (and over time the positives outweigh the negatives). This is why the Fourier coefficients have a pronounced spike at 12.
The temperature is dominated by ENSO which is only quasiperiodic with longer period closer to 5 years. Monthly changes again oscillate around zero, (with positives again outweighing negatives over time) but not in a regular 12 month cycle, and with considerably more noise due to both measurement error and fluctuations in the total energy balance. Your so called “blue” noise.
Yes the correlation is low. But this says nothing about the causation either way.
But I think you know that. The probability that you know enough to do the computation, but not enough to know that the result is meaningless seems small. More likely, you are purposely trying to deceive people who don’t understand the math well enough to see through the trick.
The exact connection between CO2 and temperature has been known for over 100 years. The only question left is how much an affect it is going to have on the climate. Roy Spencer says only a little, but most others say more.
In case you don’t actually know enough to realize you make no sense, you will find friends here.
Carter,
thank you nice recapitulation of well known facts with a subtle ad-hominem attack at the end.
would you also try to say something to the point of dr.spencers’s post?
Betrand,
You are quite welcome.
Since you asked, I find Dr. Spencer’s posts thought provoking, which is why I take the time to read them. However, I find the comments from most of the regular posters here pretty awful.
I think obscurity brought this up last topic. I wonder why it is that Dr. Spencer will not make even the slightest effort to try to educate some of his followers. Dr. Spencer occupies a very small minority of scientists staking out an informed alternate hypothesis about the future of the climate. But he is still an informed scientist and would have to disagree with (or just laugh at) much of the crap written in the comments. Perhaps he learned long ago that it is not a productive use of time to engage people that are either beyond understanding or are being purposely deceitful. I wonder often what the ratio is between these two camps. (was that another subtle ad hominem?).
In regards to Bevan, his mathematical logic was so transparently false to somebody with my scientific background (math/stat not climate), that I had to point it out.
This brings up an interesting question of fairness here. Bevan makes a snidely written dismissal of the entire issue of CO2 induced warming. He dismissed (with a nonsensical argument) not only the theory of green house warming, but also Dr. Spencer’s entire scientific career
“surely it is futile to discuss climate sensitivity and climate models”. I pointed out that he is either really naive or purposely deceitful. Who should be criticized here?
Carter:
Obviously you don’t understand my post and my question. I was not asking whether you find Dr.Spencer’s post provoking, interesting or whatever else. That’s not “to the point”. You don’t even need to write about Dr.Spencer’s model which may be right or wrong, because it’s not the point of his post. I’d like to know what do you think about the discrepancies of all(!) IPCC models from observations? Do you still think they are able to predict future climate when they fail to fit the past? Isn’t this worth discussing more than refuting obviously wrong opponent who’s post is by the way not to the point as well? The reason why you did it is clear, however. It’s much easier to refute Bevan than Spencer, isn’t it? Bevan’s view tells you nothing about anybody else here. I believe you know it well. And that’s why I call your post ad-hominem.
Bevan, you said:
“I gave the result for the Northern Hemisphere because the Mauna Loa Observatory is at 19 degrees 32 minutes North Latitude.”
I am not entirely sure if that logic is correct, since the ML CO2 figures are for a specific location, whereas, NH temperature covers a much larger area. Better, I would have thought, to use global CO2 and temperature figures.
Also, as Carter points out, CO2 levels are seasonal, but it is not clear to me from your previous posts which data you are actually using for your calculations.
For example, are you using the monthly mean CO2 figure itself, or the seasonally corrected figure.
Also, I am not sure which temperature figures you are using. In your first post, you referred to the N.H. Lower Troposphere temperatures, from which assumed you meant UAH anomalies, but in your second post you said that the figures could be downloaded from the NASA site. Since I don’t have time to search, could you provide a link to the data?
If the temperature figures are absolute temperatures, rather than anomalies, and you are using the mean CO2 figures (i.e. not seasonally adjusted), then I think that would avoid the problem of seasonality.
Finally, can you clarify what you mean by “first differences”?
Do you mean monthly differences?
Bertrand,
Since I encouraged the most recent post from Bevan, I feel in some way responsible for Carter’s post in response to it.
I didn’t think that there are any rules here about whether posts are or are not on the precise topic of the blog. Presumably if there were, then any offending posts would be removed.
I have certainly seen other posts which were more deserving of being removed than Carter’s.
Ray,
I don’t think Cater’s post must be on the precise topic or it should be removed. I just believe it’s useless to refute something clearly wrong and it’s incorrect (and impolite) to suggest that most of the people discussing on this blog are wrong, too. If Carter feels strong in climate topics I would prefer reading his views on Dr.Spencer’s analysis…
CARTER- you and others on your side are the ones that need to be educated, and should take a course in climate 101.
CARTER is the typical empty vessel global warmer that can’t put forth an argument to show why CO2, and even more laughable CO2 increases caused by man, will result in the temperature of the earth increasing.
All evidence point to this not being the case.
All of the warming that did take place from 1977-2000 or so can be accounted from natural forces, that control the climate. They were a shift in 1977 from a cold to warm PDO, very high solar activity, low volcanic activity ,soi index mostly negative(EL NINOS DOMINATE)and the AO ,NAO atmospheric circualtions mostly positive.
That has since changed ,and it is not an accident that the temperature rise has come to a halt since at least 2002, as the trace gas CO2 continues to rise,and the real factors that control the climate phase into theri cold mode.
Past history is on my side ,not your side CARTER. Every single claim you side makes is so EASLILY refuted.
CARTER ,as I have said to OBSCURITY ,if you are so sure on what makes earth’s climatic sytem work explain what has caused the 100’s of abrupt climatic changes in the past which were much greater in magnitude then the last century .7 c warming.
I explained it through a phase in of natural items with the sun setting the tables that could cause a threshold to be met ,if duration and degree of magnitude of the items that control the climate is sufficient.
Give us your explanation?Please.
Also explain to us how the models predicted a more zonal atmospheric circulation ,(reality more meridional circulation), the models forecasted a troposheric hot spot,(reality no troposheric hot spot ) the models forecasted a cooling stratosphere,(reality no cooling stratosphere), the models predicted less extremes in weather,(reality more extremes in weather has started) the models predicted strong El Ninos with drought ,(realiy is we just had a record La Nina with record floods), and last but not least the models keep predicting the temperature to rise, (reality is the temp. have not risen since at least 2002.)
