Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels. What does? — maybe ocean currents, phytoplankton, Australian deserts something else…
The Guardian trumpeted the rise of renewables as the reason man-made emissions of CO2 have stopped rising. Oh Bravo.
Graph — IEA
Note the success and grand achievement of trillions spent on expensive electricity and carbon trading programs — record global CO2.
Here’s the newest Mauna Loa figures showing an unprecedented high of 408 evil ppm, a tipping point, a sign of numerical doom. Run, run ye heathens!
…
Why are CO2 levels so high — A record El Nino in 2016 perhaps?
We need global anti-ENSO programs. Give us more money. Save the tradewinds!
Chinese Emissions? Take the emissions figures with a pound of salt. Carbon accounting is hopelessly inaccurate, China can’t be trusted, and everything else is a guess. How can we run a global market on figures so prone to corruption. Is China artificially elevating figures now so they can make cheap “reductions” in future, or are they underestimating figures to reduce the pressure on them to sign up? Could it be that they just can’t account due to the sheer difficulty of it in such a vast and varied economy?
Reuters: New study throws doubt on China car emissions data
Carbon emissions from cars in the Chinese city of Chengdu could be underestimated by more than half under conventional testing methods, according to the preliminary results of a study released on Wednesday.
The findings from the study in the central city were supported by a research arm of China’s top planning body using data from Uber and taxi firms.
It found that standard laboratory estimates of carbon emissions from cars were off by about 6,500 metric tonnes per day, or about 59 percent.
h/t to Willie Soon, Heartland and to GWPF.
The figures must be out there somewhere, BoM climate change personnel need a basis to distort for their media releases.
172
If you know where to look, the answer is obvious.
All the jetting around the world by the Klimate Faithful, smugly exhorting the rest of us (in their eyes, ‘the great, uneducated, unwashed’) not to jet around the world in order to supposedly save the planet.
When you include the Great Bore’s jet and other fossil fuel consumption along with that of his pals, I think you will find the global CO2 equation will balance.
214
4 legs good, 2 legs bad?
40
El Niño ?
00
A new paper out of ANU/WUWT is running the story and its clear that ENSO is a major amplifier.
‘Scientists have found past El Niño oscillations in the Pacific Ocean may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time.
‘The team uncovered century-scale patterns in Pacific rainfall and temperature, and linked them with global climate changes in the past 2000 years.
‘For example, northern hemisphere warming and droughts between the years 950 and 1250 corresponded to an El Niño-like state in the Pacific, which switched to a La Niña-like pattern during a cold period between 1350 and 1900.’
131
Yes, as I think I’ve said before (?), there is hard geological evidence in the form of carefully logged drill cores from both sides of the southern Pacific, that ENSO oscillations have been occurring for over 11,000 years now.
151
ENSO is not really an amplifier, more a reflection of the earth’s climate at any given time. The last line of this New Zealand paper admits that El Nino is more active during warmer years, like our Modern Climate Optimum.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n3/abs/nclimate1374.html
110
Delineating the cause(s) of ENSO is a long-running argument. The paper you referenced assumes it is not related to CO2-warming but is somehow more active in warmer climate times … I find that confused.
50
They talk of warming without mentioning its cause, nevertheless they genuflect to the grant god. This is interesting, seems to be of solar significance.
‘Our results indicate that the twentieth century was the most ‘ENSO-active’ century of the past 500 years, but may not be unique in the context of the past 700 years …’
51
Here is Gergis (SH hockey stick fame) and Fowler with more detail.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9476-z#/page-1
30
Hi I’m
29
“Hi I’m “….
ooh, can I please finish that sentence…
Jo, block you ears and eyes !!!
80
Ive spotted the problem. The headline should really read “Man-made emissions at record high and CO2 follows”
724
Why?
202
Because thats what it is
224
El Nino warming releasing CO2 from the oceans.
And of course a small addition of accidentally buried carbon from fossil fules.
Well done EL Nino, Well done fossil fuel users.
Once this anti-science, anti-CO2 scare is put to bed, hopefully we can push that aCO2 level up to 700, maybe even 800ppm. (Although I suspect the limit we can manage through fossil fuel use would be around 650ppm)
Imagine the massive plant growth from a semi-decent feed for a change.
303
Two years ago, NASA placed the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, or OCO-2, satellite in orbit to map CO2 in the planet’s atmosphere, to much fanfare about “watching the planet breathe.” They published one map soon afterwards and, basically, nothing since.
Eric Swenson said in this article on WattsUpWithThat:
Towards the bottom of the article, he shows a number of maps derived from the data. They are quite interesting.
One has to ask why NASA is so silent about “watching the planet breathe” after all the hype of finally getting the satellite into orbit. (The first one didn’t make it into orbit in 2009 as detailed in this NASA page. )
My Mark 1 eyeball of those graphs leaves me unconvinced the Fossil Fuels Scare has any real mileage in it, ie it’s not all caused by burning Fossil Fuels. There is a significant blob over the industrial area of China but my geographical knowledge of that area is insufficient to assign causes. There could be significant agriculture and forestry there as well. There are significant plumes emanating from the sea. There are other significant concentrations over rain forest. They are interesting.
