29 Years of Global Temperatures Based on Satellite Data
Posted by jennifer, January 7th, 2009 - under News.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
I have previously written that in not so many years time weather station data will perhaps be collected more for fun, a sense of history and for site-specific information, than for serious regional and global climate statistics. In the future it will be data from satellites that is recognised as much more reliable for understanding regional and global temperature trends.
There are two internationally recognised temperature data sets based on satellite measurements known by their acronyms RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville ). Both are based on information collected by NASA satellites.
Data from RSS for December 2008 was released yesterday – providing a complete data set for the last 29 years.
This data does not suggest dramatic global warming. Neither the warming of the late 20th century, nor the cooling since 1998, is of an unusual rate or magnitude.
****************
Chart from meteorologist Anthony Watts and reproduced here with permission.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/06/rss-is-out-for-december-down-slightly/
Luke, I see you fixated on the part of my question, “what the unwashed WE think, that you can not possibly know instead of answering the core question. So, let me ask again. Why are we concentrating on the past 150 or so years instead of using a longer geological time frame?
And the other major question: Can you folks point to the evidence that catastrophic events [runaway global warming] ever occurred that were precipitated from climate change versus climate change eventuated from some catastrophe?
BTW, most of us do question the validity of the surface station and other manually collected records of temperature. You don’t?
Luke: ‘And you may have noticed El Nino-wise that the Walker circulation itself has decreased….’ Words fail.. hahahaha!
Louis; your reference to extensive and intensive properties reminds me of my attempt to explain the Stefan-Boltzman/Pielke effect or contradiction to sod at a another thread; to recapitulate; because of the SB temperature variation on the surface there may be an increase in GMST based on averaging of regional anomalies because colder areas are increasing in temperature while the warmer areas are stable or slightly reducing; but similtaneously there will be less IR and energy available because the warming colder surfaces are still proportionately emitting and making available less IR via SB then stable or slightly cooling warmer areas are decreasing the available IR; so you have a warming [anomalous] trend with no AGW mechanism to cause it.
So with the intensive property of temperature; an intensive property is determined by the ratio of 2 relevant extensive properties, in this case, volume and energy; AGW supposes that temperature will increase because energy is increasing as an increasing ratio of volume; but if energy is not increasing the ratio is not increasing; furthermore there is an additional contradiction in AGW which predicts a rising tropopause because of the ascending layers of CO2 trapped IR and a higher CEL reaching into the stratosphere; in effect the atmospheric volume is increasing so even if total energy is increasing the AGW effect, temperature, is defeated by the decreasing ratio of the 2 relevant extensive properties.
Lazlo – well what’s funny about that mate ? Probably coz you don’t understand.
CoRev – 150 years – err coz that’s where we are now. Fascinating though the Cretaceous is.
And go look up the PETM and see what happens when you introduce shitloads of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere rapidly.
Or read Brian Fagan’s book “The Great Warming” to see how the circulation patterns reorganise to give mega-droughts in the most inconvenient places.
CoRev – snore – yes mate that’s why the Arctic is melting ice not reforming, and also sea level rising from thermal expansion. Of course the bloody energy is being sunk. Wake up !
Luke, now that is some deep thinking. “CoRev – 150 years – err coz that’s where we are now. ” And in my poor sepo linked thinking I wonder what the heavens is that all about? Can we discuss the meaning of “is” as we have had to do over on this side of the world, or maybe the meaning of “we” or “now”, as presented by your Lukedom? The depth and grandeur of you latest statement is just astounding.
Louis, Cohenite he’s all yours. He’s obviously way off his game, and more than just an easy target.
All mine? Now, that’s cruel and unusual punishment!
Neville,
Re: what the temp of the planet is supposed to be?
The International Standard Atmosphere model as used in aviation and some other fields says the temperature at sea level is 15deg C.
Presumably this was derived from some historical measurements as representing a useful average.
I have no idea when or how this was done.
What’s instructive is to compare the original 1989 Hansen IPCC estimates made by the know flawed computer models to what the actual measured temperature has been. Engineers would call that model validation. Alarmist call that need for reseting their zero each time the projections don’t match reality.
