CO2 Follows Temperature

[SSDD]

A new study by Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, and Jan-Erik Solheim, published in the journal Global and Planetary Change finds that (surprise surprise) CO2 follows changes in temperature as opposed to the common belief by warmists that CO2 drives temperatures. This study finds the lag between temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2 holds true on the millineum, century, yearly, and monthly time scales.

ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Sad that this would actually require a study since ice cores have been telling us this very thing for decades in spite of the beliefs and wishes of warmists.

 

[flacaltenn]

A new study by Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, and Jan-Erik Solheim, published in the journal Global and Planetary Change finds that (surprise surprise) CO2 follows changes in temperature as opposed to the common belief by warmists that CO2 drives temperatures. This study finds the lag between temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2 holds true on the millineum, century, yearly, and monthly time scales.

ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Sad that this would actually require a study since ice cores have been telling us this very thing for decades in spite of the beliefs and wishes of warmists.

This is a noble and novel study in that it looks at Modern Era correlation and phasing of CO2 vs Temp.. But I'm a little bit concerned about discerning the "phase lead or lag" issue from a CO2 concentration trend that is so monotonic. (meaning so predictably linear).

It's hard to find ANY changes in the CO2 RATE in that time period. And the ones that they appear to be using are tiny compared to the overall rate of increase in CO2.

What we need to make this valid is an abrupt CHANGE in the CO2 build rate. MAYBE SSDD -- we'll get something like that since the news that US CO2 emissions have fallen drastically recently. Or we could get a spike in CO2 going the other way due to fears of the Fukushima accident and large industrial nations cutting back on nuclear.

Applying the SAME TECHNIQUES as this study does, on a noticeable spike -- that would NAIL the argument for MODERN times. As opposed to arguing about CO2/Temp during a series of ice ages that ARE NOT TYPICAL for today's climate..

 

[IanC]

Chemistry tells us that increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the equilibrium. Manmade CO2 has sn effect, how ever small. It is easy to see how CO2 is naturally tied to temp, it is not so easy to see how temperature is tied to extra CO2. Skeptics should not make the same mistake as warmists by dismissing legitimate concerns.

 

[SSDD]

Chemistry tells us that increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the equilibrium. Manmade CO2 has sn effect, how ever small. It is easy to see how CO2 is naturally tied to temp, it is not so easy to see how temperature is tied to extra CO2. Skeptics should not make the same mistake as warmists by dismissing legitimate concerns.

Personally, I lean more towards the atmospheric thermal effect as described by nikolov. Such an effect is predicted and has been proven in laboratory experiments as opposed to the mainstream greenhouse effect which, at present, stands on a great many claims but no actual experimental or observational evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Modern CO2 is different, it just is!

It melts the ice caps and turns the oceans to acid.

Uh huh.

Really

 

[SSDD]

Modern CO2 is different, it just is!

It melts the ice caps and turns the oceans to acid.

Uh huh.

Really

So they say. Must be multivitimins, or maybe metabolic steroids.

 

[polarbear]

A new study by Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, and Jan-Erik Solheim, published in the journal Global and Planetary Change finds that (surprise surprise) CO2 follows changes in temperature as opposed to the common belief by warmists that CO2 drives temperatures. This study finds the lag between temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2 holds true on the millineum, century, yearly, and monthly time scales.

ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Sad that this would actually require a study since ice cores have been telling us this very thing for decades in spite of the beliefs and wishes of warmists.

This is a noble and novel study in that it looks at Modern Era correlation and phasing of CO2 vs Temp.. But I'm a little bit concerned about discerning the "phase lead or lag" issue from a CO2 concentration trend that is so monotonic. (meaning so predictably linear).

It's hard to find ANY changes in the CO2 RATE in that time period. And the ones that they appear to be using are tiny compared to the overall rate of increase in CO2.

What we need to make this valid is an abrupt CHANGE in the CO2 build rate. MAYBE SSDD -- we'll get something like that since the news that US CO2 emissions have fallen drastically recently. Or we could get a spike in CO2 going the other way due to fears of the Fukushima accident and large industrial nations cutting back on nuclear.