The oceanic plumes can’t be of human origin.
So Why is NASA so silent?
Are they ashamed of their satellite?
Perhaps its evidence doesn’t support the narrative all that well, but that’s pure speculation on my part.
411
Sophocles @ # 4.1.1.2
One of the researchers at our local large state run Grains Research Institute went on a trip to China as an Agricultural adviser back in the early to mid 2000’s.
CO2 levels from Mauna Loa were around the 385 ppm or thereabouts if my memory still serves me OK.
But 200 or 300 kms almost due west of Beijing and way out in the agricultural areas he measured over 420 ppm of CO2.
What he took or borrowed or used as CO2 measuring instrument I don’t know.
But the message was that there are huge variations in CO2 right on down to the local and regional levels, something that was never admitted by the climate scientists of the period.
262
ROM
Reference here via those satellites to Qld being a net CO2 sink
http://www.beefcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Vegetation-Management-in-Queensland-Background-notes-for-State-MPs-Jan-2016-update.pdf
which would seem to argue against uniform levels in the atmosphere
30
You have hit on a key point. The AGW alarmists are notably dogmatic about the contention that CO2 is “well mixed” all around the globe as if all new emissions of CO2 were immediately dispersed globally, and by the same token, any local measurement (e.g. at Mauna Loa) necessarily reflected the global concentration. There probably is a baseline global concentration of CO2 which is a function of the aggregate partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effectiveness of atmospheric turbulence as a dispersal agent, both of which are moderated by the rate at which CO2 is sequestered into carbon sinks such as the oceans and living organisms.
00
As I recall there was a significant bloom over Africa – likely from locals burning plants for fuel or agricultural clearing or both.
91
If anyone is interested, you can find an HDF viewer here:
https://www.hdfgroup.org/products/java/hdfview/
Once you have the viewer up and running, you can export the data to a text file and then import it into Excel.
101
The much maligned Murry Salby pointed out in his Hamburg address, and elsewhere, that the highest concentration of atmospheric CO2 is not over the industrial areas of the world, where one would expect them to be if the anthropogenic theory were correct, but over the rainforest areas of equatorial Africa, SE Asia and the Amazon Basin.
In addition, the rate of the annual, measured net increase from all sources of CO2 concentration is linear at approximately 2ppm pa, whereas the increase due to human sources is exponential. On this ground alone, I would suggest that the anthro theory is highly suss!
120
“Because thats what it is”…
And THAT is the limits of CS’s scientific input !!!
142
Said with fingers firmly in ears, face all screwed up and accompanied feet stamping.
72
I says …’that’s what it isn’t’!
50
“Because thats what it is”, don’t embarrass yourself Jo, we’ve got a real Melvin B. Tolson here. 🙂
113
Why? because it is as indicated by the Scripps Institute re Mauna Loa, not by further absurd postulations from the ignorant minority
618
Oh well. That does it then. Two monotonically rising lines, smoothed-to-buggery, adjust the scales til they fit. Et voila!
You are not very good at the cause-and-effect stuff are you silly?
252
Dear Silly Filly I will just quote you again from your post @ # 4.1.3
And now from the The Hill, the American Congressional reporting news sheet.
Climate is the most Divisive issue;
Maybe you don’t understand what is happening Silly Filly but the science is changing as are the people’s views on your climate change ideology.
More and more of the ordinary people no longer believe much of what you say and claim about the climate.
You and your ilk in fact are now becoming the “deniers”, the “minority” who are denying the fact that science is now beginning to clearly show that the CO2 emmissions from mankind are only having a small effect if any on the global climate and the deniers who are denying that the global climate is always changing quite naturally in ways that no one can or has predicted.
And denying that the climate has always changed quite naturally so and will always continue to do so.
Welcome to the “deniers” Silly Filly.
I hope that as a new chum “denier” of the now shifting and changing climate science you will enjoy the slagging of your pedigree and person that your fellow travellers and yourself have been so ready to dish out to the skeptics in the past.
100
OT.. I hope people have seen this..
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-08/great-barrier-reef-survey-off-north-qld-finds-increase-coral/7492870
112
Andy
FYI – more on this
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/another_university_shuts_down_a_sceptic/
20
“global CO2 hits record high”
And plants can FINALLY breathe..
Isn’t it absolutely wonderful 🙂
Well done all you fossil fuel users. 🙂
304
The problem is this, as I see it.
Human emissions of CO2 are static but atmospheric CO2 levels are accelerating (ie increasing at an increasing rate).
That seems to me to require a better explanation for CO2 levels than just human emissions. Atmospheric temperature does not explain it either since UAH global temperatures have been essentially static for 20 years.
Any better ideas anybody?
171
Maybe the the fact that their measuring station is on a volcano that last erupted in the 80s and volcanoes are well known for outputting CO2 has something to do with it.
102
As CO2 lags temperature, the current CO2 levels continue to rise in keeping with the known increase in temp since LIA. Changes in air temperature generally occur between 800 – 2800 ± 200 yrs.
112
The direct relationship is between the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and temperature anomaly:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah/offset:0.6/scale:0.22
Such a relationship naturally arises via temperature modulation of THC transport.
20
Trouble reading the above graphs climatesceptic?
