A TECHNICAL paper, Secular temperature changes in Hawai‘i, published just last year in Geophysical Research Letters indicates there has been recent warming on the island of Hawaii and this has been most evident at high elevations. Retired economist, Tim Curtin, has reviewed the paper and comes to a different conclusion.
Mr Curtin has also plotted his own chart, see above, drawing on the atmospheric CO2 data recorded at the Mauna Loa Slope Observatory since mid-1958 and the temperatures reported at the same location. Interestingly despite the increasing interest in changes in climate, Mr Curtin comments that since 1992 data collection has been erratic at this key site.
Tim Curtin explains his objections and conclusions:
Data from 5 of the 21 temperature stations used in the paper are from major population centres and/or airports, and only 4 “high altitude stations” were used to represent the 42 percent of Hawaii that is above 900 metres in elevation.
Giambelluca et al use “anomalies” of average temperature from the 1944-1980 mean, which removes Mauna Loa from its data, as temperature records there began only in 1955. Yet Giambelluca et al. confidently produce dramatic statistical trends for high altitude Hawaii (42% of total area) from at most 3 stations for the period from 1919 to 2006.
Mauna Loa is significant as this is the site at which carbon dioxide concentrations are recorded and this site is considered a global reference for carbon dioxide.
The temperature data at Mauna Loa from 1955 do not support the conclusions of the paper, of extreme warming at ‘high altitude Hawaii” to the extent of 0.268 C per decade since 1975. Actually as the graph shows there is a slight declining trend in the annual increases in temperatures at Mauna Loa.
A plot of changes in temperature and carbon dioxide year on year from 1959, as in the chart, shows a steady rise in concentrations of carbon dioxide but no increase in temperature.
I conclude that there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature at a pristine site like that at Mauna Loa. In conclusion the whole theory of ‘radiative forcing’ allegedly arising from increasing concentration of carbon dioxide over time has no validity at pristine locations like Mauna Loa.
Tim Curtin
www.timcurtin.com
**************************
Notes and Links
Citation: Giambelluca, T. W., H. F. Diaz, and M. S. A. Luke (2008), Secular temperature changes in Hawai‘i, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L12702, doi:10.1029/2008GL034377.
Part 1 at http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/warming-in-hawaii/
The chart is drawn from temperatures data here: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?hi6198
Use the scroll bar on the left and scroll down about half way, find the header Temperature (or Precipitation). Under that, find Monthly Temperature (Precipitation) Listing and click on “monthly totals”. This will give you a table of monthly and annual values for that station’s entire period of record.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Alas and alack – Mauna Loa does indeed provide an excellent example of CO2 warming. Devil is in the details.
http://ormserver.arts.yorku.ca/publictalks/Direct%20Observation%20of%20Global%20Warming%20and%20Correlation%20with%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Data.ppt
How little all of us know about micro-met !?
reasonably good agreement
yeah – near enough is good enough in climate science. the midday temps for Mauna Loa 12 noon temp shows a negative trend eh Lukey boy!
well it’s only a public talk isn’t it – not a real science paper.
Come on folks, you are kidding aren’t you?
Doesn’t anyone understand convection, mixing, WEATHER?
One CANNOT, repeat CANNOT use temperature measurements at ONE LOCATION to sense changes caused by CO2.
ANY ONE PROPOSING THAT IS A MORON of the highest degree.
Jeeeeeezzzzzeee, think about it. IT DON’T WORK. It’s meaningless.
Dear old Luke, none so gullible as a true believer. I already had the Turcotte et al slide show, and noted the following:
(1) It claims to have hourly, daily, and annual mean temps from 1975 to 2005, yet the NOAA data for that station show regular daily recording ceased after 1992 (probably due to VP Al Gore ordering that no measurements be done on cold days!), which is why NOAA shows no annual means from 1992. Thus it appears that the hourly etc measurements cited by Turcotte et al were only taken on selected warmer days.
BTW, I realise that “due diligence”‘ is a term unknown to climate scientists, but politicians reyling on their “data” ought at least order an audit into same. As others have pointed out on other threads here in just the last 2 days, the BoM is far from innocent of the practice of homogenising data to produce synthetic time series for one location from others far distant.
(2) Turcotte et al. also claim that the average annual increase in temperature at the ML Observatory is no less than 0.22 oC p.a., or 2.2 oC per decade, and 22 oC per century, beyond the wildest dreams of VP Al Gore and all his fellow Nobel winners. OK, let’s assume that’s a typo for 0.022 per year, or 0.22 per decade, that’s still 2.2 for the 20th century when even Hansen’s GISS only claims 0.7 oC for the century from 1900.
(3) The 3rd formula in their “General Discussion I” does not yield the results they claim from the data they provide.
(4) Turcotte et al are however to be congratulated for discovering that at various locations around the globe it tends to be warmer at midday than at midnight. We never knew that!
(5) They do not explain why night temperatures at Pt Barrow appear to be warming more than day temperatures, whereas at the South Pole the opposite appears to be the case, despite [CO2] being the same at both.
(6) Even so although they have not proved any relationship between T and [CO2] at Mauna Loa (note the absence of regression analysis which would have shown an R2 of 0.01) their presentation is not without interest, and better than anything ever done by the IPCC or the Stern and Garnaut reports, none of which did any due diligence on their basic data on temperature and [CO2].
Luke,
isn’t the ocean and winds taking all that heat to the ARCTIC WHERE IT MELTS THE ICECAP??
OOOOPS, the ice is coming back. Guess not.
Luke, you are right about the ice returning.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/15/confirmed-arctic-sea-ice-is-now-on-the-rise/
If you recant now, we will not think harshly of you.
TC says “their presentation is not without interest” so maybe his 6 points dont have much substance and maybe we can still run with Turcotte et als conclusion of “general agreement with IPCC”. I dont know which bit of that Janama did not understand.
bazza: Interest does not imply their conclusion is correct, there is no correaltion between [CO2] and temperarture trend at Mauna Loa.
One of the other gems in Turcotte et al is this “There is a slight cooling (sic) at midday because of the absorption of the incoming sun light”. So that’s why mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun! But why is not the rising [CO2] reversing that cooling?