Applying the SAME TECHNIQUES as this study does, on a noticeable spike -- that would NAIL the argument for MODERN times. As opposed to arguing about CO2/Temp during a series of ice ages that ARE NOT TYPICAL for today's climate..

It`s a fact that the solubility of gasses in water decreases as temperature increases, CO2 is no exception:

It`s also a fact that :
Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human, Pacific

The oceans contain about 50 times more CO 2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere.

Which brings up another interesting fact, that "climate science" likes to ignore:

CO 2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO 2 gas pressure (pCO 2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans. For example, when the atmospheric pCO 2 is higher than the surface ocean, CO 2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water. The oceans are able to hold much more carbon than the atmosphere because most of the CO 2 that diffuses into the oceans reacts with the water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products, bicarbonate and carbonate ions . The conversion of CO 2 gas into nongaseous forms such as carbonic acid and bicarbonate and carbonate ions effectively reduces the CO 2 gas pressure in the water, thereby allowing more diffusion from the atmosphere.

Last year I posted an experiment that anyone could do at home.
{fill up a bottle with CO2 gas-(You can get it from your neighborhood pub that has a draft beer dispenser)-drill a hole into a cork, insert a straw and cork the bottle, then dip the straw into a bowl of water-watch how the CO2 sucks up the water}....and was of course ridiculed, like "what`s that supposed to prove?"
Pretty dumb question, don`t you think?...considering 7/10 of the earth`s surface is water.
Here is another fact:

Solubility Pump.

The solubility pump is driven by two principal factors. First, more than twice as much CO 2 can dissolve into cold polar waters than in the warm equatorial waters. As major ocean currents (e.g., the Gulf Stream) move waters from the tropics to the poles, they are cooled and can take up more CO 2 from the atmosphere. Second, the high latitude zones are also places where deep waters are formed. As the waters are cooled, they become denser and sink into the ocean's interior, taking with them the CO 2 accumulated at the surface.

So then, if CO2 is the cause of all evil, what`s so bad if some more of the sea ice is melting? ....Right...!....:

Chris Matthews Glad U.S. Had Hurricane Sandy

MSNBC's Chris Matthews has been unhinged for awhile. He is continually proving to be off the deep end, and does not disappoint with his most recent comment, "I'm so glad we had that storm last week."
Last week, Matthews referred to people who question man-made global warming (or is it "climate change?") as "pigs." This week, he is thrilled about a storm that has caused people their lives and property, all because of his perception that the storm boosted President Obama's re-election chances.

I wonder how much longer we have to wait for some"global warming" in Canada. Each year for the last 10 years winter comes earlier and hangs in longer. We got dumped on since middle October
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_Hy0r7-nps&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp"]Rez Tex to the rescue - YouTube[/ame]

 

[konradv]

Maximum solubility decreases, but that's only relevant, if we're near maximum. If we're not near maximum, increasing ocean temps would not effect how much atmospheric CO2 becomes solubilized.

 

[Dot Com]

Chemistry tells us that increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the equilibrium. Manmade CO2 has sn effect, how ever small. It is easy to see how CO2 is naturally tied to temp, it is not so easy to see how temperature is tied to extra CO2. Skeptics should not make the same mistake as warmists by dismissing legitimate concerns.

AGW deniers be forewarned

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Chemistry tells us that increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the equilibrium. Manmade CO2 has sn effect, how ever small. It is easy to see how CO2 is naturally tied to temp, it is not so easy to see how temperature is tied to extra CO2. Skeptics should not make the same mistake as warmists by dismissing legitimate concerns.

AGW deniers be forewarned

AGW Culters, they have faith, they don't need facts

 

[SSDD]

AGW Culters, they have faith, they don't need facts

Faith is easier than fact.

 

[konradv]

Chemistry tells us that increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the equilibrium. Manmade CO2 has sn effect, how ever small. It is easy to see how CO2 is naturally tied to temp, it is not so easy to see how temperature is tied to extra CO2. Skeptics should not make the same mistake as warmists by dismissing legitimate concerns.

