tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post6066093277392130328..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warmingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-67459095086065108322015-09-19T13:50:41.502-07:002015-09-19T13:50:41.502-07:00I compared the hadcrut global temp anomaly to foss...I compared the hadcrut global temp anomaly to fossil fuel emissions 1850-2014 and found no correlation in the detrended series at the decadal frequency response at which this relationship is supposed to work. <br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662870<br /><br />also, in a previous work, i found no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and changes in atmospheric co2 at the annual level (1959-2014)<br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639<br /><br />Chaamjamalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06185518829510733536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-17550607696116653292015-09-08T09:58:46.760-07:002015-09-08T09:58:46.760-07:00Hi HS. I got a link to this article, and thought i...Hi HS. I got a link to this article, and thought it was fresh. Should have looked at the dates. Sorry to bother. No need to publish these comments.<br /><br />- BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68339028227713348542015-09-08T09:50:45.377-07:002015-09-08T09:50:45.377-07:00Your examples are post hoc ergo propter hoc, one o...Your examples are post hoc ergo propter hoc, one of the most basic of logical fallacies. Rates of malaria are increasing, and people have their windows open at night. Ergo it's the nightly bad air that causes it. People with high stress tend to get ulcers, hence it's the stress that causes it. Both very obvious, yes? And, both entirely wrong.<br /><br />The correlation between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/scale:0.18/offset:0.125/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/derivative/mean:12" rel="nofollow">very tight</a>. It's all you need to project atmospheric CO2 <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/scale:0.18/offset:0.125/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/derivative/mean:12/integral" rel="nofollow">to a very high level of fidelity</a>: the starting point, and the temperature record. Human inputs are essentially superfluous.<br /><br />The only way you could get human inputs to have significant influence would be to posit a very exotic natural filtering process which removed the low frequency portions of the temperature response, and substituted in the anthropogenic forcing in its place. But, that sort of operation would leave very visible phase distortion in the temperature-to-CO2 relationship. There is no such observable phase distortion. Ergo, this appeal to complexity fails. Occam's razor comes down very clearly on the side that atmospheric CO2 is essentially governed by a natural, temperature dependent process, and human inputs do not have a significant impact.<br /><br />- BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27607455580950204982014-11-04T03:59:58.282-08:002014-11-04T03:59:58.282-08:00I published a similar conclusion in January 2008:
...I published a similar conclusion in January 2008:<br />dCO2/dt correlates with LT temperature dn CO2 lags LT temperature by ~9 months.<br /><br />Here is a post from 2009.<br /><br />Regards, Allan MacRae, Calgary<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#comment-77000<br /> <br />davidc (00:16:17) : <br /> <br />Time is limited so I can only provide some more general answers to your questions:<br /> <br />My paper was posted Jan.31/08 with a spreadsheet at <br />http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/<br /> <br />The paper is located at <br />http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf<br /> <br />The relevant spreadsheet is <br />http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls<br />There are many correlations calculated in the spreadsheet.<br /> <br />In my Figure 1 and 2, global dCO2/dt closely coincides with global Lower Tropospheric Temperature LT and Surface Temperature ST. I believe that the temperature and CO2 datasets are collected completely independently, and yet there is this clear correlation.<br /> <br />After publishing this paper, I also demonstrated the same correlation with different datasets - using Mauna Loa CO2 and Hadcrut3 ST going back to 1958. More recently I examined the close correlation of LT measurements taken by satellite and those taken by radiosonde. <br /> <br />Further, I found earlier papers by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) that discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature. This correlation is noted in my Figures 3 and 4.<br /> <br />See also Roy Spencer's (U of Alabama, Huntsville) take on this subject at <br />http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/<br /> <br /><br />and <br /> <br />http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/<br /> <br />This subject has generated much discussion among serious scientists, and this discussion continues. Almost no one doubts the dCO2/dt versus LT (and ST) correlation. Some go so far as to say that humankind is not even the primary cause of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 - that it is natural. Others rely on a "material balance argument" to refute this claim - I think these would be in the majority. I am an agnostic on this question, to date. <br /> <br />The warmist side also has also noted this ~9 month delay, but try to explain it as a "feedback effect" - this argument seems more consistent with AGW religious dogma than with science ("ASSUMING AGW is true, then it MUST be feedback"). :-)<br /> <br />It is interesting to note, however, that the natural seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 ranges up to ~16ppm in the far North, whereas the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is only ~2ppm. This reality tends to weaken the "material balance argument". This seasonal 'sawtooth" of CO2 is primarily driven by the Northern Hemisphere landmass, which is much greater in area than that of the Southern Hemisphere. CO2 falls during the NH summer due primarily to land-based photosynthesis, and rises in the late fall, winter and early spring as biomass degrades. <br /> <br />There is also likely to be significant CO2 solution and exsolution from the oceans.