Tim C , Re mad dogs etc, the conclusions were pretty clear – I quote
“Temperature trends at Mauna Loa Observatory:
At night: +0.04
At midday:-0.01
-Observations consistent with greenhouse impact of increasing CO2 concentrations.
-Cooling at night is reduced because black-body infrared surface radiation is absorbed by CO2.
-There is a slight cooling at midday because of the absorption of the incoming sun light.”
These guys are not bush statisticians. 0.04 per annum is 1.2 C over 30 years.
Bazza – despite the protests I might say “come in spinner” for the boys. Dusts hands.
Quite a rout and sobering lesson for the lads in micrometeorology. What an interesting land surface aye?
Bazza your summary is spot on. Another stake through denialist’s heart. You’d think they’d give it away at some point. Anyway we’ll let them protest a while – alas I fear they have fully failed to appreciate their folly. We don’t often get such an easy free kick.
I see Coho isn’t coming near this one. Good call.
Bazza, what do you think the error factor is? in all probability similar to the “trend”?
CO2 is a common volcanic outgas. Why then do we measure CO2 in a volcanic rich region? Does not the measuring point raise a suggestion of improper station siting.
Take some comfort Toby that the results are consistent with heaps of other analyses of varying levels of sophistication and of course as you would agree in general agreement with IPCC.
We are not looking at an outlier that some are fond of finding.
The clincher is the consistent diurnal pattern in the trend which would need to be taken into account, unlike any naive Stats 101 or casual Excel type test on a particular hour.
Yes there are problems in Hawaii, for example comparing the Honolulu Airport sttaion to one just three miles down the road.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/19/more-on-noaas-fubar-honolulu-record-highs-asos-debacle-plus-finding-a-long-lost-giss-station/
tallbloke’s line “Elementary my dear Wattsup.” says it all 🙂
Anything in agreement with the “international propaganda dept of climate change” representing that unbiased, incorruptible united nations, that has no political bias nor agenda? Is that the one you mean Bazza?
It should be inherent on all thinking people to be sceptical of anything they say. Doesn t mean its wrong, but they so clearly have an agenda, if your alarm bells don t ring when they speak, they should be.
So what is your agenda, Toby?
Fair question Bazza, I have to go out now and see my daughter in a play. When I return if you really are interested I will tell you. Are you really interested, or would I just be wasting my time?
luke and bazza, the Turcotte et al slide slow is rather flawed; the idea that midday temperatures should trend down due to increased solar absorption and still be consistent with AGW is bizarre; AGW requires that daytime temperatures to be increasing with increasing CO2 other things ie the sun, being equal; the reason for that is quite simply that the Weart layer cake of multiple absorbing layers of CO2 will increasingly heat the atmosphere; with Mauna Loa midday temperatures declining we can now put that essential factor in the same too hard basket as the THS.
Looking at slide 4 of the show is quite revealing; I notice bazza was crowing [croaking, meowing, barking; I don’t know his totem which I gather is de riguer for you AGW types] about slide 7 and the conclusion that increased midnight temperatures is consistent with the idea of heating from night DLR a la Philipona. But the graphs on slide 4 are not rates of change dT/dt, they are the average of the rate of change; as I showed you before luke, the running mean is a classic con trick; the running numbers may be declining but if the initial numbers sufficiently weight the sequence you can still have an average increasing trend; I don’t have the raw data but the slide 4 graphs look to have increasing trend to 1998 and decreasing thereafter for both midday and midnight; if this is correct the CO2 connection is shot but the connection with PDO is firmed.
Yes there are problems in Hawaii, for example comparing the Honolulu Airport sttaion to one just three miles down the road.
I’m sorry I must have missed something in that article. There was nothing newsworthy in it at all.
SJT,
Probably because you didn’t read it.
errrr… “Yo Baz – wassup dude” “May I say we owned and tbagged those denialist newbs really severely”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_AbGih_iAc
Now they’re gonna haft tell their mommas that they got owned and pooned like noobs on their own material. Classic !
I thought Coho was going to lay an egg !. Be-gark !. Add this little one to Giambelluca and I’d say not a bad denialist head-count for a week’s work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I22Ms2qEpNk&feature=PlayList&p=EC00E1121887DFAB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3 hahahahahahaa
Oh Dear Luke, where do you find the time to find this stuff!?
Second clip quite funny, first one, well personally hate that sort of music, but I will say I have a few friends who produce this type of music and they are very sceptical of AGW!…so not all bad
Very interesting graphs everyone. TC’s graph shows stuff all temp change from the 91Pinatubo eruption, yet co2 levels plumet at that time. Also the 97-98 super elnino seems to produce a co2 spike. The Turcotte co2 graph finishes at 2002, why? Samoa at sea level has a 0.01 c /year night time rise and a 0.04 c / year day time fall. These graphs raise more questions than answers.
Fig 1. has the potential to become a ‘poster child’ for climate skepticism.
If the iconic Mauna Loa Slope Observatory cannot reveal warming despite reporting increasing CO2 levels then it becomes a stick to beat climate alarmists.
The entire concept of CO2 as a greenhouse gas comes from the fact that it DOES NOT absorb significant amounts of short wave incoming Solar radiation, but is very good at absorbing a significant part of the outgoing long wave radiation from the Earth. A relative daytime temperature drop due to increased CO2 is clearly in conflict with this assumption. In addition, The increased temperature due to a greenhouse overall warming effect is supposed to reduce cloudiness since the relative humidity is supposed to decrease, due to the increasing temperature, and cause increasing dry ground conditions. However absolute water vapor content has to increase to satisfy the so called positive feedback condition. The latest data does not support the fact that absolute water vapor content has increased at the required altitudes.
May I add, for a bit of fun, that you can make a bit of money in printing Fig. 1 on t-shirts with the question above “Global Warming?” followed by the rhetorical response below Fig. 1, “What Global Warming?”
Mac,
Yes I think the graph is wonderful. I am not sure that I agree with Tim’s conclusion, but the image/chart/graph is so thought provoking and if I may say so, subversive.
Luke…. You are sounding desperate….. Mollifying yourself with propaganda is the height of folly…. and childlike.
You need to look at the science mate…. You need to look at how the data is gathered and you need to view skeptically any data that has be subjected to the manipulation that is currently the norm with the statistics of the AGW proponents.