In closing if the models can’t predict these basic atmospheric ,climatic processes correctly, how in the world could they possibly predict the climate going forward.
Further, I just listed the MAJOR blunders of the climatic models, if one want’s to get the detailed list, just go to JOE D’ALEO’S ,ICECAP.COM website. He list well over 30 blunders the climatic models have gotton wrong.
The models are flawed, and two main reasons are; they don’t have complete data to work with, and they also have inaccurate data to work with . Good Luck ,your side will need it.
This decade will be the decade of climatic extremes, increased geological activity and global temperatures declining.
Give us your predictions CARTER. Please so we can see who is right and who is wrong.
Carter,
Regarding your statement: “I think obscurity brought this up last topic. I wonder why it is that Dr. Spencer will not make even the slightest effort to try to educate some of his followers. Dr. Spencer occupies a very small minority of scientists staking out an informed alternate hypothesis about the future of the climate. But he is still an informed scientist and would have to disagree with (or just laugh at) much of the crap written in the comments. Perhaps he learned long ago that it is not a productive use of time to engage people that are either beyond understanding or are being purposely deceitful.”
Speaking as one of the ignorant posters on this board who participated in the original discussion about this with Obscurity, I’d like to reiterate the point I made to him that it’s strange that this bothers you. What do you care? I think it’s obvious that Dr. Spencer has better things to do with his time than to tutor people like me one on one for free on matters I ought to go back for a postgraduate degree to learn about, if I care enough to do so. Given that, what do you propose he do, delete any comments by fools such as myself who do not understand some of the basics involved? What for? I’m certainly glad he doesn’t; I’ve learned more than a bit posting dumb ideas and questions, reading the responses, following references to papers, and reading and thinking about them.
Another thing, since you give me the opening by mentioning it – this default assumption that you and Obscurity seem to share that skeptics are either ignorant or disingenuous is both offensive and counterproductive. Certainly, there are many ignorant skeptics such as myself, I take no issue with that part. But as far as I can see, there is no justification for proposing that the more educated skeptics are being ‘purposely misleading’. In my book, when you make an assertion that a group of scientists are being deliberately dishonest, you ought to be prepared to back it up with a very strong case, or to withdraw the statement with an apology.
Mark B:
You bring up several good points. Let me ask you this: What do you think is Dr. Spencer’s motivation for this site if not to educate people in a topic he cares deeply about? If this is true, then wouldn’t he be frustrated by comments that directly insult his scientific theories appearing after every post?
Why should I care? Well imagine you are in a class with a professor giving a weekley lecture to be followed by a discussion section with the students. Every week during the discussion salvatore screams from the back row over and over that this is “the the most stupid theory I have ever heard by the way”. Wouldn’t you wish the professor would find the energy to disagree? This is how I feel here.
As to your other point about ignorance versus deceit. I don’t think everyone out there is deceitful. But in the case of Bevan, he gave enough detail to convince me that he ran the correlation and took the Fourier transform, so he must know something. But then he makes a statement even worse than the canonical worst mistake in statistics:
REALLY BAD=correlation implies causation
EVEN WORSE BEVAN BAD=lack of correlaton implies lack of causation
How does one explain this? He either had the worst math or stat teacher of all time, or he is a troll. I wish he would tell us which it was so we could put this one to rest.
I wish the internet was free of trolls, but it isn’t. And unfortunately whenever politics
are concerned, the trolls are often paid for their trolling. The fact that climate science
is now a political issue is perhaps to me the most depressing thing about the whole subject.
I am actually glad the press pays little attention to my field.
As for all the other friendly questions from others, sorry, I am done for this thread.
Bertrand/Salvatore,
As someone who is critical of the “IPCC models” myself, I don’t think that Carter’s post necessarily implied that he was a supporter of those models or a unquestioning believer in AGW (although I may be wrong).
What he did, was point out some shortcomings (some of which I agree with), in the method used by Bevan to come to his conclusions, although I don’t agree that there is any “trickery”, or deliberate attempt to deceive involved.
If claims are made which contradict the established AGW theory, they must be made on the basis of sound mathematics and logic,
which is partially my reason for enquiring into the exact methodology used, in order that I can attempt to reproduce the results.
Betrand,
As I stated, climate is not my main field. I read this blog and the comments (as well as other blogs, scientific papers, books, etc.) to educate myself on the arguments against the scientific consensus that rising C02 is a serious problem. I have children, I vote, and as Dr. Spencer often points out, this is not only a scientific issue, but also a political one (although mostly only in the US and to a lesser extent Canada). Since this has unfortunately become a political issue in the U.S., I feel it is a responsibility for the people to make an educated decision on the subject if one is to cast a vote. Dr. Spencer seems to have a big following, so it is disturbing to see patently false (and possibly politically motivated and purposely deceitful) arguments that CO2 has no effect at all go unchallenged. In the particular case of Bevan, I do have the expertise to say that his/her argument is complete nonsense, so I did. In the case of deep ocean warming, I do not have the expertise to say Dr. Spencer is right or wrong, but I do have the scientific background to read the various arguments and scientific papers on the subject to better educate myself.
What is your purpose here Bertrand? Do you want to learn something? Or do you, like salvatore, already know everything there is to know about the issue (if I actually use his name, is it still consider ad hominem?). Or are you here just to make sure that nobody gets nasty? If the latter is true, you should be more consistent.
Carter (the empty vessel)
Ray and/or salvatore del prete:
What is the website now for AQUA Ch5? My old bookmark no longer works. I lost a lot of interst in AQUA Ch5 when I learned that the daily chart was contaminated with stratopheric and other non-Ch5 temperatures. But I would like to see what you are referencing.
An Inquirer,
The website for AQUA CH5 is:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html
As far as I know, this hasn’t changed recently.
Select 14000/600mb (AQUA ch05) in the dropdown box and “Show data as text”, if you want the data file.
CARTER- I don’t understand why it upsets you so much that the CO2 GLOBAL MAN MADE WARMING THEORY is not considered a viable theory by some on this board,and secondly why you can’t take the time to learn about alternative theories that have past history to back them up and which go a heck of a lot further in explaining past and present climatic changes then this CO2 theory.
