Accumulated solar energy drives global surface temperatures:
Solar activity drives sea surface temperatures:
Solar activity drives ocean oscillations [plus possible lunar-solar tide influence]:
Source And also see this paper finding solar activity drives the NAO with a lag of a few years |
And an increase of accumulated solar energy [sunspot time-integral] warms the bulk of the oceans due to the deep penetration of high-energy solar UV of up to 100 meter depth [vs. only a few microns penetration of longwave IR from greenhouse gases].
The sunspot time-integral shown in green has been on an increasing trend since the beginning of the Mauna Loa CO2 record shown in red. Increasing solar activity warms the oceans, which drives CO2 outgassing via Henry's Law, increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. |
Plot graph here that simultaneously demonstrates the observational evidence that
The effect follows the cause; the cause does not follow the effect [mathematical proof]. Short-term global temperature changes precede CO2 levels by about 1 year as shown by observations, and by 800+ years in ice core data. CO2 lags temperature on short, intermediate, and long-term timescales [and see here]:
|
And CO2 lags temperatures on long-term timescales by ~800 years:
But you simply cannot have it both ways – that is an “Inconvenient Truth” !!
Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing – which means that ocean acidification by man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is complete BS !!
- or -
The man-made CO2 from the atmosphere IS dissolving in cooler oceans causing ocean acidification – which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are BS !!
Take your pick – REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both.
-Rosco Mac
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAre you keeping them secret?
Not for long!
ReplyDeleteGreat Post,
ReplyDeleteThe argument that I have used to show why the AGW desire (it was never a scientific theory) should never have made it past anything more than a fleeting concept.
On the CO2 lagging temp graphs CO2 continues to rise after Temp peaks and starts to fall.
If CO2 was all powerful Then CO2 continuing to rise would have never allowed the temp to continue to fall. Thus the true driver of Temp is enormously more powerful than CO2.
Therefore CO2 driven AGW should never have made it past more than an idle thought in some idiots head.
You are so right!
DeleteAnd that's only one of many other reasons why AGW is nonsense.
Wow. Outstanding post. An if a Maunder Minimum is here...
ReplyDeleteThanks Bart for your insightful comments as always!
ReplyDeleteBetter match in SH than NH since proportionally much more ocean in SH?
Nice post I did a little post last year called 'Digging into the core: Why the increase in CO2 is probably natural'. It is not possible that the increase in CO2 is all anthropogenic because of the fast-equilibra of Henry's law.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a long, long time since I took chemistry, but if I remember correctly you may be misapplying Henry's law. It is true the solubility of CO2 decreases with temperature in the moderate temperature range if all else is held constant, but that's not the case here -- because CO2 solubility increases with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (the vapor pressure). The constants in Henry's law are derived experimentally, so someone with the time and energy could figure out the exact relative effects -- but if I remember correctly, it would take a significant and probably world-changing rise in ocean temperature to overcome the effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in increasing ocean acidity.
ReplyDeleteThis post presents the hypothesis that the primary source of atm CO2 has been from solar-driven ocean warming. If that hypothesis is correct, the CO2 content of the ocean has to decrease until equilibrium between partial pressures or ocean starts cooling.
Delete"Better match in SH than NH since proportionally much more ocean in SH?"
ReplyDeleteThat was my first belief. However, the even better match with the global satellite data suggests to me SH may simply be a less corrupted measurement than NH. Fewer "adjustments", perhaps?
-Bart