Even you have admitted in the past that there are deficiencies… Go back to that.
Comment from: lweinstein September 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm……… “The entire concept of CO2 as a greenhouse gas comes from the fact that it DOES NOT absorb significant amounts of short wave incoming Solar radiation, but is very good at absorbing a significant part of the outgoing long wave radiation from the Earth.”
YEP. Lots of conflicts with Giambelluca’s paper…. Looks like they just rubber stamped the peer review… Again. Typical AGW tactics. Write papers for Journalistic impact… not scientific understanding.
Yet Giambelluca et al. confidently produce dramatic statistical trends for high altitude Hawaii (42% of total area) from at most 3 stations for the period from 1919 to 2006.
this one is funny. Tim Curtin is using a single station (hawaii), to measure the global temperature. (149,000,000 km²)
but he is sceptical of 3 stations measuring the temperature of 42% of Hawaii. (42%*28,311 km²=11891 km²)
that is one station every 150 million sq km compared to 1 station every 4000 sq km. that is a factor of nearly 40000 of station “density”.
Mac,
Yes I think the graph is wonderful. I am not sure that I agree with Tim’s conclusion, but the image/chart/graph is so thought provoking and if I may say so, subversive.
sorry Jennifer, but it only is for the uneducated. every body who can type (“regional cooling” ipcc) into google will see, that single station temperature not rising is completely consistent with the IPCC reports.
Sod,
Yes, but this is not just any single station.
And who cares any more about IPCC reports?
Sod,
Yes, but this is not just any single station.
yes it is. there is absolutely no reason, why temperature measurement on mauna Loa should be considered “special”.
And who cares any more about IPCC reports?
Tim Curtin is trying to find a flaw in the theory of AGW. the IPCC is providing the best sum up of the theory of AGW that is currently available.
that single station cooling (and even regional cooling) is consistent with the theory of AGW, makes Tim Curtin s attempt futile.
but i agree with you: the graph will be very popular among the uneducated denialist crowd.
Mac – pull-lease – Curtin has been totally rebutted by Turcotte et al at my comment #1 – do you guys not get it.
Mauna Loa is an object lesson for AGW in a very unusual landscape.
It’s over – close the thread. He’s goooooooonnnneeeee as they say on the Footy Show !
Bazza called it at 3:40pm
“Temperature trends at Mauna Loa Observatory:
At night: +0.04
At midday:-0.01
-Observations consistent with greenhouse impact of increasing CO2 concentrations.
-Cooling at night is reduced because black-body infrared surface radiation is absorbed by CO2.
-There is a slight cooling at midday because of the absorption of the incoming sun light.”
These guys are not bush statisticians. 0.04 per annum is 1.2 C over 30 years.
J. Hansford – do try reading !
Luke,
I agree:
“Mauna Loa is an object lesson for AGW in a very unusual landscape.”
And what do we both mean?
A few remarks:
– The rise in night temperature and cooling during the day at MLO is consistent with water vapour (which absorbs a small part of the IR spectrum of incoming sunlight), not with CO2 (thus probably seawater temperature – PDO related).
– The calculation says that the change in average temperature is far more than the (even worst projected) effect of CO2.
– One can’t compare a local temperature to a (more or less) global CO2 level. That simply is asking for a lot of counterexamples were local temperature is falling with the continuous increasing CO2 levels…
And who cares any more about IPCC reports?
People who respect science?
“- One can’t compare a local temperature to a (more or less) global CO2 level. ”
I’m wondering why the richest part of Australia isn’t in Craigieburn where all the notes are printed.
Jennifer , you were asking what it all means.
But you told us “Yes I think the graph is wonderful. I am not sure that I agree with Tim’s conclusion, but the image/chart/graph is so thought provoking and if I may say so, subversive”.
Wonderful – yes, sadly, the shallow, the shrills and the shills are so easily conned by an n=1,
Thought provoking – only if readers dig a little into how warming is manifest instead of feeding their prejudices,
subversive -“if I may so” Well, you would know about that, but as it turns out , it is you and Curtin who are quite A over T. So who is a clever Dora now?
Well bazza, what does it all mean; I’m still waiting for a response from the AGW brains trust to my 7.44pm comment; who’s a silly sod now?
More generally Tim is entirely justified to write a piece on Mauna Loa since it is an iconoclastic site, a sort of holy shrine, for the devout AGW folk; all Tim has done, like any good interventionist, is to attempt to bring a little light into the self-imposed darkness of the AGW holy and try, as it were, to lift the scales from the reddened eyes of these poor misguided people. Go Tim!
Cohers, what sort of lame defense is that.?
Lets simulate. Your honour asks TC “why did you do it”?
“It was an iconic site , your honour,” he laments.
Contempt of court!
So non-trends are proof for the AGW true blue believers.
One of the signs of bad science is to take data well within the margins of error and to confabulate a pattern from it.
Mauna Loa is a case in point, and the Luke knows it.
Luke, preen around more and maybe everyone will agree to stop the discussion and watch you organize your plumage.
And bazza, please tell us how AGW land warming operates. Tell us how heat is stored up and lurking in the background, to pounce.
Tell us how OHC can be small fractions of predictions but still be on track.
The true believers fall back on the tired argument of how only the enlightened few are capable of understanding the deep truth, demonstrates they are simply hiding behind self-declared authority, and actually have squat.
Jen – errr – simply that AGW checks out. See details in Turcotte et al Powerpoint – link above.
1. Here are some responses to recent comments since my own last. First of all big congrats to Anthony Watts for his brilliant contribution here, his dissection (follow his link) of the data at Honolulu’s airport and Observatory is a classic. Likewise the Comment from cohenite September 16th, 2009 at 7:44 pm explaining why cooling mid-day temps at ML do NOT confirm the AGW hypothesis. Game set and match!
As also comment by lweinstein September 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm who said “The latest data does not support the fact that absolute water vapor content has increased at the required [by AGW] altitudes”. Sod, sjt, Bazza and Luke, the party is over for you, please leave quietly, especially the last with his continued defence of the wholly incompetent ppt show by Turcottte et al. Why don’t you submit to GRL on their behalf, Lukey, modestly adding your name as co-author, you can correct the errors I have already pointed to here (I don’t require attribution to me)? I will send you $100 as a contribution to your costs if you copy it to me as submitted to GRL by you and them.