AGW deniers be forewarned

AGW Culters, they have faith, they don't need facts

The fact is that increased ocean temperatures doesn't mean the CO2 concentration is going down.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maximum solubility decreases, but that's only relevant, if we're near maximum. If we're not near maximum, increasing ocean temps would not effect how much atmospheric CO2 becomes solubilized.

What? Absorption not dependent on temp? Especially SURFACE temp? 'splain this to me..

Temp not only influences absorption, but it drives how much can be retained. And not just at Maximum?

I thought the whole deal of describing CO2 concentration in liquid by gas pressure (pC02) was to specify the variation wrt both temp and pressures on both sides of the interface.

 

[IanC]

Chemistry tells us that increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the equilibrium. Manmade CO2 has sn effect, how ever small. It is easy to see how CO2 is naturally tied to temp, it is not so easy to see how temperature is tied to extra CO2. Skeptics should not make the same mistake as warmists by dismissing legitimate concerns.

Personally, I lean more towards the atmospheric thermal effect as described by nikolov. Such an effect is predicted and has been proven in laboratory experiments as opposed to the mainstream greenhouse effect which, at present, stands on a great many claims but no actual experimental or observational evidence.

personally I like Miskolczi (sp?) theory of optical density, it is worthy of a Nobel if it is true.

but until Nikolov, etc can get pressure effects into the public and scientific eye to the exclusion of GHE then skeptics will have to deal with the calculated theoretical effect of CO2. I think the models' postive feedbacks are being consistently scaled back to next to nothing, and eventually the real feedback will be found to be negative. that area is easily large enough to wipe out the catastrophic part of AGW and I think we should hobble CO2 rather than try to convince an unlistening public to a different physics theory that is not as easily visualized as the Green House Effect.

 

[SSDD]

I think the models' postive feedbacks are being consistently scaled back to next to nothing, and eventually the real feedback will be found to be negative. that area is easily large enough to wipe out the catastrophic part of AGW and I think we should hobble CO2 rather than try to convince an unlistening public to a different physics theory that is not as easily visualized as the Green House Effect.

For me, the ideal gas laws which are the basis of N&Z's work are much more easy to visualize than a greenhouse effect. There is no questionable physics at work in N&Z's hypothesis, it is demonstrable in the laboratory, and when the model is applied to other bodies in our solar system with atmospheres, it yields a very accurate result as opposed to the greenhouse physics which when applied to other bodies in the solar system produces a result so far from reality that it leaves little doubt that the fact that it matches earth temperature is pure coincidence.

 

[IanC]

I think the models' postive feedbacks are being consistently scaled back to next to nothing, and eventually the real feedback will be found to be negative. that area is easily large enough to wipe out the catastrophic part of AGW and I think we should hobble CO2 rather than try to convince an unlistening public to a different physics theory that is not as easily visualized as the Green House Effect.

For me, the ideal gas laws which are the basis of N&Z's work are much more easy to visualize than a greenhouse effect. There is no questionable physics at work in N&Z's hypothesis, it is demonstrable in the laboratory, and when the model is applied to other bodies in our solar system with atmospheres, it yields a very accurate result as opposed to the greenhouse physics which when applied to other bodies in the solar system produces a result so far from reality that it leaves little doubt that the fact that it matches earth temperature is pure coincidence.

I dont doubt that atmospheric pressures, etc have an effect on surface temps. but until a substantial number of physicists climb on board and publicize and affirm the rather debatable conclusions of N&Z we will be left with having to deal with widely known CO2 'greenhouse effect'.

 

[SSDD]

.....we will be left with having to deal with widely known CO2 'greenhouse effect'.

That's like saying that we are left dealing with the miasma theory of disease, or the theory of luminiferous aether, or perhaps the bodily humors. The only "dealings" science should have with the greenhouse effect hypothesis is superceding it for a more realistic description of energy transfer with the planetary system. Working with it is a dead end and science knows full well that the only thing keeping it in place at present is money.

There is no future in "dealing" with a failed hypothesis.

By the way, which questionable conclusions were you referencing?

 

[IanC]

.....we will be left with having to deal with widely known CO2 'greenhouse effect'.

