Carbon Dioxide Rate of Change Follows Temperature (with ~9 month lag)

[George S]

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019

ABSTRACT

Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.

HYPOTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Earlier conclusions by the author and others are reviewed that disprove global warming alarmism and the justification for CO2 abatement schemes.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 does NOT cause dangerous global warming. Humanmade global warming / climate change is a false crisis.

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

This ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:

UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth

Data Sources

University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere (LT) Temperatures

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Nino Area Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Data

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 data

http://www.scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/asse..._situ_co2/monthly/monthly_in_situ_co2_mlo.csv

Sato Aerosol Optical Depth Volcanic Index (to 2012)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt

NOAA Precipitable Water Monolevel +/-20 N, 0-360W

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-b...=0&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries

 

[repoman]

Have you seen the Keeling curve?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

We are tapping into long term storage of oil, coal and natural gas and Carbon Dioxide is going up in both the ocean and atmosphere.

The carbon dioxide laging temperature in the ice core records for example was just a redistribution between the short and medium term storage (tundra, ocean floor carbonates etc...) and the oceans and the atmosphere.

What you are referencing in the articles may be somewhat true, but it is a dust mite on a flea on a dog's butt. Cracking open the long term storage of fossil fuels is the real story here.

Now, weathering will take care of this pulse, but for human life and civilization it will be a very long haul to get back below 300 ppm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Truly easy to hand wave a "study" when it literally starts out with "Global warming alarmism...".

Nothing like an unprofessional, but immediate, red flag to help let us know this paper isn't worth the bits or lumens used to display.

The title is also nice, "CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY". Anything else they want to shoehorn into this? Evolution, Young Earth?

Decides to click the link. Wait... this isn't a paper... it is a blog post?! MEGA LOLZ

 

[barbos]

What a load of crap "study"

 

[ronburgundy]

The blog author's claim of "disproved" is not a scientific concept, thus competent scientists don't use it. But how could the author be a competent scientist, when he is not even a scientists at all, but rather has a Masters degree in Engineering (a degree in applying the established principles of science to design system is not itself a science).
Perhaps that is why his nonsense is published only on an anti-science blog b/c it has failed peer-review in any professional journal. In fact, I cannot find a single peer reviewed scientific article by the author.
The blog in general appears to be nothing but an outlet for pseudoscience that fails peer review. Here is an article they posted crying about the butthurt they feel over the massive international conspiracy among all scientific journal to reject their nonsense.

The author of the OP blog post has written for other propaganda rags, such as his article trying to convince that we should welcome global warming because more people die each year from extreme exposure to cold than heat. I won't bother detailing how insanely stupid that argument is, b/c if it isn't obvious then you aren't interested in reality anyway. That blog post was posted on "Canadian Free Press", a far-right tabloid promoting white supremacy, homophobia, xenophobia, religious fundamentalism, theocracy, and of course Trump who is a champion of all those things.

 

[repoman]

George, I am wondering what is emotionally, subconsciously driving your thinking on this topic.

Have you seen a lot of crazy leftist crap on social and political topics and assumed that it means that because these people also support the assertions and observations of climate scientists that climate science is also wrong? Are you just following the contrarian herd on this topic?

Well, I am also very much against left wing (more like anti-white) social science but this climate change via carbon dioxide is real and supported on so many levels that it is truly impressive. The science stretches backs for 200 years, well before any of this current political bullshit was around.

If you want to see the opposite of this just watch this Peter Coffin video about overpopulation in which his anti-racism (anti-white) ideology makes him blind to the problems of overpopulation. Coffin is pretty smart about a lot of things and it may surprise people here that I enjoy a lot of his content, but this motivated reasoning and red herrings about racism makes him ignore the facts on the ground about population and environmental degradation.




I don't care how much money the Koch Brothers spend on this climate denial propaganda crap, it is still crap.





Pick battles that you can win and let reality

 

[George S]

repoman, I am not trying to win any battles. I am simply skeptical. I was initially very skeptical when it was a politician promoting catastrophic global warming.

I have read a lot of Tony Heller's posts. He recounts the history of catastrophic climate predictions which have not come to pass. Newspapers and politicians quote climate scientists as authoritative. In the past these "authorities" have been wrong. The Al Gore predictions have not come to pass. No hockey stick (one way you can tell a fraud is a hokey (no typo) stick graph, like the one you see on ads to buy silver.)