You should look at the theory presented by STEPHEN WILDE ,titled How The Sun Might Control Earth’s Temperature. It is on this board in various placs and on the Irish climate website. I am 100% behind this theory.
TEST TEST TEST
CARTER -A simple test is taking place as we speak, thanks to mother nature. We are very fortunate this decade, for the the first time since the Dalton Minimum ,way back from 1790-1840 ,that we now have a prolong solar minimum in place, in addition to a cold PDO,increased geological activity ,a more -AO,and a more positive SOI.
So we now have all those above factors in place pointing to colder temperatures going forward ,as oppossed to the CO2 man made global warming theory, which states as CO2 rises ,positive feedbacks along with the CO2 increase, will cause a temperature rise.
Given that contrast and given the elements of both theories are in place, and will likely remain in place as this decade proceeds, what direction the temperature of the earth will go in, will determine once and for all ,who is correct and who is wrong.
If the temperatures resume their rise despite all the natural items pointing to cooling ,then the CO2 man made global warming theory will be correct.
On the otherhand if temperatures start a decline despite the increase in CO2 ,then my theory of the phase in of natural items that control the climate is going to have to be considered correct.
We are likely to have the answer way before this decade is out. I am quite confident ,my thoughts will be proven correct. Why? becasue past history supports everything I am saying.
I am using AMSU A DISCOVER – to look at the surface and upper level temperatures.
CARTER -states climate is not his main field ,yet he thinks everyone that has a different opinion on what might effect earth’s climatic system does not know what they are talking about.
That is strange to say the least.
CARTER- at least I with others have put forth our thoughts and have made predictions, and stand by them.
Unlike the global warmers, we don’t spin and change our story to try to make what is happening to earth’s climate now, try to fit our thoughts.
Just about everything that has been occurring with earth’s climatic system, at least going back to 2008, is in direct opposition of what the global warmers were touting in the early 2000’s. If you don’t believe it go back and look up what they were saying then ,about now.
They have since changed their story to try to remain viable, but anyone with any knowledge knows, that they are full of BS, and are just trying to spin things to make them try to fit in with their soon to be obsolete theory.
I have outlined for you many of the model blunders and have given you a website to substanciate what I say. I have given you my alternative theory ,which at least makes a good attempt to explain earth’s abrupt temperature changes of the past. I have presented you with STEPHEN WILDE theory on how the sun might control earth’s temperatures.
What have you presented ,only to say that those of us who don’t believe in the CO2 global warming theory(the most stupid theory I have ever heard by the way) don’t know what we are talking about.
Wasn’t there a Russian scientist that said CO2 would not have much effect on heat diffusing into space. He had some theory of molecules and energy.
“Levitus has presented data which suggests virtually no warming below 1500 meters”
Is there actual data below 700m or is this extrapolation? The Levitus data confuses me- all the models show some form of a curve projecting below 700m, but the Levitus extrapolation seems to be linear. Isn’t that kind of assuming your conclusions? I’m not saying thats not like to be an accurate prediction, but it seems kind of a backdoor way to criticize the models. With the vast lionshare of ocean in the depths, it seems to me that a small error either way would blow out any conclusions you want to draw in any direction. If the argument is ‘we don’t have any idea what the heck is going on below 700m because we dont have any data, therefor any modelling is pretty silly’, thats fine, but proposing alternative models playing the same game seems like a poor strategy.
Hello Carter,
Thanks for the civilized and thoughtful response. My apologies if I bit your head off over the ‘deceit’ issue; it’s a cumulative frustration I suffer from reading various posts that I probably shouldn’t have dumped entirely on you. I hope you continue reading and posting here.
Regards,
MarkB
Carter says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:12 PM
“The exact connection between CO2 and temperature has been known for over 100 years. The only question left is how much an affect it is going to have on the climate. Roy Spencer says only a little, but most others say more.”
I’ll ask you this question as I’ve asked it to many other ‘believers’. If the surface of the Earth is to warm by 3 C, it must also emit an additional 16.6 W/m^2, which COE dictates has to be coming from somewhere and has to be continuously replaced or else the surface will lose energy and eventually cool back down. There are only two possible sources for this increased energy flux into the surface – either through increased atmospheric absorption or from the Sun via a reduced albedo.
If the ‘intrinsic’ or ‘no-feedback’ warming from 2xCO2 is only about 1.1 C or about +6 W/m^2 into the surface (3.7 W/m^2 directly from 2xCO2 and 2.3 W/m^2 from the current atmosphere), where is the additional +10.6 flux required supposed to come from?
If you think a relatively small 1.1 C rise in global temperature is going to increase the water vapor absorption to cause a +10.6 W/m^2 flux into the surface, how are you arriving at this? If it’s going to come from a reduced albedo, how do you rectify that there has been no decrease in the albedo over the last 30 years of satellite record?
I presume you believe in Conservation of Energy? Where is the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing all the enhanced positive feedback warming?
Responding to the post of RW of August 20, 2011 at 11:12 PM.
RW writes: “I’ll ask you this question as I’ve asked it to many other ‘believers’. If the surface of the Earth is to warm by 3 C, it must also emit an additional 16.6 W/m^2, which COE dictates has to be coming from somewhere and has to be continuously replaced or else the surface will lose energy and eventually cool back down. There are only two possible sources for this increased energy flux into the surface – either through increased atmospheric absorption or from the Sun via a reduced albedo.”
Christopher responds: Dear RW, your thinking is muddled here. You are mixing in your mind two interpretations of ‘possible sources’. One interpretation of ‘possible sources’ is ”possible mediately and indirectly supplying sources’, the other is ”possible immediately and directly supplying sources”. The two do not have to be equal. “Increased atmospheric absorption or from the Sun via a reduced albedo” would be a ”mediate and indirectly supplying source” while “energy flux into the surface” refers to an ”immediate and directly supplying source”. You are supposing these two to be equal. Your use of the preposition “through” tells that part of your mind knows this, though another part of your mind is ignoring it.
You need to clarify your thinking to avoid mistakes like this. A handy help, I find, is to draw careful diagrams to check the thought processes. Otherwise, very strict attention to the verbal logic of your own thinking can protect against mistakes like this.
