CO2, warming, and causality

z, in comments:

“CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. “

See also my forthcoming paper: “Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”.


  1. #1 Reality check
    April 6, 2008

    bi #99. Can you read out to us the last sentence in the caption to Fig.12?

    The real issue is Hansen’s use of models running to 3000 to force policy change in 2008.

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    April 7, 2008


    What if all – solar cycle change, other patterns such as ENSO,PDO, AMO, shift at the same time, such CO2 outgassing could be a major part of today’s increasing CO2 concentration.

    Except we don’t have an El Nino today.

    It’s amazing how easily denialists understand El Nino when it suits their argument.

  3. #3 Chris O'Neill
    April 7, 2008


    I was never claiming that Milankovitch cycles were not a large part of the reason for past glaciation events.

    You did, of course, claim that ice cores showed that CO2 did not cause warming as in:

    my original argument, that the data from ice cores shows no causal link between CO2 and warming in past glacial periods

    You still haven’t provided any evidence at all for this such as telling us one time when the CO2 rose significantly but the temperature did not rise significantly soon afterwards.

    Considering you have also still not stated you were wrong when you said:

    Models that do not correlate well with reality are currently the basis for the claim that we face such damages (from AGW).

    after I stated a page with a list of empirically derived climate sensitivities, I guess I’ll have to keep calling you a little cretin while you continues to ignore reality.

  4. #4 markeebiel
    April 7, 2008

    @Chris O’Neill,

    Please don’t call those with questions denialists anymore. This is an open “church” here, hopefully. I don’t want to use any ill tasted vocabulary here to fight this overused term.

    Yes, we are in a strong El Niña now. That’s why global warming stopped or paused and the ocean is back to the temperature it had 8 years ago. It’s all a question of proportion between natural and anthropogenic ingredients. The temperature of the water that let off a lot of “steam” (Kathrina et al. 2005, Arctic Ocean 2007) is in a cooling phase now. For those who have not noticed: There is a POSITIVE anomaly in global sea ice cover RIGHT NOW according to Cryosphere today. Why is there so much sea ice? May I hazard a guess as non-scientist? If there is more “Ninas” like this until 2015 or so, and another big volcano, then we are back in the seventies. Impossible? On what grounds? How can you reheat the water by simply putting an infrared lid on the pan? Kidding aside, I am convinced it takes several hundreds of years until the oceans’ heat content will be seriously affected by the additional anthropogenic heat content of a doubled CO2 in the athmosphere. However, Roger Pielke Sr., the specialist for Ocean heat budget, says clearly that there are other anthropogenic influences (other than CO2) on regional scales that have to be addressed now. I don’t want to digress more here. I’ll combine this on the above “particularly stupid”;-) sceptical list later if God and Tim allow.

  5. #5 climatepatrol
    April 7, 2008

    I am sorry. Post #104 should read “Posted by: climatepatrol”.

  6. #6 climatepatrol
    April 7, 2008

    Oh, I just noticed the real point of Chris O’Neill that we are in an El Niña and CO2 concentration keeps rising. Upwelling water is a CO2 source according to Keeling & Revelle 1985. One emergent property is clear across timescales: atmospheric CO2 can increase quickly, but the return to lower levels through natural processes is much slower (Scott C. Doney1 and ­David S. Schimel, 2007). And guess what: CO2 concentration seems to be levelling off already according to:

    Mauna Lea in situ (less than +1% p.a. 2006-2008)

  7. #7 Barton Paul Levenson
    April 7, 2008

    Ian Gould, never missing an opportunity to kick someone when they’re down, posts:

    [[The Levinson troll is, of course, the same creature that has repeated called me an anti-semite and refused to apologise for doing so despite knowning that I’m a Jew who had relatives die the holocaust.]]

    1. It’s “Levenson.”

    2. I had relatives die in the Holocaust, too.

    3. You’re still an antisemite. There are plenty of nominally Jewish antisemites. Cf Noam Chomsky.

  8. #8 Reality check
    April 7, 2008

    Climatepatrol: bingo, you are almost the first to notice!

    Barton: Well said, my late 1st wife was a lucky descendant of escapees from Russian pogroms in the 1880s, Gould is as much beyond belief as Chomsky – and Loewenstein here in Oz.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    April 10, 2008


    And guess what: CO2 concentration seems to be levelling off already according to:

    Mauna Lea in situ (less than +1% p.a. 2006-2008)

    Whoopee doo.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    April 10, 2008

    El Niña

    Oxymoron of the day!

  11. #11 Barton Paul Levenson
    April 10, 2008

    dhogaza writes:

    El Niña

    Oxymoron of the day!

    I wondered if anyone was going to catch that. 3 points to dhogaza.

