A statistical regression of a mere thirty years of raw data does not consitute a climate trend, especially concidering that data set spans several el-nino/el-nina events as well as volcanic events inducing error in regression measurements that would supposedly be attributable to a longterm "Global Warming". Note the following data that until Feb 2002 exhibited a .04C/decade, only one additional el-nino event doubled the "trend" measure to that 0.07C/decade regression you are quoting.Acceleration, AG, acceleration is the key that is the concern of climate scientists. The trend since 1975 is about 4x faster than the accepted warming of 0.6 C during the 20th century. Perhaps it's not a "climate trend", which is why a wait-and -see attitude is advisable. How long would you like to wait? 2010? 2015? And the atmospheric trend is not exactly zero or negligible. When the Spencer and Christy MSU data was flat due to erroneous analysis, the 22-year flat trend was widely touted by skeptics like Singer and Michaels as evidence that nothing significant was going on. Now that the trend is definitely upward, we hear that the record isn't long enough to be significant or that it's less than expected. That's a big change in tune, if you're listening.
Regarding that 0.28% contribution; the article cited is either being disingenuous or erroneous. Everybody knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas; if it wasn't the Earth would be an uninhabitable -40 C world. BFD. The key is the forcing effect of the CO2 being added to the atmosphere, which in turn increases relative humidity (water vapor, of course) and has additional positive feedback effects. The climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is the important factor, not the direct heating contribution of CO2. We've been over this before and I've posted the Hansen forcing diagram in response, but you keep regurgiposting the same stuff. It's somewhat pointless to try and discuss this with you when you post outdated information (such as the 0.04C/decade caption to your first figure) and you continue posting propaganda pieces.
Next: Regarding the time lag between warming and CO2 levels. I think we've been over this before, but due to the reservoir of dissolved CO2 in the surface ocean, there's no doubt that warming due to astronomical factors would definitely cause a CO2 increase. It's also a positive feedback mechanism: once higher C02 concentrations are in place, they contribute to the maintenance of a warmer climate, DUE to their radiative forcing contribution.
Next: The problem is, we're in a relatively stable climate regime, with no indications of astronomical warming/cooling factors (and anyway, they act on a much longer time scale than one or two centuries). So the increasing concentration of CO2 is hard to model in terms of climate effect, because it's the primary changing forcing factor. As Pat Michaels noted very recently (in an editorial in the Washington Times published today) there has been some convergence on the likelihood of a 0.75-1.0 C temperature increase over the next 50 years -- he quotes James Hansen on this and belittles the high-end IPCC projections, which are derived from model modifications designed to DETERMINE the potential maximums. What he doesn't point out is that Hansen also advocates a range of 2.0 - 3.0 for the entire next century (while admitting that the longer range is harder to predict due to the uncertainty of non-climate factors). If he thinks so highly of Hansen, why only push the lower 50-year prediction and not the accelerating (due to higher CO2 concentrations) century prediction? Partly because more significant detrimental ecosystem effects are expected to happen when global temperature rises more than about 2.5 C.
Plus, I think Michaels is misleading, based on this article:
Climate Change: 50 Years Past and Possible Futures
Quoting from introduction: "A new NASA-funded study used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes, projects warming over the next 50 years regardless of whether or not nations curb their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon. If no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit). But if the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 0.75C (1.35F)."
Michaels is very consistent in always emphasizing the lower-bound estimates of future warming. So do we really expect that the growth rate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere won't increase?
Next: with regard to the Veizer article, I'm going to save time and refer to my own earlier discussion of it here on FR:
Here Comes the Sun Refer in particular to comments 12, 14, and 16. I will supply this quote from Dr. Kump in evaluation of Veizer's research. However, this is the full quote, not the excerpt from the FR thread I posted earlier:
"When we put everything we know into models of the carbon cycle", Lee Kump writes, "we predict changes in atmospheric CO2 that largely parallel inferred climate shifts. So the lack of close correspondence between climate change and proxy indicators of atmospheric CO2 may force us to re-evaluate the proxies, rather than disavow the notion that substantially increased atmospheric CO2 will indeed lead to marked warming in the future."
You also might like to read this letter to the editor from the magazine New Scientist from noted climate modeler Stefan Rahmstorf, which I provide in its entirety:
"Stott claims that the paper by Shaviv and Veizer is important science that did not get enough attention from media and policy makers. The opposite is true: it received a disproportionate amount of media coverage due to the strong but unfounded claims the authors made in their press releases.
Shaviv and Veizer claim to have found a correlation between cosmic ray flux and temperature. Even if we accept their (questionable) data, it should be noted that this correlation was constructed by arbitrarily stretching the timescale to shift the maxima of cosmic ray flux by up to 20 million years, to make them coincide with temperature minima. The unadulterated data show no significant correlation - we have checked this. Shaviv and Veizer then proceed to estimate the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration through regression analysis, which for a number of reasons is not possible.
If it were, far better data is available for this analysis: the Antarctic ice core data. It is much more accurate, shows variations on more relevant timescales and closer to present CO2 levels, and applies to the present-day configuration of continents. Such an analysis would yield a climate sensitivity exceeding 10 °C, but no climatologist would suggest this is a viable method."
