CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[VAwxman]

The PDO/AMO index chart can account for the increase trends of the peaks and valleys in the temp. record because they are correspondingly lower/higher during the periods correlating with such max./min. spikes. So how can you attribute any other forcing when the correlation is (both in the x and y axes) pretty darn nailed??

I must say, to be fair, that I'm not sure how D'Aleo came up with that chart. The actual PDO site by Mantua does not show the -PDO of the 40s-70s higher than the prior -PDO cycle.

[OHSnow]

The graphs are intentionally misleading, using a common denialist sleight of hand. The first two are labeled Earth's temperature, but if you look to the fine print at the bottom, it's actually U.S. temperatures. The third graph, to me, looks legit. It's just artificially cut off at 2008, which was a relatively cold year, and avoids the two most recent years which were warmer.

Actually, on a second glance, you're right. I thought it was just a different base period, but that graph shows a nearly .8C drop between peak and trough, which isn't even close to reality. I'm dumbfounded and have no idea what temperature record that graph corresponds to, but it sure isn't GISS.

[tacoman25]

The graphs are intentionally misleading, using a common denialist sleight of hand. The first two are labeled Earth's temperature, but if you look to the fine print at the bottom, it's actually U.S. temperatures. The third graph, to me, looks legit. It's just artificially cut off at 2008, which was a relatively cold year, and avoids the two most recent years which were warmer.

Yeah, I don't know what's up with that, definitely misleading and falsely labeled.

However, it does show that U.S. temperatures are much more closely tied to PDO/AMO oscillations than the global temperature trend.

[Sunny and Warm]

You can determine how many parts per million of carbon dioxide are human caused by taking the amount of carbon burned yearly, determing from it the number of tons of carbon dioxide produced and taking into account it's weight, and then dividing that weight by the total weight of the amosphere. When comparing the ppm number determined to the actual the rise of CO2 yearly, the numbers show a little more than 40% is absorbed by the environment. The results will also show that close to 100% of the current CO2 emissions are man made.

volcanos??

[VAwxman]

The first two are labeled Earth's temperature, but if you look to the fine print at the bottom, it's actually U.S. temperatures.

Yeah it does look like that's U.S. temperature. Wow.

Between that and the PDO stuff I posted above... Just amazing how off that is.

[skierinvermont]

That's pretty much par for a hack like D'Aleo.

[LocoAko]

Yeah, I don't know what's up with that, definitely misleading and falsely labeled.

However, it does show that U.S. temperatures are much more closely tied to PDO/AMO oscillations than the global temperature trend.

Looks like it - but wasn't this never denied by scientists? Obviously pressure anomalies/indices/etc. are going to dictate weather for a smaller area such as the U.S. than the global temperature would dictate. No? I don't think that necessarily disproves anything about global warming (forgive me if that isn't what you were implying).

[Go Kart Mozart]

The final chart seems to show .4C of warming over the past 32 years....using the 13 month average. A warming trend is indeed evidenced, but at a rate of 1.2C per century.

Is that a significant or worrisome trend?

These are good examples of misleading through deceptive chartsmanship. Notice that none of these graphs show the full data record - the start and end dates are cherrypicked. And I don't know where they got that temperature profile in the bottom graph. It doesn't resemble the temp profile in the first three charts, even allowing for the changing time periods, nor does it match the actual NASA GISS global temperature record. Here is the current NASA GISS plot:

And for comparison, here's is the current temp plot from Dr Roy Spencer's UAH site (which uses satellite data):

Look pretty different, don't they? Even with natural variability the long-term warming trend is hard to miss.

[tacoman25]

Looks like it - but wasn't this never denied by scientists? Obviously pressure anomalies/indices/etc. are going to dictate weather for a smaller area such as the U.S. than the global temperature would dictate. No? I don't think that necessarily disproves anything about global warming (forgive me if that isn't what you were implying).

It doesn't imply anything about global warming - but some scientists like James Hansen have made predictions about the U.S. based on global warming, without seeming to take into account natural cycles that dominate on shorter, decadal time scales.

[Sundog]

volcanos??

We're haven't exactly been forming the new Deccan Traps over the last 100 years friend. The numbers don't lie, especially when you can determine them yourself with no outside help which you may or may not deem biased.