Another way to validate computer models is reset them for some point in the past, Say 1600 AD, a period where we have soiome modern data of unknown accuracy, and run them forward for 500 years and see how they match reality and predict what may come. My guess is you will find the same matchup as the current sunspot predictors are finding, as they blew 4 predictions in a row. Most engineers would say your models and their science, need er, ah, umm, uhhh, revisiting.
360 months = 29 years???
Thomas – you asked for evidence of past similar temperature changes. There is plenty of data around, with good agreement from different scientific sources. The link below is a typical representation, which includes the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder period over 2,000 years. If you look at the past 150 years with this data, you can’t help but wonder how anyone could take anthropogenic climate change seriously.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
Well R James – you’ll not Fig 3 stops at 1900 ! and note the error bounds – the benefits and limitations of this analysis well discussed at Climate Audit – report back when you have something better
Typical worldclimatereport stodge
CoRev: “Louis, Cohenite he’s all yours. He’s obviously way off his game, and more than just an easy target.”
Thanks – but I am beginning to suspect our Luke, via his various personages posting here over the years, is being channelled by James Hansen.
In addition Cohenite and I have concluded SJT is a Turing Machine so combine the two and we might contemplate an addition to Ripley’s Believe it or not lsit – a Channeling bi-headed Turing machine.
Actually one of the brewing companies have just released a TV advertisement for the beer brand “Pure Blonde” – using the well known perceptions that being blonde engender. It’s a laugh once you sit through the advertisement to the end.
So maybe we have a blonde, Channeling biheaded Turing machine as the Luke-SJT combo posting here. Both seem to also have links to some QLD based enviro department in previous incarnations, so leaving Luke in our care might not be in Luke’s best interests.
Luke: ‘And you may have noticed El Nino-wise that the Walker circulation itself has decreased….’ ‘Lazlo – well what’s funny about that mate ‘
Mmm ‘has decreased’ is a strong statement – people might be fooled into thinking it is something that has been observed. It hasn’t. The only suggestions (not evidence) of any AGW impacts on Walker come from, you guessed it, NOAA climate models. Also:
“Consider Fig. 1 showing the negative of the anomaly of atmospheric pressure in Darwin, Australia and used by Trenberth and Hoar (1997) as a measure of the strength of the Walker circulation. Fig. 2 displays the sea surface temperature (SST) Niño3.4 index commonly used as a measure of the strength of El Niño. Trenberth and Hoar(1997) infer that ENSO behavior shifted after about 1970 to more frequent and larger El Niño events. (The change was interpreted as the result of global warming and to be “unprecedented” in the historical record.) Solow (2006), however, noted that their anomalous test period, 1992-mid-1995, in Fig. 1 was not independent of the earlier interval of supposedly normal behavior; he used the subsequently longer record to recalculate the probability that the nature of ENSO had changed in some significant way. His conclusion was, in contrast, that while the test period appears different from the earlier one, subsequently there was essentially no evidence that the nature of the physics had changed. The comparatively dramatic story of the original authors is thus replaced by a much more ambiguous and unexciting, but presumably more soundly-based,description of the nature of ENSO.” Carl Wunsch
Luke: ‘Or read Brian Fagan’s book “The Great Warming” to see how the circulation patterns reorganise to give mega-droughts in the most inconvenient places.’
So, was there a MWP or not? Obviously you think there was, which then leaves it to the historians to argue about the consequences. Not much agreement there if these reviews are anything to go by:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1596913924/ref=cm_rdphist_2?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar
One includes the statement ‘Fagan has a tendency to make sweeping statements without proof. Some of them are clearly wrong.’ He is a self-confessed AGW believer. The book wasn’t peer-reviewed, so we can ignore it eh Luke?
Fagan’s book and peer review – fair enough – 2/3rds gave it 4-5 stars. A few comments by denialist scum who were probably paid by oil companies – but his book is extensively referenced so check yourself.
“The only suggestions (not evidence) of any AGW impacts on Walker come from, you guessed it, NOAA climate models” Pity you missed Smith and Power….
- huh !!! WTF – are you serious – well then, how can you prove anything to a ninny such as yourself? So here you have the major known mechanisms represented in a model and you’re suggesting that research is not substantive. Well better write your rebuttal mate. Nature journal is waiting for your input ROTFL !!!!!!!!!!