<br /> <br />See the excellent animation at http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4<br /> <br />It is also interesting to note that the detailed signals we derive from the data show that CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, from the 9 month delay for ~ENSO cycles to the ~~600 year delay inferred in the ice core data for much longer cycles.<br /> <br />Regards, Allan<br />Allan MacRaehttp://www.oilsandsexpert.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-8698083832740307162014-09-12T12:03:27.074-07:002014-09-12T12:03:27.074-07:00No, LWIR cannot significantly warm the oceans for ...No, LWIR cannot significantly warm the oceans for the reasons given, including empirical measurements here:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html<br /><br />and the theoretical reasons here<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html<br /><br />and because of convection [heat rises]. The ocean has 1000X higher heat capacity than the atmosphere, therefore the oceans wag the tail, the atmosphere, NOT the other way around.<br /><br />http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdfMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50252024816382292132014-09-12T06:22:28.509-07:002014-09-12T06:22:28.509-07:00I find error in the multiple comments stating that...I find error in the multiple comments stating that the atmosphere cannot warm the ocean because LWIR can only penetrate a few millimetres or because heat cannot transfer in due to the sea-surface microlayer effect. In short, both arguments essentially state that heating the surface causes increased evaporation that then leads to an energy release that causes the surface temperature to cool or remain stable. Greenhouse gases have played a role in the Earth's temperature and always will. They do so by trapping longwave radiation and warming. The net increase in heat content in the atmosphere is then transferred via radiative or physical means warming the systems both above and below. The system isn't stable, there is mixing going on, and so the net heat doesn't stay at the microlayer on the ocean surface, it mixes, being transferred deeper into the ocean in many locations including where water masses downwell. This transfer takes time. The net ocean temperature is slow to change but it does change. This lag in temperature change causes several other feedback's including out-gassing of CO2 that may lag behind the shift in temperature. Yes, it's possible to have anthropogenic forcing disturb the equilibrium, heat the atmosphere which then warms the ocean causing a lagged release of more CO2. That's caused positive feedback. Anthropogenic forcing, be it from changes in ecosystems, greenhouse gas emissions, or other means, is part of the net heat balance on the Earth. I'm not saying we should run for the hills because we are destroying the planet, but let's not fool ourselves by letting a poor understanding of basic physics lead us into thinking that we humans don't have an influence on our planet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-8398389778064470442013-08-20T15:19:59.105-07:002013-08-20T15:19:59.105-07:00land temps follow ocean temps/ENSO
http://www.tim...land temps follow ocean temps/ENSO<br /><br />http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/talk/20120920_2300.pdfMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-28447203986514753002013-05-21T09:07:22.139-07:002013-05-21T09:07:22.139-07:00I find Ole's interpretation unbelievable, I do...I find Ole's interpretation unbelievable, I don't think he's had time to properly read the Richardson comment.<br /><br />Humlum et al differentiate the human emissions rate. The human emission data data he takes are in Gt per year, and he differentiates them into Gt per year-squared.<br /><br />i.e. quantity per time-squared, which is an acceleration.<br /><br />They then take the atmospheric quantity of CO2 in ppm, and differentiate that to get a value in ppm per year.<br /><br />i.e. quantity per time, which is a velocity.<br /><br />They then correlate those two, but do not explain why they correlate a velocity with an acceleration. If you are consistent and correlation human emissions in ppm per year with the atmospheric change in ppm per year, then you find there is a correlation.<br /><br />The Richardson approach is based on starting with conservation of mass and then following the equations to ensure physical and mathematical consistency. Humlum has not demonstrated the physical and mathematical consistency of his approach yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-88627616715850243642013-05-21T07:31:48.348-07:002013-05-21T07:31:48.348-07:00Email received from Dr. Humlum:
