| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
obozn
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: Temperature Trends Do Not Correlate With Atmospheric CO2 |
 |
|
October 5 2008.
Looking at the temperature trends from 1900-2008, it is not clear that
there is a carbon dioxide signal.
In a recent post I looked at how base periods can create an artificial
upwards temperature trend;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003303.html#comments
The 20th century featured two El Nino dominated climate patterns (+ve
PDO), and one La Nina phase (-ve PDO) from 1940-1976. The temperature
trend in the first +ve PDO is almost identical to the temperature trend
in the second +ve PDO;
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/smooth.jpg
The similar slopes at the beginning and end of the 20thC represent
warming WITHIN the +ve PDO>s, while the lower starting point for the
first +ve PDO is an artifact of the 1951-1980 GISS base period. The GISS
graph also shows post 1998 temperatures as increasing. This is
contradicted by the other temperature data collectors, which show a
decreasing trend consistent with the emergence of another -ve PDO post
2001 (discussed below). The issue is, what would be the temperature
trend be with ENSO removed and what part would CO2 play in causing that
residual trend?
In a recent paper, David Douglass and John Christy isolate a temperature
trend due to CO2 forcing, independent of feedback (ie: the enhanced
greenhouse) and natural factors such as ENSO and volcanic effect;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Douglass and Christy>s (DC) study is based on 1979-2008 UAH non-surface
data. After extracting ENSO, volcanoes and allowing for latitude band
effects, they isolate a CO2 signal of+0.070g/decade; where g is the gain
due to any feedback. In respect of 'g' DC note "there is general
agreement among climate scientists for the case of no feedback". (p3).
DC estimate there is an undeducted solar irradiance forcing (SF) of 20%
(p10), or +0.014C per decade. This generally agrees with AR4>s figure
for SF of +0.12Wm-2, which translates to a temperature of +0.16C per
century (see Chp 2 pp 187-193). AR4 has reduced this SF figure from TAR>s
estimate of +0.3Wm-2, or a temperature increase of approximately 0.4C PC
(see 6.11.1.2; FIG 6). The AR4 amount for SF is based on the period from
1750-present, but, according to FIG 2.17, the bulk of the SF has
occurred in the 20thC. DC>s SF estimate seems about right then.
So, deducting DC>s SF from +0.07 - +0.014 = +0.056C PD for a CO2 signal
in the period 1979-2008.
However, DC note that "the global atmospheric temperature anomalies of
Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the
subsequent 10 years". (Abstract). As noted above, GISS is showing
increasing post 1998 temperature, so what is happening in the 21stC?
In an analysis based on the period 2001-2008 Lucia also removed ENSO
from 5 of the temperature indices;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
For a full discussion of Lucia>s analysis see;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-schmidt-corrects-for-enso-ipcc-projections-still-falsify/
Lucia has applied 2 statistical approaches to all post 2000 data, GISS,
HadCrut, NOAA, UAH and RSS, and obtained a combined result for OLS
of -0.3C(+-1.6) PC, and for Cochrane-Orcutt, -0.6C(+-1.5) PC.
Averaging the 2 methodologies gives an ENSO free temperature trend for
2001-2008 of-0.45C or a decadal trend of -0.045C. Lucia has not adjusted
for volcanoes as there were no proximate eruptions, or for SF. If an
offset for SF of +0.014C is made, this would produce an underlying
cooling trend of -0.059C PD, presumably due to CO2.
So, in summary:
1. AR4 notes that "Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20thC is very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic gas concentrations" (Executive Summary, CHP 2)
2. AR4 allocates a Radiative Forcing to the combined GHG>s of
2.63Wm-2; CO2 is allocated a RF of 1.66Wm-2, or 2/3>s of the total RF.
3. The RF for CO2 is estimated by AR4 to lead to an increase in
temperature from a doubling of CO2 of ~ 3C. CO2 has increased ~ 40%
since 1900. This should have produced a temperature increase of 1.2C or
0.12C PD.
4. Applying AR4>s quotient for CO2 RF of 2/3 to the findings of DC
and Lucia we obtain the following CO2 signals; DC = +0.056 3 x 2 = +
0.037C PD for the period 1979-2000; for Lucia = -0.059 3 x 2 = -0.039C
PD for the period 2001-2008.
5. A further complication applies to the first ½ of the 20thC
temperature trends. There was less CO2 and GHG>s prior to 1976, yet the
temperature trends at the beginning of the 20thC, as shown by GISS above
and HadCrut are very similar; http://i32.tinypic.com/2s01m5y.jpg
6. Then, of course, there is the 30 year decline in temperatures
from 1940-1976 when CO2 was increasing.