44
Big problem is that according the theory CO2 affects global temperature and this feedback is supposedly quite tightly linked.
However as shown by all global CO2 records the so call ‘global temperature’ fails to track the rise and falls of the CO2 level variation over time.
Temperatures vary at rates that appear independent of CO2 rates. The record of measured parameters shows that they do not correlate in the short term (1-50 years) or medium term (50-200 years).
Long term records (more than 1k years), and very long term reconstructions from proxies (100k years+) show some correlation but with a large lagging time frame added to the CO2 parameter.
60
The increase in CO2 was never due to humans and therein lies the basic reason why alarmism is rubbish.
22
The recognition seems to be finally sinking in that the IPCC predictions are not going to be realised and, probably more important, Paris looks like repeating the Kyoto failure.
I have noticed alarmists employ different approaches but the general narratives seems to be a combination of (a) the IPCC scenarios were overcautious and/or (b) that finally all their fine efforts at limiting emissions are bearing fruit.
The fact is of course that the CO2 concentration continues to follow the linear trajectory with no sign of a slowdown as the graph shows.
172
Paris and Kyoto a failure? I guess it is all relative … it could have been a lot worse. We could have signed up loony policies enforcing unachievable renewables targets within 10-20 years.
141
You mean the ones that Malcolm (and Greg) and Bill Shorten and Richard DiN and Premier Dill from Victoria are all planning?
241
“Planning”? Ahem…
The “Team Turnbull” carbon trading scheme, rushed through parliament on last sitting day in December, comes into operation on July 1, one day before the election. It even uses the same financial instruments as the carbon trading of the Gillardio-Kruddulence era.
Laboral or Labor? Hooray! At this election we get a choice of buckets! Sadly they’re both full of the same —-
Vote Defcon[1]. Let 2019 be the decider.
130
It was not rushed through, as far as I can tell. It is not an Act of Parliament.
Parliament never even saw it. It is an instrument (Rule) made pursuant to an Act passed under the Gillard government. It is all the work of Greg Hunt.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01637
80
The problem is CO2 rises because it is released from natural sources as temperature rises. That will slow down once there is cooling. And just like the rooster causing the sun to rise, alarmists will take credit for that as well.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/wave-drowns-co2-warming/
231
Thanks for that Ron, good stuff.
60
There seems to be an endless supply of those “suns”.
There’s a new one comes up every day.
80
Hey we cant have those suns…you know it heats the planet and amplifies carbon polltion worse…..lets campaign for putting a big sheet of plastic over the planet to reduce global heating…..
Well…it makes as much sense as any of the nonsense the IPCC has produced, anyways……
/sarc
70
We have a quiet sun. Earth’s magnetic field is relaxed. More ‘cosmic rays’ are reaching the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 levels are increasing. Might be an idea to check for 14CO2 in the upper air. Mauna Loa being so high up will see it first.
121
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_nuclide
11
“Cosmic rays cause spallation when a ray particle (e.g. a proton) impacts with matter, including other cosmic rays. The result of the collision is the expulsion of large numbers of nucleons (protons and neutrons) from the object hit. This process goes on not only in deep space, but in Earth’s upper atmosphere and crustal surface (typically the upper ten meters) due to the ongoing impact of cosmic rays.”
40
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
30
Interesting links ren. Beyond my ability to take full advantage. I’m curious to know the rate of 14CO2 creation as compared to man’s production of fossil CO2. The production of 14CO2 must be quite substantial as ALL living creatures take up this molecule to leave in the geological record.
10
Oh no! We’ve hit the tipping point and now we’re trapped in a positive feedback loop where nature will continue to drive up CO2 levels no matter what we do!
Woe! Despair!
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Let’s get on with life, forgot renewables, keep using fossil fuels (until they get the regulators out of the way for nuclear electricity generation) and forget this CO2 stuff since we can’t do anything about it, anymore. 😀
182
Various and sundry “expert” troughers with no substantiated or relevant qualifications of any sort go on at great length usually with an assumed and completely unsubstantiated claims to authority about the dangers of rising CO2 emissions.
This is accompanied with a carefully crafted guilt enhancing patter that is supposed to convey both a substantial guilt about our personal activities and induce a fear into each of us about an impending, always impending global catastrophe if we don’t stop it!
And thats completely separate from going blind if we don’t stop it!
We are to be very fearful at those enormous tonnages of the nasty “carbon” we are emitting as the “climate experts” so regularly tell us in the media so we must be very fearful about not DOING the RIGHT THING by the planet if we continue with those terrible “carbon emissions” that will DESTROY the PLANET.
“Carbon” tonnage numbers that supposedly illustrate the true horror of what we, thats each of us to ensure a feeling of personal guilt, are doing to the PLANET with our disgusting coal burning and our very pauperous level of tax payer finance needed to install huge numbers of those Carbon Free [ sic ] Renewable Energy wind turbines and solar panels to replace those huge tonnages of planet destroying “carbon” that are emmitted by burning those terrible “carbon” emitting fossil fuels.
Figures and tonnages of Carbon emissions to the alarmist and greens are a bit like fleas on a dog, the climate alarmists just can’t avoid spreading those numbers around of the vast emissions of carbon from fossil fuels along with predictions of grandiose future carbon tonnages about how Carbon emissions will DESTROY the PLANET.