This is the ultimate denialist scum-baggery – I don’t believe any evidence EVER !!!
I know it’s cosmic rays – sheesh !!!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030854.shtml
http://www.gfdl.gov/reference/bibliography/2006/gav0602.pdf
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~gav/REPRINTS/VS_07_GWnCIRC.final.pdf
Luke: This is the ultimate denialist scum-baggery – I don’t believe any evidence EVER !!!
This is described as shooting one’s foot.
Oh, I just realised Luke was in one of his metaphorical moments, so I thought he was referring to himself.
Gosh, we sceptics do have problems.
Meanwhile, back at the graph. The trend may well show 0.154C increase per decade over 29 years but when we adjust for the El chichon and Mt Pinatubo cooling events it is clear that the entire increase only took place over the 4 years between 1979 and 1983, after which it has plateaued. So there has been absolutely jack $hit change over the 25 years since the last temperature jump, the top of which was obscured by El Chichon.
So where was greenhouse theory during that 25 years? On stress leave perhaps? On a valium holiday with a good lie down? In rehab with Luke? Or did the theory itself get plumb tuckered out after 0.447C of rise over just 4 years and just hang out, basking in past glory?
Once more for the cognitively challenged, 25/29ths = 86.2% of the sample period with zero change. That can only be interpreted as 0.0C decadal change over 25 years.
During which time atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa increased by12.9%, or 44ppm from 340ppm to 384ppm. That is a massive 231Gt CO2 increase with no impact whatsoever.
The only way that the climate muddles can possibly reconcile to the actual data sets is if they completely ignore major, thoroughly documented and uncontested volcanic cooling events.
And we are well overdue for the next major volcanic cooling event which will blow Al Gore’s fat butt clean off the planet.
Meanwhile, back at the graph. The trend may well show 0.154C increase per decade over 29 years but when we adjust for the El chichon and Mt Pinatubo cooling events it is clear that the entire increase only took place over the 4 years between 1979 and 1983, after which it has plateaued. So there has been absolutely jack $hit change over the 25 years since the last temperature jump, the top of which was obscured by El Chichon.
where is your graph to support this?
what relation does the 1998 spike have with volcanoes?
please provide EVIDENCE!
I think what needs to be kept in perspective is that the satellite data is coming from a low point. 1970 would normally have been a grand minima situation….but we got off this time. But it sure cooled things down a lot.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58
Motty – I can see wobbling your pink butt under the waterfall down on the prickle farm hasn’t improved your thinking skills. (BTW and off the eye gouging for a minute – is it running well?)
Back to it…
This recent analysis has all the ENSO and volcanic influence aboard. You might the spatial multiple regressions piss on your envelope.
1. Solar warming pales versus human influence
Both natural and human-induced influences have changed twentieth-century climate, but their relative roles and regional impacts are still under debate. For example, most model-based studies point to increasing human-generated greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations as the dominant cause of global surface warming after 1967, while some empirical analyses suggest that solar variability accounts for as much as 69 percent of warming seen in the past 100 years and 25-35 percent of recent warming. To help resolve this, Lean and Rind analyze the best available estimates of both natural and human-induced climate influences and compare them with observed surface temperatures across the globe from 1889 to 2006. They find that solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10 percent of the warming in the past 100 years. Additionally, in contrast with recent model results by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which estimates that anthropogenic warming has minimum values in the tropics and increases steadily from 30 degrees N to 70 degrees N, the authors find that the zonal surface temperature changes from the historical surface temperature record are more pronounced between 45 degrees S and 50 degrees N.
Title: How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006
Authors: Judith L. Lean: Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D.C., U.S.A.;
David H. Rind: Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2008GL034864, 2008; http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034864
Most interesting conclusion….
“None of the natural processes can account for the
overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the
100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends
produce by all three natural influences are at least an order
of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature
trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis,
solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in
the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years, …..”
Get up to speed, Sod. See http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/TempAdjust2.html?1199762345031
So if natural causes alone couldn’t cause the tiny temperature increase of 0.7 degC over 100 years, how did they manage to do it for the medieval warm period? Also, how did they do it after the Maunder period?
