Where Did The CO2 Come From?

[tomclarke]

Roger Pielke Snr is no skeptic, he's a warmist. He's only out of the clique because he doesn't there's any C to go with the AGW.

I think your nomenclature is innacurate. By "skeptic" you mean people who draw conclusions from partial data without analysis, reflection, or normal skepticism. I've given you a number of examples above on these three threads and will be happy to continue doing so if you continue to post typical denier (not in fact skeptic at all) memes.

[TDPerk]

"That is surface ocean temperature, nothing to do with ocean heat content."

You may not be aware the surface is the interface for the bulk of the ocean to interact with where the warming is supposedly happening, the atmosphere. The surface has to warm and be convected down for the bulk to warm.

The surface not warming is consistent with atmosphere not warming.

The atmosphere isn't warming either.

Note that if you take a long enough timeframe, we get glaciers 1km thick over Manhattan most of the time. Why do you pretend your preferred timeframe is better?

Because you are emotionally invested in not just AGW, but evidently CAGW.

[TDPerk]

Roger Pielke Snr is no skeptic, he's a warmist. He's only out of the clique because he doesn't there's any C to go with the AGW.

I think your nomenclature is innacurate. By "skeptic" you mean people who draw conclusions from partial data without analysis, reflection, or normal skepticism. I've given you a number of examples above on these three threads and will be happy to continue doing so if you continue to post typical denier (not in fact skeptic at all) memes.

" By "skeptic" you mean people who draw conclusions from partial data without analysis, reflection, or normal skepticism."

Normal skepticism would require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, and does. It hasn't gotten warmer for about 17years, this is disallowed by the AGW models, hence they are bullshit.

[TDPerk]

I've given you a number of examples above on these three threads and will be happy to continue doing so if you continue to post typical denier (not in fact skeptic at all) memes.

You have given no such examples.

The heat isn't going into the ocean because the surface isn't warming. For the upwelling currents to be at the usual temperature for the surface average they have to be colder than usual, so the added heat just warms it up to the usual--or--it has to be convecting faster so the usual temp of upwelling gets less heat into it before it is gone from the surface; or some combo of the two. You've presented no evidence of either.

There's also the problem that we know the AGW "scientists" lie as required to paper over the failure of their models. They make inexplicable adjustments to data which consistently support their theory. If the heat is going into the ocean, why isn't the continental temperature going up? The land can't convect.

Where's the heat?

[tomclarke]

LENR is an extraordinary claim. Extreme climate denial is an extraordinary claim (why should the known CO2 forcing have no effect). Whether ECS is higher or lower is ordinary either way. Just a matter of how the forcings and feedbacks pan out, and nothing unusual.

So the evidence can be (and is) relatively weak.

Now. For your 17 year comment:
(1) it has not got warmer for 17 years. Untrue. you have to cherry-pick endpoints in extreme WUWT style to gets anything that looks like that.
(2) This breaks the models. Untrue. Individual model runs duplicate the natural variability seen in the last 17 years, and if you look at past temperature record you can see similar segments. It is a noisy signal. In fact if you compensate for ENSO phase (the model means average this whereas of course it is negative at the moment) you get good tracking of recent temps.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2310.html

Normal skepticism would require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, and does. It hasn't gotten warmer for about 17years, this is disallowed by the AGW models, hence they are bullshit.

[tomclarke]

My examples:
C14 is wrong meme (bust)
evaporation stabilises temps meme (bust)
ocean + land index has not warmed over 15 years (bust because needs cherry-picked endpoints)
MWP/LIA temp difference proves AGW wrong (bust - in fact it is good evidence FOR AGW)

I lose count - I think there were a few more.

Oh - and see below!

I've given you a number of examples above on these three threads and will be happy to continue doing so if you continue to post typical denier (not in fact skeptic at all) memes.

You have given no such examples.

