Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
still waiting for the science that shows man made co2 is causing warming. but when you break down your graph you get this... and you see co2 trails change in ocean temps.
"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
[/quote]
"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."
See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
EPA backtracking on ocean acidfication.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/25/epa-ignore-our-previous-statements-on-ocean-acidification/
The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”
If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.
Of course, if the EPA loses the case, an even more farcical situation may arise – the EPA’s failure may open the floodgate for compensation lawsuits against the US government, from people who claim their livelihoods are being damaged by ocean acidification, due to the EPA’s failure to protect the environment from CO2 “pollution”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/25/epa-ignore-our-previous-statements-on-ocean-acidification/
The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”
If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.
Of course, if the EPA loses the case, an even more farcical situation may arise – the EPA’s failure may open the floodgate for compensation lawsuits against the US government, from people who claim their livelihoods are being damaged by ocean acidification, due to the EPA’s failure to protect the environment from CO2 “pollution”.
A Lead Author of IPCC AR5 Downplays Importance of Climate Models
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...c-ar5-downplays-importance-of-climate-models/
Bish, as always I am slightly bemused over why you think GCMs are so central to climate policy.
Everyone* agrees that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Everyone* agrees that CO2 rise is anthropogenic Everyone** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either. So climate mitigation policy is a political judgement based on what policymakers think carries the greater risk in the future – decarbonising or not decarbonising.
A primary aim of developing GCMs these days is to improve forecasts of regional climate on nearer-term timescales (seasons, year and a couple of decades) in order to inform contingency planning and adaptation (and also simply to increase understanding of the climate system by seeing how well forecasts based on current understanding stack up against observations, and then futher refining the models). Clearly, contingency planning and adaptation need to be done in the face of large uncertainty.
*OK so not quite everyone, but everyone who has thought about it to any reasonable extent
**Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence
As noted earlier, it appears extremely odd that a climate modeler is downplaying the role of—the need for—his products.
“…WE CAN’T PREDICT LONG-TERM RESPONSE OF THE CLIMATE TO ONGOING CO2 RISE WITH GREAT ACCURACY”
Unfortunately, policy decisions by politicians around the globe have been and are being based on the predictions of assumed future catastrophes generated within the number-crunched worlds of climate models. Without those climate models, there are no foundations for policy decisions.
“…CLIMATE MITIGATION POLICY IS A POLITICAL JUDGEMENT BASED ON WHAT POLICYMAKERS THINK CARRIES THE GREATER RISK IN THE FUTURE – DECARBONISING OR NOT DECARBONISING”
But policymakers—and more importantly the public who elect the policymakers—have not been truly made aware that there is great uncertainty in the computer-created assumptions of future risk. Remarkably, we now find a lead author of the IPCC stating (my boldface):
… we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know.
I don’t recall seeing the simple statement “We don’t know” anywhere in any IPCC report. Should “we don’t know” become the new theme of climate science, their mantra?
“THE OLD-STYLE ENERGY BALANCE MODELS GOT US THIS FAR”
Yet the latest and greatest climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to simulate past climate…even during the recent warming period since the mid-1970s. So the policymakers—and, more importantly, the public—have been misled or misinformed about the capabilities of climate models.
For much of the year 2013, we presented those model failings in dozens of blog posts, including as examples:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/...c-ar5-downplays-importance-of-climate-models/
Bish, as always I am slightly bemused over why you think GCMs are so central to climate policy.
Everyone* agrees that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Everyone* agrees that CO2 rise is anthropogenic Everyone** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either. So climate mitigation policy is a political judgement based on what policymakers think carries the greater risk in the future – decarbonising or not decarbonising.
A primary aim of developing GCMs these days is to improve forecasts of regional climate on nearer-term timescales (seasons, year and a couple of decades) in order to inform contingency planning and adaptation (and also simply to increase understanding of the climate system by seeing how well forecasts based on current understanding stack up against observations, and then futher refining the models). Clearly, contingency planning and adaptation need to be done in the face of large uncertainty.
*OK so not quite everyone, but everyone who has thought about it to any reasonable extent
**Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence
As noted earlier, it appears extremely odd that a climate modeler is downplaying the role of—the need for—his products.
“…WE CAN’T PREDICT LONG-TERM RESPONSE OF THE CLIMATE TO ONGOING CO2 RISE WITH GREAT ACCURACY”
Unfortunately, policy decisions by politicians around the globe have been and are being based on the predictions of assumed future catastrophes generated within the number-crunched worlds of climate models. Without those climate models, there are no foundations for policy decisions.