2. Response to Dave B September 16th, 2009 at 10:16 pm who said “TC’s graph shows stuff all temp change from the 91Pinatubo eruption, yet co2 levels plumet at that time. Also the 97-98 super elnino seems to produce a co2 spike.” The explanation is that 1991 was a La Nina year, so big uptakes of emissions, while 1997-98 was an El Nino, so much smaller uptake of emissions (e.g. because of the effect of drought on crop yields).
3. re the usual inane Comment from: sod September 17th, 2009 at 12:27 am
”…Tim Curtin is using a single station (hawaii), to measure the global temperature. (149,000,000 km²)” I never did any such thing. The IPCC’s theory of AGW is that rising [CO2] creates a rising temperature TREND everywhere with at most marginal regional variability.
4. More generally, for Jen et al., recall that IPCC claims rising [CO2] increases “radiative forcing”, eg by 13% between 1998 and 2005 (from 1.47 to 1.66 watts/sq.metre), in response to the increase in [CO2] of 13 ppm over that period (source AR4, WG1, p.141). That means the RF increased by 0.01469 (W per sq.m) per ppm over that period. Global Mean temp according to GISS rose from 14.46 oC in 1998 to 14.65 oC in 2005, i.e. at a rate of 0.994903 oC per 1 RF (W/sq metre). That means the temp at ML SHOULD have risen from 8.51 oC in 1998 to 8.5246 oC in 2005, whereas it actually fell by as much as 0.6 oC. So evidently something other than RF is at work at ML.
5. What would that be? Or could it be that the theory of Radiative Forcing is without merit, in fact bogus, and has been confirmed as the IPCC’s “predominant cause of temperature change” nowhere on the planet – not even at pristine ML, Cape Grim, Pt Barrow et al where there are no cet.pars to be taken into account vis a vis TRENDS) – except by random chance. Remember the formula: in effect 1 oC rise for each extra 1 W/sq m in Radiative Forcing. Pick your period for rises in [CO2] cet. par. at any preferred location over any period, using 0.014690265 as the rise in RF per 1 ppm rise in [CO2],
and show me the rise in Temp at that location over that period.
“CO2 is a common volcanic outgas. Why then do we measure CO2 in a volcanic rich region? Does not the measuring point raise a suggestion of improper station siting.”
No. First there has been an exhaustive effort to characterize CO2 from the nearby volcano. It contributes next to nothing. Steve Ryan has several papers on this
Second there are measurements at many other locations (see the cdiac site) which agree with the Mauna Loa series (but are not as long).
This one has been nailed.
Tim, as I am sure you remember from a few weeks ago, I was supporting your comments/ paper on the lack of warming at ML, and agreed it was suspicious that the data was not being used in global measurements ( given that the data is considered pristine for co2 collection). I also agreed that you would expect to see some warming, which you did not find.
However is it true that the”The IPCC’s theory of AGW is that rising [CO2] creates a rising temperature TREND everywhere with at most marginal regional variability. ” ( as you state in your post above?
I found an easily understandable site here (in layman terms that i can understand). http://www.applet-magic.com/CO2history.htm
which says that “Water vapor and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse gases but the crucial thing is that they are not exactly equivalent. Carbon dioxide does not just increase the saturation of the absorption by water vapor in the wavelength bands where their spectra overlap; it blocks a window in the atmosphere which is not blocked by water vapor. There needs to be a more refined terminology. Labeling water vapor and carbon dioxide as merely greenhouse gases obscures the issue. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas with a difference.
There are places on Earth where an increase in CO2 would have a large impact; i.e., those places with very little water vapor in the atmosphere. These are roughly speaking the desert areas but this is not precise enough. Deserts are defined in terms of a lack of precipitation but there are some deserts that have a degree of humidity but it not get precipitated out. The polar areas are deserts from a lack of precipitation but the air there is in contact with ice and snow and sublimation keeps a degree of humidity in the air. The deserts where an increase in CO2 would have a more significant impact are those where summer temperatures prevent any preservation of snow and ice. Such areas exists in central Siberia and northwest Canada and it is these two regions which account for an inordinate amount of the increase in the average global temperature. ”
Given that Hawaii is tropical and therefore humid, would we not therefore expect less influence from co2, and therefore less temp increase?…..of course this contradicts the warming that is being seen in the sites so obviously influenced by “economic growth” that we were also discussing?
I guess my over all question is, “is it really true that the IPCC expects uniform temp increases from co2 increases?”
Eli,
“Mauna Loa volcanic CO2 was used as a tracer to constrain the flow of air around the mountain (1997 paper). The MLO CO2 emissions record (1995 and 2001 papers) is an important component in the “geophysical picture” of how Mauna Loa volcano works. The lack of significant methane emissions from Mauna Loa volcano (2006 paper) helps our understanding of the “life on Mars picture” by suggesting that Martian volcanoes are unlikely to be the source of methane in the atmosphere of Mars.
CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa volcano are an insignificantly small part of the global carbon cycle and do not play a role in climate change.”
In terms of the global climate change role, sure but that is not what the issue is locally. There is significant emission of CO2 from Mauna Loa and any only a geochemical ignoramus would put a CO2 measuring station on a CO2 emitting volcano.
Be off with you, illiterate fool.
I guess my over all question is, “is it really true that the IPCC expects uniform temp increases from co2 increases?”
Good question toby, if you follow the logic and the arguments, then the answer has to be YES, eventually.
Global means just that Global.
Otherwise, what are we worried about?
Most deserts are not exactly crowded with people anyway so what difference a couple of degrees will make, there?
—————————
To Mark Hugoson September 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“One CANNOT, repeat CANNOT use temperature measurements at ONE LOCATION to sense changes caused by CO2. ”
OK fair enough, who decides which locations are suitable, and why?
Marcus Well said re the Comment from Mark Hugoson September 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“One CANNOT, repeat CANNOT use temperature measurements at ONE LOCATION to sense changes caused by CO2”.
