Posted on 01/01/2011 12:17:22 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WUWT readers may remember way back when…I posted this from Joe D’Aleo:
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2
Joe wrote then:
Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.
There’s a new paper by Paulo Cesar Soares in the International Journal of Geosciences supporting Joe’s idea, and it is full and open access. See link below.
Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes
Author: Paulo Cesar Soares
ABSTRACT
The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature.
Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase.
The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.
…
From the conclusion:
Figure 21. Changes of specific humidity (vapor) in atmosphere compared to tropical and global temperature changes (vapor data from Tyndall Center)
Figure 22. Cause and effect of specific humidity in the atmosphere associated with temperature changes: correlation in monthly scale, compared to CO2 correlation, between 1983 and 2003. Temperature from tropical band; CO2 at Mauna Loa (CDIAC)
The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing effect is already realized with its historical values. So, the reduction of the outcoming long wave radiation window is not a consequence of current enrichment or even of a possible double ratio of CO2. The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is explained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known increase insolation and vapor content in atmosphere.
The role of vapor is reinforced when it is observed that the regions with a great difference between potential and actual specific humidity are the ones with high temperature increase, like continental areas in mid to high latitudes. The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable.
If the warmer power of solar irradiation is the independent driver for decadal and multidecadal cycles, the expected changes in insolation and no increase in green- house power may imply the recurrence of multidecadal cool phase, recalling the years of the third quarter of past century, before a new warming wave. The last decade stable temperature seems to be the turning point.
Full Text (PDF, 1794KB) PP.102-112 DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2010.13014
********************************EXCERPT********************************************
Jeff Id says:
I think that this sentence from the abstract is important:
“Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. ”
The atmosphere has such low thermal mass that changes in heating from seasonal CO2 level, should be detectable. I haven’t read the paper and don’t have time but if that is the point of it, it should be pretty interesting.
************************************EXCERPT******************************************
mike sphar says:
Don’t ya just hate it when that sort of anti-correlation thing happens ? Must be all that climate disruption warmth causing cold this winter.
**********************************EXCERPT******************************************
John Day says:
The first sentence of the paper’s conclusion is a stunning refutation of the AGW “theory”:
“The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed.”
In hindsight, it should have been obvious from observation of the atmosphere of Mars, almost pure CO2, about 30 times more abundant (per unit surface area) than on Earth, and yet Mars’ black-body temp and mean surface temp are virtually the same: 210K. The atmospheric warming effect of CO2 is thus shown to be neglible.
It is water, in all its physical states, that warms and regulates our climate, sustaining life as we know it on Earth.
**********************************EXCERPT****************************************
Rob Z says:
Hmmm, seems suspicious to me. You may not know it but all the current weather forecasting models for local weather now have an input for CO2 concentration. We’ve had particulate counts for some time and we now have CO2 counts. Warm humid air masses have little impact on local weather. ONLY the CO2 emmitted by the local power plant is important. Why just the other day I heard this weather forecast: “The CO2 concentration rose by a 1ppm last night in AZ due to all the coal being burned and massive heat waves are expected in the form of snow in Phoenix and record cold across the sunny southwest. CO2 concentrations across the Himalaya’s are up 2ppm, expect continued drought across Australia in the form of standing water. CO2 continues to cause little weather change across the Hawaiian Island chain as temperatures remain moderate.
*******************************EXCERPT************************************
Benjamin Franz says:
What a strange journal.
This is in fact only the third volume ever published by the “International Journal of Geosciences” – which published it’s first volume in Nov. 2010 (just two months ago).
The publisher, “SciRP”, has an “interesting” history.
****************************EXCERPT*******************************************
The publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, has other journals, as well. Some of them (Applied Mathematics, Journal of Modern Physics, Biosciences*, Journal of Cancer Therapy**, etc.) also appear to follow the “publish things that were already published, but don’t mention that” principle.
On the organization’s web site, we found barely any identifying or location information. The contact page says “Name: Scientific Research Publishing, Inc. USA” and lists an email address — but we have not found any such corporation in the USA, and email sent to that address has produced no reply. The web site is registered to an organization in Wuhan, China.
Scientific Research Publishing, also known as scirp.org, also organizes conferences. Discussions in the blogosphere [see this one, for example and for pointers to others], for whatever those are worth, suggest that some of those conferences, too, are full of mystery.
