Uncategorized

Hi Jennifer,

Following on from the discussion at ‘Carbon Dioxide versus Temperature’ I have done two plots first is the normalises annual mean CO2 growth rate with annual fossil fuel usage the second is normalised CO2 mean growth rate compared with sea surface mean temperature anomalies.

First FYI the provenance of the data in some the actual data is ftp and current that causes safari to crash the links to actual data are in the page.

For fossil fuel usage: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

For mean annual growth rate of CO2: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

For mean annual sea surface temperature: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

The covariance for this is .63. The motivation for comparing annual growth rate with usage is that if there is a relationship the difference if any will be due to what is actually put into the atmosphere this assumes (quite wrongly of course) that all the other sources and sinks are inactive. So the caveat here is there will be much more actually influencing CO2 concentrations and the correlation could well be meaningless or due to common factors if there is indeed a link. Bottom line is that apart from the general trend (which leads to the relatively high covariance) the growth rate varies much more than growth in usage and the CO2 peaks and troughs don’t match and I expect that if the data is detrended the covariance will be much smaller. I don’t have time to check this as I have to finish packing and putting stuff out for council clean up.

This has a better covariance of .73 (correlation is the same) but as I suspected we don’t see any lag. This is because there is a single data point at each year for each series and any lag less than year is likely to be completely obliterated. Since the CO2 levels have an annual cycle superimposed on the long term trend any such lag will be buried in the “noise”. However we do have a physical (chemical) link with partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 and concentration in solution that is also temperature sensitive this needs more work than I have time for at the moment. There is however this http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html . Where he plots concentration versus temperature difference from the vostok ice core, below I plot temperature versus concentration difference which is better I don’t know yet and I did it this way because that’s the way I had the data loaded I’ll look more closely when I get back [from Bellengen].

Looks similar to Jeffry Glasman’s maybe it makes no difference but I’ll have to convince my self of that on.

Cheers,
Jan Pompe

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.

——————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002820.html
—————————————————————————————————————-

The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.

The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.

The goals of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change are:

1. to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected “other side” of the climate change debate;

2. to sponsor presentations and papers that make genuine contributions to the global debate over climate change;

3. to share the results of the conference with policymakers, civic and business leaders, and the interested public as an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate; and

4. to set the groundwork for future conferences and publications that can turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference questioning global warming alarmism, but it will not be the last one. This event is intended to be a catalyst for future meetings, collaboration among scientists, economists, and policy experts, new research, and new publications.

The proceedings will be transcribed, edited, and published as a major contribution to the debate over global warming. Other possible follow-up activities now being discussed include:

1. an event in London in 2009;

2. launch of a new journal devoted to climate change;

3. launch of an association of philanthropists willing to support further research and public education opposing global warming alarmism;

4. support for an International Climate Science Coalition that will act as an alternative voice to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and

5. expanded cooperation among the scores of organizations currently sponsoring research, publications, and events on the dubious claims in support of the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.

James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute

For more information visit: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm

I will be there.

—————–
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

February 25, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: I’m off to New York
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002787.html

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002820.html

According to Lance Endersbee:

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are damped by the oceans.

The oceans are a huge source and sink for volatile gases.

The surface area of the oceans is vast in relation to the depth of the oceans and the atmosphere.

Thus we are dealing with a surface phenomenon.

The above chart is an actual experience curve relating actual CO2 levels with actual global average sea surface temperatures.

It is not a time scale, just the simple relation between two physical parameters.

The line is made up of the succession of actual monthly plotted points.

If we have regard to the possible errors of measurement of CO2 and SST, it is remarkably consistent.

The clear relationship is what would be expected from solubility data.

It is only evident in the temperature data from satellite sources.

The 21 year moving average covers the double solar cycle, including the change in solar polarity.

It also covers El Nino and La Nina events. It also recognizes the longer response time of the oceans.

This chart proves that human emissions of CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.

They are scavenged as they occur.

We can use the chart to predict the decreased levels of CO2 that will result from cooling.

From Joe D’Aleo:

Below is the monthly Hadley land and ocean and UAH MSU LT temperatures over the last decade with the CO2. Note the temperatures have not warmed, something even IPCC’s Pachauri took note of (paraphrasing him – as for the plateauing of temperatures in recent years, we have to see if there are natural factors offsetting greenhouse gases).

Note the correlation with CO2 has vanished the last decade for both data sets.

Updated graph above:

The reasons some years appeared 3 times and some 2 in the originally posted graph was that I inadvertently choose an interval of 5 months instead of 6 months. It is fixed in the new graph.

As for Ian Mott’s comments, I started with 1998 which was 10 years ago to get a decadal plot. The last data point was January 2008 which is why 2008 appears at the end.

Aside from the brief bounce coming out of the moderate/strong La Nina of 1999, there has been no increase despite the steady climb of CO2. If we were nearing that ‘tipping point’ Hansen and Gore love to talk about, surely, a decade is not too short a period to expect some thermal response to CO2 increases.

Joe D’Aleo