[Isotherm]

Putting D'Aleo aside, the point of the matter is temperatures have shown a much stronger correlation with oceanic cycles than Co2. If global temps continue to fall over the coming decades in the face of spiking Co2, where is the linear relationship which many claim in present and IPCC was/still is forecasting? The PDO has cooled over the past decade, which supports the leveling off of global temps that we've observed. If Co2 was a more important driver than the PDO and/or AMO, we would've seen the rapid rise in temps continue, even as the PDO cools.

That's why the next 10-20 years, to me, will tell the tale.

[Isotherm]

There are patterns superimposed on others. The PDO and AMO have significant effects on our climate, but what greenhouse gases do is make the cool periods not as cool and the warm periods warmer. The first chart posted by Isotherm actually shows that quite nicely.

That theory may sound good on paper, but there's no way to isolate the variable of GHG's to determine if they're the culprit of elevated cool periods. While the 40s-70s cool cycle was warmer than the previous cool cycle, that could be mainly due to natural/solar variances and the climb out of the LIA.

[Isotherm]

Look pretty different, don't they? Even with natural variability the long-term warming trend is hard to miss.

You can attack him all you want, and I'm not going to defend his methods of presenting data. But just understand that misrepresentation of data and cherry-picking occurs on the both sides of the debate, which is why it's so difficult to find objective data on the internet (or anywhere), as everyone has their own agenda.

However, as I said in the previous post, we know for a fact that Co2 continues to increase, and global temps haven't been following suit. If this persists over the coming decades, lines will be drawn in the sand so to speak.

[WeatherRusty]

Putting D'Aleo aside, the point of the matter is temperatures have shown a much stronger correlation with oceanic cycles than Co2. If global temps continue to fall over the coming decades in the face of spiking Co2, where is the linear relationship which many claim in present and IPCC was/still is forecasting? The PDO has cooled over the past decade, which supports the leveling off of global temps that we've observed. If Co2 was a more important driver than the PDO and/or AMO, we would've seen the rapid rise in temps continue, even as the PDO cools.

That's why the next 10-20 years, to me, will tell the tale.

Why do you do that? Mixing present and future tense and then drawing a present day conclusion?

Global temps have not cooled, we have established as much here. The rate of warming has definitely slowed.

CO2 is only a more important, stronger driver of global temperature on time frames exceeding those in particular cases of internal variability and solar variability. Look at any temperature charted trend and you will see the amplitude of natural variability to be much greater than the background warming trend. The simple eyeballing of a chart can tell you that, but some people just don't get it

[Isotherm]

Why do you do that? Mixing present and future tense and then drawing a present day conclusion?

Global temps have not cooled, we have established as much here. The rate of warming has definitely slowed.

CO2 is only a more important, stronger driver of global temperature on time frames exceeding those in particular cases of internal variability and solar variability. Look at any temperature charted trend and you will see the amplitude of natural variability to be much greater than the background warming trend. The simple eyeballing of a chart can tell you that, but some people just don't get it

No conclusion was drawn, just a hypothetical question. If I was on the AGW side, I would start to get concerned if global temps cool over the next couple decades. Whether or not Co2 plays a significant role in background warming is yet to be determined.

[BethesdaWX]

Why do you do that? Mixing present and future tense and then drawing a present day conclusion?

Global temps have not cooled, we have established as much here. The rate of warming has definitely slowed.

CO2 is only a more important, stronger driver of global temperature on time frames exceeding those in particular cases of internal variability and solar variability. Look at any temperature charted trend and you will see the amplitude of natural variability to be much greater than the background warming trend. The simple eyeballing of a chart can tell you that, but some people just don't get it

Correct global temps have not cooled, but there has been no statistically significant trend since the late 1990's. I would appriciate it if you could decipher/think in the sense of cause/effect in regards to the Sun. Yes TSI is minor, but how low solar activity impacts Jet stream patterns is very important. You and I both know the -AO/-NAO is a Low Solar Calling Card to forcing, and that Jet stream patterns are shoved closer to the equator in low magnetic periods, and thus a large increase in tropical cloud cover can be expected, perhaps a mis-disgnosis through GCR's short term?

Reflected SW energy in the tropics has decreased, and OLR has increased, so this is likely one of the reasons for the warming trend seen. Interesting to note..since 2005, the reflected SW has leveled off flat, as have global temperatures. Just food for thought.

