Monday, July 11, 2011

Rapid rise in CO2 causes much less warming

The NIPCC report of 7/6/11 examines peer-reviewed research finding a large inverse correlation of the rate of CO2 rise with the rate of atmospheric warming...

Reference: Mernild, S.H., Kane, D.L., Hansen, B.U., Jakobsen, B.H., Hasholt, B. and Knudsen, N.T. 2008. Climate, glacier mass balance and runoff (1993-2005) for the Mittivakkat Glacier catchment, Ammassalik Island, SE Greenland, and in a long term perspective (1898-1993). Hydrology Research 39: 239-256.

Mernild et al. "describe the climate and observed climatic variations and trends in the Mittivakkat Glacier catchment in Low Arctic East Greenland from 1993 to 2005 ... based on the period of detailed observations (1993-2005) and supported by synoptic meteorological data from the nearby town of Tasiilaq (Ammassalik) from 1898 to 2004."

According to the authors, "the Mittivakkat Glacier net mass balance has been almost continuously negative, corresponding to an average loss of glacier volume of 0.4% per year." During the past century of general mass loss, they found that "periods of warming were observed from 1918 (the end of the Little Ice Age) to 1935 of 0.12°C per year and 1978 to 2004 of 0.07°C per year," and they say that "the warmest average 10-year period within the last 106 years was the period from 1936-1946 (-1.8°C)," while the second warmest period was from 1995-2004 (-2.0°C). In addition, they note that "also on West Greenland the period 1936-1946 was the warmest period within the last 106 years (Cappelen, 2004)."

Climate alarmists claim CO2-induced global warming should be expressed most strongly in the Arctic, and that it should be evident there before anywhere else, making the Arctic the "canary in the coal mine" of the climate-alarmist movement. As determined by this study, however, the Little Ice Age in Greenland lasted far longer than it did elsewhere (all the way up to 1918); and the rate of warming from 1918 to 1935 was approximately 70% greater than the rate of warming from 1978 to 2004, in spite of the fact that the mean rate-of-rise of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration over the latter period was nearly five times greater than that of the former period. These facts argue strongly against the historical rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration being the cause of either of the two warmings, for we have more rapid warming in the earlier period of slow CO2 rise, and much slower warming in the latter period of rapid CO2 rise.

Additional Reference: Cappelen, J. 2004. Yearly Mean Temperature for Selected Meteorological Stations in Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland; 1873-2003. Technical Report 04-07 of the Danish Meteorological Institute, Weather and Climate Information Division, Copenhagen, Denmark.


  1. Sorry, but the definitive evidence that increasing CO2 does NOT warm (nor cool) the atmosphere is, and always will be, the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus (with 96.5% CO2) and Earth (0.04% CO2):

    Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

    The whole climate consensus is a house of cards, all of it resting on the single point of the "greenhouse effect", which the Venus/Earth data proves is a false hypothesis. This data is nearly 20 years old, and any first-year physics student would be expected to analyze it properly and easily, yet I am apparently the first scientist to do so, and the only scientist to recognize and remain focused upon this, the critical knowledge that should end all competent debate (those that do not focus upon it, once having seen my presentation of it, are only engaging in incompetent debate). Not only does it prove 1) there is NO CO2 greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC and the "consensus", but it also shows 2) the planetary atmospheres are heated by direct absorption of infrared radiation from the Sun, not by first warming of the planetary surface (and not by visible radiation) as most scientists believe, 3) consensus science is wrong to treat the planetary surface as a blackbody, and 4) albedo has nothing to do with the equivalent blackbody temperature of a planet-with-atmosphere system (only the incident solar radiation defines that equivalent temperature). My simple presentation also indicates what should be easy for students of thermodynamics to understand, if they were not miseducated to believe unquestioningly in the "greenhouse effect" dogma: The real effect of increasing CO2 is to increase the efficiency (thus the speed) of heat transfer within the atmosphere, without changing the observed temperature lapse rate structure of the atmosphere; and again, Venus provides confirmation of this effect, because with 96.5% CO2, its dark side is found to be just as hot as its sunlit side. This is all very clear and simple, yet people still argue over the supposed exact value of the CO2 "climate sensitivity", and convoluted reasoning such as in the report posted above. Everyone should be clamoring for my findings to be front-page news, worldwide, and in every related scientific journal, to correct the false consensus that continues to miseducate students of science, throughout the world, and underwrites the IPCC political agenda, which has become obviously tyrannical to the people of the world.

  2. You're brilliance is only superceded by your modesty. Put yourself forward for a Nobel prize. But before you do - you may wish to read up on the basics before misinforming others:
    Venus likely underwent a runaway or “moist greenhouse” phase associated with rapid water loss and very high temperatures. Once water is gone, silicate weathering reactions that draw down CO2 from the atmosphere are insignificant, and CO2 can then build up to very high values. Today, a dense CO2 atmosphere keeps Venus extremely hot.

  3. Anonymous,

    Explain why, as Harry Dale Huffman shows, the P vs T curves between Venus (almost 97% CO2) and Earth (.039 % CO2) are essentially identical.

    The high temperature of Venus is due to the much higher pressures, not CO2, and this P/T relationship holds for other planets as well.

  4. Anonymous,

    "Venus likely underwent a runaway or “moist greenhouse” phase associated with rapid water loss and very high temperatures."

    Didn't your mommy teach you that SPECULATION is not fact?? There are no FACTS to allow us to assume that there was a lot of water on Venus. There are also no FACTS to allow us to assume that even if there was a lot of water that it could cause your runaway greenhouse fantasy.

    By the way, Venus is COOLING!! It emits more energy than it takes in. Apparently all that CO2 only affects a couple narrow windows of emissions and the rest of the window is wide open. One other misunderstanding to clear up is that the total sum of "greenhouse" on Venus is caused by the heavy Sulphur cloud layer that, unlike the CO2, REFLECTS IR.

    There, don't you feel better? No worries on the earth, except for that minor issue of cooling because the sun has decided to ignore the Consensus Scientists and do what it does which is VARY its output.

  5. fantasy island antarctica +13 C and +32 C
    Svea Ep6 (Antarctica)
    Latitude: 74-28S Longitude: 011-31W Altitude: 0 m.
    Straight up lies- yes the government
    is lying as it always does.


    reality minus 50 C
    Kohnen Ep9 (Antarctica)
    Latitude: 75-00S Longitude: 000-00E Altitude: 0 m.

    ALL data is government fudgedfiltered--
    Of course the warmer temperatures
    will be recorded and the
    colder temperatures will be discarded.