Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

CO2 and warming went in lock-step


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,298 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 March 2013 - 10:32 AM

In prehistory, CO2 and warming  went  in  lock-step



French researchers said they had answered a riddle that has perplexed scientists. The question arises from bubbles of atmospheric air, trapped in cores of ice drilled from Antarctica that date back to the last deglaciation, which ended some 10,000 years ago. These tiny bubbles are closely scrutinised, for they contain carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas behind global warming. The higher or lower the CO2, according to the conventional benchmark, the greater or lower the atmospheric temperature. The anomaly is this: the CO2 in the bubbles do not correspond to the level of warming indicated by the surrounding snowfall of that time. Climate skeptics argued that this showed the CO2 rose after Earth's atmosphere warming.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news...k-step.html#jCp

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#2    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:57 PM

View PostBFB, on 01 March 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

In prehistory, CO2 and warming  went  in  lock-step

"“We’re saying that CO2 and Antarctic temperature vary at the same time, within 150 years approximately"


#3    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,525 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 March 2013 - 05:18 PM

View PostBFB, on 01 March 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

In prehistory, CO2 and warming  went  in  lock-step



French researchers said they had answered a riddle that has perplexed scientists. The question arises from bubbles of atmospheric air, trapped in cores of ice drilled from Antarctica that date back to the last deglaciation, which ended some 10,000 years ago. These tiny bubbles are closely scrutinised, for they contain carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas behind global warming. The higher or lower the CO2, according to the conventional benchmark, the greater or lower the atmospheric temperature. The anomaly is this: the CO2 in the bubbles do not correspond to the level of warming indicated by the surrounding snowfall of that time. Climate skeptics argued that this showed the CO2 rose after Earth's atmosphere warming.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news...k-step.html#jCp
How good is the temporal resolution?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#4    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,388 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:29 PM

This is a vast improvement on the 600years which was previously the best resolution they could muster. It identifies a clear relationship between CO2 and temperature over significant geological time scales.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#5    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,038 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:30 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 04 March 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

This is a vast improvement on the 600years which was previously the best resolution they could muster. It identifies a clear relationship between CO2 and temperature over significant geological time scales.

Br Cornelius

Only the blind and economically interested cannot see a correlation between carbon gases and temperature, we did not need another study.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#6    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:06 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 04 March 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Only the blind and economically interested cannot see a correlation between carbon gases and temperature, we did not need another study.
the study says nothing about causation.
warmer water will outgass co2, cooler water will absorb more co2.
so you cannot take from this study that co2 caused the warming, its more likely that warming caused higher co2.


#7    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:19 PM

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming.

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

http://c3headlines.t...447d843a970d-pi

Posted Image
http://hockeyschtick...s-man-made.html

Edited by Little Fish, 04 March 2013 - 08:29 PM.


#8    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,388 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming.

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

http://c3headlines.t...447d843a970d-pi

Posted Image
http://hockeyschtick...s-man-made.html
Without a link to the actual paper there is no way of establishing how much of that report is pure bull****.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#9    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,388 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:56 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

the study says nothing about causation.
warmer water will outgass co2, cooler water will absorb more co2.
so you cannot take from this study that co2 caused the warming, its more likely that warming caused higher co2.
CO2 has the physical property of causing entrapment of infrared radiation so it is more than reasonable to conclude that increasing the CO2 will cause more heat energy to become trapped. It is far more unlikely that increasing a known greenhouse gas will have no effect on the energy balance and accumulation of the system. Trapped, or should I say delayed energy, has to appear somewhere within the system whilst it is experiencing its increased residence time. Assuming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere by fossil fuel emissions will have no effect on the system is the most illogical conclusion to draw given the known physical properties of the gas.

The only point of reasonable disagreement would be the degree of warming caused. Denial of any warming effect is unreasonable.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 March 2013 - 08:56 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#10    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:08 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 04 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Without a link to the actual paper there is no way of establishing how much of that report is pure bull****.

Br Cornelius
"Abstract

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Highlights

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions."

from this link here:
http://www.sciencedi...921818112001658


#11    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:17 PM

I wonder how they will "hide" this data and "trick" the public into ignoring it. Thanks Little Fish, it was a good read.


#12    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,388 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:21 PM

On the face of it I would say that the correlation would be very hard to justify considering that temperature is a very noisy signal with variability on a yearly to decadal basis, but CO2 has shown a steady rise on the global mixed level.