(Not exactly a ringing endorsement.)
That's about enough for today, and probably this week. I can probably manage one or two extended responses like this a week now. It takes time and I always do Web searches to back up my statements. So go ahead and respond to this, and you'll have to wait until next week for me to take it up again.
The climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is the important factor, not the direct heating contribution of CO2.
There is no measurable climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 if there were, the average surface temperature of the earth in the following graphical presentation would have a curve similar to the CO2 curve.
|
Global Surface Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time 
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ). Temperature after C.R. Scotese
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 1994
- There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 900 ppm or about 2.5 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Ordovician Period, exceeding 6000 ppm -- more than 16 times higher than today.
- The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age, with CO2 concentrations nearly 15 times higher than today-- 5500 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
|
We've been over this before
Yep, and I sure we will go over it again.
and I've posted the Hansen forcing diagram in response, but you keep regurgiposting the same stuff.
Why should the information change? What exists in the paleoclimatic record doesn't change merely for ones convenience or Hansen's forcing diagram; nor do the studies on CO2/Temp correlation and causality change from one month to the next. They are as applicable today as they have always been in defeating the base presumption built into the IPPC's models of CO2 "forcing" (i.e driving) atmospheric temperature.
The same stuff, is applicable, Hansens forcing curve is based in the same erroneaous presumptions of a "runaway" greenhouse, for which there is no basis as can be seen in the prior chart. The earth's temperature across the last billion or more years is self limiting and is clearly not a a function of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
It's somewhat pointless to try and discuss this with you when you post outdated information (such as the 0.04C/decade caption to your first figure)
Not outdated at all, the link is current and the data set is complete to 2003, anyone may run the regressions on the data set to compute the results of 0.04C/decade through Feb 2002, with 0.07C/decade by adding in the data including the final el-nino even after Feb 2002. The web page linked by the way is the Current NASA page for the MSU graphic, and links to current dataset.
and you continue posting propaganda pieces.
So data contrary to your view of things is characterised by you as propoganda. Sorry, doesn't fly.
Now that the trend is definitely upward, we hear that the record isn't long enough to be significant or that it's less than expected.
What trend? There is no more than a short term raw dataset with a regression which is just as likely to change the other way in another 10-20 years data input.
The only upward overall trend on multi century basis is that of a natural tendency to the mean of the current era, not one measurably driven by any activity of mankind.
It is also abundantly clear we are in a multi-millenial down trend from somewhat higher temperatures earlier in a much older glacial cycle.
. Everybody knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas; if it wasn't the Earth would be an uninhabitable -40 C world. BFD.
Casual dismissal of the variation in water vapor as a contributor of climate variation is hardly useful to the discussion, considering the fact that loss of water vapor in the atmosphere is one of the primary factors in deepening the earth's glacial cycle. "BFD" indeed.
The key is the forcing effect of the CO2 being added to the atmosphere,
Tch,tch, from whence this CO2 being added? warming of the oceans by solar activity, changes in earths orbit increasing bio activity and biomass, as well as release from CO2 trapped in ice, & solution in oceans. But more importantly increases in water vapor in much higher measure as a concequence of ocean warming.
which in turn increases relative humidity (water vapor, of course) and has additional positive feedback effects.
Kind backward in your causation I do believe.
Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf
- "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."
Regarding the time lag between warming and CO2 levels. I think we've been over this before, but due to the reservoir of dissolved CO2 in the surface ocean, there's no doubt that warming due to astronomical factors would definitely cause a CO2 increase.
It's also a positive feedback mechanism:
There is no "positive feedback" the only energy input is solar, change in concentration of atmospheric gasses can only shift the absorption spectum but cannot create heat where there is none to begin with.
There is no runnaway effect whatsoever, in fact the effectiveness of atmospheric heat retention decreases exponentially with increasing concentration of water vapor and lesser greenhouse gasses, that is why the earth's surface temperature limits out at approximately 22oC of solar input instead of continual rise above that level that a supposed positive feedback, "runnaway" greenhouse scenario demands.
once higher C02 concentrations are in place, they contribute to the maintenance of a warmer climate, DUE to their radiative forcing contribution.
A presumption unsupported in paleoclimatic studies of causality.
Here Comes the Sun
"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."
***
"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."
Nor is positive feedback/ runnaway greenhouse supported by the paleoclimatic record of CO2 concentration vs temperature represented in the first graphic above.
The problem is, we're in a relatively stable climate regime, with no indications of astronomical warming/cooling factors
Sorry, bad assumption:
Red Planet Warming;
Global Warming on Triton (Neptune's moon)
(and anyway, they act on a much longer time scale than one or two centuries).
Your opinion is not support by the paleoclimatic data, nor by correlations with known astrophysical perturbations of solar irradiation of the earth on millenial scales, as the actual changes from iceage to interglacial period and back are quite swift due to the actual external factors impacting the absorption of solar energy by the earth.