That's like saying that we are left dealing with the miasma theory of disease, or the theory of luminiferous aether, or perhaps the bodily humors. The only "dealings" science should have with the greenhouse effect hypothesis is superceding it for a more realistic description of energy transfer with the planetary system. Working with it is a dead end and science knows full well that the only thing keeping it in place at present is money.

There is no future in "dealing" with a failed hypothesis.

By the way, which questionable conclusions were you referencing?

hahaha, I read this with dismay! you want me to do work to get back up to speed on a slightly crackpot version of radiative physics but I dont wanna.

I agree that the radiative model needs updating beyond the flat disk method. I agree that the amount of warming due to the atmosphere is uncertain and unlikely to be 33K. OK? I just think a lot of the assumptions made by N&Z are just as bad as Trenberth. I'll leave it at that, at least for now.

the earth is in radiative balance to a very high degree, input equals output. ordered shortwave in, disordered longwave out. I dont really need to know any temperatures, I just need to know that CO2 interferes with some frequencies of outgoing radiation. the energy that is stopped from escaping then needs to be changed to a different frequency by adsorption/reemission, or it has to exit via a different pathway such as evaporation or convextion. stopping/slowing one pathway means that there has been a build up of unescaped energy and that means an increase in temperature behind the bottleneck. this is a simple concept that any layman understands. there is no 'free energy'. if the excess CO2 was removed then the output would increase until equilibrium was returned to the previous state. there is nothing 'special' about the temperature of the surface. the 'special' point is where outgoing radiation matches incoming radiation, but that is a different story.

 

[SSDD]

.... I just need to know that CO2 interferes with some frequencies of outgoing radiation. the energy that is stopped from escaping then needs to be changed to a different frequency by adsorption/reemission, or it has to exit via a different pathway such as evaporation or convextion.

That is fine except that there has been no reduction in outgoing longwave in spite of


A simple logical argument about global warming « Tallbloke's Talkshop
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: A graph that disproves AGW
How the temperature datasets tell us extra CO2 has little effect « Tallbloke's Talkshop
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why the theory of man-made global warming is incorrect
Earth’s energy balance: some observations in the light of new evidence. « Tallbloke's Talkshop

 

[IanC]

.... I just need to know that CO2 interferes with some frequencies of outgoing radiation. the energy that is stopped from escaping then needs to be changed to a different frequency by adsorption/reemission, or it has to exit via a different pathway such as evaporation or convextion.

That is fine except that there has been no reduction in outgoing longwave in spite of


A simple logical argument about global warming « Tallbloke's Talkshop
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: A graph that disproves AGW
How the temperature datasets tell us extra CO2 has little effect « Tallbloke's Talkshop
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why the theory of man-made global warming is incorrect
Earth’s energy balance: some observations in the light of new evidence. « Tallbloke's Talkshop

I guess you just have to laugh at the irony of a skeptic arguing the warmists' side.

why would you see a significant drop in outgoing radiation? the bottleneck caused by CO2 only affects the temperature behind it. an exaggerated example is a light bulb heating a room. if you throw a towel over it and wait for equilibrium, the same amount of heat is going into the room but the bulb is much hotter. perhaps a sprinkler is a better example. if you plug one of the holes, the pressure goes up and the other holes eject water at a higher rate until a new equilibrium is found but the same amount of water comes out.

of course CO2 is just a small atmospheric factor. I think it is about 8% of the outgoing radiation can be affected by CO2, and CO2 is already at a concentration that extinguishes its favoured frequencies in only about 10 metres. and there are lots of other alternate pathways for the energy to leave.

physicists have calculated that doubling CO2 will have a 1.1K or 1.2K increase in temperature at the source of radiation, the surface, everything else being held the same. there is no catastrophe to be found at that rate, it is only when computer model derived positive feedbacks are added that there is a possibility of problems.

I think the skeptics should continue the work of showing that the feedbacks are far less than the models predict, and probably negative, rather than scoff at the notion that CO2 does anything at all. every change has an effect however small and when you deny an obvious change (increased CO2) and an obvious effect (scattered longwave radiation) then you lose the attention of ordinary people who will dismiss everything you say because the one thing 'they know for a fact' is being ridiculed.