RW writes: “If you think a relatively small 1.1 C rise in global temperature is going to increase the water vapor absorption to cause a +10.6 W/m^2 flux into the surface, how are you arriving at this? If it’s going to come from a reduced albedo, how do you rectify that there has been no decrease in the albedo over the last 30 years of satellite record?”
Christopher says: Dear RW, I don’t think anyone says that the 1.1C rise in global temperature is going to immediately cause the eventual long-term increase in flux into the surface. You are setting up a straw man with that question. No sensible person, believer or not, would try to answer it, and those who are familiar with the context would lose interest since your question reveals that you are not thinking clearly. The proposed causal link is indirect and delayed. The ‘no-feedback’ warming is just that: without any feedback increase in water vapour. Again, a simple diagram, or careful verbal logic, would help clarify your thinking.
There is no actual physical meaning to the “relatively small 1.1 C rise in global temperature”; it is an artefact of a method of calculation, and I think not a good path to follow. Nevertheless, since you seem to want to follow it, a warmist will reply that the +10.6 W/m^2 is coming from the eventual long-term increase in atmospheric temperature combined with the eventual long-term increase in water vapour content, combined, some will say, of the reduced albedo effects of a relatively reduced amount of low cloud, combined also with the effects of a relatively increased amount of high cloud, and other feedbacks; they will say that they are arriving at it by reading the performance of their AOGCMs. It is not clear to me (Christopher) why you say “that there has been no decrease in the albedo over the last 30 years of the satellite record.” I have been under the impression that there has been such a relative decrease, that has accounted for much of the supposed accumulated heat supply. Christopher Game
A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of only sunspot number and ppmv CO2, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). The equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived are in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).
Christopher Game says:
“Christopher responds: Dear RW, your thinking is muddled here. You are mixing in your mind two interpretations of ‘possible sources’. One interpretation of ‘possible sources’ is ”possible mediately and indirectly supplying sources’, the other is ”possible immediately and directly supplying sources”. The two do not have to be equal. “Increased atmospheric absorption or from the Sun via a reduced albedo” would be a ”mediate and indirectly supplying source” while “energy flux into the surface” refers to an ”immediate and directly supplying source”. You are supposing these two to be equal. Your use of the preposition “through” tells that part of your mind knows this, though another part of your mind is ignoring it.
You need to clarify your thinking to avoid mistakes like this. A handy help, I find, is to draw careful diagrams to check the thought processes. Otherwise, very strict attention to the verbal logic of your own thinking can protect against mistakes like this.”
I’m having trouble responding to you here because I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Of course, only the Sun supplies energy to the system and ultimately into the surface. What increased atmospheric absorption does is modify the response of the system to the energy supplied by the Sun, re-directing some of it back to the surface. I did not say or imply the two have to be equal – they do not.
All I’m saying is the surface is currently emitting about 390 W/m^2. This represents the net energy flux into the surface. If the temperature of the surface is to warm by 3 C, it must emit 406.6 W/m^2 (291K = 406.6 W/m^2; 288K = 390 W/m^2) This +16.6 W/m^2 flux into the surface has to be coming from somewhere. Conservation of Energy dictates this. One simply cannot create an additional 16.6 W/m^2 out of thin air or by arbitrarily claiming it’s “from the feedback”.
That so many seem to be overlooking very basic stuff like this is why so many still believe in the fairytale of the 3 C rise.
Christopher Game says:
“Dear RW, I don’t think anyone says that the 1.1C rise in global temperature is going to immediately cause the eventual long-term increase in flux into the surface. You are setting up a straw man with that question. No sensible person, believer or not, would try to answer it, and those who are familiar with the context would lose interest since your question reveals that you are not thinking clearly. The proposed causal link is indirect and delayed. The ‘no-feedback’ warming is just that: without any feedback increase in water vapour. Again, a simple diagram, or careful verbal logic, would help clarify your thinking.”
I didn’t necessarily say immediately, but most of the enhanced warming comes from so-called positive water vapor and cloud feedback, which operate on the order of days to weeks to months – not years or decades. Very little of the enhanced positive feedback warming comes from a reduced surface albedo (melted ice).
The point is where specifically is the energy supposed to come from? Specifically the +10.6 W/m^2 flux into the surface? According to them, the lapse rate is a negative feedback, so that rules out it coming from a warmer atmosphere.
If you’re not following this, let me ask you – where is the +6 W/m^2 flux into the surface coming from to cause the 1.1 C “no-feedback” rise in temperature from 2xCO2? I presume you agree this flux has to be coming from somewhere?
Responding to the post of RW of August 20, 2011 at 9:07 PM.
Dear RW, it seems you don’t want to clarify your thinking. I have tried to offer you some help to clarify it, but it seems that you wish to continue to think in your habitually muddled way. I am sorry I cannot help you in the face of that. Christopher Game
Well, if you’re unwilling to answer (or ask) any questions, how can you be of help?
Christopher Game says:
“It is not clear to me (Christopher) why you say “that there has been no decrease in the albedo over the last 30 years of the satellite record.” I have been under the impression that there has been such a relative decrease, that has accounted for much of the supposed accumulated heat supply.”
The ISCCP data show no trend in the surface albedo from 1983-2008.
Even by the warmers own numbers, there has been no decrease in the albedo. I quote from Skeptical Science: “The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years, satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend.”
Thank you Carter for pointing out the deficiencies in my education. I have no idea as to what you mean by “Very cute
statistical party trick.” However it is encouraging to see in your entry of August 17 at 11:1 pm that you acknowledge the obvious difference in the distribution of the CO2 data relevant to the temperature data. However you then go on to state that “Yes the correlation is low. But this says nothing about the causation either way.” in contrast to my conclusion. Surely a dominant seasonal effect in the CO2 concentration should induce a similar seasonal effect in temperature if the two are related.
Further you claim that “The exact connection between CO2 and temperature has been known for over 100 years.” Please let us known what this is as it could save people like Dr. Spencer from continuing to investigate the factors influencing the effect when they are already known exactly.