I have actually studied the climate models and drawn my own conclusions. I have expertise in the area of computer modeling; I have taught it at the graduate school level. Yes, that is almost an appeal to authority, and I do not ask you to accept what I say simply because I, an expert in the field, has said it. Given that I will go on. Computer models are subject to the quality of the input data. In "climate science" the data does not include solar particle forcing (see suspicious observers) and other space weather. No matter what the model is, if the input data is incomplete the output is suspect. Any computer model must predict the past with nearly perfect accuracy. There have been periods of earth's history with high CO2 and low, and (potholer notwithstanding) there have been no cases of CO2 triggering a warming period. In fact, our CO2 level is far below the levels for optimal plant growth. GIGO.

Another source of error in computer models is oversimplification. Attempting to use a single variable, CO2 concentration, is clear oversimplification.

In the OP there is a simple, one line model, supported by the data provided by NASA. If you disagree with it, do your own research. Do not object to the wording. Do not believe a majority (nowhere near 97%, by the way) of "climate scientists."

One datum of note is that the jet stream hugs the north pole during high solar activity, and strays south during low solar activity. This straying leads to wild weather. We are in the low solar activity before the start of the next solar cycle. The last three cycles have had lower peaks than the prior one following the same pattern as before the Maunder minimum. If the next one (2020-2031) is that low global cooling is expected.

One datum of note is that the magnetic poles are migrating very quickly. If we are in a magnetic reversal or even a magnetic anomaly we get less protection from UV. There is a good correlation between prior magnetic reversals and major extinction events. A magnetic anomaly happened around the time the neanderthals went extinct. Cause/effect far from proven, though.

Do not judge any paper (much less a post on a forum) by where it is published or by whom. Take all claims of imminent catastrophe with a large serving of Lot's wife. Never trust a politician. Never trust research funded by organizations with an agenda; confirmation bias is very real.

Beginning of https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/climate-scientists-motivated-reasoning/

Reposted from Dr. Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on June 19, 2019 by curryja
by Judith Curry

Insights into the motivated reasoning of climate scientists, including my own efforts to sort out my own biases and motivated reasoning following publication of the Webster et al. (2005) paper

A recent twitter thread by Moshe Hoffman (h/t Larry Kummer) reminded me of a very insightful paper by Lee Jussim, Joe Duarte and others entitled Interpretations and methods: Towards a more self-correcting social psychology

Apart from the rather innocuous title, the paper provides massively important insights into scientific research in general, with substantial implications for climate science.

The Jussim et al. paper is the motivation for this blog post that addresses the motivated reasoning of individual climate scientists. And also for my next post that will address the broader ‘masking’ biases in climate science.

<begin quote>

“Getting it right” is the sine qua non of science. Science can tolerate individual mistakes and flawed theories, but only if it has reliable mechanisms for efficient self-correction. Unfortunately, science is not always self-correcting. Indeed, a series of threats to the integrity of scientific research has recently come to the fore across the sciences, including questionable research practices, failures to replicate, publication biases, and political biases.

Motivated reasoning refers to biased information processing that is driven by goals unrelated to accurate belief formation. A specific type of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, occurs when people seek out and evaluate information in ways that confirm their pre-existing views while downplaying, ignoring, or discrediting information of equal or greater quality that opposes their views. People intensely scrutinize counter-attitudinal evidence while easily accepting information supporting their views. People generate convincing arguments to justify their automatic evaluations, producing an illusion of objectivity.

Scientists are not immune to confirmation biases and motivated reasoning. Values influence each phase of the research process, including how people interpret research findings. Reviewers’ theoretical and ideological views can influence their evaluation of research reports, leading them to judge studies that oppose their beliefs more critically than studies supporting their views. Consequently, they are then less likely to recommend publication of studies with undesired findings or funding for studies based on undesirable theories or hypotheses.

 

[bigfield]

I have read a lot of Tony Heller's posts. He recounts the history of catastrophic climate predictions which have not come to pass. Newspapers and politicians quote climate scientists as authoritative. In the past these "authorities" have been wrong. The Al Gore predictions have not come to pass. No hockey stick (one way you can tell a fraud is a hokey (no typo) stick graph, like the one you see on ads to buy silver.)

Politicians, journalists and activists compulsively misrepresent the science. Al Gore is a repeat offender.

If you want to know what climate scientists are predicting, you need to ask them directly, or even better, read the peer-reviewed literature.