Thank you very mu...Email received from Dr. Humlum:<br /><br />Thank you very much for your mail.<br /><br />I believe that we just have to accept and respect that people may disagree on the interpretation of certain data sets.<br /><br />I note that our way of interpreting temperature and CO2 data apparently is supported by a new textbook:<br />Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2012). Take a look on pages 66-68 and 252-254. Unfortunately we did not know about this book when we submitted our paper last year, as it was published almost at the same <br />time.<br /><br />However, I must disagree that we are comparing ‘distance travelled’ with ‘acceleration’. This is not a fair representation of our work. We are comparing change rates with change rates, and based on this, <br />proposing interpretations.<br /><br />If I should attempt an analogy, we are investigating which muscle groups are active when climbing each step on a long staircase, concluding that it looks as if one special group is relatively important (but not the full story). Based on this we suggest that for climbing the <br />entire staircase this group of muscles presumably is important as well. <br /><br />But we do not prove it, I agree. But then, it is virtually important to prove anything in science, only to make different interpretations look more or less likely.<br /><br />All the best,<br />OleMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-32362619396442365122013-05-20T11:33:18.291-07:002013-05-20T11:33:18.291-07:00Well, if that's what Richardson et al says, it...Well, if that's what Richardson et al says, it is contradicted by the findings of Francey et al [linked above] and by the graph of CO2 & temperature over time.<br /><br />http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958<br /><br />I have emailed Dr. Humlum for a reply.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90061871109762660602013-05-20T02:37:09.784-07:002013-05-20T02:37:09.784-07:00MS, I'd also add that the Richardson reply sho...MS, I'd also add that the Richardson reply shows that rises in CO2 correlate at a time lag of zero (or +1 month, +2 months, whatever) with man-made CO2 emissions. Which is what you'd expect if man-made CO2 was going into the atmosphere and not magically turning into pixie dust or being teleported into space.<br /><br />The reason that Humlum et al reached the opposite conclusion, was that they compared the change in atmospheric emissions with the change in the change of human contribution. <br /><br />Analogy: Richardson compares distance travelled with speed, whereas Humlum compares distance travelled with acceleration.<br /><br />This seems a bizarre choice as there is no obvious physical reason why these should be well correlated, and Humlum et al don't provide a reason in their paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-38878971721797939622013-05-20T02:27:50.460-07:002013-05-20T02:27:50.460-07:00MS, Humlum was emailed an early draft of the Richa...MS, Humlum was emailed an early draft of the Richardson (2013) comment on September 15th, 2012. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-71618050434137730172013-05-16T13:08:15.446-07:002013-05-16T13:08:15.446-07:00Email reply received from Dr. Humlum regarding my ...Email reply received from Dr. Humlum regarding my question "Were you allowed to publish a reply to these comments?":<br /><br />Email from Dr. Humlum:<br /><br />No, we were not informed by the journal that any of these papers were coming, and did therefore not have the opportunity of writing a reply, as would usually be the case.<br /><br />I have not yet had an opportunity to study them in any detail, but from a quick glance it appears to me that they both agree that our analysis is correct (changes of CO2 follows after changes in temperature, just <br />like what is seen on longer time scales in ice cores), but that this does not exclude that there might be an intermediate time interval where the opposite may be true (temperature follows CO2).<br /><br />Theoretically speaking this is of course true, although it does not sound very likely to me. I would therefore have been much more impressed, had the two comments instead demonstrated that there is such an intermediate time interval where changes of temperature follow <br />changes of CO2 (quite essential for the CO2 hypothesis). But this is obviously not the case.<br /><br />All the best,<br />OleMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-519473350794355152013-05-16T07:54:26.836-07:002013-05-16T07:54:26.836-07:00The links aren't operational and produce a &qu...The links aren't operational and produce a "Request entity is too large" error. Do you have links to the full comments?<br /><br />Humlum should be given the opportunity to reply. I will email him for a reply.<br /><br />In the meantime, this graph clearly demonstrates temperature drives CO2:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/single-graph-demonstrates-man-made-co2.html<br /><br />And his conclusions are supported by the works of Salby and Frölicher et al and inadvertently by Francey et al<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-73510976633857728312013-05-16T02:05:34.961-07:002013-05-16T02:05:34.961-07:00Dear MS,
The flaws with this paper are summarised...Dear MS,<br /><br />The flaws with this paper are summarised in two comments.<br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908<br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891<br /><br />Masters & Benestad show that Humlum's approach misdiagnoses causes.<br /><br />Richardson shows that the conclusion violates conservation of mass, and that if you follow the maths and run the numbers so that the approach is consistent with maths, then you can calculate the natural contribution and the human contribution to rising atmospheric CO2.<br /><br />Nature: indistinguishable from zero<br />Human: indistinguishable from 100%Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-77190582049818904772013-04-10T10:57:44.083-07:002013-04-10T10:57:44.083-07:00You mean like Mann et al '99, published in Nat...You mean like Mann et al '99, published in Nature?<br /><br />What specifically do you claim is wrong with this paper?<br /><br />Vague comments with no scientific backup are not helpful.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-6403003737236381662013-04-10T10:53:50.069-07:002013-04-10T10:53:50.069-07:00If there is so much wrong with this paper how did ...If there is so much wrong with this paper how did it get past peer review - or does that not signify anything these days?David Whiteheadhttp://www.glebekinvara.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-31326881145972053272013-02-21T07:54:58.953-08:002013-02-21T07:54:58.953-08:00http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-75601186218015629072012-09-27T16:04:24.872-07:002012-09-27T16:04:24.872-07:00Andrew,
