It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven
yes its the raw "unadjusted' data.
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes
originally posted by: Nathan-D
The graph I posted on the previous page (23) showing large year-to-year fluctuations in CO2 was the non-adjusted raw data, and regarding the lag, there was an interesting study by Humlum et al (2012) that found a 11-12 month lag between global sea-surface temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes, with temperature-change preceding CO2-change. The lag was apparently present in global surface and tropospheric temperatures too, although it was shorter at 9-10 months. So I think the lag is not just exclusive to the paleo-climate data, and honestly, we should expect a lag, since the oceans absorb or emit CO2 based on temperature, in accordance with Henry’s law.
Highlights of the paper:
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes
Humlum et al (2012), CO2-changes lagging corresponding temperature-changes by 9-12 months
Abstract
Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1
Highlights
• Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
• Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
• This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
• Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
• The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod
Why don't we just "adjust" the temperature data again!
We have no historical data to put all this in perspective.
Ice core is crap -they declared that the current climate change was unprecedented in history - a full 25 years before knowing about gas bubble moving and how it affects analysis.
tree ring is already known to be crap. The trees didn't match up to modern temperatures, therefor something went wrong.
What was your purpose in trying to compare noise from temperature with noise from CO2 on the page prior to that one?
There's a whole lot of suspension of disbelief needed in order to accept that paper. For one example, the paper would suggest that oceans are releasing CO2.
so what's causing acidification?
Another issue is, you know, the whole human CO2 emissions thing being measurably altering the CO2 in the atmosphere. Driven by temperatures that is not.
originally posted by: Nathan-D
The point was to show that there is a lag between temperature and CO2 and of course this has been found by others: such as the ice-core data and on shorter time-scales as shown in the paper above.
The MATLAB® function detrend subtracts the mean or a best-fit line (in the least-squares sense) from your data. If your data contains several data columns, detrend treats each data column separately. Removing a trend from the data enables you to focus your analysis on the fluctuations in the data about the trend. A linear trend typically indicates a systematic increase or decrease in the data. A systematic shift can result from sensor drift, for example. While trends can be meaningful, some types of analyses yield better insight once you remove trends. Whether it makes sense to remove trend effects in the data often depends on the objectives of your analysis.
If you detrend data, which is what that isolate function does, you can no longer say anything about the trend. When you remove the trend, you aren't looking at the trend anymore. You are seeing noise. That's it
Please also see my previous post which I note a rebuttal of that paper.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel
yes yes 2016 is blowing away heat records. At least atmospherically. And you know why. You know it was an el Nino year and that heat was discharged from the ocean into the atmosphere.
www.climate.gov...
Looks like we are heading for a La Nina year. We should know in the next couple of months.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
The fact that climatolgists that support AGW cannot explain climate changes except by blaming the very stuff of like (carbon) and a non-pollutant like carbon dioxide is not proof of AGW. They haven't really looked.