7. DC and Lucia have found a CO2 signal. It is inconsistent, I draw
3 conclusions;
a) The inconsistency found by DC and Lucia reflects the contrary
movements of CO2 and temperature apparent during the rest of the 20thC
and history generally.
b) IPCC forcing estimates for CO2 are grossly over-inflated. Even more
so when enhanced greenhouse, "g", is quantified with +ve feedback.
c) In respect of "g"; if the CO2 signal is larger than that found by DC
and Lucia, then -ve feedbacks would have to be much greater. These -ve
feedbacks cannot be aerosols (see DC p 12), or ENSO as suggested by
Keenlyside et al. Perhaps climate sensitivity to SF is greater than AR4
assumes.
Cheers, Cohenite
Newcastle, Australia
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"One thing lefties cannot abide is any hint of Christian religion. New
Age yes, Muslim yes, vague yoga-nistics sure, Mother Earth and soaring
hawks as spiritual messengers absolutely, but Christianity? Not a
chance." Anon |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
son of a bitch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:15 am Post subject: Re: Temperature Trends Do Not Correlate With Atmospheric CO2 |
|
|
My God you must be bored shitless
The highlight of your day appears to be, how many different ways
can I spell Bozo
obozn wrote:
[quote]
October 5 2008.
Looking at the temperature trends from 1900-2008, it is not clear that
there is a carbon dioxide signal.
In a recent post I looked at how base periods can create an artificial
upwards temperature trend;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003303.html#comments
The 20th century featured two El Nino dominated climate patterns (+ve
PDO), and one La Nina phase (-ve PDO) from 1940-1976. The temperature
trend in the first +ve PDO is almost identical to the temperature trend
in the second +ve PDO;
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/smooth.jpg
The similar slopes at the beginning and end of the 20thC represent
warming WITHIN the +ve PDO>s, while the lower starting point for the
first +ve PDO is an artifact of the 1951-1980 GISS base period. The GISS
graph also shows post 1998 temperatures as increasing. This is
contradicted by the other temperature data collectors, which show a
decreasing trend consistent with the emergence of another -ve PDO post
2001 (discussed below). The issue is, what would be the temperature
trend be with ENSO removed and what part would CO2 play in causing that
residual trend?
In a recent paper, David Douglass and John Christy isolate a temperature
trend due to CO2 forcing, independent of feedback (ie: the enhanced
greenhouse) and natural factors such as ENSO and volcanic effect;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Douglass and Christy>s (DC) study is based on 1979-2008 UAH non-surface
data. After extracting ENSO, volcanoes and allowing for latitude band
effects, they isolate a CO2 signal of+0.070g/decade; where g is the gain
due to any feedback. In respect of 'g' DC note "there is general
agreement among climate scientists for the case of no feedback". (p3).
DC estimate there is an undeducted solar irradiance forcing (SF) of 20%
(p10), or +0.014C per decade. This generally agrees with AR4>s figure
for SF of +0.12Wm-2, which translates to a temperature of +0.16C per
century (see Chp 2 pp 187-193). AR4 has reduced this SF figure from
TAR>s estimate of +0.3Wm-2, or a temperature increase of approximately
0.4C PC (see 6.11.1.2; FIG 6). The AR4 amount for SF is based on the
period from 1750-present, but, according to FIG 2.17, the bulk of the SF
has occurred in the 20thC. DC>s SF estimate seems about right then.
So, deducting DC>s SF from +0.07 - +0.014 = +0.056C PD for a CO2 signal
in the period 1979-2008.
However, DC note that "the global atmospheric temperature anomalies of
Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the
subsequent 10 years". (Abstract). As noted above, GISS is showing
increasing post 1998 temperature, so what is happening in the 21stC?
In an analysis based on the period 2001-2008 Lucia also removed ENSO
from 5 of the temperature indices;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
For a full discussion of Lucia>s analysis see;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-schmidt-corrects-for-enso-ipcc-projections-still-falsify/
Lucia has applied 2 statistical approaches to all post 2000 data, GISS,
HadCrut, NOAA, UAH and RSS, and obtained a combined result for OLS of
-0.3C(+-1.6) PC, and for Cochrane-Orcutt, -0.6C(+-1.5) PC.
Averaging the 2 methodologies gives an ENSO free temperature trend for
2001-2008 of-0.45C or a decadal trend of -0.045C. Lucia has not adjusted
for volcanoes as there were no proximate eruptions, or for SF. If an
offset for SF of +0.014C is made, this would produce an underlying
cooling trend of -0.059C PD, presumably due to CO2.
So, in summary:
1. AR4 notes that "Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20thC is very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic gas concentrations" (Executive Summary, CHP 2)
2. AR4 allocates a Radiative Forcing to the combined GHG>s of
2.63Wm-2; CO2 is allocated a RF of 1.66Wm-2, or 2/3>s of the total RF.
3. The RF for CO2 is estimated by AR4 to lead to an increase in
temperature from a doubling of CO2 of ~ 3C. CO2 has increased ~ 40%
since 1900. This should have produced a temperature increase of 1.2C or
0.12C PD.