GISS said so? The same mob who used September figures instead of October figures for global temperature last year. Their figures were obviously wrong to everyone else but them. These days I don’t have much confidence in them. They use climate models that just don’t compare with real life.
Poor old Luke will enter any port in a storm and Lean & Rind is no exception. What a fundamentally flawed bit of work it is. For a start the models only accounted for 76% of the variance so, on average, each of the four elements measured was responsible for less than the sum of the unexplained elements.
More importantly, Lean & Rind measured only three “natural” elements, solar irradiance, ENSO and volcanic aerosols and assumed that all increases in CO2 and other forcing agents were anthropogenic. The fact that only half of any increase in CO2 actually remains in the atmosphere was ignored and this allowed them to assume that all, not half, of the increase in CO2 was anthropogenic.
Are we seriously to believe that there is no such thing as natural variation in CO2 of a scale capable of modifying temperature? Clearly no. Some of the increased CO2 absorption by oceans during the Medieval Warming period could very likely be at the end of the oceanic circulation phase and now be part of a natural cyclical release. We also know that production forests that were handed over to the spivocrats during the past three decades are now reaching the point of minimal carbon sequestration. We also know that the so-called green revolution in crop genetics has substantially altered the amount of carbon absorbed for each grain of rice or wheat and has shortened the growing (absorbing) season by about three weeks. And this has been matched by a commensurately shorter CO2 absorption phase in the Mauna Loa data set (and confirmed by Ralph Keeling in pers comm).
Add the fact that Lean & Rind continued with this highly misleading, totally outdated, Mercators projection which gives extremely false weightings for high latitude outcomes and we get yet another outwardly competent work which is essentially little more than climatista propaganda. They tried to claim that volcanic aerosol impacts were somewhat limited, ie., between 40S and 70N but if you take a good look at an actual globe, rather than a bull$hit flat Mercator Projection map, it soon becomes apparent that the impact covered more than 80% of the planet surface.
Meanwhile, back at the graph, add in the volcanic aerosol impacts and we still get a sudden jump in temperature (a rebound actually) followed by a 25 year plateau in which gullible warming was in rehab with our little mate, Luke.
What a limp wristed pissy poor critique. Mate you’ve been done like a dinner. At least have the decency to admit it. If you were good you’d write a rebuttal wouldn’t you – to GRL.
But faux secptics like you NEVER publish.
Not up to it coz you’re crap. You’d be laughed off the journal.
We know where the CO2 has gone matey boy. Don’t you remember being educated on this before.
SEVENTY SIX % of THE VARIANCE – MY GOD MAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s bloody phenomenal.
Do you have any idea what a rank idiot you are making comments like that.
And they didn’t use a Mercator’s to analyse the data.
“Some of the increased CO2 absorption by oceans during the Medieval Warming period could very likely be at the end of the oceanic circulation phase and now be part of a natural cyclical release.” and what sort of halfwit frigging stupid commentary is this – INCREASED ABSORPTION – if it’s warming it would outgassing you dickhead. The solubility of carbon dioxide is a strong inverse function of seawater temperature (i.e. solubility is greater in cooler water)
Really you’re crap. Pathetic.
Luke: ‘And you may have noticed El Nino-wise that the Walker circulation itself has decreased….’ …. ‘- huh !!! WTF – are you serious – well then, how can you prove anything to a ninny such as yourself?’ … ‘http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030854.shtml’
From the abstract:
“However, our results, together with results from climate models forced with increasing greenhouse gas levels, suggest that the recent apparent dominance might instead reflect a shift to a lower mean SOI value. It seems that global warming now needs to be taken into account in both the formulation of ENSO indices and in the evaluation and exploitation of statistical links between ENSO and climate variability over the globe. ”
“Suggest”…”might”…”seems” – all a lot more equivocal than your huffing and puffing. Care to have your statements peer reviewed? LoL. Then again ridiculous exageration has always been a major component of the left strategy.
Lazlo – get a grip. That fact the basis of the SOI has changed is obviously too subtle for you to understand. You obviously haven’t read it the papers – haven’t thought about it – have you? Of course not. Typical dopey denialist response. No marks for silly comments.