You go on with further entries until that of August 18 at 9:32 pm where you get to what may be the crux of your objection, namely,
“ REALLY BAD=correlation implies causation
EVEN WORSE BEVAN BAD=lack of correlation implies lack of causation”
May I suggest that your education could be improved by a course in Reading and Comprehension. I did not proclaim the second of the above in my post. I stated in my first post:
“it is highly unlikely that there is ANY causal relationship between CO2 concentration, man-made or otherwise, and global temperature.”, a statement of probability. Then in my second post I stated:
“there is no justification for rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no causal relationship between these two elements.”
Clearly your pedantic statement covers the whole range of possible correlations and, in so doing, repudiates the philosophy behind the scientific method. Why would Dr. Spencer bother to present a graph of the Levitus data together with the results from various models, a visual display of the correlation between these various elements, if such correlation or lack of correlation provided no insight into the relevance of the data or the models? Further, why would readers go on to discuss the
acceptability of the models or otherwise, based on the visual correlation, if it did not relate to the possible physical relevance of the model or data?
If I am a troll then I appear to be in good company (although perhaps a bunyip or big bad banksia man might be more appropriate).
Let us say x amount extra tonnes of CO2 in the atomosphere raises the temperature 1.0 degree. How much do we believe 2x will raise temperature by ?
The hotter the atomosphere, the quicker the heat release. So 2x extra CO2 tonnes should raise temp by less than 2.0 degrees. But how much ?
Bevan,
You are arguing exactly as Carter says. And you are wrong.
I am not a warmist, but you are still wrong.
You wrote:
I did not proclaim the second of the above in my post. I stated in my first post:
“it is highly unlikely that there is ANY causal relationship between CO2 concentration, man-made or otherwise, and global temperature.”,
The only basis for your conclusion is a lack of correlation between monthly C02 changes and monthly temperature changes.
Hence you are arguing that lack of correlation implies lack of causation. This is patently false logic.
Example: Consider the function
f(t) = cos(2*pi*t)
The value of f is completely determined by the value of t,
(t stands for time). If you want to know f at any value t , then you can compute f exactly from t. f is the dependent variable, and t is the independent variable. Any change in f is only possible by a change in t, and we know precisely how much f changes when t changes. There is no stronger relationship of f on t possible.
Now take the correlation of the change in f over the range t from 0 to 30 at intervals of 1/12 with the change in t over the same range. The r value is essentially zero (about 10 to the minus 16 when I did it)! Hence f and t are uncorrelated and by your logic changes in f cannot be caused by changes in t. We have a paradox by your logic.
I agree with Carter, it is a cute trick, but means nothing. Carter did a good job in his original post of explaining why the two numbers are not correlated because the dominant changes have different periods (as in my example which I arrived at by extending Carter’s argument to the simplest case). While temperature is changing over a 18 month period due to El Nino or La Nina, CO2 is sometimes going up and sometimes down with the seasons. This makes correlation low, but says nothing about the causation. In my example, while f is sometimes going up and sometimes going down but t is always going up. Changes in f and t are not “correlated”, but t determines f.
CO2 influences temperature due to the greenhouse effect. Dr. Spencer has spent considerable time on this blog convincing us the greenhouse effect is reality (but will
be mitigated according to him by feedback). I agree with him on both accounts, and Carter too.
Here is another piece of false logic. Dr. Spencer is right, and he disagrees with the IPCC. Therefore if I disagree with the IPCC (or carter), I am right too. It don’t work that way.
C.S.
Cristoph Schulz.
I agree with your well done rebuttal of Bevan’s analysis, but this is exactly the reason I don’y believe that statistic is a good tool to demonstrate anything if the physics of the whole system is not well know.
The climate system is chaotic, so that Bevan can’t write:
“it is highly unlikely that there is ANY causal relationship between CO2 concentration, man-made or otherwise, and global temperature.”
But Bevan could have some doubts about who writes:
“it is highly likely that there is causal relationship between CO2 concentration, and global temperature.”
Just because of simple statistical analyses.
It seems that today anything wrong on this planet is due to the concentration of the gas which always went up and down along the millennia. Every day there is a funded research from some university which finds a new catastrophic link to the CO2 concentration 🙂
TEST TEST TEST THIS DECADE, WHICH WILL GO A LONG WAY TO PROVE WHO IS CORRECT ,WHO IS WRONG,
We have a perfect test in progress this decade which should go a long way to show which theory is correct.
On the one hand we have a prolong solar minimum with the items that I say control the climate all phasing into a cold mode. Those being geological activity,SOI index,PDO, AO/NOA etc.
On the other hand we have CO2 increasing.
With the above situation in place, if the temperatures don’t go down despite low solar activity, items phasing into a cold mode, then the CO2 theory might have to be considered correct.
With the above situation in place if the temperatures go down despite an increase in CO2 levels, then the prolong solar minimum /phase in of items that control the climate,into a cold mode,that theory, might have to be considered correct.
I think it is this simplistic, and we have a contrast set up this decade, in which one points to lower temperatures and one points to higher temperatures. Which way the temperatures go this decade, in my mind will go a very long way into proving which theory is correct.
I think this is a reasonable fair way to evaluate the climate siutation going forward. Both sides can argue all they want ,but the only thing that will matter is what the temperature response will be to this set of circumstances that are present. We have a good chance to clear things up this decade,due to the situation we find ourselves in.
Sorry Cristoph Schulz but your example is pointless. Statistics deals with probability distributions and random variables while you have given a deterministic equation. Data collected from a source responding to such an equation does not need statistical methods. A simple plot of the results displays the relationship or lack of such. Why else would Dr Spencer illustrate his findings with so many data
plots?
Your case of the cosine function proves nothing about the relevance of regression analysis. In your explanation, you take first differences of the cosine function which is obviously going to be a sine function and match it with equal spaced values of the t variable which naturally result in a constant. Then you go on to calculate the regression, not between two random variables, but between a constant and a dependant variable which process is meaningless. Of course the result is zero if one of the two
elements is a constant.
The whole point of giving a regression coefficient, t-distribution value and resultant probability of getting that value or greater based on the null hypothesis, is to provide a measure of the reliability of the results for comparison with other cases.
