US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2

Posted on December 30, 2014 by Tony Heller

Before data tampering by NCDC, US temperatures show essentially zero correlation with atmospheric CO2. Climate sensitivity of zero.

ScreenHunter_5685 Dec. 30 18.55

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2

  1. Password protected says:
    December 31, 2014 at 12:25 am

    That is precisely the correlation they need to prove, and we are still waiting.

    Reply
  2. macha says:
    December 31, 2014 at 12:28 am

    Agreed!. Reading all the IPCC related chatter shows the sensitivity is coming down. Its just far too slow for my liking and for policy makers to change their wasteful CO2-reduction based spending habits.

    Reply
    • stevengoddard says:
      December 31, 2014 at 12:33 am

      Without data tampering, there is no correlation. Thus the tampering.

      Reply
      • omanuel says:
        December 31, 2014 at 5:19 am

        Now, Steven, it is not nice to suggest that members of our most distinguished research institutions lied to the public!

        They did, but their flaws will not solve our problems.

        I am convinced, as 2014 draws to an end, that the salvation of humanity lies in the personal realization that powerful, but invisible, force fields from the Sun’s pulsar core are the same spiritual forces our ancestors worshipped at the dawning of each new day !

        Happy New Year to All !

        Reply
      • Scottish Sceptic says:
        December 31, 2014 at 3:05 pm

        Can you imagine it – 50 years time when no one is left to protect the utter debacle and people are looking at this – what they will see is your statements of no correlation and it will look obvious to them that you were right.

        And what they will wonder at, is how all the world governments and the vast majority of academics could have been so utterly wrong when someone like you or me could see the truth.

        Surely, the fact so many people claiming to be “experts” got it so wrong despite the repeated attempts of people like me and you must have a very profound effect on these academics?

        Reply
  3. SMS says:
    December 31, 2014 at 1:19 am

    If there were a sensitivity to CO2 increasing, there would be a divergence between the middle troposphere temperature trend and the surface temperature trend. If there were a divergence between the two temperature trends, a determination of sensitivity could be back-calculated. But there isn’t a divergence and because there is no divergence between the two, one can only conclude that there is little or no temperature sensitivity to increasing CO2.

    Reply
  4. bleakhouses says:
    December 31, 2014 at 1:30 am

    The time element and its logarithmic effect makes this presentation very compelling.

    Reply
  5. Andy DC says:
    December 31, 2014 at 1:53 am

    As alarmists have told us, the US is not the world. Only places where there is no data, where expert “adjustments” can be made by climate scientists qualifies as the world.

    Reply
  6. annieoakley says:
    December 31, 2014 at 2:32 am

    I have lived in Colorado for over thirty years and nowhere else for over thirty years and the cold drop this day into afternoon was remarkable to say the least. Now back to the crawler and stuff a little more insulation into cracks.

    Reply
  8. ren says:
    December 31, 2014 at 8:43 am

    “This declining productivity of the ocean leaves in seawater is not bound carbon dioxide, the solubility decreases to the temperature rise of the Ocean (about one degree Celsius since 1910). Excess carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere and its increasing concentration in sea water results in acidification of the ocean.
    Ocean productivity is decreasing due to its decreasing fertilization, ie. Decreasing supplies from the depths to the surface layer of seawater silicates, phosphates, carbonates, iron, etc. Elements determining the continuation of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide binding with seawater. Lowering the productivity of the ocean is the result of a weak fertilization. Poor content life-giving elements in surface sea water is in turn the result of cosmic processes, but let’s talk about this turn.
    The ocean is a biological machine and her life depends on the mixing of water in its depths. The process is as yet poorly recognized and is now marked by a lack of knowledge about the processes of ocean water exchange. Since life in the ocean is endless, it is clear that there is a circulation of water in its volume. It is caused by the constant and variable gravitational influence of the Moon and Sun on the density of ocean waters varied. Ocean tides occur on the surface and in the depths of the sea. Dense and cold water deep sea bottom sediments containing particles (including life-giving elements and dissolved minerals), escape to the surface cooling and fertilizing it, and oxygenated water surface and sink into the depths where oxygen support biological processes. Additionally upwelling (rich in silicates, phosphates, carbonates), the surface changes its acidity by neutralizing it. Water exchange between the depths and the surface is intensified by the constant changes in the position of pole-changing inclination of the Earth’s axis. This causes a change in the centrifugal force acting on the inertial mass of water and its movement horizontally and vertically in the oceans. Changing the position of the poles are due to changes in the geographical position of the Earth’s metallic core mapped location change of the magnetic poles. The kernel of gravity moves in a fluid under the influence of external kernel variable Sun’s magnetic field. When heavy metal core inside the Earth moves the liquid outer core is a change in the position of the center of gravity of the Earth and changing the position of the axis of rotation. This results in the geographical position changes polarity and as a result takes place under the influence of a variable centrifugal force, inertial motion of ocean water and mixing them in a volume’s ocean.”