And we can be assured that the tonnages of carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels as well as numerous other sources are very accurately measured and calculated by “climate scientists.”
After all they believe the “science” don’t they and the “science is settled” isn’t it as Silly Filly and Frank and a few others like them regularly will tell us.
And we have all those “carbon calculators” that you can google to see just what sort of evil planet destroying a***h**e we really are with our carbon emissions.
As I have never seen or heard of an industrial scale carbon dioxide measuring instrument or system I thought I had better see what one of those things look like as well as how they work particularly after reading how the Cape Grim CO2 measuring station on Tasmania’s north western corner takes bottled air samples from various heights and sends them to the USA to be calibrated and the CO2 content and other gases that are components of the air samples collected at Cape Grim to have them measured in a measuring and calibration laboratory.
Well I didn’t get a surprise at all as it was just as I have long suspected;
——————
From the University of Cambridge
How do you measure carbon dioxide emissions?
Question
How do countries measure their carbon dioxide emissions?
.
Answer
——————
So there you have it!
Another of those alarmist climate science furthies and certitudes that are a little short of straight out gross misrepresentations on “carbon” emmission tonnages that to say the least are nothing more than a plain straight out estimated / modelled and ultimately guessed at carbon emission tonnage numbers from all the numerous CO2 sources that can be found everywhere at any time.
Claims of tonnage’s which have been taken in good faith by the public as being accurately measured and known of that nefarious “carbon” supposedly emmitted by something, somewhere.
And Tonnages and numbers which have never been verified or substantiated in any way by measuring extensively across whole industries and nations anywhere.
But this is of course the all embracing major science discipline of “Climate alarmist science” as promoted by all those self promoting climate alarmist “Climate experts” shysters and troughers who along with the elitist left media do nothing more than pretend that they are qualified to give climate advice to the public, the media, the politicals, industry and etc.
202
ROM,
The link to how do you measure co2 does not work.
40
try this one
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2517/
21
Rom – this is how NOAA at Mauna Loa claims to do it – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html – “How does the CO2 analyzer work? Air is slowly pumped through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. In the atmosphere carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, contributing to warming of the earth surface. Also in the cell CO2 absorbs infrared light. More CO2 in the cell causes more absorption, leaving less light to hit the detector. We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures.”
So anything blocking the infrared is CO2. Simple!!
51
So as the CO2 absorbs the infrared radiation does the temperature rise in the cylinder?
71
I mean with only 8-12 microns to play with the CO2 would need a very small cylinder to justify any claims of warming.
51
The alarmists need to be reminded that the human caused emissions of CO2 are irrelevant to the science of GHG global warming. It’s the increase in the atmospheric concentration of the stuff that’s supposed to do the trick.
How much of that annual increase comes from human emissions and how much from natural sources is anyone’s guess. What is not in dispute is that though the atmospheric increase in CO2 has been rising significantly for decades it can readily be shown to have had no significant effect on global temperature. So much for the validity of the GHG science of CO2 in a highly complex Earth climate system.
102
‘How much of that annual increase comes from human emissions and how much from natural sources is anyone’s guess.’
Convincing the media that the human induced CO2 is swamping the planet wasn’t too hard, in fact our small addition is probably close to three percent. This from Jeff Id.
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and stratosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”
Alternatively, the Klimatariat acknowledges that our small contribution may not seem much but its upset the natural balance.
121
OB Thanks for the correction
My bad somewhere.
Try this;
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2517/
31
Goofed again
#10 is a reply to OB @ # 8.1
30
A red or a white ?? 😉
30
Hi Rom, didn’t see your correction down here. 🙂
30
A good Port!
50
🙂
30
Any port, in a storm.
40
As a friend has been known to say – “If there is nothing else around “99” is a good port”
30
OT.. for the US guys here (and gals 😉 )
all reliable US temperature data , {USCRN, UAH (USA48,49), RSS (ContUS)} …
… show a NEGATIVE ANOMALY for May..
in order: -0.200, -0.54, -0.08, -0.384
90
So are these temperatures tracking the variation in CO2 level?
Can such short-term variations in CO2 affect global temperatures? If so where are the measurements to show correlation of these parameters tracking each other.
If they correlate, what are the time elements involved — time for temperature to affect CO2 level and/or vice versa?
So many questions, so little measured evidence — lots of unverified, unvalidated modeled guesswork though.
50
The problem is, the problem is not carbon (sic), either in the past …
UCLA, 2009: “The last time (at least 15 million years ago) carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today (387ppm) — and were sustained at those levels —
– global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today,
– the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today,
– there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic
– and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.”
~ ~ ~
… or the future: [Global Warming] Is Already Here, Says Massive Government Report
~ ~ ~
97% Global Warming scientists implore us to “look out the window”. OK … good idea … The Scientific Method:
“If it (observation) disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
. . .
Conclusion from observations:
1. If, @408ppm, today’s global temps are not 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher, nor sea levels 75 to 120 feet higher, or … very little of Arctic, Greenland, Antarctic … observation disagrees with experiment.