So the collation of temperatures by NOAA/GISS at 2000 individual LOCATIONS is equally moronic, since if each is nonsense, the ensemble must be.
Tim
why aren’t the people in Cragieburn the richest people in Australia?
Louis
You’ve been told a million times, but I’ll tell you a million and one times. Have a look at Cape Grim. It agrees with Mauna Loa. No volcanoes in site.
Toby: thanks for your comments.
You said “I guess my over all question is, ‘is it really true that the IPCC expects uniform temp increases from co2 increases?’” The answer is Yes. At AR4, WG1, p.849 (ch.11), it states “Warming, often greater than the global mean, is VERY LIKELY [more than 90% probability] over all (sic) landmasses” (IPCC’s emphasis). I assume Mauna Loa is on a landmass! Perhaps one of our AGW scientists (sic) like Eli Rabett (sic) could explain how ALL continents will warm more than the global mean, as only some small islands will warm less than the global mean (p.851). The oceans are not mentioned.
Actually, sjt, Cape Grim shows slightly lower [CO2] than Mauna Loa, which is why the latter is the preferred site.
Actually Toby deserts are a good location to demonstrate the CO2 greenhouse effect because of the absence of water;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
You can see that there is considerable overlap in the absorption bands of water and CO2; where water is present it will dominate the absorption process but as increasing evidence is showing water levels tend to moderate temperature trends; CO2 is definitely a poor relation because the CO2 in the atmosphere becomes saturated quickly which is why deserts have such large diurnal temperature ranges; the CO2 is saturated from the daytime warming and cannot maintain any warmth at night; alternatively at places like Mauna Loa, which are very moist, if there is a decrease in DTR it must be due to water variation rather than CO2. The other crucial things from the radiation diagram are the windows for all wavelengths at ~8-14 um and the water window which is considerably wider; if temperature increases then evaporation will form low cloud which increase albedo but which also transmit absorbed IR from the surface from their tops through the water window; this moderates temperature; if temperature drops less evaporation sees less low cloud and increased albedo plus high cloud formation which reduces the water window and again moderates temperature; CO2 has no such capacity.
CO2 has other tricks. Read “A Saturated Gassy Argument” again.
“Actually, sjt, Cape Grim shows slightly lower [CO2] than Mauna Loa, which is why the latter is the preferred site.”
So the volcano objection is irrelevant. They both track CO2 levels closely.
Tim,
Where do you get the co2 data for Mauna Loa? There was a website that had air monitorring stations around the world but I have lost the URL.
Dave
You said “I guess my over all question is, ‘is it really true that the IPCC expects uniform temp increases from co2 increases?’” The answer is Yes. At AR4, WG1, p.849 (ch.11), it states “Warming, often greater than the global mean, is VERY LIKELY [more than 90% probability] over all (sic) landmasses” (IPCC’s emphasis). I assume Mauna Loa is on a landmass! Perhaps one of our AGW scientists (sic) like Eli Rabett (sic) could explain how ALL continents will warm more than the global mean, as only some small islands will warm less than the global mean (p.851). The oceans are not mentioned.
so many errors, in such small a text.
chapter 11. please search it for the term “cooling”. (should give zero results, according to Tim)
the idea that “Warming, often greater than the global mean, is VERY LIKELY [more than 90% probability] over all (sic) landmasses” has the same meaning as “The IPCC’s theory of AGW is that rising [CO2] creates a rising temperature TREND everywhere” is simply false.
the idea that every single station should show an upward trend is simply stupid.
(and Tim is of course using projections till the year 2090, while looking at data from the year 2008)
chapter 11 gives details for cooling:
In the future, mid-latitude agricultural areal expansion
(especially into forested areas) could possibly result in cooling that would off set a portion of the expected warming due to greenhouse
gas eff ects alone (page 897)
and actually a full article was written on the concept of regional cooling:
Response to CO2 Transient Increase in the GISS Coupled Model:
Regional Coolings in a Warming Climate
Dave B September 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
CO2 data can be found at the CDIAC site:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm for the main baseline stations
and at NOAA for a lot more stations (baseline and stations intended for measuring regional CO2 fluxes) and other gases than CO2:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
Thx for the link to the absorption bands Cohenite. The fact that co2 will not be playing a warming role at ML due to water vapor dominating is surely a reason for why temperature has not changed according to Tim despite the increase in co2?..and why you would not expect to find uniform temperature increases?
This I would also think is equally strong evidence for why the warming seen at Hilo and the airports etc can so clearly be linked to economic activity and not co2 increases?
Louis Hissink: “There is significant emission of CO2 from Mauna Loa and any only a geochemical ignoramus would put a CO2 measuring station on a CO2 emitting volcano.”
Perhaps you think that you are the first person who has ever considered the possibility that the Mauna Loa data was affected by volcanic emissions. HOWEVER, as C.D. Keeling made clear in his autobiography (Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. (1998) 23:25–82), others had considered this possibility, quite early on in the CO2-monitoring programme developed by Keeling, and ruled out its importance.
Why don’t you read the literature?
Tim Curtin: Actually, sjt, Cape Grim shows slightly lower [CO2] than Mauna Loa, which is why the latter is the preferred site.
So, Tim, why *is* Mauna Loa the “preferred site”, as you put it?
Thanks for the info, Ferdinand.
Why are we so confident that the levels of CO2 measured on top of Mauna Loa volcano are representative of a world average for the atmosphere. Sounds far fetched to me. If the volcano was in Russia nobody would believe them.
Why dont we take measurements in a dozen different parts of the world, including South Pole, middle of the Sahara, Siberia, Brazil etc . We assume perfect mixing of gases in the atmosphere but I doubt it.
Just wondering.
re sod September 18th, 2009 at 5:04 am
“the idea that every single station should show an upward trend is simply stupid”.
Oh dear, sod, there you go again. I thought we were engaged in “Science”. Unless there are compelling non.cet par’s., scientific laws are supposed to be universal – but then of course sod is probably a descendant of those hired by Hitler to disprove Einstein’s E=MC^2 by showing that at PIK and Munich it was E=MC^3 or whatever. According to the IPCC, RF is a universal Law, more [CO2] means more RF and therefore higher temperatures all the way from the South Pole through PIK to the North Pole with resultant shrinking Antarctic and Arctic ice, except that they ain’t.