Another diatribe laced with half truths from the boy wonder. The increased temperature during the medieval warming would have produced outgassing in the tropics and increased absorption in the temperate zone. It is exactly the same as what is taking place at present.
Will someone explain to this moron that the rate of absorption is not solely driven by temperature. The primary driver of oceanic absorption is the amount of CO2 available FOR absorption. Ergo, even when the temperature increases, and in this case marginally, the total absorption is higher because the supply of CO2 is higher.
So we have greatly increased absorption in the temperate zone and a retarded, but still significant, rate of outgassing in the tropics as historically carbon rich upwelling water meets warmer atmoshere with higher CO2 levels. A natural, cyclical feedback.
But not a bad attempt at sidestepping Lean & Rind’s failure to differentiate between human and natural CO2 increase. So DO tell us, Luke. Why did they lump all CO2 flux together as anthropogenic in origin?
Ten hours later. Luke must be back in rehab, getting some quality time with Mr Thumb.
And still the question remains – why DID they lump all CO2 flux together as being of anthropogenic origin when the evidence indicates nothing of a sort?
Oh boy wooooonnnddeeeeeerrr?
Another interesting aspect of climatista graphical presentations is the way they never apply the sort of trend band, showing upper and lower extent of variations as is the norm in stock market charting.
When we do this with the above graph and get one line of best fit for the peaks and another line of best fit for the troughs then it becomes clear that both upper and lower variations in global temperatures have only risen by 0.2C over 28 years for a decadal change of only 0.07C.
For the bottom line we need to lift the 1983 and 1992 troughs by at least 0.3C due to volcanic aerosols and this then gives us a lower limit of the trend band that goes from -0.25C in 1981 to -0.05C in 2007, for a change of 0.2C over 26 years.
For the upper line, leaving out the anomalous 1998 figure, we get an upper limit of the trend band going from +0.2C in 1980 to +0.5C in 2006, for a change of 0.3C over 26 years.
The amplitude of the band increased from 0.45C on 1980/81 to 0.55C in 2006/07 but the change in mean trend for the band is only oin the order of 0.25C for a decadal trend of only +0.096C, not the 0.154C that is produced by a single trend line.
And when this trend is allocated between natural influences like ENSO, solar variation and natural CO2 fluxes we are left with a significantly diminished anthropogenic forcing.
Ian – “And when this trend is allocated between natural influences like ENSO, solar variation and natural CO2 fluxes we are left with a significantly diminished anthropogenic forcing.” – I disagree – we are left with other effects, one of which could be anthropogenic. What about the 5,000 known underwater volcanos? What about the huge cyclic changes over the past 500,000 years that weren’t anthropogenic for which we have no answer. There’re other influences which we aren’t considering, or even know about.
I agree, R James, but left out all the other variables because it would only confuse poor Luke and his simpleton climatista mates. Yes, underwater volcanic activity is likely to be melting ice shelves and there is also the PDO (pacific decadal oscillation) and the sleeping gorillas, clouds and cosmic radiation.
So if we look at the change in the trend band, rather than the more abstract trend line, we get a maximum of 0.096C per decade of which 24% is unexplained leaving 0.073C of loosely explained decadal change. The entirely random volcanic influences have already been adjusted for in the placement of the upper and lower trend lines so that leaves about 10% of the 0.073C caused by ENSO and SI leaving a maximum CO2 related warming of 0.066C per decade. No more than half of this is likely to be anthropogenic which leaves us with a modest likely maximum of 0.033C per decade of human induced warming.
It follows that this level of warming can be completely negated by reversals of any one of a number of natural cyclical influences, as 2008 has amply demonstrated.
I’m not even reading your drivel seriously now Mottsa – you’re just too silly to have a sensible conversation with. Try thinking about CO2 in glacial/interglacial cycles if you have a scintilla of brain power left.
As for volcanoes – if you had a brain you might find out that volcanoes have diddly squat to do with the issue. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034939.shtml and pity the oceans have heated top down. Barnett et al. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5732/284?ck=nck
So rant at will – some dope might listen
This is par for Luke’s course when cornered. So I guess we can conclude that he has no explanation as to why all CO2 increase was treated as of human origin.