2. If today’s sea levels are ‘future sea levels here, now’, then, what’s the problem? Sea levels seem stable into the future.
Therefore, observation disagrees with experiment of high sea level predictions, here now.
120
OK, so the dinosaurs didn’t die out from some catastrophic meteor impact, but because they were incapable of adapting to their changing environment. Given the environment on earth is a variable why would we want to be dinosaurs. OK we learnt how to set fire to fossil fuels. However cleaner more efficient energy sources are available to those prepared to innovate and adapt.
26
“However cleaner more efficient energy sources are available ”
No there are not.
Coal is the most efficient energy source after nuclear.
Modern coal fired power plants produce only tiny amounts of pollution, the only major emissions being H20 and CO2 plant life food.
So-called renewables are not even in the race, they are a money pit, a subsidy sucker, with only environmental devastation in their wake.
161
And so called renewables are intermittent, don’t operate
w/out fossil fuel back up.The Guardian trumpeting is heedless
of ramping when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.
100
Try this link for starters ‘Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste’
Abstract;
Manufacturing wind turbines is a resource-intensive process. A typical wind turbine contains more than 8,000 different components, many of which are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete. One such component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals.
Now do a similar searches on Solar then the money wasted/rorted on so called renewables that could have gone into much needed funding for fixing real problems that impact real people in the real world!
110
Man’s wisp of CO2 can’t be the cause,
Of global warming and the great long Pause.
120
Short but good! An essential question.
40
The mismatch between CO2 increases and our emissions has been pointed out by quite a few people, here, here (page needs translating) and Salby of course.
61
The global distribution of CO2 measurements is not even. Most measurement stations are located in Europe or the US, for example, so official measurements are for these places, not the rest of the world. Also they tend to use the main one, the Mauna Loa measurement station to represent the world’s entire atmosphere. This is a huge stretch and is certainly contestable. Here measurements are taken at just one place, in the high atmosphere, on a volcano. It has never been proven that CO2 is distributed evenly above a certain altitude. This discounts surface measurements by looking only at high-altitude measurements where there are updraft winds.
Also it has been found that CO2 concentrations constantly vary, from one place to another and from one time to another, just as temperatures do.
So, as CO2 data is collected at only a small number of observatories, and then processed and ‘homogenised’ like temperature data with half the entries averaged and mixed with non averaged entries, claims that published CO2 data are representative of the global value is an absurdity.
91
A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5, 6. However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond. Judicious use of this rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html
21
What about bollocks emissions?
40
Morning all.
Here’s a fun, fast fact: There is 50 tonnes of CO2 in the world’s oceans for every tonne of it in the atmosphere.
And another fun fast fact: Henry’s Law states that the equilibrium between solution and vapour phases is related to the temperature of the liquid.
In other words, the warmer it gets, the more CO2 is transferred to the atmosphere. And, as we can see, there’s plenty in the oceans. That’ll do it…
Cheers,
Speedy
120
I’ve been thinking that for years. I always wondered why nobody else seemed to be thinking it too…
60
No grants following that line of thought Uncle Gus.
40
Speedy @ # 19 is spot on the money with his comment above;
And even worse than the estimated, guesstimated, modelled, on a decreasing scale of the accuracy, of the atmospheric distribution of CO2 concentrations, is the lack of any comphrehensive realistic knowledge let alone substantial data for the distribution and the locations and where and how deep are the concentrations of CO2 in the world’s oceans that cover nearly 80% of the global surface.
Quoted variously from the following Water Encyclopedia entry;
And as usual especially for an article written in the early 2000’s, a bow to the reigning CO2 from fossil fuels paradigm is made to ensure the covering of encyclopedic backsides.
——————-
Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean and Atmosphere
selected quotes ]
——–
And from NASA’s Earth Observatory site circa 2008
The Oceans Carbon Balance
[ selected quotes ]
30
Good stuff, ROM. I have become somewhat notorious in WUWT-land for doggedly maintaining for many years now that the very clear relationship between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah/offset:0.6/scale:0.22
indicates that atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely governed by temperature modulation of ocean currents. It couldn’t be more obvious, but it is amazing the extent to which people will go to deny the obvious.
The relationship holds through the latest El Nino temperature rise. This El Nino has been masking the downward phase of the ~65 year temperature cycle which peaked somewhere in the last decade. As La Nina kicks in, we are going to see a marked deceleration in atmospheric CO2, possibly even a transition to a negative rate of change. Then, finally, maybe people will put away their preconceptions and begin to assess the implications seriously.
One of those implications is that sensitivity of global temperatures to CO2 is either insignificant or even negative. Otherwise, there would be a positive feedback loop that could not be stabilized even by T^4 radiation loss, and we would have saturated the temperature-CO2 dynamic eons ago.
20
Well I’ve tried to use that 50:1 CO2 ratio to freak out merchants for years- asking for a reasoned response.Norhing but gnashing of teeth,or utter disbelief and ridicule.”I don’t want to talk about it” is the usual response. Sheesh.
20
I’ve never understood the new certainty (even among dedicated sceptics) that the CO2 rise derives from industrial emissions.