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      January 1, 2015 at 2:01 am

      ren,

      This explanation makes more sense to me as a chemist.
      http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm
      (start with 6. Justifying the dogma – carbon cycle modelling vs. reality)

      The ocean is buffered by the organics (life) and by the rocks like limestone and basalts.

      At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years. This alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir (some 7200 giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990; see also Jaworowski et al., 1992 a). The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).….

      Reply
      • ren says:
        January 1, 2015 at 8:45 am

        Compare a map acidification and CO2.
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MY1DMM_CHLORA
        “The highest chlorophyll concentrations, where tiny surface-dwelling ocean plants are thriving, are in cold polar waters or in places where ocean currents bring cold water to the surface, such as around the equator and along the shores of continents. It is not the cold water itself that stimulates the phytoplankton. Instead, the cool temperatures are often a sign that the water has welled up to the surface from deeper in the ocean, carrying nutrients that have built up over time. In polar waters, nutrients accumulate in surface waters during the dark winter months when plants can’t grow. When sunlight returns in the spring and summer, the plants flourish in high concentrations.
        A band of cool, plant-rich waters circles the globe at the Equator, with the strongest signal in the Atlantic Ocean and the open waters of the Pacific Ocean. This zone of enhanced phytoplankton growth comes from the frequent upwelling of cooler, deeper water as a result of the dominant easterly trade winds blowing across the ocean surface. In many coastal areas, the rising slope of the sea floor pushes cold water from the lowest layers of the ocean to the surface. The rising, or upwelling water carries iron and other nutrients from the ocean floor. Cold coastal upwelling and subsequent phytoplankton growth are most evident along the west coasts of North and South America and southern Africa.”

        Reply
        • ren says:
          January 1, 2015 at 8:49 am

          El Niño therefore encourages a reduction ocean acidification.

        • Gail Combs says:
          January 1, 2015 at 1:23 pm

          ren,
          I agree you are going to see minor fluctuations in pH dependent on the buffers, temperatures and mixing rate, however Catastrophic Ocean Acidification is not going to happen because there are too many buffering systems in the ocean.

          Subject: pH of rain and creek waters
          QUESTION:
          “In testing local creek water and rainwater, I found a rather substantial difference in pH. The rainwater was about 5.7 pH while the creek waters averaged around 7.9. What could account for these differences? What sort of conclusion might I be able to draw from this?”
          ANSWER:
          First, the rainwater in your area sounds “normal”. Most rainwater has a pH of 5.6 to 5.8, simply due to the presence of carbonic acid (H2CO3). The latter is formed from dissolved CO2 gas and H2O. The source of the CO2 is the atmosphere, which presently contains about 380 ppm CO2. Values of pH below 5.6 or so are considered “acid rain”, values above are “basic rain”. These names are somewhat in conflict with the common pH scale, for which 7 is “neutral”, below 7 is “acid” and above 7 is “base”. As far as rain in concerned, abnormal acidity or bacisity is relative to CO2-H2O equlibrium values of 5.6 to 5.8. There are both natural and non-natural sources of materials that cause rain pH to deviate from the CO2-H2O equlibrium values, but this isn’t what you asked about so I won’t go into it now.

          The creek waters have a pH of 7.9 because they have interacted with a basic substance at some point in their history. Probably this was in the soils or rocks that formed the solid substrate of the aquifer containing the groundwater that feeds this creek. Without knowing more details of the composition of the creek water, it is impossible to say what the base is, but the most common one is CaCO3. Calcium carbonate may be present as limestone or marble. Another possiblity is the closely related material Ca(Mg)CO3 (dolomite), which is Calcium Carbonate with some Magnesium impurity in it….

          Dr. Ken Rubin, Assistant Professor
          Department of Geology and Geophysics
          University of Hawaii

          The pH of the oceans are ~8.1 not acidic, not neutral but basic due to the buffers.

          Guest Post by Professor Brice Bosnich at Jo Nova’s
          The Chemistry of Ocean pH

          Professor Brice Bosnich

          Professor Brice Bosnich FRS, is Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Professor in Chemistry at The University of Chicago, Emeritus, and is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Chemistry, The Australian National University.

          Prof Bosnich was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 2000.

          He explains what pH means, and points out that:
          * Ocean pH varies by 0.3 naturally.
          *Claims of acidification since 1750 are based on dubious models and few observations.

