Skip to comments.New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
Posted on 09/01/2012 8:23:02 PM PDT by Rocky
An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming.
(Excerpt) Read more at hockeyschtick.blogspot.com ...
"The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"
Ole Humluma, b, Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
The blog gives a link to the article, but to view the article at the link, you have to pay $39.95.
Heresy! Heresy! Burn them! Burn them!
Al “Woody” Gore is not amused.
This is actually old news. Watch on YOUTUBE- “The Great Global warming swindle”.
changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2”
seriously, is there anyone here without a PhD in climate, who didn’t know this (and much more!), literally years ago ?
Anyone who took a basic middle school-level science class before 1995 knew this already.
'Gentlemen, we have to protect our phony-balony jobs!'
I'm cool with Ole, Kjell, and Jan-Erik, since I once worked for a Swedish company.... but who the heck is b?
You have fine taste.
Ping so I can find it later to irritate my neighbor.
LOL. I didn’t notice that there were footnote references after their names. It should have read:
Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim
Also this article below is very enlightening. The way they have been determining the daily temperature has even had problems.
Very difficult to understand climate physics without using actual physics. Heat content needs to be known every hour of every day. Then you might get a clue as to what possible long term trends exist.
Saw a chart that showed that, here on FR, at least eight years ago.
Fidel Castro is the cause of Glowbull warming....
Yes, what has been said for years is that the ice cores reveal that increases in atmospheric CO2 appear after increases in temperature. In fact, this paper acknowledges that with:
Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming...
But while the ice core analysis deals with large temperature swings, and a lag of several hundred years for CO2 increase, this new paper apparently deals with recent temperature changes (which would be very slight changes by comparison) and lags of less than a year in CO2 changes. I haven't read the actual article because I don't want to pony up the $40, but that seems to be what the blog is saying.
The absorption of IR photons by CO2 molecules is well understood at the macro level. It's the same as with partly cloudy skies at night. As clouds go over reporting stations you can actually see the temperature stop dropping then continue when the clouds move off. Same as a greenhouse which stops convection but also absorbs and reemits heat. It's easy to test by tying a space blanket way up in a tree (so that there is no convection stopping effect) and sleeping under that versus sleeping under the stars.
At the quantum mechanical level it is considerably more complex. Photons may not be absorbed and reemitted the way we think they are.
OK, thanks for the correction. I would think the ice core data would be more significant and more definitive than any short term observations though.
This has been known all along.
Bump for later.
That's steep for online content...
These scientists must be new at this “study” stuff. They obviously didn’t realize that if they find out there really is no problem, they won’t be eligible for more federal study money for this doomsday “problem.”
I think the article has new information. It isn’t talking about temperature vs. CO2 eons ago. It’s talking about recent information. I think it is another nail in the coffin of CAGW.
Not that you’d know it from listening to the Republican candidate for president of the United States;
I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.