I have actually studied the climate models and drawn my own conclusions. I have expertise in the area of computer modeling; I have taught it at the graduate school level. Yes, that is almost an appeal to authority, and I do not ask you to accept what I say simply because I, an expert in the field, has said it. Given that I will go on. Computer models are subject to the quality of the input data. In "climate science" the data does not include solar particle forcing (see suspicious observers) and other space weather. No matter what the model is, if the input data is incomplete the output is suspect. Any computer model must predict the past with nearly perfect accuracy. There have been periods of earth's history with high CO2 and low, and (potholer notwithstanding) there have been no cases of CO2 triggering a warming period. In fact, our CO2 level is far below the levels for optimal plant growth. GIGO.

Another source of error in computer models is oversimplification. Attempting to use a single variable, CO2 concentration, is clear oversimplification.

You are right: you aren't an authority on the science and your opinion isn't valuable.

On the other hand, if you can cite a peer-reviewed journal article showing how SEPs or "other space weather" drive climate, then that would be worth consideration.

Do not judge any paper (much less a post on a forum) by where it is published or by whom.

We have a good reason to trust peer-reviewed research published in reputable scientific journals. The journals' main customers are libraries and other academic subscribers that depend on these journals for reliable information in order to conduct research. If the journal editors let their standards slip or introduced politically-motivated bias, they would lose their subscribers.

You are not qualified to review papers yourself. You're making a mistake if you think you can, and it explains why you're treating pseudo-scientific bloggers as authoritative.

Take all claims of imminent catastrophe with a large serving of Lot's wife. Never trust a politician. Never trust research funded by organizations with an agenda; confirmation bias is very real.

Never trust politically-motivated, pseudoscientific blogs like WUWT or SuspiciousObservers, either.

 

[repoman]

Just the simple automatic physics of radiation balance being dependent on levels carbon dioxide and methane etc.. make this so you don't need much verification by other sources. This is almost high school level math for the back of the envelope calculations.

The evolution analogy would be for creationist to bitch and moan about fossils and confusion about time ranges. But now we have lots of genomes at least partially mapped and we really don't need fossils to PROVE evolution, DNA is enough.

Also, for carbon dioxide (I will spot you all greenhouse gases except water for now) levels they are the major determinant. Water will act as a GHG in the air and also have a mild cooling effect from clouds reflecting incoming solar radiation. But it takes more other GHGs in the air already causing warming to get more water in the air. But even in the driest desert the earth is now trapping more heat than it used to.

So you say that no initial rise in GHGs has ever caused heating and in fact heating caused GHG release. That is from the Milankovitch cycles in the past.

Not to renege on not using basic high school math in relation only to current times, but large igneous provinces are thought to have supplied the carbon dioxide for these massive warming episodes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_igneous_province

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

Data Sources

University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere (LT) Temperatures

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Nino Area Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Data

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 data

http://www.scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/asse..._situ_co2/monthly/monthly_in_situ_co2_mlo.csv

Sato Aerosol Optical Depth Volcanic Index (to 2012)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt

NOAA Precipitable Water Monolevel +/-20 N, 0-360W

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-b...=0&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries

"...~9-month lag, +/- several months..."

How many degrees of freedom are there when you get to cherry pick the lag differently at each data point by such a wide margin?

 

[bilby]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One datum of note is that the jet stream hugs the north pole during high solar activity, and strays south during low solar activity. This straying leads to wild weather. We are in the low solar activity before the start of the next solar cycle. The last three cycles have had lower peaks than the prior one following the same pattern as before the Maunder minimum. If the next one (2020-2031) is that low global cooling is expected.

One simple proof of the problem with your argument is this babble about the jet stream. The jet stream moves energy. It can change the distribution of heat, it can't change the total heat on Earth.

And unlike your claim that they look at only one factor, they do look at things like the sunspot cycle. It's one of the parameters in the energy balance on Earth. It's these other factors that cause the stair-step pattern we see--when the natural factors are positive we see a big spike in warming, when the natural factors are negative we see a pause and your side keeps claiming the warming is over.

One datum of note is that the magnetic poles are migrating very quickly. If we are in a magnetic reversal or even a magnetic anomaly we get less protection from UV. There is a good correlation between prior magnetic reversals and major extinction events. A magnetic anomaly happened around the time the neanderthals went extinct. Cause/effect far from proven, though.

So?

Do not judge any paper (much less a post on a forum) by where it is published or by whom. Take all claims of imminent catastrophe with a large serving of Lot's wife. Never trust a politician. Never trust research funded by organizations with an agenda; confirmation bias is very real.

Where a paper is published does say a lot about it's quality.