Posted Image

How you can see a close correlation between that and this is beyond me;

Posted Image
The analysis seems highly tenuous when I read the actual paper in full there, but I am no expert in detailed data analysis so I will leave it to a real expert to pass judgement on this paper. Overall though the thrust of their paper is that the strong upward trend in CO2 is a response to some other forcing, and that the evidence for this is the lag lead response of the sinks in responding to this natural forcing. It focuses on tiny variations in the temperature response whilst ignoring the massive linear trend in Co2 which dominates all of their analysis "correspondences". Here's the real critique though;

Quote

These are claims made in a fresh publication by Humlum et al. (2012). However, when seeing them in the context of their analysis, they seem to be on par with the misguided notion that the rain from clouds cannot come from the oceans because the clouds are intermittent and highly variable whereas the oceans are just there all the time. I think that the analysis presented in Humlum et al. (2012) is weak on four important accounts: the analysis, the physics, reviewing past literature, and logic.

This time Humlum et al. did not directly remove part of the data which didn’t fit their conclusions, however, they chose to use a short record of global mean CO2 from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), starting from 1980, rather than the longer Keeling curve from Mauna Loa starting in 1958.
The two CO2 records, however, are almost identical over 1980-2012 (green curves in Fig. 1), and hence it would be more appropriate to use the longer record because CO2 is expected to play a role for long timescales. Hence, the Humlum et al. paper highlights the need for sorting out some classic misunderstandings, namely the mix-up between time scales. We have already discussed the absurdly misguided claims of a “halted global warming” based on a brief period after 1998 (here and here and ….)

Posted Image

In order to assess the claims made in Humlum et al. (2012) (in italics above), I have repeated part of their analysis and got very similar results (all reproduced with the on-line R-script). Fig 1 here is a replication of figure 1 in Humlum et al. (2012) and I got almost identical results using the Keeling curve from Mauna Loa starting in 1958 rather than the global curve starting in 1980.
Fig. 2 corresponds to the lower panel in their figure 2, and shows the results of my attempt to reproduce the quantities making up the basis for their claims: their ‘DIFF12′ quantities (a type of differentiation operator) which really is meant to describe the rate of changes in the original curves.

Posted Image
Their main argument about causality between temperature and CO2, however, was based on a lagged correlation analysis between ‘DIFF12′ series from temperature and CO2. Fig. 3 corresponds to figure 4b in Humlum et al. (2012):
Posted Image
Fig. 3: Lag correlation where the lines mark the peak value obtained in Humlum et al. Grey curve is from the longer Keeling record. Here the HadCRUT3, which was one of the data sets they used.
The correlation that I get is similar but not identical to theirs. Using a longer record did affect the lag correlation analysis as seen in Fig. 3. Nevertheless, the analysis still indicated that CO2 lagged the temperature. Big surprise?
No! Applying correlation to the results from the ‘DIFF12′ quantities cannot detect any trends – it’s just a simple mathematical fact. These results merely confirm already well-known facts, which ironically, they themselves hinted to in their paper (but they obviously did not make the connection):


changes in atmospheric CO2 appears to be initiated near or a short distance south of the Equator, and from there spreads towards the two Poles within a year or so.

The answer is of course: El Nino! A google scholar search with ‘”El Nino” AND CO2′ gives more than 20,000 hits, and Humlum et al. have rediscovered well-known facts which Keeling and Revelle discussed already in 1985.
El Ninos affect the CO2 concentrations for a brief time interval, through their effect on temperature and marine biology. But unlike Keeling and Revelle, this discovery caused quite some confusion, as evident in the following citation:


…showing that changes in the emission of anthropogene CO2 are not causing changes in atmospheric CO2.

So how did they get to this conclusion? The answer is in their analytical set-up, and for this they have quite an unusual record (here and here).
It’s well-known that taking differences also picks up short-term rather than long-term variations where mean trends are represented by a constant value. Hence, a correlation analysis is bound to give mean trends zero weight. This is demonstrated in Fig. 4:
Posted Image
Fig. 4: A trivial demonstration with two similar sinusoinds with noise super-imposed, one shown in black and one in red plotted on top of each other - differencing methods fail to pick up the longer signals. The lower panel shows a lag-correlation based on a differenting method that fails to pick up the signal we know is present. In other words, the method is inappropriate for the task. Also reproduced with the on-line R-script.
Simply by choosing a method that ignores trends associated with human activity, they argue that atmospheric CO2 is ‘largely independent of humans‘. This logic is circular reasoning, but since they did not specify time scales, their argument gets a bit fuzzy (the argument is true on short time scales but not on decadal time scales – just see the trends in the figure).
The set-up with ‘DIFF12′ also does a strange mix to the data and gives weird results as already noted on Troy’s scratchpad. It is indeed easy to show that the ‘DIFF12′ methods fail to pick up long-term co-variations, as done in Fig. 5:
Posted Image
Fig. 5: A demonstration with the DIFF12 method used in Humlum et al. The method fails to pick up the long-term co-variations. The correlation peak should be at zero lag, but the method mixes scrambles time steps. Also reproduced with the on-line R-script.
Contrast these results with the claim made by Humlum et al. (2012):


the association between periods of maximum DIFF12 CO2 increase and no or negative ocean surface temperature change … is difficult to reconcile with the notion of atmospheric CO2 changes controlling changes in ocean surface temperature.