Then we have peterd September 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“Tim Curtin: Actually,… Cape Grim shows slightly lower [CO2] than Mauna Loa, which is why the latter is the preferred site. So, Tim, why *is* Mauna Loa the “preferred site”, as you put it?”
Because of course it shows higher ppm than the Cape Grim and Antarctic stations. I am entitled to be cynical about the IPCC because of its rampant frauds.
Thanks carbonero (September 18th, 2009 at 9:41 pm)
You said “Why are we so confident that the levels of CO2 measured on top of Mauna Loa volcano are representative of a world average for the atmosphere. Sounds far fetched to me. ..”
Well that is the view of the IPCC. The Mauna Loa measurements are the gold standard, largely because it is a pristine site, distant that is from airports, cities, and power stations. Moreover, the independent measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Cape Grim in Tasmania and Pt Barrow in Alaska are consistent to within a small fraction of those at Mauna Loa.
Tim Curtin September 18th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Actually NOAA takes the average of sealevel “baseline” stations as “global” average. See:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
But as Mauna Loa has the longest continuous record, it is often referred to as THE standard.
I doubt that one can use any single station as proving that CO2 has much, some or no influence at all on a local temperature. Local temperatures are far too noisy and may show trends in every direction, depending on local (clouds), regional (PDO, AMO) and global (solar, GHGs) influences…
SJT:
“Louis
You’ve been told a million times, but I’ll tell you a million and one times. Have a look at Cape Grim. It agrees with Mauna Loa. No volcanoes in site”.
Makes you either an exaggerating twit, or a pathological liar.
And I would dearly love to present when Cape Grim agrees with Mauna Loa.
So I – not often a lighthouse interlocutes with a volcano.
Ferdinand,
Just to set the record straight, what theory of CO2 affecting temperature do you refer to?
Louis Hissink September 19th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
There is one point that is certain and measured: CO2 absorbes IR at certain frequencies. That is used to detect the level of CO2 directly in the atmosphere (MLO and a lot of other places) as well as by the different satellites. As the captured energy is immediately transformed to kinetic energy from the CO2 molecule and by collisions (which are plenty in the troposphere) to all molecules in the neighbourhood, that leads to increasing the average temperature. That is what can be expected from physics. That leads to a reduction in outgoing radiation energy which must be compensated by a higher temperature at the surface.
In short, the net result, if calculated from the energy absorption lines (Modtran), is about 0.9 degr.C increase at the surface for 2xCO2. All the rest is feedbacks, where the climate models only see positive feedbacks (including clouds), while I expect several negative feedbacks (including clouds), which makes that one can “project” any future scenario one (doesn’t) want, from near zero to over 10 degr.C for 2xCO2. My guess is that it will be below the lowest IPCC range…
About CO2 measurements: The yearly averages in 95% of the atmosphere is within 5 ppmv all over the world. Most of the difference is between the NH and the SH, which points to the main source of the increase in the NH. And in the NH one has a seasonal modulation caused by vegetation growth en decay. That is nearly absent in the SH (less land, more ocean).
For 5% of the atmosphere, that is over land near the surface, the measurements are highly irregular, due to the presence of nearby huge sources and sinks: traffic, industry, vegetation, volcanic vents,…
See my comprehensive analyses of the CO2 measurements and cause of the increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
The volcanic vents at Mauna Loa don’t play a significant role, these are detected as irregularities in the within an hour and hour by hour continuous analyses, mainly when they have downslope wind from certain directions. The values still are noticed (and still are available), are “flagged”, and are not used for daily, monthly and yearly averages. The main problem at MLO is not the volcano (except by eruptions!), but the upslope wind which often happens in the afternoon and shows slightly depleted (- 4 ppmv) CO2 levels. These values too are not used for averaging and also flagged with the specific MLO flag “.U.” for “upslope”.
The full calibration and selection procedure (used near all over the world for CO2 is explained at the NOAA website here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
The raw (unfiltered) data of hourly averages (10 second voltage snapshots over 2×20 minutes sampling + 3×5 minutes calibration with 3 different calibration gases) from 4 baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole) up to 2008 can be downloaded here:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/
thanks Ferdinand.
these discussions would be so much better, if more “sceptics” would accept the basic facts that you mentioned above.
Very cute. Anyone else figure it out?
Here is a hint, those are not temperatures nor are they CO2 concentrations on the y axis. Here is another, if CO2 concentrations grow exponentially and the forcing is logarithmic, the increase in temperature with time will be linear, and the annual change in temperature will be constant.
Close enough.
Count your fingers every time you comment here folk.
Oh yeah, the 0.22 C/yr in Turcotte and friends is obviously a mis-numbering. It has to be 0.022 C/yr. given the other data.
Eli: I am flattered, and many thanks to cohenite for pointing me to your site.
But you are wrong on several counts.
1. As you eventually noticed, the data are as stated clearly changes in CO2 in ppm and in temperature in oC, and both on same axis, as they are in the same ball park, for convenience; putting Ts on a second Y-axis would therefore make little difference. What is more germane is the regression, see below.
2. Plotting absolute temperatures and [CO2] yields no trend in T either at the Mauna Loa or the Honolulu Observatories, and thus shows NO increase at all, not even “logarithmic” or “arithmetic” as per Arrhenius.
3. Luke and the rest all accepted Turcotte et al at face value as ammunition against me, hence they just loved 0.22 p.a. Even at 0.022 that is still 1.1 oC since 1958, for which there is no evidence and even IPCC only claims 0.6 for that period. Turcotte et al is a very sloppy piece of work and flies in the face of the evidence. They failed to do even elementary regression analysis, which shows zero correlation for absolute T on absolute [CO2] when autocorrelation is allowed for, and for dT/dt on dCO2/dt we have R2 = 0.044, and a statistically insignificant coefficient on dCO2, with t= 1.57 for df of 32, so t should be 2.037 for 95% confidence. Note that this regression is for only the 1959 (first full year of [CO2] measures) to 1992 period, as the Mauna Loa Slope Obervatory ceased regular daily recording of temperature on cold days from the day Al Gore took up residence next door to Bill. That tells you all you need to know to assess the integrity of climate change scientists in the USA including in particular Eli, that (a) they neither know nor care what the temps are at Mauna Loa, so like Eli never noticed that since 1992 – ye gods – they are no longer reported on a regular basis, which means all annual totals since 1992 are meaningless (as I pointed out on this very thread on this Blog), and (b) they have no credentials to be considered real scientists, – an extinct breed at places like Stanford, one thinks of Schneider, Chu and Holdren – since NONE anywhere took the opportunity to test their Radiative Forcing measure at the perfect laboratory setting at Mauna Loa, were it not for the inability of the USG’s NOAA to maintain even the most basic climate records anywhere. Why is Mauna Loa still not in the USHCN? Eli doesn’t know and they don’t care.