The issue is not so much one of variation of solar output, as it is the variation of the earth's ability to reflect solar radiation; mainly affected by reflection of high altitude cloud formations impacted by astrophysical effects of earth's path through space(both orbital)
|
Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
by Richard A. Muller
Figure 2. Spectral fingerprints in the vicinity of the 100 kyr peak: (a) for data from Site 607; (b) for data of the SPECMAP stack; (c) for a model with linear response to eccentricity, calculated from the results of Quinn et al. (ref 6); (d) for the nonlinear ice-sheet model of Imbrie and Imbrie (ref 22); and (e) for a model with linear response to the inclination of the Earth's orbit (measured with respect to the invariable plane). All calculations are for the period 0-600 ka. The 100 kyr peak in the data in (a) and (b) do not fit the fingerprints from the theories (c) and (d), but are a good match to the prediction from inclination in (e). return to beginning
Far more important to our present analysis, however, is the fact that the predicted 100 kyr "eccentricity line" is actually split into 95 and 125 kyr components, in serious conflict with the single narrow line seen in the climate data. The splitting of this peak into a doublet is well known theoretically (see, e.g., ref 5), but in comparisons with data the two peaks in the eccentricity were merged into a single broad peak by the poor resolution of the Blackman-Tukey algorithm (as was done, for example, in ref 8). The single narrow peak in the climate data was likewise broadened, and it appeared to match the broad eccentricity feature. *** Figure 3. Variations of the inclination vector of the Earth's orbit. The inclination i is the angle between this vector and the vector of the reference frame; Omega is the azimuthal angle = the angle of the ascending node (in astronomical jargon).. In (A), (B), and (C) the measurements are made with respect to the zodiacal (or ecliptic) frame, i.e. the frame of the current orbit of the Earth. In (D), (E), and (F) the motion has been trasformed to the invariable frame, i.e. the frame of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Note that the primary period of oscillation in the zodiacal frame (A) is 70 kyr, but in the invariable plane (D) it is 100 kyr.
|
(and through dust of the galactic spiral)
Shaviv and climatologist Ján Veizer of Ruhr University, Germany, reckon that the spiral arms of our galaxy hold the secret to the Earth's see-sawing climate. Every 150 million years, blasts of cosmic rays cool the planet on its stately passage through the cosmos, they argue2.
Cosmic rays thrown out by dying stars in the dust-rich arms of the Milky Way increase the number of charged particles in our atmosphere. There is some evidence that these may encourage low-level clouds to form, which cool the Earth.
Shaviv and Veizer have created a mathematical model of the number of cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere. They compared its predictions with other researchers' estimates of global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels over the past 500 million years.
They conclude that cosmic rays alone can account for 75% of the change in global climate during that period, and that less than half of the global warming seen since the beginning of the twentieth century is due to greenhouse gases.
Partly because more significant detrimental ecosystem effects are expected to happen when global temperature rises more than about 2.5 C.
Fortunately there is no substantive basis to presume that we are headed for 2.5oC. The IPPC's modelling is based in fallacious presumptions,
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-02-20.html
"The Economist, which provides the best environmental reporting of any major news source, carried a small story last week about a simple methodological error in the latest U.N. global warming report that has huge implications. The article, "Hot Potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Had Better Check Its Calculations" (February 15 print edition), reviews the work of two Australian statisticians who note an anomaly in the way the IPCC estimated world carbon dioxide emissions for the 21st century."
......
"The IPCC's method has the effect of vastly overestimating future economic growth (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) by developing nations. The fine print of the IPCC's projections, for example, calls for the real per-capita incomes of Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Turkey, and even North Korea to surpass real per-capita income in the United States by the end of the century. Algeria? North Korea? The IPCC must be inhaling its own emissions to believe this."
and the models themselves cannot even predict actual measurements. Looking outside the computer models for confirmation of their inputs & output, confirmation fails.
Global Warming Score Card
There is more than sufficient room for doubt as to any negative effect human created CO2, may have on our Climate future.
Quoting from introduction: "A new NASA-funded study used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes, projects warming over the next 50 years regardless of whether or not nations curb their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon. If no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit).
If & mays based on a computer model that cannot predict measured weather factors, is a valueless exercise for the purposes of setting economic policy.
But if the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 0.75C (1.35F)."
"true air pollutants" are now major GHG's? LOL kinda pushing the political envelope I see.
But then again 0.7oC is predictable without any regard to CO2 concentrations as a natural course of events and remains within the nominal variation of the current interglacial climate we now enjoy.
Let this model accurately predict mean monthly tropospheric temperatures over the next five years as measured by MSU, without tampering from current state then I might pay a little bit of attention. Until then don't bother to quote a paper based on a "computer climate model" that pretends to compute the earth's temperature for decades to come.
You want to get rid of air polutants that's fine, but don't try to tie them in to global warming. Some of the most obnoxious forms actually act to induce cooling of the earth, not warming it.
"So the lack of close correspondence between climate change and proxy indicators of atmospheric CO2 may force us to re-evaluate the proxies, rather than disavow the notion that substantially increased atmospheric CO2 will indeed lead to marked warming in the future,"
LOL, reality don't fit "computer model" presumptions so we'll just fudge the physical measurements to make em fit the model. Seems to be a pretty standard gambit among the global warming bunch so far.
Global Warming Score Card