  10. ren says:
    December 31, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    “Researchers at the University of Miami and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) studied the effects of acidification on fish larvae senses belonging to okoniokszta?tnych – Rachycentron canandum. These large tropical fish are very busy and popular with anglers.
    With the method, computed microtomography (similar to that which is subjected to hospital patients), the researchers observed that in water at low pH fish develop a greater otolity (pebbles Labyrinthine) – included in the hearing – than animals from the waters of lower acidity. The weight of these structures made of calcium carbonate in the acidic water increased by up to 58 per cent., And a mathematical model for their functioning even indicated a 50 percent extension of the hearing.

    “Increased hearing sensitivity allows the use of it to navigate, avoid predators or communication” – said one of the scientists Sean Bignami of the University of Miami.”

    Reply
  11. Charles R. Anderson says:
    January 1, 2015 at 1:38 am

    So the net greenhouse warming effect is near zero, just as I have been explaining in terms of the physics for several years. IR-active gases both warm and cool the surface with the cumulative effect near zero, at least as compared to the 33C effect the alarmists claim. The physical models offered up by the alarmists are wrong for the reasons I have been explaining. The experimental evidence confirms the wrongness of the physics in their models in a very decisive manner.

    Reply
  12. gallopingcamel says:
    January 2, 2015 at 5:36 am

    It is true that temperature does not correlate with CO2 concentration over short time scales (e.g the last 300 years) although you can always find a decade or two where coincidence supplies an apparent correlation.

    Over periods of hundreds of thousands of years the correlation between average temperature and the concentration of CO2 is remarkable. However, temperature is driving [CO2] rather than the revesrse:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/27/vostok-and-the-8000-year-time-lag/

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      January 2, 2015 at 6:17 am

      Camel, is that correlation based on actual data or on CAGW adjusted data?

      The original data from the ice cores and from historic wet chemistry methods showed much higher readings than the present ‘Generally Accepted’ values. Some of the data from the 1800 was as high as 500 ppm and above. Early Ice core values had a very wide concentration range of about 100-7400 ppm.

      “Even more important was the finding that several physical and chemical processes (such as melting, the presence of liquid brines in the capillary-like interstitial voids, the presence of carbonates, over-pressure in the air bubbles, and solid deposition of super-cooled fog, combined with large differences in the solubility of different gases in cold water, and mobility of CO2 in ice) lead to differentiation of the original atmospheric ratios of N2, O2, Ar, and CO2, and to depletion or enrichment of CO2 in the ice (Coachman et al 1958; Hemmingsen 1959; Scholander et al 1961; Matsuo and Miyake 1966; Raynaud and Delmas 1977).”

      In other words the bubbles in the ice do not capture ancient atmospheres and the readings are crap. This allows the same type of cherry picking that Callendar did to the early 18th and 19th century wet chemistry analysis of CO2.

      Lucy Skywalker put together an excellent look at the history and as she said.
      “Anyone challenging the official ice CO2 record has to be able to answer Ferdinand Engelbeen – which was where I started. I realized I needed to check back carefully with Jaworowski’s attacker Some Are Boojums (here and here etc). After studying this paper and Engelbeen, the inadequacy of his criticisms finally became transparent. A worthy challenger, however.”

      http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm

      She includes a copy of the following paper. she says “..may well be Jaworowski’s best paper. It is pure detailed science – whereas the science in his later papers becomes a little diluted by his righteous and passionate indignation….” I have to agree. As a chemist this is my favorite paper.
      Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?

      ABSTRACT
      Until 1985 most studies of CO2 in gas inclusions in pre-industrial ice indicated that CO2 concentrations (up to 2450 ppm) were higher than the current atmospheric level. After 1985, lower pre-industrial CO2 values were reported, and used as evidence for a recent man-made CO2 increase. The errors in these revised values, however, are of a similar magnitude to the apparent increase in atmospheric CO2 level. The assumptions used in estimating lower CO2 values in past atmospheres have been: no liquid phase in polar ice; younger age of air than of ice due to free gas exchange between deep firn and the atmosphere; and no change in composition of air inclusions. These assumptions are shown to be invalid. Liquid saline water exists in ice at low temperatures, even below -70ºC; airtight ice layers are ubiquitous in Antarctic firn; and more than 20 physico-chemical processes operating in situ and in ice cores contribute to the alteration of the chemical composition of air inclusions. The permeable ice sheet with its capillary liquid network acts as a sieve which redistributes elements, isotopes, and micro-particles. Thirty-six to 100% of air recovered from old ice is contaminated by recent atmospheric air during field and laboratory operations. The value of -290 ppm, widely accepted from glacier studies for the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level, apparently results from: invalid assumptions; processes in ice sheets; artifacts in ice cores; and arbitrary rejection of high readings. To date, glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of either the CO2 level in pre-industrial and ancient atmospheres or paleoclimates. Instead these studies have led to a widely accepted false dogma of man-made climatic warming. This dogma may have enormous negative impact on our common future.