The argument seems to be that, since there is an increased isotopic signature typical of burning fossil fuels, the increase must be man-made. But of course there is an increased signature. We’ve been burning more coal and oil than in previous decades. It’s still a miniscule part of the planetary CO2 economy. In order for it to be the cause, there would have to be virtually no negative feedbacks in that system, which doesn’t square with what (little) we know about how a living planet works.
I don’t say it’s impossible. It’s just the certainty that baffles me.
81
“Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2015.png
40
The other day, I bought a Met Office publication entitled ‘The Met Office Book of the British Weather’ , authored by John Prior and edited by Sarah Tempest (2010). There are plenty of very nice illustrations showing how much temperatures, wind, rainfall vary over the UK. – a lot of work has clearly gone into the data gathering by the scientific and technical staff at the Met Office.
Then, on page 158, we get the unscientific section. It’s carefully worded propaganda, with all the hoary old nonsense we’ve heard so much of down the years mixed in with some factual content. I herby throw it to all you wolves out there – shred it at your leisure.
Here we go:
“The Earth’s climate has changed many times in response to natural causes. The term ‘climate change’ usually refers to man-made changes that have occurred in the last 100 years. Human activities such as burning coal, oil and gas have led to an increase in atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gases, such as carbon dioxide. As a result, there has been an increase in average temperatures, which is continuing. Globally, the temperature has risen by about 0.8° since the late 19th century, with the decade 2000-2009 the warmest in the 160-year old record. Even temperature changes that small could have serious consequences around the world, particularly for health, agriculture and the natural environment.
To help monitor changes in Britain, we can use the Central England Temperature (CET) series from 1659. For recent years this has been calculated from observations made at weather stations in Hertfordshire, Worcestershire and Lancashire. Long-term changes in the CET represent those across most of the country. After a period of stability for most of the 20th century, the CET has increased by about 1°C since the 1970s. The warmest year in this 350-year series was 2006, with several other recent years and their seasons among the top ten warmest. Studies have shown that this observed rate of warming cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.
The UK Climate Projections released in 2009 (UKCP09) provide information on how Britain’s climate is likely to change in the 21st century, as it responds to rising levels of greenhouse gases. The projections were produced from the results of multiple runs of a global climate model developed by the Met Office Hadley Centre and runs of 12 of the world’s other leading climate models. UKCP09 is a climate analysis tool that features the most comprehensive climate projections ever produced, explaining the likelihood of different levels of climate change in terms of the potential ranges. Uncertainty in projections arises from natural climate variability, incomplete representation of the Earth’s climate in models and uncertainty in future man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
Changes predicted by the climate models are likely to result in significant impacts and the UKCP09 projections are made available through the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP). This is a government-funded organisation that helps policy and decision makers in the public and private sectors to understand and plan for the effects of climate change, aiming to minimise any negative impacts and make the most of any positive ones.
We already have plenty of examples of the impact of extreme weather in Britain. Intense heat waves, such as that of 2003, can put a strain on the health, fire, and transport services. Floods, such as those of summer 2007, can cause millions of pounds worth of damage to homes, businesses, and the road network as well as interrupting water and power supplies.
Everyone in Britain will notice changes. In winter, we may not need to heat our homes and offices so much, but more air conditioning might be required in summer. Gardeners and growers will benefit from a longer growing season and the opportunity to cultivate new crops, but the increased risk of summer heat waves and winter floods will not be so welcome.
We’ll see changes in nature too – to the times that trees are in leaf and plants in flower and fruit, to the migration of birds and insects and to the marine life off our shoreline. The winners and losers in a changing climate are yet to be discovered, but one thing we can be sure of – throughout the 21st century, the British will still be talking about the weather!”
80
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim.html
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.6.9.2016.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/index.html
10
Thanks, ren. I didn’t see this in the weekend papers. Was that only because I wasn’t paying attention? Or was the news too bad for them?
00
Summer of Finland.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BGbUIC8NNQx/
50
Amazing Ren;
CAGW causing HOT SNOW in Finland?
Freezing in Summer?
Who could have thought that
It’s getting colder
51
Dave perhaps soon Australia will be ideal to live?
10
What ya mean, “soon”
Already is at the moment… unless Turnbull or Shorten are the next PM 🙁
30
Sorry, sorry!
10
It’s the economic forecast. Cold, etc….
00
Which brings up the question, what data? Everyone has data or says they have. But there is too much conflicting data and worse, conflicting interpretations of data. Everyone is an expert or an acolyte of an expert. And as a recent visitor to this very blog pointed out, you can’t tell that anything has changed. Talk about your, “…out of the mouths of children.”
So what actually has changed? Taxation and regulation are higher. Wasted money is now at an astronomical dollar amount. Renewable energy is being shoved down our throats, willing or not. The landscape in many places is doted with windmills, many of which are not running because they don’t pay for themselves and many are just rotting away from neglect. Production of magnets for these windmills’ generators has polluted a now quite large area around the plant in China where those magnets are made. Manufacturing of PV cells also has a waste product that is pure pollution. The cost of electricity is higher than ever but its availability is lower than ever. People are having to choose between eating and staying warm in some places. The gap between the rhetoric and observable reality is wider than ever. Those who don’t want to go along with the grand CO2 reduction plan are threatened, with some of the more powerful spokesmen for the cause of reason soon enough to be under the threat of real legal action against them. Every pipsqueak cause is demonstrating or worse, rioting, sometimes while government winks and looks the other way. Real problems are not being solved in favor of garbage complaints from those no one would have listened to just 5 or 10 years ago. It’s now more important to put a woman in the White House than it is to have a president who can cope with our real problems. Ad infinitum; ad nauseam and ad stupidium (do a Google search). And that last is perhaps the worst insult of them all, ad stupidium. The level of discourse is down to name calling and shooting the messenger.