Oh deary. Does Eli get to play with the pinata?
Eli is going to so enjoy this, he may send Ethon around for some Curtin to chew on. Come visit us on Rabett Run for the fun
Eli’s special brand of sarcasm is somewhat misplaced in this case, for at his Blog (which gets much less attention than Jen’s, hence his advert here) he accuses me of omitting the first 3 years of data on [CO2] at Mauna Loa.
Not so fast, Eli, although that is your trademark.
Keeling’s published record begins only in March 1958, which means the first full year is 1959. My graph at the top of this post plotted CHANGES in annual Means, i.e. dCO2/dt, so I HAD to subtract the 1959 record from the 1960 record to get dCO2. Hence the “three missing years”.
With Math like that no wonder Eli is and always has been a rabbit who no doubt flunked Math 101 and much else. Will he apologise? hell would have to freeze before he did.
I tried but failed to post the following at Eli Rabbett’s
Rabett Run (link above) as his system does not allow pastes of stuff composed in Word.
“My thanks to all responding to Eli’s inaccurate account of my original Note. Here are my initial comments re bi, Phil, and Joel:
1. bi: “By fitting the change rate (of CO2 or temperature) to a straight line, Curtin is effectively fitting the original measurement to a quadratic curve”
2. Phil: “By plotting the rate of change of T and CO2 you show that you are getting a linear increase in T for a quadratic increase in CO2”.
3. Joel: [climate scientists sic] “know that the troposphere is strongly coupled and hence that the pattern of warming is dominated by those couplings and not by the pattern of radiative forcing. And, they also know that the statistics on temperature trends from a single observing station are not all that good”.
(1) and (2) bi and Phil: please note that I simply plotted the absolute annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and in temperature at Mauna Loa; I did NOT predetermine whether the CO2 measurements were consistent with a quadratic form. But in fact when I do transform the [CO2] data into quadratics there is no change in the outcome: no stat.sig. trend. As you know it is easy to lie with statistics especially when using graphs. For example, plotting the actual values for both [CO2] and T on the same y-axis you get a totally flat linear trend for T, but that is a function of the scale factor (as all too often displayed and abused by IPCC). That is why I chose to use absolute changes in both variables – and to use those in the linear regressions I performed. The latter are as you know not subject to graphic distortion – and for all regressions I have done now for over 20 locations in California and Australia in addition to Mauna Loa there is not a single statistically significant relationship between d[CO2] and dT (and with the same results when applying the IPCC’s Radiative Forcing formula to the [CO2] data).
(3). Joel: first, you seem to be rewriting AR4 WG1 where Radiative Forcing plays the star role, and is the foundation stone for the upcoming horrors at Copenhagen. If you are right about “tropospheric couplings” being what matter, why are Wagman-Maxey at your end and Rudd here not addressing whatever needs to be done to undo the “couplings”? Or is [CO2] the sole cause of those couplings, so that reducing it will do the uncoupling? In which case, your point has no substance, for I am showing that changes in [CO2] have zero influence on temperature anywhere with or without couplings. Unless the couplings are the negative feedbacks that the IPCC denies exist, as that would explain my finding that changes in [CO2] have no visible impact on T anywhere. Please explain!
Secondly, Joel, you said “[CC scientists] also know that the statistics on temperature trends from a single observing station are not all that good”. You are right, they are b- awful at Mauna Loa, having effectively ceased since 1992, is it really so hard to take temperature readings? They are little better at all too many of the NOAA stations that GISS relies on for its US data, as Anthony Watts has demonstrated, and even the NOAA now admits most are useless, with built-in errors 2-5 oC larger than the supposed warming.
Anyway, if you email me at tcurtinbigblue.net.au, I will gladly send you my Excel files showing how at Beaumont, Berkeley, Bishop WSO Airport, Electra PH, LA Airport, LA Civic, Lake Spaulding, Newport Beach, Newark, Palo Alta, Pasadena, Redland, San Diego, San Francisco WSO Airport, Santa Monica Pier, Tahoe, and Tustin Irvine Ranch, each replicates the Mauna Loa graphs and regressions to an amazing degree, and the same applies to the handful of Australian stations I have done so far (including Brisbane Aero and Cape Grim).
I admit that the regressions are mostly bi-variate, except for LA Civic for which I have a few years of electricity data, and there the coefficient on dCO2 is actually negative while that on dE (electricity consumption) is at least positive, but neither is stat. sig. But the same applies when I adopt Eli’s notion that changes in [CO2] are quadratic: there is again no trend in temperature against that form, and the coefficient is negative but non-stat-sig, with R2 of –0.02.
However I am glad to admit that I’m not a climate scientist, so would be grateful for links to papers that do succeed in demonstrating a statistically significant relationship between changes in [CO2] and Temperature at any single location ANYWHERE. The GISS and Hadley global data is a meaningless concoction. Real scientists measure relationships between variables at a single time and place, e.g. Mauna Loa, and if replicable elsewhere have a confirmed hypothesis. Climate science has yet to demonstrate any capacity in that regard.
The best evidence for that failure is in chapter 9 of AR4 WG1, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” which at no point offers any econometric analysis showing statistically significant coefficients to justify its claim the radiative forcing by GHG of 1.6 W/sq.m. since 1750) makes it “extremely likely (i.e. more than 95% probability) that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate over that time period (20th century)” (my parentheses) (p.671). This chapter does not even mention the human energy consumption that at the least should be included in a multivariate attribution analysis; instead the mission of this chapter is to reiterate its a priori conclusion without providing any observational evidence at all.