And it is not hard to understand why he would be in no hurry to discuss the temperature trend band rather than the very convenient single moving mean. Funny how the climatistas have distinct preferences for particular statistical tools and presentation formats that serve their squalid purposes.
Mercators projections were old cheese more than 50 years ago but readily get a gig in “Brother Gore’s travelling climate salvation show”. And now we have trend bands being banished for the crime of providing a new layer of meaning to temperature data.
So perhaps Luke would like to round up some of his captured statistician mates to explain to us all why the use of trend bands in temperature analysis in not kosher?
We wait with baited breath.
Luke – rather than just rely on reports, I checked on some of the known underwater volcanoes, and their flow rate. The heat capacity is relatively low, but my calculations show that it could be significant. There are over 5,000 known underwater volcanoes – who knows how many are unknown, and they’re certainly not steady state. Convection can transport the heat to the upper levels. We’re only looking for enough energy to increase air temperature by 0.7 degC over 160 years. I don’t pretend that this accounts for all the heat gain, but don’t rule this out as a possible contributor.
OK Jamesy – rack up’em up. Let’s see some numbers. When they dragged the probe over the vent of the new volcano in the Antarctic Sound it hardly registered. But all the blog scepticsd reckoned that was it. The ocean is bloody massive. The odds are from the data the Antartic Peninsula warming is simply winds and currents. But if you have some numbers on oceans in general I’m all ears.
Motty’s good at taunting me when I’m bored. So he’s just done the Back to the Future “chicken” call. Motty’s the character on the left
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gKosmXx1gkc
Well Motty – get this up ya
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/ppt/GCP_CarbonBudget_2007.ppt
Anthropogenic and biophysical contributions to increasing
atmospheric CO2 growth rate and airborne fraction
M. R. Raupach1, J. G. Canadell1, and C. Le Qu´er´e2,3
1Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, Australia
2School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
3British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
November 2008
http://www.biogeosciences.net/5/1601/2008/bg-5-1601-2008.pdf
The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y −1. The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate have been ≈65 ± 16% from increasing global economic activity, 17 ± 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the global economy, and 18 ± 15% from the increase in AF. An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate–carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full
Yeah good on you Luke. Now what was that about your very own carbon hoof print?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24900863-5018012,00.html
Now toddle off and fart in that jar! Pahleeeze…..
Phfff… there’s always more at the source….
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece
Another sloppy sidestep from Luke and the usual multiple post to obscure his comprehension deficit.
Love the little break down of sources and sinks but you have the accounting skills of a Chimp on viagra. So lets spell this out for you nice and slowly.
An annual increase of atmospheric CO2 of 2 ppm amounts to 10.5Gt.
The gross emissions under IPCC Bull$hit accounting is 9Gt.
And according to the climate mafia only 4.2Gt (46%) remains in the atmosphere.
With landscape absorbing 2.6Gt (29%) and
Oceans absorbing 2.3Gt (25.5%).
But the above percentages are based on the IPCC accounting total emissions of 9Gt, not the 10.5Gt of measured CO2 annual increase. If only 4.2Gt of human CO2 remains in the atmosphere then it follows that this 4.2Gt only represents 40% of the total increase in CO2.
THE OTHER 60% MUST BE OF NATURAL ORIGIN.
And that means that Lean & Rind were even more in error for assuming that all CO2 was human induced when it should have been only 40%.
And that means the 25 year trend band of 0.096C per decade, less the 24% unexplained portion leaving 0.073C decadal trend, and less another 10% for ENSO and Solar leaving 0.0657C must then be multiplied by only 0.4 to get the maximum likely anthropogenic forcing of only 0.0263C per decade.
And remember that IPCC accounting grossly over estimates Land Use emissions while grossly underestimating Land Use absorption. They still regard the wood in your house as being already emitted and refuse to even recognise vegetation thickenning.
So lets state that again. The actual decadal warming due to human CO2 emissions is unlikely to be more than 0.026C which is only 1/6th of the 0.154C claimed by the CO2 Flux Klan.
Oh boring Mr Snotty – look if any CO2 comes from natural systems towards an increase it’s obviously a biosphere feedback driving it – which was caused by anthropogenic feedbacks anyway.