One starts inspecting a data sequence by plotting the results. In the case of a deterministic relation, the connection will be clear. In the case of CO2 data verses temperature the initial data plot shows both CO2 concentration and temperature increasing over time. As it is well known in statistics that a linear relationship does not signify causation, the next step is to take first differences, ie delta x(n) = x(n) – x(n-1), in order to determine whether changes in one variable produce corresponding changes in the second variable.
A plot of the first differences in the monthly average CO2 concentrations verses that of the monthly average temperatures shows a random scattering of points, “all over the place like a mad dog’s breakfast”. The calculated regression coefficient then gives a measure of this random scatter and the reliability of concluding that there is no justification for rejecting the null hypothesis. The null
hypothesis then remains in force until empirical data can be collected that shows otherwise.
In my case this is the first data set that I have found that shows the direct relation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature and it results in acceptance of the null hypothesis. That result stands regardless of our individual belief systems or dogma. I urge all readers to acquire the data and carry out the exercise for themselves. After all according to the comments above, as an age pensioner living on my savings and a government pension, I am obviously “purposely deceitful”, “snidely” commenting, lacking in “mathematical logic”, “had the worst math or stat teacher of all time, or he is a troll”, writing “complete nonsense” and “often paid for …. trolling”.
Bevan,
“I urge all readers to acquire the data and carry out the exercise for themselves.”
Could you please supply a link to the NASA data you have used and answer the other questions I have asked.
I wish to replicate your results, but I need to use the same data and I don’t have time to search.
Bevan there is no correlation between CO2 increase versus temperature change for any length of time much greater then a 25 year time span here and there. Further at other times there is a anti correlation between CO2 ,and temp. Example 1945-1977.
I am quite sure the period 2011-2020 will show an anti correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Salvatore I’m by your side, you know.
But what I dislike of the graphs which correlate temperature to CO2 in last centuries is that if they were unreliable to demonstrate that there is a correlation, they must be unreliable to demonstrate that the correlation there isn’t at all too.
I mean: AFIK most of temperature data were (and are) taken as Tmin and Tmax along the day (I’m not writing about satellite measurements here, but the ground ones which go back to 1870).
If the CO2 concentration drives the outgoing radiation from the atmosphere, it does that 24/24 and 7/7. We don’t know how much time the temperature has been closer to Tmin and how much it has been closer to Tmax for every day of collected data.
So drawing graphs which want demonstrate correlation or uncorrelation between the CO2 concentration and the average of Tmin and Tmax is a nonsense.
I don’t know if you like car racing, being Italian and a great Ferrari fan, I very like Formula One races. In those races they have some so called “speed traps” along the circuit to establish who run faster. Well, from my point of view, drawing that way graphs of CO2 vs Temp is almost the same as predict who will win a F1-race using the speed traps
data only. Rarely the faster at the speed trap win the race indeed.
So I don’t believe Bevan has ever tried to do a “Very cute
statistical party trick.” as Cartes had maliciously wrote, but he can’t wrote:
“it is highly unlikely that there is ANY causal relationship between CO2 concentration, man-made or otherwise, and global temperature.”
Here in Italy we always say: “statistic is the science which allows you to demonstrate all and nothing”, meaning that you must take care of the reliability and the limits of your data before draw conclusions.
This is the reason I would like to read more about physics experiments on the climate issue instead of mere statistics based of disputable assumptions on the core physic.
By the way, does anyone know if the CERN CLOUD experiment results have been finally published?
Who can top R2 = 0.88 for average global temperatures since 1895? The equation that does it projects a temperature downtrend in spite of CO2 increase.
Cristoph Schultz, it has been pointed out to me that your deterministic function is not an increasing function of the independent variable. However the CO2 global warming conjecture proclaims that an increase in CO2 concentration is responsible for an increase in temperature so it is valid to apply standard linear regression analysis to the empirical data to test the null hypothesis of independence against the alternate hypothesis of an increase in CO2 concentration, the independent variable, being correlated with the empirical values of temperature, the dependent variable. If the CO2 global warming conjecture is valid then there will be a statistically significant correlation between the two variables.
Or perhaps you would like to while away the hours trying to find a function that increases with each increase in the independent variable and produces a zero correlation coefficient. Now that would be a cute trick!
Bevan:
You are so hopelessly sure of things that aren’t true.
Go ahead and have fun and do all the statistical tests you want, I can’t help you.
I suggest for example proving through correlation that the increase in CO2 readings in Hawaii cannot be caused by the increase in total C02 output by humans. The same choice of monthly differences should suffice for that purpose.
Hence the sharp increase from below 300 to 392 ppm must be natural! Then it is unnecessary to consider whether the rising C02 can cause temperature changes, since humans have no control on C02 levels.
Unfortunately Ray, I have tried to send the information to you giving the sources of the data, once on Thursday and twice today but each time I get the message:
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Yet I was able to post the comment above to Cristoph Schultz without any trouble.
Lets just start with the Web site origin for the CO2 data, namely: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov and see if that is accepted.
A function exists (with sunspot number as the only independent variable) that correlates with the measured up and down average global temperatures with a coefficient of determination of 0.88 since 1895. Google “Climate change is dominated by natural phenomena” to see it.
For Ray a continuation:
That appears to have been accepted so from the above Web page select “Research”, from drop-down list select “Field Programs and Sites” then on displayed page select “Atmospheric Baseline Observatories” then on that displayed page from the “Observatories” list select “Mauna Loa, Hawaii”, overwrite the last two phrases of the address being “obop/mlo/” with “ccgg/trends/#mlo_data” and on the displayed page under “Data”, select “Mauna Loa CO2 monthly mean data” and download the resulting file “ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt”
My file had been updated on 05 July 2011 but I see that it now states File Creation: Tue Aug 9 11:11:06 2011 and contains the data for July 2011 which I did not have. I chose the data column headed “interpolated” in order to have a continuous time sequence. As far as I can see there were only five missing data values from the original data set and these occurred before the start date for the satellite temperature data of December 1978.
Bevan,
Thanks for the link.
However, I think I have accessed the correct CO2 file already and it was a link to the the NASA satellite temperature data that I need.
Your explanation does however answer one of my questions, i.e. which CO2 figures did you use. It seems that you have used the “interpolated” figure, (latest figure for July = 392.39), not the seasonally adjusted figure. If that is correct then the figures will show a marked seasonal pattern, and it might be better to use the seasonally adjusted figure, although I think that will depend on whether the temperature figures you used are anomalies or absolute figures.