The heat isn't going into the ocean because the surface isn't warming. For the upwelling currents to be at the usual temperature for the surface average they have to be colder than usual, so the added heat just warms it up to the usual--or--it has to be convecting faster so the usual temp of upwelling gets less heat into it before it is gone from the surface; or some combo of the two. You've presented no evidence of either.

The last 150 years temp increase means that surface temp is now out of equilibrium with deep sea. hence more mixing will bring lower temp water to the surface and cool the surface (in fact the thermocline means this anyway). You don't need upwelling currents to be colder than usual, just larger in flow rate than usual. There is good evidence that invreased magnitude trade winds are correlaed with stronger upwelling/downwelling currents and hence more mixing.

There is much evidence for this. The ARGO buoys that chart ocean heat content at different depths. Oceanographers who look at currents and how surface weather systems change them. Models that couple ocean currents to ENSO etc.

There's also the problem that we know the AGW "scientists" lie as required to paper over the failure of their models.

I agree it is a problem that your faith requires this tenet. I'm not saying it has never happened. But there are more critics within the establishment wanting to make their names by showing how accepted work is wrong than the reverse, so paper-overers don't prosper.

They make inexplicable adjustments to data which consistently support their theory. If the heat is going into the ocean, why isn't the continental temperature going up? The land can't convect.

I challenge you. Find a specific adjustment. Read the explanation. I bet you have never done this.

The explanations for adjustments can all be found, mostly from the woodfortrees web site which documents changes in models, but also elsewhere, in detail, in the lierature.

For example you might find the detailed work on the TOBS adustment (famous) which is fascinating and a complete explanation. Have you read this?

Where's the heat?

In the ocean top 2000m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content

[choff]

Maybe this will help.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/t ... ency-time/

Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results.
Some studies say 16 years for the C14 to cycle out, still not a hundred years.

The airborne fraction of CO2 [the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to anthropogenic CO2 emissions] declined over the past 50 years, especially since 2000.

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/ ... online.jpg

The oceans control CO2 levels, we've been thawing out from the LIA, so They've emitted more CO2, now we're going into the deepfreeze, that will mean less.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508

[tomclarke]

Maybe this will help.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/t ... ency-time/

Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results.
Some studies say 16 years for the C14 to cycle out, still not a hundred years.

The airborne fraction of CO2 [the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to anthropogenic CO2 emissions] declined over the past 50 years, especially since 2000.

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/ ... online.jpg

The oceans control CO2 levels, we've been thawing out from the LIA, so They've emitted more CO2, now we're going into the deepfreeze, that will mean less.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508

Here is a graph of CO2 levels. Do you notice any decrease over past 17 years hiatus? I've plotted the ocean surface temp for you to compare:



I'm not sure, given such transparent lack of evidence for "sea temp increase controls CO2" that I can be bothered to deconstruct the WUWT misinformation and highlight its mistakes. (Not all WUWT posts have mistakes, often they are just sleight of hand claiming something that does not follow).

The level of faith required to concoct an explanation different from the obvious one for CO2 increase is mind-boggling.

Further - how come the MWP/LIA temperature change did not result in a corresponding large CO2 decrease?

The hypothesis is totally broke.

[TDPerk]

(1) it has not got warmer for 17 years. Untrue. you have to cherry-pick endpoints in extreme WUWT style to gets anything that looks like that.

If you take a 15 year moving average, start moving that average from 1914 and go to 2014, the warmest year period was centered in the '30's, with 1936 being the warmest year on record, and the mid 90's being a close second. The temperature actually gets slightly colder than that for the 15 years ending in 2014 if you smooth out known El Nino La Nina effects.

(2) This breaks the models. Untrue. Individual model runs duplicate the natural variability seen in the last 17 years, and if you look at past temperature record you can see similar segments. It is a noisy signal. In fact if you compensate for ENSO phase (the model means average this whereas of course it is negative at the moment) you get good tracking of recent temps.

No it is true the pause breaks the models, The warmists themselves said so.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/b ... year-itch/

Unless you care to dispute the quotations...