There's no way to show that. For one thing the solar input increase from summer to winter (at perihelion we are closer to the sun) dwarfs the decrease in CO2 forcing. Second, the seasonal change is altered by the large ratio of land in the NH to SH.
Bottom line is there won't any trace of a seasonal CO2 signal in climate. Seasonal analysis is a black hole for climate attribution studies.
There's no way to show that. For one thing the solar input increase from summer to winter (at perihelion we are closer to the sun) dwarfs the decrease in CO2 forcing. Second, the seasonal change is altered by the large ratio of land in the NH to SH.
Bottom line is there won't any trace of a seasonal CO2 signal in climate. Seasonal analysis is a black hole for climate attribution studies.
Thank you very much for this excellent post.
********************************EXCERPT***********************************************
R. Gates says:
Interesting paper. certainly worthy of a second read, but a few thoughts off the top.
First, in the conclusion he remarks:
“However, a permanent in- crease in water vapor in the atmosphere due to an in- crease in insolation, evapotranspiration and mainly temperature change in ocean water…”
Of course he makes throughout the paper that it is a warming earth that is causing the increase in water vapor, and everyone of course knows that water vapor is a more potent GH gas than CO2, but his conclusion is quite empty in regards to what could be causing that longer term warming that is causing the increase in water vapor. Solar insolation has not increased during the period in question and temperature change in the oceans offers no long term answer either as that heat must ultimately come from an increase in solar insolation (or increased GH gas activity). In short, his reasoning seems a bit circular as he acknowledges the warming but finds no source other than water vapor, which his says is being increased from the warming. So what is the source of the warming?
Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2, yet no GCM has ever indicated that such signatures would be found but rather, it is the long-term increase in CO2 since around 1750 (up 40% since that time) that would eventually become the dominant signal upon which other natural cycles would ride. His insistence that various shorter term CO2 fluctuations should be seen in the temperature data is unsupported by any climate model.
Finally, it is interesting that he does acknowledge the general increase in water vapor and warming of the oceans over time, without even mentioning the fact that these have both long been cited as one of the effects of general AGW. The even stronger positive-feedback induced GH warming caused by increased water vapor was one of the effects cited many decades ago as stemming from the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1750′s. Why does the author choose not to reference this possibility?
All in all an interesting paper but suspicious in its circular reasoning, appeal to the lack of effects of CO2 that no GCM’s have ever predicted would exist, and lack of acknowledgment of basic feedback processes long predicted as existing between increased CO2 and increasing water vapor.
*********************************EXCERPT********************************************
RockyRoad says:
chemman says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2
Actually, it shows the politicians, regulators, and climsci people just don’t want to work hard enough to wrap their brains around anything more difficult than CO2 as the culprit. They don’t want to target water (the real scoundrel) because in their totalitarian mindset, it would mean West Coast inhabitants would have to drain their swimming pools and let their grass die (albeit in full view of the Pacific)! Of course, such actions would have the same negligible impact as curtailing CO2 emissions, but the thought of swimming in empty pools or playing golf on dead fairways was just too personal–they had to target something that was a no-brainer, taxable, and in line with their Fabian Socialist doctrine of curtailing capitalism and revoking individual freedoms.
In other words, being stupid is easy and popular.
I understand your post, but sorry, your point?
Other than that his logic is incomplete.
**********************************EXCERPT******************************************
Brian H says:
JD;
Not sure if I saw it right, but the comparison for Mars showed the BB temp actually 0.1° WARMER than the measured: 10.1 vs 10.0.
Wouldn’t that be a kicker: CO2 causes cooling when nothing interferes with it!
And Jim Cripwell says:
January 1, 2011 at 12:09 pm
chemman says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2
These are not the culprits. The ones who are really stuck on stupid are the Royal Society, The American Physical Society, The American Chemical Society, the National Academies of Sciences from the USA, France and The Netherlands. Here in Canada senior members of our National Reserach Council. And the list goes on and on.
It is particularly tough for politicians to go against the advice of all these august bodies. Until we get one of these organizations to break ranks, and look at the science, it will be tough for politicians to change. How we knock sense into an organization like the Royla Society, I have no idea. They have nailed their colors to the mast on CAGW. Sir Alan Runge tried, and failed miserably.
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.