[meteorologist]

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/DCMeetingNov16.pdf

[hazwoper]

These are good examples of misleading through deceptive chartsmanship. Notice that none of these graphs show the full data record - the start and end dates are cherrypicked. And I don't know where they got that temperature profile in the bottom graph. It doesn't resemble the temp profile in the first three charts, even allowing for the changing time periods, nor does it match the actual NASA GISS global temperature record. Here is the current NASA GISS plot:

And for comparison, here's is the current temp plot from Dr Roy Spencer's UAH site (which uses satellite data):

Look pretty different, don't they? Even with natural variability the long-term warming trend is hard to miss.

I don't think they lokk much different at all actually. Look at Isotherms final chart the last one you posted above. I sotherms chart shows temps from 2001 to mid 2008. If you look at that time period in the chart you posted above, temps do indeed decrease during that perios (look at the huge dip in 2008 in your chart).

[WeatherRusty]

No conclusion was drawn, just a hypothetical question. If I was on the AGW side, I would start to get concerned if global temps cool over the next couple decades. Whether or not Co2 plays a significant role in background warming is yet to be determined.

Well that has not happened to this point in time. Your supposition is pure speculation from which you draw the conclusion that AGW would then be more strongly called into question. Obviously it would be called more strongly into question but even thirty years of flat trending would not set precedent over the period from the 40's to the 70's which was embedded in what in hindsight was part of an overall warming trend.

That CO2 warms the planet is an absolute fact. Remove all CO2 from the atmosphere and the Earth would become a solid ball of ice as the greenhouse effect would collapse.Water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback on ambient temperature. The effective temperature of Earth is -18C. Without the presence of long lived greenhouse gases such as CO2, water vapor would decrease as the global temperature cooled toward it's effective temperature.

[Isotherm]

Well that has not happened to this point in time. Your supposition is pure speculation from which you draw the conclusion that AGW would then be more strongly called into question. Obviously it would be called more strongly into question but even thirty years of flat trending would not set precedent over the period from the 40's to the 70's which was embedded in what in hindsight was part of an overall warming trend.

That CO2 warms the planet is an absolute fact. Remove all CO2 from the atmosphere and the Earth would become a solid ball of ice as the greenhouse effect would collapse.Water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback on ambient temperature. The effective temperature of Earth is -18C. Without the presence of long lived greenhouse gases such as CO2, water vapor would decrease as the global temperature cooled toward it's effective temperature.

Sure, Co2 does keep the Earth warm, but the question is how significantly will global temps change via anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric Co2 concentrations. I'm not doubting that Co2 is a warming gas, but I do doubt that our actions have resulted in anything more than a relatively minor effect on global temp variation. I'm especially against those who believe Co2 is 100% or mostly to blame for the global warming we've seen over recent decades.

[tacoman25]

Sure, Co2 does keep the Earth warm, but the question is how significantly will global temps change via anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric Co2 concentrations. I'm not doubting that Co2 is a warming gas, but I do doubt that our actions have resulted in anything more than a relatively minor effect on global temp variation. I'm especially against those who believe Co2 is 100% or mostly to blame for the global warming we've seen over recent decades.

Yeah, I don't have any problem with people citing the trend over the past 100 years and assuming most of it is due to AGW, but those who assume all or most the warming over the past 30-40 years is from CO2 are completely ignoring other factors that influence short term variation.

[BethesdaWX]

Sure, Co2 does keep the Earth warm, but the question is how significantly will global temps change via anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric Co2 concentrations. I'm not doubting that Co2 is a warming gas, but I do doubt that our actions have resulted in anything more than a relatively minor effect on global temp variation. I'm especially against those who believe Co2 is 100% or mostly to blame for the global warming we've seen over recent decades.

I think the biggest problem is assuming that CO2 is the only factor than can cause RF change/change climate over time when that cannot be proven to be the case, even as CO2 has never correlated to climate changes in the past as a driver should. It is possible the 0.8C warming since 1850 is CO2 induced, but it is also possible it is largely natural variation in the Earth's "reflectors", Shields, and the Resulting impact on the Oceans played a majority role.

The biggest problem we have is determining how the Earth handles the energy budget/RF change induced by CO2 increase...after all the Mechanisms in which changing cloud cover, ENSO/PDO, Alterations in the Stratosphere, etc, are more easily descernable, it is simply more energy getting into the system, significantly more. In the case of CO2 it is trapped LW radiation, and the problem stems from how much energy we can lose at other frequencies outside the CO2 spectrum, knowing OLR has increased substantially, and that satellite datasets indeed show radiative energy is lost before RF peak, and in higher quantities than previously thought, that on its own suggests less power in CO2 changes onto the system even before feedbacks can occur.