[TDPerk]

"C14 is wrong meme (bust)"

Remains to be seen. You dismissed a plausible argument I made which if true would support your overall contention, and you replaced it with, well you haven't yet.

"evaporation stabilises temps meme (bust)"

Not merely not busted, it must be correct, or we'd have had a runaway greenhouse effect and never have had a biosphere.

"ocean + land index has not warmed over 15 years (bust because needs cherry-picked endpoints)"

Not cherry picked, just an ever lengthening record of no AGW from the late 90's to date.

"MWP/LIA temp difference proves AGW wrong (bust - in fact it is good evidence FOR AGW)"

It's excellent evidence against AGW, because {if ((MWP&LIA)==1) {return "no hockey stick"|}}, plus, hockey stick itself was fraud by warmists.

[TDPerk]

Further - how come the MWP/LIA temperature change did not result in a corresponding large CO2 decrease?

Because of the large lag of CO2 responding to changes in temperature, which having just been looked up again by me is around 900 years minimum.

Which if the mechanism is long term ocean temp trends being indicators of CO2 storage, puts the kibosh to the idea the heat is being hidden in the ocean.

[MSimon]

Here is a graph of CO2 levels. Do you notice any decrease over past 17 years hiatus? I've plotted the ocean surface temp for you to compare:

Nice graph you got there. Now take a straight lie horizontally back from the last point on the graph and extend it back until it crosses the temperature line at the earliest point. Looks like 1997 to me. So let us see (roughly) 2014-1997 = 17 years ZERO warming. The models say 10 years of no warming is highly unlikely. 17 years is considerably beyond highly unlikely.

[MSimon]

tom,

"ocean + land index has not warmed over 15 years (bust because needs cherry-picked endpoints)"

Uh. Is today a cherry picked end point? If so why is it on your graph? (Hilarity ensues)

Is a line of zero slope cherry picked? (More hilarity ensues)

But you are correct CO2 is rising and ocean temps have flatlined for 17 years. Thank you for making my point.

[MSimon]

tom,

When you have to contradict one point of your argument to support another point your hypothesis is in trouble. Well actually it is falsified.

Now if the solar model is correct we can expect the trend of "CO2 rising" to continue while we are headed for a cold period.

But look at something else at woodfortrees. Get the finest grained data you can for temperatures and the same data for CO2. You will notice something interesting. There is a lag. About 3 months IIRC. The implication (it is not proof) is that CO2 is a response to temperature - not a driver.

It does fit our hypothesis (CO2 does not drive climate). It does not fit yours (CO2 causes global warming - in the modern era).

[tomclarke]

tom,

"ocean + land index has not warmed over 15 years (bust because needs cherry-picked endpoints)"

Uh. Is today a cherry picked end point? If so why is it on your graph? (Hilarity ensues)

Is a line of zero slope cherry picked? (More hilarity ensues)

I don't understand this: I'm saying the WUWT endpoints, which do not include today and are 2001 (strange number) - 2013 are cherry picked.

They give a slope of about 0, true.

I then tried the (less obviously cherry-picked) 2000-2014 and found + 0.13C/decade. Which is close to the average over many decades. My choice was arbitrary but I did not try more than one; i just added one year at each end. I was pretty sure WUWT had cherry-picked so badly that any change would give completely different results.

I was right.

In a very noisy graph of a time series such as global temperature, trends picked by choosing end-points are highly sensitive to which end-points you choose, especially over short times like 12 years as here.

There are better ways to get true best fit trends - which in this case would be maybe 0.6C/decade or so - but they are I guess not of interest to WUWT where an instant sound bite is what matters.

But you are correct CO2 is rising and ocean temps have flatlined for 17 years. Thank you for making my point.

I've never agreed that temps have flatlined, but there has certainly been a hiatus, with average increase maybe 1/2 to 1/3 of what it was in the 90s. You can see similar blips, of similar length, if you look back in the temperature graph. The difference is that we understand enough now about global climate to say why this one (and the previous ones) happen.

As for CO2 rising, the Mauna Loa observations indicate that, yes.