If you point me in the direction of the temperature figures you have used, that should answer that question.
Also, could you please confirm that by “first differences”, you mean monthly differences.
qaXxKl http://wnbUj5n0mXqpcvm27Hms.biz
Ray, in part answer to your queries:-
The temperature data is from the Web Site:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu
under the “GHRC Data” page, “Dataset List”, “AMSU Products”, “AMSU/MSU LowTropo Day/Month Temp Anomalies and Annual Cycle”
file: tltglhmam_5.4 from the ftp download within t2lt.
The first difference is delta x(n)= x(n)-x(n-1) applied to the monthly data sets. This eliminates the need to be concerned about the base level, absolute or anomalous, used in the initial data set.
Ray, more of my reply:-
Further, the correlation coefficient for the relation between Seasonal Adjusted first differences for Mauna Loa CO2 concentration and first differences of the Northern Hemisphere monthly lower tropospheric temperature was 0.001, definitely no cause to reject the null hypothesis of independence of the two variables.
Also you queried the use of Mauna Loa CO2 record verses Northern Hemisphere temperature data. It is my understanding that the Mauna Loa data was the standard used by the IPCC cohort for comparison with worldwide temperature data of questionable validity. Hence the wait to get sufficient satellite data for meaningful statistical results and presumably data that has not been “fiddled”.
As there has been a suggestion that the Lower Tropospheric Temperature may be unduly influenced by ocean currents, correlation between first difference Lower and Mid Tropospheric Northern Hemisphere temperature gave a coefficient of 0.912, highly significant. Correlation between first difference of both Mauna Loa CO2 concentration and Mid Tropospheric Northern Hemisphere temperature gave a coefficient of 0.0008 giving 2 tailed t statistic probability of 0.988. Clearly no reason for rejecting the null hypothesis of independence for CO2 and Temperature increments.
And the geological activity keeps on coming and coming. Another 7.0 earthquake today in Peru. This follows 7.1,7.0 off AUSTRALIA a few days earlier.If one goes to the website earthquake facts and statistics, this year 2011 ,has already exceeded the average number of earthquakes for an entire year, (and it is only AUG.), in each range of magnitude from 4.0-4.9,5.0-5.9,6.0-6.9,7.0-7.9 and tied for over 8.0.
This year is also the first year when significant spurts of activity within the solar minimum have taken place, which I say leads to increase geological activity. Past history supports this. The last such spurt of activity on the sun being the first week of AUG. The result, look at the increased geological activity, in these days folowing that spurt of activity on the sun. Same thing happened this spring.
I will not be surprised to see a major vo/canic eruption ,say explosive index 4.0 or higher before the year is out.
Bevan,
Thanks for the additional information.
I have now downloaded the temperature anomaly data from the location you specified. Incidentally, the anomaly figures in the file are virtually identical to the UAH anomaly figures to 2 decimal places, so I assume that they are effectively the same.
I have carried out the necessary calculations and the results are almost identical to yours.
However, I think that even as a sceptic myself, I would not necessarily expect that changes in the monthly CO2 concentration would produce an immediate change in temperature, and that some lag would be expected.
When I calculated the correlation between the rollin 12 month average CO2 concentration and the 12 month average anomaly, I obtained a coefficient of +0.78, which I think could demonstrate a weak causal relationship (although of course, correlation does not equal causation), with some room for debate on the exact level of forcing involved. I am sure that if I tried harder, I could find an even higher coefficient of correlation.
Salvatore,
You say:
“This year is also the first year when significant spurts of activity within the solar minimum have taken place”
Can you support that statement with evidence?
Also, surely we are no longer in a solar minimum, but approaching a maximum within the next 12 to 18 months.
Ray, all you would have to do is look at all the solar flux readings this year, and the previous years. What you would find first of all, are all the reading are all very low , for all of the the years since 2005, when this prolong solar minimum started. Year 2011, unlike the previous years however , has shown spurts of activity. Mainly this spring and now in Aug. , although the overall solar flux readings are very low ,especially for this stage of the current sunspot cycle.
It looks like the maximum for this cycle could happen anytime between now and the next two years. If solar activity stays as is, it will be the WEAKEST maximum since the 1600’s ,evidence, that we are for sure in a prolong solar minimum. Solar activity , would have to increase in a substancial way from this level, to say otherwise, which is not likely to happen.
Up to this point solar cycle 24, is just about the weakest solar cycle on record.
So if you look at the spurts of solar activity this year, in an otherwise period of very low solar activity, and then look at the geological activity ,one will see a substancial increase ,compared to the times when solar activity is constantly high like most of last century or constantly low. Of course exceptions will always be able to be found, but the correlation if one goes back to 1600 up to now, will show that 85% of major earthquakes and volcanic activity is associated around these periods of prolong solar minimum activity. That is what the data shows, for what it is worth.
Cristoph it seems that you do not appreciate the statistical approach. I am not sure of things but
statistical methods gives me a means of assessing hypotheses through probability, that is, degrees of
certainty or uncertainty.
If you do not like the statistical approach then look at the following isolated event. The International Energy Agency publishes figures for the annual use of fuel by various nation/states and determines the relevant CO2 emissions for that quantity of fuel. For 2007, there were 137 nation/states which, when ranked by CO2 emissions per square kilometre, ranged from Gibraltar at 1 with 69,118 tonnes per square kilometre to the Democratic Republic of Congo with 1.04 tonnes per square kilometre. Ranked third was Hong Kong at 39,152 tonnes per square kilometre and at rank 133 Namibia with 3.858 tonnes per square kilometre, a ratio of 10,000 to 1.
A search of meteorological data revealed that Hong Kong claimed to have had a rate of warming of 1.2 degrees C per century while Windhoek, the capital of Namibia, claimed a rate of warming of 1.5 degrees C per century. In both cases, the data record exceeded 100 years.
I can suggest that the greater rate of warming at Windhoek for dramatically lower emissions disproves the CO2 global warming conjecture. You might say, no it supports the CO2 global warming conjecture because Windhoek is 1700m above sea level and Hong Kong ranges between sea level and 957m elevation or some other event. We can argue our claims at length but have no measure of the certainty or otherwise of our opposing points of view.