4. Applying AR4>s quotient for CO2 RF of 2/3 to the findings of DC
and Lucia we obtain the following CO2 signals; DC = +0.056 3 x 2 = +
0.037C PD for the period 1979-2000; for Lucia = -0.059 3 x 2 = -0.039C
PD for the period 2001-2008.
5. A further complication applies to the first ½ of the 20thC
temperature trends. There was less CO2 and GHG>s prior to 1976, yet the
temperature trends at the beginning of the 20thC, as shown by GISS above
and HadCrut are very similar; http://i32.tinypic.com/2s01m5y.jpg
6. Then, of course, there is the 30 year decline in temperatures
from 1940-1976 when CO2 was increasing.
7. DC and Lucia have found a CO2 signal. It is inconsistent, I draw
3 conclusions;
a) The inconsistency found by DC and Lucia reflects the contrary
movements of CO2 and temperature apparent during the rest of the 20thC
and history generally.
b) IPCC forcing estimates for CO2 are grossly over-inflated. Even more
so when enhanced greenhouse, "g", is quantified with +ve feedback.
c) In respect of "g"; if the CO2 signal is larger than that found by DC
and Lucia, then -ve feedbacks would have to be much greater. These -ve
feedbacks cannot be aerosols (see DC p 12), or ENSO as suggested by
Keenlyside et al. Perhaps climate sensitivity to SF is greater than AR4
assumes.
Cheers, Cohenite
Newcastle, Australia
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
obozn
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:46 am Post subject: Re: Temperature Trends Do Not Correlate With Atmospheric CO2 |
|
|
"son of a bitch" <bitch@gripes.com.au.org.ml.gov> wrote in message
news:48ebfba0@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[quote]My God you must be bored shitless
[/quote]
Not really, watching stockmarkets around the world collapse in heaps
around me is quite excitng!
Anyone buying in yet?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"It>s very appropriate that it [An Inconvenient Truth] got an Oscar from
the land of make-believe." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural
Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of
Climatology, University of Winnipeg |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
son of a bitch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: Re: Temperature Trends Do Not Correlate With Atmospheric CO2 |
|
|
obozn wrote:
[quote]
"son of a bitch" <bitch@gripes.com.au.org.ml.gov> wrote in message
news:48ec26c7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
obozn wrote:
"son of a bitch" <bitch@gripes.com.au.org.ml.gov> wrote in message
news:48ebfba0@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
My God you must be bored shitless
Not really, watching stockmarkets around the world collapse in heaps
around me is quite excitng!
Anyone buying in yet?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"It>s very appropriate that it [An Inconvenient Truth] got an Oscar
from the land of make-believe." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of
Climatology, University of Winnipeg
I don>t believe it ever will, UK and US Govs just keep throwing
money at it. And the US Gov says everything Okie Dokie so it must be.
So keep buying what you can>t afford and pay them back..like whenever.
So when are you buying in then?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth>s temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
[/quote]
It>snot me, No Cash, No Buy, simple. Therefore I only buy what
I actually Need. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
obozn
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: Re: Temperature Trends Do Not Correlate With Atmospheric CO2 |
|
|
"son of a bitch" <bitch@gripes.com.au.org.ml.gov> wrote in message
news:48ec26c7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[quote]obozn wrote:
"son of a bitch" <bitch@gripes.com.au.org.ml.gov> wrote in message
news:48ebfba0@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
My God you must be bored shitless
Not really, watching stockmarkets around the world collapse in heaps
around me is quite excitng!
Anyone buying in yet?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"It>s very appropriate that it [An Inconvenient Truth] got an Oscar
from the land of make-believe." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of
Climatology, University of Winnipeg
I don>t believe it ever will, UK and US Govs just keep throwing
money at it. And the US Gov says everything Okie Dokie so it must be.
So keep buying what you can>t afford and pay them back..like whenever.
[/quote]
So when are you buying in then?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth>s temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
son of a bitch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: Re: Temperature Trends Do Not Correlate With Atmospheric CO2 |
|
|
obozn wrote:
[quote]
"son of a bitch" <bitch@gripes.com.au.org.ml.gov> wrote in message
news:48ebfba0@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
My God you must be bored shitless
Not really, watching stockmarkets around the world collapse in heaps
around me is quite excitng!
Anyone buying in yet?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"It>s very appropriate that it [An Inconvenient Truth] got an Oscar from
the land of make-believe." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural
Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of
Climatology, University of Winnipeg
[/quote]
I don>t believe it ever will, UK and US Govs just keep throwing
money at it. And the US Gov says everything Okie Dokie so it must be.
So keep buying what you can>t afford and pay them back..like whenever. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: Re: Temperature Trends Do Not Correlate With Atmospheric CO2 |
|
|
| I>d like to see a graph of plotting government funding with AGW hype. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