But like most ratbag puedo-sceptics you’ve only quoted natural sinks not sources. You’d be the sort of bloke that would have a finger on the scales at the butcher’s shop eh?
So you go away and come back with the full set of sinks and sources numbers for a simple schema like this
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg
or this http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/jmz28/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif
or this http://www.globe.gov/fsl/eventsimages/CCdiagram-Print.jpg
IPCC UNFCCC does count all manner of sinks – Kyoto doesn’t. If they did recognise thickening – under rules that the gonzos negotiated – the land use and forestry sector would become a net sink. So that would make it not count in the national inventory. And so all the emphasis would go back onto power and transport which are going gang-busters. You can only count tree clearing under Kyoto if the sector is a net source (don’t ask me who negotiates this stuff). It’s probably coz the Euros thought it was a diddle and fiddle by us (and it was).
As for you timber in house being not counted. If you talk to some experts in the field. Doesn’t really matter when you get into a steady state a few years on….
Anyway – where this gets to in the big international negotiations is that all this land use and forestry stuff is regarded as “sus” – so big moves to disallow ALL of it. Just too hard to keep track of – and too many argumentative buggers like you to make happy.
Correction: I must apologise to readers for my use of data supplied by Luke. In my above post I used the numbers from his link to the global carbon budget. The problem with this, like with so much output from the climate mafiosa, is that the numbers don’t stack up, or they compare apples and oranges.
For example, the so-called carbon budget provides graphics claiming to show CO2 flux but they do not post the numbers for CO2, rather, they provide the data for plain Carbon.
We are told that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 2ppm per year over the past decade and I have no issue there. The problem is that 2ppm of CO2 is an expression of parts per million by volume of the atmosphere (one millionth) of which amounts to 5.14Gt (or petagrams) of CO2 and two of them amount to 10.3Gt CO2.
So when Lukes link to the carbon budget expresses CO2 values in terms of plain Carbon they are referring to parts per million by mass. And there is approximately 1.5 ppm/m for each ppm/v. The current atmospheric CO2 level of 385ppm/v amounts to 582ppm/m.
And this is why the quoted 4.1Gt increase in atmospheric carbon did not reconcile with the 10.3Gt figure for 2ppm/v. It was chalk and cheese. Take the questionable 4.1Gt for plain Carbon and multiply it by a factor of 3.66 to convert to CO2 and we get 15Gt which, when divided by 1.5 leaves us with the 10Gt increase indicated by the Mauna Loa series.
The real problem is with years like the 1998 El Nino when there was a 3ppm jump in atmospheric CO2 when human emissions were less than half this amount, with minimal subsequent natural compensations in later years.
So please disregard the immediate above post. The previous ones on the need for trend bands rather than a single trend line still stand. A trend band that measures peak to peak and trough to trough remains the best way to eliminate volatility in a data set
So would you like to make a revised estimate on CO2 anthropogenic and natural then?
If you notice in the references I gave you ENSO makes an annual difference to the CO2 fluxes. You should also note there is a considerable effort on matters of carbon cycle.
Like this:
“The Global Carbon Project” with heaps of information.
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/about/index.htm
The problem, Luke, is that all the adjustments for volcanic aerosols, ENSO and Solar are recognised in papers and are then averaged out over longer periods which obscure their critical impact on the temperature record at particular times.
Averaging out aerosols over 29 years will certainly produce a modest annual average impact but the key point is the way these random events have altered the shape of the temperature series. El Chichon and Pinatubo obscure the fact that the temperature series has not been a gradual increase that is consistent with the increase in CO2.
Temperature has consistently demonstrated a sequence of extended plateau punctuated by sudden rises or falls. And these sudden jumps are not consistent with greenhouse theory.
Hi Jennifer,
I thoroughly recommend a read of this paper by Roy Spencer. He actually uses words like “evidence” and “proof” – words I’ve never seen before in climate science. He claims he’s done it! What do you and your readers think?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2008/12/an-open-challenge-to-climate-modelers-for-2009/
Rick – I think one of the main issues with the models has always been the unknown of whether negative or positive feedback is dominant. IPCC models assume, and depend on, positive feedback, but I’ve never found any evidence that backs up this assumption. Certainly the experience of the past 10 years doesn’t seem to support it.