Choosing a method discarding the trends may get one into trouble, however, one would also expect a consistent picture in terms of physics. Here is another glitch, and the weak-on-physics aspect is due to the failure to appreciate what implications their claims would have for the climate sensitivity.
They implicitly expected that minute and almost invisible similarities between the inter-annual variations in CO2 would have a visible effect on inter-annual variation in the global mean temperature (this is their hidden “strawman” argument; see curves in Fig. 1). Yet they ignored the CO2‘s steady march upwards.
Furthermore, they failed to note that the forcing is proportional to the natural logarithm of CO2ln(conventration in volume). Such are omissions expected from novices (my speculation: this is somehow related to the composition of the author team consisting of a professor in geology, a statistician from a telephone company, and an astrophysicist).
The extraordinary claims about the relationship between temperature, CO2, and human activity made in Humlum et al. (2012) also makes me think of a Carl Sagan citation: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. I must say I’m disappointed by the reviewing process of Global Planetary Change and this is the second (Humlum et al., 2011) unpersuasive paper in that journal making such bold claims.
Earth shattering claims should meet rigorous evaluations. It would be useful for reviewers to google the authors of the papers, as some do have quite a track record of well-established mistakes (here and here and here and here).
In addition to failing the analytical set-up and the physics (which should have been picked up), they also provided some unusual citations, missed important works, and referred to questionable publications.
Furthermore, using the NOAA ESRL CO2 data, Humlum et al. could have sought advice with the data providers before submitting their paper (the ESRL is not mentioned in their acknowledgement, and I wonder if they would have a view on this analysis). Indeed, the ESRL encourages such quality checks according to the heading of the data file:


If the data are obtained for potential use in a publication or presentation, ESRL should be informed at the outset of the nature of this work. If the ESRL data are essential to the work, or if an important result or conclusion depends on the ESRL data, co-authorship may be appropriate. This should be discussed at an early stage in the work. Manuscripts using the ESRL data should be sent to ESRL for review before they are submitted for publication so we can insure that the quality and limitations of the data are accurately represented.

I also wonder what the affiliated universities think about Humlum et al.s work and their past record, and I think misguided work, as presented here, is not exactly good advertisement. Furthermore, they are also involved with an organisation called “klimarealistene” (with collaborations with the Heartland Institute), which claims that the IPCC has ‘cheated‘ in terms of the temperature data (which ironically, they themselves rely on in Humlum et al., 2012) and produced the ‘famous hockey stick’ (The people thanked in the acknowledgement reads like who-is-who within “klimarealistene”).
A good thing is that Humlum et al. now have obliged themselves to share their data, results and methods by using the CO2 data from NOAA:


RECIPROCITY – Use of these data implies an agreement to reciprocate. Laboratories making similar measurements agree to make their own data available to the general public and to the scientific community in an equally complete and easily accessible form. Modelers are encouraged to make available to the community, upon request, their own tools used in the interpretation of the ESRL data, namely well documented model code, transport fields, and additional information necessary for other scientists to repeat the work and to run modified versions. Model availability includes collaborative support for new users of the models.

I’ve asked them to share their results, data and methods before, but so far with little success. My job as a climate scientist is to replicate results. Further progress may take place if we can go through the analysis together, test methods and data, and agree on which give robust answers and which don’t.

http://www.realclima...uses-confusion/

More of a wimper than a bang.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 March 2013 - 09:54 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#13    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:50 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 04 March 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

On the face of it I would say that the correlation would be very hard to justify considering that temperature is a very noisy signal with variability on a yearly to decadal basis, but CO2 has shown a steady rise on the global mixed level.

How you can see a close correlation between that and this is beyond me;
the correlation is with changes in temp and changes in co2, not absolutes, its the difference between velocity and acceleration or derivative as doug would put it.

http://c3headlines.t...447d843a970d-pi

Edited by Little Fish, 04 March 2013 - 09:53 PM.


#14    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,388 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:01 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

the correlation is with changes in temp and changes in co2, not absolutes, its the difference between velocity and acceleration or derivative as doug would put it.

http://c3headlines.t...447d843a970d-pi
It ignores the elephant in the room which is the dominant upward rise of atmospheric CO2 by stripping it out and then focusing on variation which represent a tiny fraction of that dominent rise. This type of deceptive analysis has been attempted many times by skeptics - but it rarely gets into print.

Its a form of pedantry which ignore the central element of the data.

Its really weak analysis even if its conclusions are even partly true. Its another one of those papers which seems really surprising that it had enough of a story to tell for anyone to feel it worth publishing. its also telling that they rushed it into the public domain before the dust had even settled - it usually would cost me about $35.00 to read such an offering.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 March 2013 - 10:08 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#15    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:11 PM

How bout that new radiation belt they found around Earth. Will that effect this process in any way. Or is there still too little information ?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users