David Karoly was the lead review Editor of that Chapter and was able to ensure he got cited at least 8 times, yet none of his work that I have seen including most of those cited offers anything on the subject of relative attribution. Did any of those responsible for that chapter even know what the word means? Each of my station sets is a decisive refutation of that chapter.
That there has been some warming here or there is not in dispute, even if only 0.7 oC globally between 1900 and 2000 according to GISS. What has yet to determined with statistical precision is the proximate cause, and in particular, whether it is human energy usage that could be the more proximate cause than the CO2 emissions associated with most but not all energy usage. This has major policy implications for if it is energy usage more than CO2 emissions that are responsible for warming then switching from cheap fossil fuels to more costly “renewables” will achieve no reduction in warming, except to the extent the outcome is less energy usage – and economic growth.
Joel, I am only an economist but I sat at the feet so to speak of Karl Popper when I was at LSE. My data set for Ca. is only a sample but reasonably geographically representative, and when none shows the claimed relationship between RF (or d[CO2]) and dT, the hypothesis is failing to be confirmed by more than one of Popper’s black swans. “
Further to my last, I have some interesting results for applying the quadratic transform of [CO2] to regression of Mean min temp at Brisbane Aero to 1999.
viz. T = f(CO2, CO2^2)
The Adj r2 remains dreadful at 0.041, but the coefficients with t = +1.91 on Mean annual CO2 and t= – 1.91 on CO2^2 are not too bad albeit still non st sig. The Durbin Watson at 1.9 is also better than for the linear model but still less than 2. That’s the good news for Eli and co.
The bad news for them is that linear plots of Tmin against both [CO2] and [CO2^2] yield the classic quadratic shapes, rising to a max with [CO2] at c 350 ppm then falling.
For the record, I am reposting here my response to a comment by Phil at Eli Rabett’s takeover of this thread:
“Please note that I use the raw data on T and [CO2] for both graphs and regressions. Unfortunately, T does not increase linearly at a constant rate, despite what you and the IPCC say, and neither does the rate of change of dCO2. Otherwise what you say is fine but not relevant empirically.
To spell it out in detail:
Phil said (1) “When the rate of change in temperature, dT, is constant it means that T increases linearly at a constant rate.” Sure, but on the data I see the rates of change in Temperature, dT, vary from place to place and do NOT increase linearly at a constant rate, as you would see if you computed the year on year rates of change, despite the universality of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and its alleged quadratic rate of growth. Moreover, the average rates of change of T at Los Angeles and Canberra Airports from 1959 to 2008 were 0.01885% p.a. and 0.37563% p.a. respectively, so Canberra’s was no less than 18.89 times faster than LA’s! However my local knowledge, confirmed in a paper by Clem Davies at ANU, is that the major expansion of Canberra’s airport and its environs since 2000 (it was previously in a rural setting but has become a major urban centre in its own right) has led to a divergence between T at the airport and T as measured in nearby suburbs. This suggests that something other than CO2 played a part. But that does not stop the Australian Bureau of Meteorology solemnly reporting Canberra Airport to NOAA/GISS as representative of the city as a whole.
Phil’s second point if you can call it that was “When the rate of change in a variable, in this case dCO2, increases linearly it means that the variable increases as a quadratic function”.
But does it? No. Just try computing the first and second derivatives of the year on year annual changes in the level of atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, and see what you get. If you get a linear 2nd derivative, then pigs have wings. Moreover while there is a positive trend in the 1st derivative, that of the second derivative is NEGATIVE.
So Philip, what is your point re the actual data on [CO2] and T at Mauna Loa or anywhere else?
Again for the record, here are the year on year % rates of growth of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa.
And below this series are the rates of growth of these rates of growth (i.e the second derivative).
1961 0.230349311
1962 0.255005667
1963 0.169571361
1964 0.197498354
1965 0.131406045
1966 0.418697663
1967 0.242703342
1968 0.273156196
1969 0.489103517
1970 0.326535642
1971 0.196511914
1972 0.346285854
1973 0.681020003
1974 0.148628974
1975 0.275615592
1976 0.292980549
1977 0.521005873
1978 0.488345617
1979 0.408455323
1980 0.564166518
1981 0.422227471
1982 0.326365
1983 0.474767012
1984 0.457939564
1985 0.423913359
1986 0.381646283
1987 0.515567845
1988 0.70777695
1989 0.412576469
1990 0.357041655
1991 0.372712898
1992 0.222234725
1993 0.190866478
1994 0.473455666
1995 0.552085657
1996 0.482502357
1997 0.306325201
1998 0.833631386
1999 0.447476126
2000 0.342261096
2001 0.452084461
2002 0.565930956
2003 0.699413136
2004 0.463036883
2005 0.593346048
2006 0.550347588
2007 0.487102265
2008 0.484741081
2nd derivatives
1961 -21.73572565
1962 10.70389844
1963 -33.50290469
1964 16.46916831
1965 -33.46473938
1966 218.6289214
1967 -42.03374812
1968 12.54735662
1969 79.05635103
1970 -33.23792805
1971 -39.81915342
1972 76.21621415
1973 96.66411274
1974 -78.1755348
1975 85.43867012
1976 6.300426045
1977 77.82950959
1978 -6.268692438
1979 -16.35937557
1980 38.12196487
1981 -25.15906958
1982 -22.70398738
1983 45.47117893
1984 -3.544359317
1985 -7.430282786
1986 -9.970687379
1987 35.09049276
1988 37.28104987
1989 -41.70812303
1990 -13.46048993
1991 4.389191864
1992 -40.37374988
1993 -14.11491711
1994 148.0559561
1995 16.60767766
1996 -12.60371448
1997 -36.51322175
1998 172.1393416
1999 -46.32206358
2000 -23.5129928
2001 32.08759808
2002 25.18257204
2003 23.58630115
2004 -33.79637022
2005 28.14228614
2006 -7.246776159
2007 -11.49188695
2008 -0.484741081
It has always seem to me that it is self evident that the regular seasonal saw tooth patern of Maui CO2 data means that CO2 levels are a response to temperature changes and not the other way round. It would be hard to argue that CO2 was causing the seasonal temperature changes.