  12. #12 climatepatrol
    April 11, 2008

    dhogaza and Barton:

    Thank you for the Spanish course and definition correction.
    La Niña is the correct one.

    And the Tamino-lobbying seems to have caught up as well. :-)
    Believe me or not: I hadn’t even looked at that Muana Loa er Mauna Loa graph as presented bei NOAA and used by Watts (even Tamino makes mistakes, but that’s really, really beside the point here). Anyway, the “super La Niña” that may have caused this dip at Mauna Loa, for which Antarctica is absolutely unsensitive for, seems to weaken as well. Just don’t get hysterical right away when a skeptic starts to look at data and sees some variability in the natural CO2 budget as well. We know that eh? (copyright Realclimate):-)

  13. #13 Eli Rabett
    April 11, 2008

    Well CP, for someone who claims to have been interested in climate since he was a little denialist, you certainly get basic stuff wrong. FWIW, El Nino is called that because it usually manifests in South America about the time of Christmas, El Nino, being the name of the Christ child in Spanish. Nino by itself would be meaningless wrt climate.So yeah, it was a real clanger. La Nina, being the opposite phase of the cycle was named much later by contrast.

  14. #14 Chris O'Neill
    April 11, 2008

    Just don’t get hysterical right away

    Don’t even say:

    And guess what

  15. #15 climatepatrol
    April 11, 2008

    If you don’t have basic respect, stop lecturing me about things I know, SIR!

  16. #16 climatepatrol
    April 11, 2008

    @Chris O’Neill

    The above #115 was not directed to you. I appreciate your imputs.

    I just happended to spot something on the original dataset which turned out to have been noticed by people who really know much more about the issue than I do. Here is a quote from The Blackbird with regard to Tamino’s rebuttal mockery Shocking … uh … Surprising … um … Notable … well … Rather Ordinary News from Mauna Loa…

    …Some have made a big deal out of the fact that last month shows a decline in the seasonally adjusted value.


    …Why would anyone rebut the non-existent claim about the one month drop, without citing anyone who has suggested any such thing? Well, not citing or linking is a good way to prevent readers from discovering there is no such claim. It is rather well known that rebutting the unmade claim that is vaguely similar to something made by a widely read blogger is generally easier than addressing arguments anyone actually made. In this case, the “one month” claim might seem vaguely related to the contents of an article Anthony Watts actually posted, which simply shows some data which happens to include a two month drop in the detrended (i.e. seasonally adjusted) values.

    It turns out the two month drop in the detrended values represents a record drop. …

    So, I bet you are wondering how I know Anthony, posted only because the two month drop struck him? Well, because responding in comments on April 4th — well before the “rebuttal” appeared, Anthony said:

    “I looked at 2004 also, but this seems a little bit different. 2004 has one month of drop, this has two, with a larger effect on the running mean. Though, part of that could be an endpoint effect of the data.”

    I don’t know what other people think, but I consider something that happens onces ever 150 times is fairly remarkable- that is, worthy of making a remark as Anthony did.

    Does a two month drop this large mean the relentless climb in CO2 has leveled off? Does it mean much about climate change? Who knows? I think most would suggest it’s premature to declare the rate of rise ended. As Anthony Watts observed:

    It will be interesting to see in the coming months what happens globally,. . .

    Yes. It will be interesting.

    Records do get broken, and unusual, even remarkable things happen. This ties for the record drop set back in the 60’s. The current drop may be due to the cool seas associated with La Nina, in which case, CO2 will rise when the next El Nino occurs. Or, the current drop may be instrument error; NOAA’s web page tells us that we should wait for post-calibration before taking recent data as gospel.

    In any case, we are still emitting carbon at a significant clip; so the CO2 will likely resume rising as it has in the past. If so, this will simply be a blip.

    The event is nevertheless worthy of remarking. I’m sure we’ll all be watching for next month’s data and also checking the data after NOAA runs its normal post-calibrations..

    Of course we are talking about a drop in the rate of increase which Anthony Watts is well aware of, mind you. Are you on the same page with me? Is there something basically wrong you see in “The Blackbird post” which, to my basic understanding, supports my comment #114?

  17. #17 climatepatrol
    April 11, 2008

    …supports my comment #104? (not 114). Apologies.

  18. #18 dhogaza
    April 11, 2008

    ..Some have made a big deal out of the fact that last month shows a decline in the seasonally adjusted value.
    …Why would anyone rebut the non-existent claim about the one month drop, without citing anyone who has suggested any such thing?

    It was in response to a thread on Watts’ blog, some defenders of which had drifted into hostile territory, thus triggering a post by Tamino.

    So, what was that about a “non-existent claim”?

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.