“…CLIMATE MITIGATION POLICY IS A POLITICAL JUDGEMENT BASED ON WHAT POLICYMAKERS THINK CARRIES THE GREATER RISK IN THE FUTURE – DECARBONISING OR NOT DECARBONISING”
But policymakers—and more importantly the public who elect the policymakers—have not been truly made aware that there is great uncertainty in the computer-created assumptions of future risk. Remarkably, we now find a lead author of the IPCC stating (my boldface):
… we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know.
I don’t recall seeing the simple statement “We don’t know” anywhere in any IPCC report. Should “we don’t know” become the new theme of climate science, their mantra?
“THE OLD-STYLE ENERGY BALANCE MODELS GOT US THIS FAR”
Yet the latest and greatest climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to simulate past climate…even during the recent warming period since the mid-1970s. So the policymakers—and, more importantly, the public—have been misled or misinformed about the capabilities of climate models.
For much of the year 2013, we presented those model failings in dozens of blog posts, including as examples:
- Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?
- Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates
- Polar Amplification: Observations versus IPCC Climate Models
- Model-Data Comparison: Hemispheric Sea Ice Area
- Model-Data Precipitation Comparison: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Model Simulations versus Satellite-Era Observations
- Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/bo...ing-trends-because-stations-might-have-moved/
This is the odd case of Amberley minima laid bare. The people living in Ipswich nearby had to wait 70 years to find out that their mornings in 1941 were really almost 2 degrees C colder than what they were told at the time. The marvel of modern science. It’s amazing the planes didn’t crash more often.
Here’s the BOM explanation:
“Amberley: the major adjustment is to minimum temperatures in 1980. There is very little available documentation for Amberley before the 1990s (possibly, as an RAAF base, earlier documentation may be contained in classified material) and this adjustment was identified through neighbour comparisons. The level of confidence in this adjustment is very high because of the size of the inhomogeneity and the large number of other stations in the region (high network density), which can be used as a reference. The most likely cause is a site move within the RAAF base.”
Translated: So the Amberley thermometer might have secretly moved (and that might be classified) but we are sure it shifted one way or the other. Even though we don’t know where it was before, or how much difference that makes, we can figure out what the thermometers should have been recording in 1941 because of other stations which are hundreds of kilometers away.
Even more strange is that the nearest ACORN station is Brisbane Aero, 50km away, which also shows a long term cooling trend. (Paul Homewood has some good graphs on that.) It seems other stations further away are better at recording Amberley temperatures than thermometers at either Amberley or Brisbane.
But hey, perhaps the runways were extended at Amberley, perhaps the thermometer moved, and perhaps the RAAF forgot to record the change. It happens. But if so, doesn’t that tell us something very important about the quality of the best 100 temperatures stations that made the grade for the ACORN data set? If the Amberley site is so bad it needs this kind of adjustment due to a theoretical and unrecorded site move, does that mean the rest of the hundreds of thermometer sites around the country are even worse?
Alternately, could it be that the Amberley cooling trend is real? If that’s the case, the BOM is actively destroying data by adjusting both Brisbane and Amberley up. If climate change caused systems, like say, high pressure cells, to shift north or south, then homogenizing data with every station for hundreds of kilometers will blur out this resolution entirely. (No wonder the poor climate models don’t work, they don’t stand a chance.)
More unrecorded station moves in Rutherglen in Victoria
………..
There are concerns that these new seeps could be making a hitherto unnoticed contribution to global warming……..
The scientists say that the warming of ocean temperatures might be causing these hydrates to send bubbles of gas drifting through the water column….
“But it is important to say we simply don’t have any evidence in this paper to suggest that any carbon coming from these seeps is entering the atmosphere.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223
It over fraudcurrents.... there is just far too much science now saying your models have failed and are flawed because they are not aware of the solar forcings and current and tide forcings and methane forcings and water vapor intereactions.
We may not even be warming.
in short fraudcurrents you have no science saying man made co2 is causing warming.
We may not even be warming.
in short fraudcurrents you have no science saying man made co2 is causing warming.
you have not presented any science yet...the warming we had for a few years ago in the 80s and 90s... was not outside natural variability and according to NASA co2 is also a coolant... so you have no idea what adding man made co2 would do.
it may cool, it may warm... or as recent studies show it may just be discarded or processed by the earth.
it may cool, it may warm... or as recent studies show it may just be discarded or processed by the earth.