On the other hand, it does establish how ignorant the cheerleaders here are. C’mon, averages from two consecutive years are not a trend.

Yes, the CO2 impact is logarithmic and my warming reconstructions are based on the LN of CO2 (with CO2 as a proxy for all the greenhouse gases).

But CO2 is growing at a slightly exponential rate right now (an increase in the rate of 0.002 ppm each month).

We are at a point in the logarithmic impact of rising GHGs where the warming is nearly linear (and it will stay nearly linear for as much as 90 years before it starts to flatten out in the future). It is just a characteristic of the formulae.

The exponential section of the growth started about 1955 and ended about 1990 after which it will be roughly linear for 100 years or so assuming GHGs continue growing at their current rates.

I’ve built these charts showing the current growth rates of CO2 and the log warming impact of CO2 from 1 ppm to 560 ppm (which you probably have not seen before but it is an accurate reflection of the situation) and then how it works in a more normal “temp versus time” chart.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1071/co2forecastwz0.png

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9652/logwarmingillustratedkn7.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3930/hadcrut3scattervj2.png

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/811/finalwarminggw8.png

This log warming chart is based on the Hadcrut3 dataset and it produces the largest warming rate of the temperature series at 1.62C per doubling. GISS produces 1.54C per doubling, and NCDC produces 1.32C per doubling. The theory now says the warming will continue for another 35 years or more after one reaches the 560 ppm doubling level before one reaches the 3.0C or 3.25C per doubling temperature level but the trends to date indicate that will not happen – it will take hundreds of years more or it will just not happen at all.

… and RSS from 1979 on produces just 0.7C per doubling …

… (since 1979, the warming rate of all the temperature series declines – maybe the satellites are keeping them honest now – the warming since 1979 from all the temperature series indicates that the historic data may have been artificially adjusted to increase the trend by about 0.3C.)

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6140/zoominrsslogwarmingar8.png

- RSS (with ENSO and AMO pulled out)

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6820/rsswarmingdi8.png

- GISS (with ENSO and AMO pulled out)

http://i463.photobucket.com/albums/qq360/Bill-illis/GISS1979Warming.png?t=1230507604

I would make two other significant comments:

- The AMO should be used rather than the PDO. The AMO has similar long-term cycles to the PDO but the AMO explains temperature variation much better than the PDO. The PDO doesn’t have a very good correlation. Secondly, the AMO is tied to the deep ocean circulation system and, consequently, is a significant node of energy exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere and, consequently, is more logical to include than the PDO. The northern Pacific ocean is shallow at deep ocean circulation depths and thus is not really part of the ocean circulation system.

The AMO matches the long-term cyclical changes in the climate very closely – the downswing from 1900 to 1919, the upswing from 1920 to 1945, the downswing from 1946 to 1976 and the upswing from 1977 to 2005. It also has big spikes in some super El Nino years like 1877-78 and 1997-98. In fact, half of the temperature increase in 1997-98 was due to the AMO and only half was due to the El Nino.

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/3383/amoanomalynp6.png

- Southern Hemisphere temperatures (which may be of interest to you) have very unusual trends – lots of rapid ups and downs and strange cycles. In fact, they are hardly correlated with the ENSO at all (is Australia temps correlated with the ENSO, precipitation is but is temperature?). If you are going to correct global temperatures for natural variation of ocean cycles, you need to be able to explain the southern hemisphere temps as well (it is half the globe afterall.)

For example, here is the monthly Southern Hemisphere temps from Hacrut3 (what a mess).

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7797/shtempanomalybq1.png

Southern Hemisphere temps are not correlated with the ENSO but they correlated with the AMO and what I have been calling the southern version of the AMO, the Southern Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. It has similar characteristics to the AMO, in that it has long cycles and it is a major part of the deep ocean circulation patterns in the southern hemisphere.

I used the SST anomalies for this region to build the southern AMO and when you include this region, you have a pretty good match to the SH temps.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=33.137551,-49.921875&spn=164.593939,360&z=1&msid=110686680343951250375.00045cd66a477c08c6d08

There are other areas along Antarctica that could be used in this index but you have to be careful to not include too much of the ocean to explain global temps since the ocean SSts are part of global temps.

When you put all that together, you get a Hadcrut3 reconstruction like this.

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8456/finalhadcrut3modeljs7.png

This method works on all the major temperature series and most of the smaller zonal components as well. I’ve left out the Southern AMO for some reconstructions since it is not a recognized ocean indicator and the reconstructions are almost as good without it (but it is needed for the southern hemisphere.)

There is a very good match to the tropics zone for example.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8008/rsstropicsnw0.png

In terms of the global warming signature left over after you pull out this natural variation (and it doesn’t change the 0.7C increase, just the +/- cycles out), it is, at most, only half of the predictions of the global warming models. The pro-AGW crowd have used aerosols to explain the difference (Hansen and GISS have -0.3C built in for aerosols now). The newest one is that deep oceans are absorbing some of the global warming temperature increase which will push out the date we get to 3.0C per doubling by as little as 35 years and as much as 1,000 years (my numbers say at least 500 years). The deep oceans are warming very slightly however.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/#comments

Perhaps you could kindly comment.

CO2 has increased every year since 1850 (other than a very slight decline and pause in WWII) (and CO2 doesn’t rise every month so there are a few months in the chart where there is a pause) but, generally, the dots start in January 1850 and progress out by month until November 2008.

The main charts I built were based on taking the ENSO and AMO natural variation out and then assuming the remainder was global warming. The ENSO and AMO variability (+/-) is removed but the overall trend of 0.7C of warming is maintained.

Here is the chart for Hadcrut3 (starting in 1871 when reliable ENSO figures became available) with the ENSO and AMO variation removed.

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/811/finalwarminggw8.png

Here is a chart with no cherry-picking at all. It contains all of the monthly temperature observations on the same baseline since each record began versus CO2.

The actual observations to-date are about half of the trendline predicted by the global warming models (this one is a little less than Hansen’s Scenario B).

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2626/tempobsrvvsco2ct4.png

you mean like this :)

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp18.jpg