[WeatherRusty]

Let's say surface temp has risen about 1C over the past 130 years in the record.

Mainstream science will attribute about 10% of that or 0.1C to increased solar TSI.

How much would you ascribe to PDO fluxuations? AMO ETC. ? Decreased lower cloud cover? What about the radiative forcing (negative) produced by aerosoles? Volcanism?

Take a stab at it:

[BethesdaWX]

Let's say surface temp has risen about 1C over the past 130 years in the record.

Mainstream science will attribute about 10% of that or 0.1C to increased solar TSI.

How much would you ascribe to PDO fluxuations? AMO ETC. ? Decreased lower cloud cover? What about the radiative forcing (negative) produced by aerosoles? Volcanism?

Take a stab at it:

TSI is such a small contributor I don't even factor it in RF wise. What one should look at more are the impacts on the climate system as a result of changes in the sun over time, cloud cover feedbacks to Solar Flux...as in, the AO/NAO/Jet stream supression to the equatorial regions, higher tropical cloud cover as a result (this over long periods of time), and if the global mean CC level is down 1% and the region is the tropics you can have over 1.5W/m^2 RF change just by that 1%, and the changes in this case are possibly >5-7% in the global mean, this is big stuff man.

Also note changes within the stratospheric ozone layer (destruction by solar), also plays a major role in ocean warming by changing how much UVA/UVB we get into the oceans. The PDO/AMO are 30yr oscillations that simply re-distribute heat around the globe, and perhaps lead to RF gain/loss thru CC changes.

But Since 1850, CO2's RF change of 1.6W/m^2 is relatively small, and by a completely different mechanism that results in more problems than solutions within the scientific field.

[skierinvermont]

We really have no idea what clouds have done or are doing at present because we don't have adequate detection system.

That said, large changes in global cloud cover make little sense physically or from a meteorological perspective.

It's complete conjecture to assume that global cloud cover has changed at all and has affected global climate.. pure speculation without a shred of evidence.

On the other hand, CO2 is known to cause a large change in the energy imbalance theoretically and such a change has been empirically observed precisely at those wavelengths affected by CO2.

It's an empirically provable fact that the change in RF is due to CO2 not cloud cover. It's an empirically demonstrable fact that the atmosphere has become more opaque to outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum. This is observed through simple, accurate measurements. On the other hand, measurements of global cloud cover have zero accuracy. Clinging to the notion that clouds are responsible is to favor garbage measurements over accurate precise ones (and over theoretical physics which says the rise in CO2 necessarily leads to an energy imbalance).

[Sundog]

Sure, Co2 does keep the Earth warm, but the question is how significantly will global temps change via anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric Co2 concentrations. I'm not doubting that Co2 is a warming gas, but I do doubt that our actions have resulted in anything more than a relatively minor effect on global temp variation. I'm especially against those who believe Co2 is 100% or mostly to blame for the global warming we've seen over recent decades.

If you say that CO2 keeps the Earth warm, then why wouldn't an over 30% increase in concentration over the last century not have any effect?

[BethesdaWX]

We really have no idea what clouds have done or are doing at present because we don't have adequate detection system.

True, but from the warming profile and increasing OLR, it is likely to at least be a large part of the warming seen since 1979, before then we didn't have LT measurements so we cannot determine if it may/,may not have been the case then.

That said, large changes in global cloud cover make little sense physically or from a meteorological perspective.

It isn't as much changes in cloud amount (though it will happen), but more-so changes in where the highest cloud cover resides...less tropical clouds and more Mid-Lattitude clouds, for example, will apply a significant amount of RF increase into the Oceans, 90% of the 20N/20S lattitude regions i water, the NH sees less direct sunlight and is predominately land covered. We all know Low solar periods push the Jet streams towards the equator, they slow too...and we see higher Tropical cloud cover result, that much is obvious.

It's complete conjecture to assume that global cloud cover has changed at all and has affected global climate.. pure speculation without a shred of evidence.

Plenty of evidence, the increasing OLR, faster surface warming, and the fact that the ENSO ONI tends to lag the MEI is a smoking gun.

On the other hand, CO2 is known to cause a large change in the energy imbalance theoretically and such a change has been empirically observed precisely at those wavelengths affected by CO2.