"Nothing there refutes the claim tha...Andrew,<br /><br />"Nothing there refutes the claim that rising CO2 is a result of burning fossil fuels."<br /><br />You can't even verify that the alledged BACKGROUND CO2 level measured at the official stations is a meaningful metric the way they are selected and normalized!!! For instance, at Mona Loa they can throw out 2/3 of the data for a month because it exceeds their standards in some way. We do NOT have a believeable metric to compare things to. The paleo record is probably a better record than our high tech measurements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-57700020483229082532012-09-20T11:05:11.380-07:002012-09-20T11:05:11.380-07:00http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/r...http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/review-of-humlum-et-al-2012-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature-by-donald-rapp/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50650727596221609402012-09-08T17:26:03.462-07:002012-09-08T17:26:03.462-07:00http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009...http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdfMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-84849605396204907582012-09-08T12:02:24.763-07:002012-09-08T12:02:24.763-07:00http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/is-the-a...http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/is-the-airborne-co2-fraction-temperature-dependent/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-89001652668512698712012-09-05T15:21:07.633-07:002012-09-05T15:21:07.633-07:00From the link above:"Noting that about 40% of...From the link above:"Noting that about 40% of the yearly amount of CO2 that is released to the air by human activities has historically remained in the atmosphere - a quantity that has come to be known as the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) - Knorr (2009) states that several studies have recently highlighted the possibility that the world's oceans and terrestrial ecosystems may be gradually losing their ability to sequester such a large proportion of humanity's CO2 emissions, citing the work of Le Quere et al. (2007), Schuster and Watson (2007) and Canadell et al. (2007). And the author states that if this possibility actually materializes, "in a way predicted by models, this could add another 500 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere by 2100," which would greatly exacerbate the so-called "climate crisis" envisioned by Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."<br /><br />If anything the implication is that anthropogenic CO2 is recognized as contributing to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. The paper is simply arguing that the present sinks are likely to continue taking CO2 out of the atmosphere at their present rate because they're not demonstrating CO2 saturation. Which is something I think is likely.Andrew Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00249167164554047476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-79113104877211615442012-09-05T12:49:27.599-07:002012-09-05T12:49:27.599-07:00From the NIPCC Report:
http://www.nipccreport.org...From the NIPCC Report:<br /><br />http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/sep/5sep2012a4.html<br /><br />"In an effort to determine the likelihood of this concern, Knorr constructed a new-and-improved history of AF values stretching all the way back to 1850 by utilizing data on CO2 emissions arising from fossil-fuel use, cement production and changes in land use, as well as atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa and the South Pole, plus those derived from Law Dome and Siple ice-core data, together with their associated uncertainties. Based upon that reconstruction, the UK researcher reports that "despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found [italics added]." Or as he writes in the concluding section of his study, "the hypothesis of a recent or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of the available data and its accuracy," which indicates that not only has the global ocean been increasing its uptake rate of anthropogenic carbon in such a way as to successfully "keep up" with the rate at which the air's CO2 content has risen in response to historical anthropogenic carbon inputs - as has concurrently been demonstrated by Khatiwala et al. (2009) - so also have Earth's terrestrial ecosystems been "keeping up" in this regard."MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27003724637452948792012-09-05T06:27:12.139-07:002012-09-05T06:27:12.139-07:00interesting article and arguements. One forgets th...interesting article and arguements. One forgets the article, to follow the arguements. But are we flat-earthers. All the ocean gets sunlight all the time, and does the local star extinguish at night, or does the earth revolve as a ball, around a local gravity pit. There are innumerable valuatiions that are asscribed to the the earth, and this article did do some justice, by adding more to the equation. Yes he did use bad datasets, but those are the datasets that are being argued as so bad for mankind. That our uneducated forefathers could not add up two plus two. But they created the educational system that told us how to add the numbers, and slapped our hands with ruler until we got it right. <br />Now they are acknowledging that volcanoes and other influences are part of the problem, they just have to enumerate them. But we are still stuck with the same datasets, and the same dataset master who corrupted the first dataset, and that we have to trust them to look out for mankind. Why? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11128173887061264740noreply@blogger.com