Does that accurately sum up what has really changed? So emissions were flat for a while but the CO2 level went up. Does it matter? I say no, emphatically no! But still this carbon battle goes on. We’re not in the hands of the inmates of this asylum we call Earth anymore, not even in the hands of a decent chimp. We’re in the hands of the nearest fence post as far as common sense leadership goes — or is it even worse than a fence post, a rock maybe or a snail hiding under my wife’s flowers?
I hate to contemplate the deadly reckoning that will happen if anything even close to good honest justice starts to happen.
Sorry but we do need to get angry. And I’m already there.
81
Believe it or not, stupidium actually exists and has an atomic number. It may be in some dispute as to the correct value but that’s only because sufficient research has yet to be done. And yes, someone with nothing better to do actually looks out for these little details (don’t you wish you had such a cushy job?).
Its atomic number is 81.5.
Have fun. You might as well. Nothing else seems to be productive.
81
Personally, after much investigation of stupidium in my own lab using all the latest equipment, gizmos, ad hominem attacks and political BS, I have determined that its atomic number is -1. Why? Because it not only doesn’t contribute anything useful to the periodic table, it has a usefulness less than any other element and since nothing can have zero as its atomic number, it must be negative. And measurements taken backward in my lab on account of it’s being less useful than H, do indeed confirm that it is -1. Those mass spectrometer gadgets are amazing.
Ain’t science grand? 🙂
And it’s almost the weekend so maybe the moderators will wink and let this all go through.
91
And as you will no doubt see, it really was all Bush’s fault after all.
60
Which Bush?
30
Gotta have been Moses BURNING bush. Sorry CO2 made me do it.
60
George H.W. Bush maybe?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the Bush 41document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
30
The UN has been handed control of the USA by a US president?
20
It was a maybe, a shocking thought really, almost as shocking as Australians not being able to directly elect their head of state….
30
KK, TedM,
It can’t be Anheuser Busch, I heard they’ve stopped brewing and fled the scene of the crime. Too bad too. They made my favorite beer, Michelob. It must have been Charlie Bush, one of my neighbors who inadvertently messed around with something he shouldn’t have while poking around on the Internet one day. The Whole neighborhood lit up like a Christmas Tree and the police were here to find out what happened. But since the button he pushed was on a public web site no charges have been filed — yet anyway. You never know these days, do you? 🙁
Seriously though, there are still people blaming everything on Bush, George Bush, you know, the one who drinks his martinis shaken, not stirred. Oh! Wait another minute. That’s 007. Now you’ve got me all confused again. Nuts. Moneypenny, where are you when I need you ???
PS: I changed Charlie’s name to protect the guilty — good neighbor policy, PC and all that you know.
50
The Wall Street Journal has an opinion blog by James Taranto titled Best of the Web. Using many sub-headings he presents odd things, and one of the sub-headings is “We Blame George W. Bush.” Another is “We Blame Global Warming.”
Here are today’s entries:
~~~~~
We Blame George W. Bush
“Stop Comparing Bernie Sanders to Ralph Nader: If Clinton Loses She Has Only Herself to Blame”—headline, Salon, June 9
We Blame Global Warming
“Chicago Among Cities With Largest Share of Underwater Homeowners, Studies Show”—headline, Chicago Tribune, June 10
~~~~~
Maybe Roy Hogue is channeling James Taranto.
30
More likely this Roy Hogue fellow has a few bearings seized up and needs some oiling. Maybe a front end alignment too. Add an attitude adjustment for good measure.
Or maybe he’s just become full up to his ears with the nonsense (being PC again) that passes for adult behavior that he sees every day.
Or maybe he just can’t pass up an opportunity to act like a comedian, even though he’s not. 🙂
20
Roy,
Stupidium is the only known element to react with the rare near sub-atomic particle of Pontificatium. Pontificatium has long been hypothesized but only with the discovery of Stupidium was it confirmed. Pontificatium is truly remarkable in that, it appears to offer credence to the idea that God really has a sense of humor, and being as it is an agglomeration of particles and antiparticles held together by a Gordian knot of rigidly structured dark energy formed into strange matter. Reactions with Stupidium are measured by the sudden collapse of a perfect vacuum and the release of anti-photons tuned exactly to the CO2 infra-red spectrum. Coincidentally a by-product of this reaction is an increase of unimaginatein proteins in higher mammal brains.
70
ToM
Thanks – I had to save that
10
Gulp!
Save it??? I wish I could understand it. I wish I’d thought of it. Good one Tom!