In the case of the regression analysis of the monthly average values for the Mauna Loa changes in CO2
concentration compared to the satellite lower tropospheric Northern Hemisphere temperature increments, the resulting correlation coefficient of -0.00513 has a probability of 54% of being greater than this value with the null hypothesis of independence between the two variables. This is not my opinion, it is the logical mathematical consequence of the data set. Hence it is prudent to reject the hypothesis that an increase in CO2 concentration causes an increase in temperature.
Salvatore:
“all you would have to do is look at all the solar flux readings this year, and the previous years.”
How far back do the solar flux records go back?
I think it may be 1947, in which case, you cannot say that this is the first year in which such activity has taken place. Maybe you intended to say “first year since 1947”, but that is a different matter.
“If solar activity stays as is, it will be the WEAKEST maximum since the 1600’s ,evidence, that we are for sure in a prolong solar minimum.”
You may be correct, but my own view, based on the length of cycle 23, is that cycle 24 will peak between April and December 2012 at similar levels to cycle 10, in 1860.
Ray, time will tell, but I believe we are currently in a period of overall low solar activity which should last until 2040 or so.
Up to this point solar cycle 24 is even weaker then even solar cycle 5,leading into the Dalton Minimum.
As I have said many times I think this will have ,and is already having climatic implicatiions from more extremes in weather due to a more -AO,to an overall cooling of temperatures, as this solar minimum persist.
The trick is there are lag times envolved, due to the oceans slowness to give up heat they attained prior to this time period (2005),not to mention the duration of time and degree of magnitude of the solar activity, along with the items that control the climate ,those being volanic activity,soi index,ao/nao/aao atmospheric circulations to name a few,pdo/amo, which will determine how drastic or not drastic the climate will cool this decade.
I believe all those above items I mentioned ,not to forget cosmic ray increase which is also associated with weak solar activity, will have a big impact on the amount of cloud cover, precipitation amounts, and snow cover which in turn will impact the albedo of the earth in the N.H. ,which at the very least, I suggest will change the distribution of temperatures ,but probably in addition to changing the distribution of temperatures will cause a decline in temp. especially in the N.H.
Ray ,I think this is what is behind earth’s climatic changes and perhaps this decade will show this to be so. I say if not this ,what else could it be. What else could account for all the temperature swings both up and down throughout earth’s history ,many of them much greater then the recent global warming that had taken place last century.
Ray, as you can probably can tell most of the mainstream climatologist ,can’t understand this , and most if not all of their theories really are quite bad, with man made global co2 induced warming leading the pack.
Ray, I will say it is frustrating to say the least, because so much of the scientific community uses models,and it starts and ends with them You can see it with weather forecasting. Any one can relay what the models are saying, and that is what most of them do. Now they are trying to extend this to climate, but unlike weather forecasting, the models when it comes to future climate lack complete and accurate data to a much much greater degree, then do the models used for weather forecasting. Therefore ,I would say unlike the models use for weather forecasting which are okay, the models being used to forecast the future climate are USELESS.
Past history is a much more accurate indication of predicting future climate, and that is what I am using to make my future climatic predictions. I put past history, up against the models any day of the week.
SOLAR FLUX – what I am saying in regards to this is, if it is less then 100 ,that is significant over a long period of time ,because it is getting close to typical 11 year sunspot minimum readings of around 75 to 80. If we get 20 or 30 years of mostly these kind of readings , so far we have had almost 6 years going back to Oct. of 2005, and counting, this is going to very likely have an impact on our climate going forward.
If anyone is interested in where I am coming from with the climate outlook, go to the Layman sunspot site, and read the thoughts expressed by Geoff Sharp. I am 100% in agreement with him.
If anyone is interested from where I am coming from for the climate outlook going forward,go to the Layman Sunspot Site and read the thoughts of Geoff Sharp. I am in 100% agreement with him.
LA NINA AND -AO AND MY GENERAL WINTER 2011-2012 OUTLOOK
Indications are supporting at least a weak to moderate La Nina, and the likelyhood of a mostly -AO.
HERE ARE THE THOUGHTS BEHIND THE ABOVE
LA NINA
AAO – tending positive
PDO INDEX -1.86
SOI INDEX +17.48 today ,plus mostly positive past few months.
ENSO MONITORING GRAPH -0.22c down in recent weeks
All the above point toward another La Nina, remember James Hansen ,and other global warmest were calling for an El Nino ,they are wrong as usual.
NEGATIVE AO
SOLAR ACTIVITY LOW
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY MODERATE TO HIGH
QBO LIKELY TO BE EAST
SOI INDEX LIKELY TO RUN POSITIVE
ARCTIC TEMP RUNNING WARM ,ICE COVER LOW
Now taking those two items into account(-ao and la nina) along with the contiuned low solar activity and higher then normal geological activity ,cold PDO in place, I think it is safe to say that the winter for the N.H for 2011-2012 is going to be wild with many extremes , and overall cold, while the Arctic wil remain warmish.
The next trick is to try to figure out how the ridges and troughs will set up. Indications with all the above in mind ,are that the worst of the cold this winter will be in the midwest to the Dakotas, ,worst of the precip. will be in the lower midwest to Mid Atlantic to New England.
I think the further west one goes the less severe the winter will be.
The above is assuming a weak La Nina and a -AO.
Time will tell, and I wish more of the people on this site would put out predictions like I did, and explain why. It would be very interesting to read other opinions on this subject.
Roy,
You write: “Finally, it should be mentioned the above analysis assumes that there has been no significant natural source of warming during 1955-1999. If there has, then the diagnosed climate sensitivity would be even lower still.”
This is correct. I would just like to point out the opposite is also true. If there has been a natural source of cooling during 1955-1999 (or the later part of that period), then climate sensitivity would be higher. I am not pointing this out because I think it is higher, but because it is important to understand how little we really know about the natural climate system.
Where are you calling from? amateurallure com models trtnoz sandra model forums 541 supermodel quinn %-P childmodel bbs uas body parts modelling utq girl hentai models vvbd bikini models pepsi 🙂 asian supermodels pictures 814792 13-17 bikini models %-) sandra model thong szypk