Didn't know increasing OLR was evidence of a "total imbalance"....the CO2 spectrum has seen a dampening, true enough, but that is a small issue at this point. The Earth has never emitted as much energy as it absorbs, it can't.

It's an empirically provable fact that the change in RF is due to CO2 not cloud cover. It's an empirically demonstrable fact that the atmosphere has become more opaque to outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum. This is observed through simple, accurate measurements. On the other hand, measurements of global cloud cover have zero accuracy. Clinging to the notion that clouds are responsible is to favor garbage measurements over accurate precise ones (and over theoretical physics which says the rise in CO2 necessarily leads to an energy imbalance).

Yes, the 1.6W/m^2 change in RF is due to CO2, but there has been more than 1.6W/m^2 added even over the past 30yrs...OLR has icnreased substantially, and SW energy, regardless of the cloud amount, is not being reflected in as great of a # as it had been. WE've increased OLR since 1979 by more than CO2's RF since 150.

[Isotherm]

If you say that CO2 keeps the Earth warm, then why wouldn't an over 30% increase in concentration over the last century not have any effect?

Well Co2 obviously isn't the only factor keeping Earth warm; it's much less significant compared to water vapor, the primary GHG. If we look at contribution to the greenhouse effect, water vapor accounts for approximately 60% of that heat retention and Co2 about 25-26%. This doesn't even account for the numerous feedback systems which allow any Co2 warming to be significantly muted, i.e., increased Co2 promotes more plant life which acts as a carbon sink. Not to mention oceans, low-mid level clouds, etc. It's not as simple as Co2 input ---> warmer global temps. When it comes down do it, the actual Co2 contribution to warming global temps is not significant enough to be concerned about, and will be easily outweighed by cooling factors brought about by Earth's natural mechanisms, at least IMO. I never said Co2 is a non-factor in the warming, just that I strongly doubt it's the main one (main meaning > 50% impact, I actually believe it's much less than that).

[WeatherRusty]

Well Co2 obviously isn't the only factor keeping Earth warm; it's much less significant compared to water vapor, the primary GHG. If we look at contribution to the greenhouse effect, water vapor accounts for approximately 60% of that heat retention and Co2 about 25-26%. This doesn't even account for the numerous feedback systems which allow any Co2 warming to be significantly muted, i.e., increased Co2 promotes more plant life which acts as a carbon sink. Not to mention oceans, low-mid level clouds, etc. It's not as simple as Co2 input ---> warmer global temps. When it comes down do it, the actual Co2 contribution to warming global temps is not significant enough to be concerned about, and will be easily outweighed by cooling factors brought about by Earth's natural mechanisms, at least IMO. I never said Co2 is a non-factor in the warming, just that I strongly doubt it's the main one (main meaning > 50% impact, I actually believe it's much less than that).

I have a question for you. If feedbacks to a warming influence are a net negative, then how is it possible to ever warm the Earth by any means? Be aware that the feedbacks are to the initial warming influence, not specifically to the original forcing/warming agent. For instance, water vapor pressure increases as a function of rising temperature, not how much CO2 there is in the air or how hot the Sun is. Clouds are a function of heating and available moisture.

A doubling of CO2 produces a warming influence of 1.2C as a consequence of adding 3.7W/m^2 to the energy flux within the lower atmosphere. This result is a direct consequence of Planck's Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. The estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity is figured to be within the range of roughly 2C-4.5C, or about 0.75C per watt of energy. This is the current state of mainstream scientific knowledge. The 1.2C is a rock solid, black body/grey body calculation. The climate sensitivity to that initial warmth is obviously known with less precision. By studying past climate response to known forcing, volcanic eruptions and modeling, this is the best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity to a forcing the equal of 3.7/W^2.

You are free to dispute this information, but you fly in the face of all the research which has delivered this message.

Together water vapor and clouds add up to 75% of the greenhouse effect, but without CO2 water vapor's impact would plummet. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback on temperature. So are clouds. They don't control or drive anything without the scaffolding of the greenhouse effect being present, the long term resident time greenhouse gases, the most important being CO2.

[skierinvermont]

The Earth has never emitted as much energy as it absorbs, it can't.

Yikes.. the earth absorbs approximately the same amount of energy it absorbs. Sometimes very slightly more, sometimes very slightly less, sometimes exactly the same. Otherwise it would be constantly gaining in energy, which it isn't.