Pontificatium does seem to be a part of the problem though. Maybe we can find a non-static subatomic electrochemical photovoltaic inverse impulse momentum conserving reaction that will neutralize it. Some dark matter can probably be used as a catalyst to jumpstart the process.
The grant money shouldn’t be a problem since it will only take 2 or 3 billion to acquire the necessary equipment and do the research. And no one minds wasting that kind of money anymore.
Or maybe we should quit before Jo sends for the men with the net. 🙂 or ;-), whatever is appropriate.
10
RH
Some western countries, like Australia, have’nt had a recession for about 25 years. There is now a whole generation of young adults that do not know the meaning of adversity. In other words they tend to think public money and wealth will always be there and just appears as if it sort of miraculously comes down from the sky or is grown on some special farm somewhere. Hence the proliferation of the progressive entitlement mentality in western countries. This has had a growing influence on politics in recent years and now, temporarily, the agenda will be run by stupid ideas instead of evolutionary natural selection. That is, until the next recession or depression makes evolution the main driver of progress again. Growth – recession, progress followed by cleansing, over and over again in history, everything in the universe is cyclical.
90
We’ve been in recession here for a long time now but that doesn’t stop those youngsters from thinking the government can still hand out the goodies forever. 20 trillion and counting. One of you poets should get to work on that one. There ought to be a good limerick in there somewhere.
A few years ago I couldn’t even get my head around a number that big and now I’m in debt for that much with more to go. So let the cleansing begin. The sooner the better as with any bitter pill one must swallow.
I did get one good piece of news today. A local real estate agent’s flyer says home prices are up 20%. As if it matters in the larger scheme, of course.
60
It’s called Keynesian economics……….always around at the end of a growth period, designed to keep the good times rollin and ensuring that the next inevitable recession is deeper. The opposition is basing their whole campaign policy on this Keynesian approach in the Aust federal election coming up in three weeks time.
Although that number (20 trillion) is so big, you wonder what sort of recession can fix that.
40
It’s a billion:1 that Keynesian probabilities are more incorrect than just wrong!
40
What replaced cents in the ALP lexicon?
Billions
10
Party politics
Excellent song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3VLqLLWxbQ&authuser=0
10
ElNino, warmer equatorial Pacific, Henry’s Law. High School science, the real stuff. Can’t be true it does’t fit the politics.
51
Just another thought. As the warm water comes to the surface during an ElNino, being spread out on the surface of the equatorial Pacific it is now under less pressure than it was when it was at depth. That water was just waiting to come to the surface and to be under less pressure, so that it could release some of that nasty CO2.
Henry was a smart guy. Pity he wasn’t still around to advise our climate catastrophists.
81
Off Topic;
.
I’m not sure who is running the Tasmanian Hydro but whoever is in charge must be incompetent or just out of his cotton picking mind.
The Saturday Australian
Hydro Tasmania seeded clouds before fatal floods, despite forecast
a / 80 to 100 mms or more of rainfall were forecast by the BOM over the catchment areas prior to them being cloud seeded.
b / Cloud seeding by the Hydro over the past few decades has increased rainfall by a claimed 8% in the target areas.
c / it looks like a major legal case might be being mounted against the Hydro from those who lost buildings and stock and other infrastructure in the floods that followed the very heavy rain fall in the cloud seeded catchment.
And this on top of arguably burning out the Bass Strait interlink power cable with the greedy desire to maximise their income from selling their “carbon free” [ sarc ] hydro power to the mainland states makes the Tasmanian hydro look like it is being run by a modern off shoot of the long past Goon Show
101
Tasmanian Hydro might be solar powered?????
ie, it only works when the sun comes up.
50
Water and electricity dont mix…..
30
“Water and electricity don’t mix…..” were the last words heard from UN researchers from the Science Consensus Council investigating electric eels…
80
Oh dear!……… It wasn’t climate change that caused the floods in Tasmania this week after all.
It was cloud seeding!
51
Increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely due to increased equatorial Pacific temperatures resulting in water holding less CO2. That should reduce as we head toward La Nina conditions.
As ocean water cools, it will hold more CO2.
10
The rise in the Mauna Loa graph seems to be constant doesn’t it—with little or no acceleration after the year when modern measurement began—1958—and that doesn’t seem consistent with variable world industrial emissions that would have accelerated since 1958 would they not?
Surely it’s at least mostly natural—outgassing from oceans warmed by the regular natural cycles and oscillations and shifts like the warming Great Pacific Climate Shift in the late 70s and the uber ElNino in 97/98.
Seems to me the reported plateau in emissions proves the atmospheric CO2 doesn’t correlate.
10
truth: You might well be interested in this: meteorologist William James Burroughs in his book ‘Climate Change’ (Cambridge University Press, 2001) notes the following. He says (p227) that “…closer examination of the Mauna Loa data shows that the rate has fluctuated dramatically with rapid growth rates in the late 1980s and a marked slow down in the early 1990s. These fluctuations have not been explained but suggest complicated feedback mechanisms between short-term climatic variations (e.g. the ENSO) and the uptake of carbon in the biosphere”.
00
[…] aussi élevée (408 ppm). D’où la question posée par la journaliste Jo Nova dans un article de son blog : quelle est la part réelle des émissions anthropiques […]
00