A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Converse

[LowDown]

A paper in the peer reviewed journal Nature Climate Change shows a disconnect between the increase in man made CO2 emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2. In short, the two don't match. While man made CO2 emissions increased by 25% between 2003 and 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increase flat-lined. Between 1990 and 2003 growth in man made CO2 emissions was stable but atmospheric CO2 growth surged dramatically up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998.

The authors puzzle over this and offer possible explanations for it but ignore the most obvious explanation, which is that the CO2 levels are following the changes in temperature. Temperatures followed the same trend as CO2 except that they led CO2, increasing up to the peak in 1998 and then staying relatively flat.

 

[Mithrae]

Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Convers

A paper in the peer reviewed journal Nature Climate Change shows a disconnect between the increase in man made CO2 emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2. In short, the two don't match. While man made CO2 emissions increased by 25% between 2003 and 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increase flat-lined. Between 1990 and 2003 growth in man made CO2 emissions was stable but atmospheric CO2 growth surged dramatically up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998.

It's all rather beyond me, but if I read Figure 3 correctly it's showing considerable variability in the atmospheric CO2 trends it measures, in 2-5 year cycles - 1993 to 1995 changed by some 300%, for example.

The authors puzzle over this and offer possible explanations for it but ignore the most obvious explanation, which is that the CO2 levels are following the changes in temperature. Temperatures followed the same trend as CO2 except that they led CO2, increasing up to the peak in 1998 and then staying relatively flat.

In other words your thread title does not describe the paper you're referencing at all. You have not even provided a source for your own claim that temperature changes have led CO2 changes. In other words you have made an unreferenced claim of your own and started a thread falsely implying (from one of your other threads of this format) that it is something "in the scientific literature that supports a skeptical position about anthropogenic global warming" - and yet the scientific literature you referenced does not support your claim at all!

While I'm new to the forum and uncertain how things tend to be done around here, this seems a little dishonest.

 

[LowDown]

Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Convers

It's all rather beyond me, but if I read Figure 3 correctly it's showing considerable variability in the atmospheric CO2 trends it measures, in 2-5 year cycles - 1993 to 1995 changed by some 300%, for example.


In other words your thread title does not describe the paper you're referencing at all. You have not even provided a source for your own claim that temperature changes have led CO2 changes. In other words you have made an unreferenced claim of your own and started a thread falsely implying (from one of your other threads of this format) that it is something "in the scientific literature that supports a skeptical position about anthropogenic global warming" - and yet the scientific literature you referenced does not support your claim at all!

While I'm new to the forum and uncertain how things tend to be done around here, this seems a little dishonest.

Since you're new you don't know that I've posted about this theory quite a bit and supplied links to descriptions of the background for it.

I also put a lot of value on thinking through these things myself. I put very little value on appeals to authority since the authorities have proven themselves to be so unreliable and downright deceptive in the field of climate science.

If all you can do is cite authority, if you can't provide any reasoning and insight of your own, then please don't bother me.

 

[Mithrae]

Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Convers

Since you're new you don't know that I've posted about this theory quite a bit and supplied links to descriptions of the background for it.

Could I get a link to one of those threads please?

I also put a lot of value on thinking through these things myself. I put very little value on appeals to authority since the authorities have proven themselves to be so unreliable and downright deceptive in the field of climate science.

If all you can do is cite authority, if you can't provide any reasoning and insight of your own, then please don't bother me.

I didn't cite any authority, except your own words and source. Your thread alleges to cite scientific authority for "Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Converse." I merely pointed out that (as you yourself acknowledged) the paper you referenced apparently does not suggest that at all. You have not contradicted this. So was it simply an honest mistake?

 

[LowDown]

Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Convers

Could I get a link to one of those threads please?


I didn't cite any authority, except your own words and source. Your thread alleges to cite scientific authority for "Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Converse." I merely pointed out that (as you yourself acknowledged) the paper you referenced apparently does not suggest that at all. You have not contradicted this. So was it simply an honest mistake?

There was no mistake. The original post clearly shows where the headline comes from. A reasonable person would not imply otherwise.

Links:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...e-science-headline-you-wont-see-part-3-a.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...e-science-headline-you-wont-see-part-8-a.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/168885-headlines-climate-science.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-science-headline-you-wont-see-part-12-a.html

Also, there is this blog post of mine.

And this blog post.

Also, a more in depth treatment of the subject is in this video:

Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 - YouTube

They start in German but switch to English after a few minutes.

I found many of the links I post about in The Hockey Schtick blog where many other such links to the peer reviewed literature are to be found.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Convers

I've been saying for years, temperature drives CO2 levels. I've also been saying CO2 levels would have increased to near current levels if we emitted no industrial CO2.

Ocean surface temperature dictates the balance between the ocean and atmosphere, and the ocean holds about 50 times more CO2 and similar chemistry than the atmosphere does. Simple chemistry tells us the partial pressure of a gas dissolved in fluids are dependent on their temperatures. Since the ocean holds 50 times more, it only takes a minor percentage of that to make a large change in atmospheric concentrations.

 

[Deuce]

Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Temperature Drives CO2, Not the Convers

I've been saying for years, temperature drives CO2 levels. I've also been saying CO2 levels would have increased to near current levels if we emitted no industrial CO2.

Ocean surface temperature dictates the balance between the ocean and atmosphere, and the ocean holds about 50 times more CO2 and similar chemistry than the atmosphere does. Simple chemistry tells us the partial pressure of a gas dissolved in fluids are dependent on their temperatures. Since the ocean holds 50 times more, it only takes a minor percentage of that to make a large change in atmospheric concentrations.

Um, yes, AGW proponents say this also.