      ….Two important observations were made in these early studies. It was found that the CO2 content of the air trapped in pre-industrial and ancient ice is rather high, and has a very wide concentration range of about 100-7400 ppm (Table 1). Even more important was the finding that several physical and chemical processes (such as melting, the presence of liquid brines in the capillary-like interstitial voids, the presence of carbonates, over-pressure in the air bubbles, and solid deposition of super-cooled fog, combined with large differences in the solubility of different gases in cold water, and mobility of CO2 in ice) lead to differentiation of the original atmospheric ratios of N2, O2, Ar, and CO2, and to depletion or enrichment of CO2 in the ice (Coachman et al 1958; Hemmingsen 1959; Scholander et al 1961; Matsuo and Miyake 1966; Raynaud and Delmas 1977).

      In these early studies it was recognized that the liquid water in glaciers may be the most important factor in this differentiation, because the composition of atmospheric air (78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and approximately 350 ppm by volume, carbon dioxide) is different from the composition of air dissolved in cold water. It was known at that time that, in such air, at 0ºC and ambient pressure, the concentration of oxygen is 67% higher than in the atmosphere (Scholander et al 1961; Hodgman et al 1962). This is because the solubility of oxygen in cold water is 2.1 times higher than that of nitrogen. Argon has 2.4 times higher solubility than nitrogen, and CO2 73.5 times higher (Weast et al 1989). This explains why the air extracted from melt layers in polar firn has extremely high concentrations of about 12,000 ppm CO2 (Stauffer et al 1985). This is also why the air bubbles contain much lower concentrations of CO2 than the ice which encompasses them.

      PDF of original paper: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf Z Jaworowski, T V Segalstad, & N Ono, 1992 227-284 Science of Total Environment

      Also see: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        January 2, 2015 at 6:38 am

        I should also provide links to Dr.Jeff Glassman’s excellent work
        http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

        Another observer of current climatology examined Vostok data in a similar coordinate system. He is Ferdinand Engelbeen, a gadfly and regular commenter to RealClimate.org, a major public outlet for IPCC climatologists. [Snicker. Englebeen always shows at WUWT when CO2 is mentioned to defend the orthodoxy, just as Leif S. can be guaranteed to show to defend the solar orthodoxy]

        Engelbeen’s result is shown in Figure 5. He shows a best linear fit and a best quadratic fit, also known as the first and second order fits, respectively. Mathematics guarantees that increasing the order of the fit improves (or at least can’t worsen) the fit.

        Mr. Engelbeen found this important Vostok relationship “surprisingly linear”. (Comment #2, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13#comment-69.) More importantly, his analysis confirms that the curvature in the data is not an optical illusion.

        Curves like Engelbeen’s are purely mathematical fits. They indicate correlation, a mathematical relationship, but he gives them no connection to physics. The goal here is to uncover the physical relationship between the historic CO2 concentration and temperature. What causes the concentration effect to be curved as it is? In other words, can a cause and effect model be developed which might account for the correlation seen in the Vostok data?

        He also addresses my favorite point, the ‘well mixed’ conjecture is invalid.

        (The [ ] are Glassman’s not mine.)

        [Turn now to the well-mixed issue. The IPCC (Consensus) needs that assumption. Some of the graphs in the literature indicate that South Pole readings appear to be from the same population as readings from other parts of the globe, including in particular Mauna Loa in the TAR. This assumption is important to AGW claims that CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels and that man’s CO2 pollution has a residence time in the atmosphere between multiple decades and centuries. The data contradict these conclusions, and draw into question the calibration methods used in the various readings.

        [The residence time of CO2 is easily calculated from IPCC (Consensus) data. It is about 1.5 years to 2.0 years, depending on whether you include the leaf water uptake reported by the IPCC (Consensus).

        [As to being well-mixed, the IPCC (Consensus) reports that the CO2 north-south gradient is ten times greater than the east-west gradient. This implies first that the east-west gradient is discernable, and second that the north-south gradient is at a minimum substantial, at least 10 times what is discernable. This directly contradicts the well-mixed assumption.

        [The western Pacific Ocean perpetually emits a huge quantity of CO2. That gas rises at the Equator and splits toward the poles. It rises into Hadley cells which bring the gas down and feed it into the trade winds. This circulation puts Mauna Loa directly in the chimney of the great efflux of CO2 from the ocean. A little decadal shift in climate patterns could move this CO2 plume across Mauna Loa to cause some or all of the observed increases. On the other hand, the cold waters at the poles create a massive sink for CO2. The Vostok data are drawn from the interior of this sink….

        A later article addresses some of the attacks from the orthodoxy:
        http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

        If the atmosphere is not ‘well mixed’ than none of the correlations between CO2 and temperature are valid. As Tony Heller has shown Clim-Astrologists make sure the correlation is there to support the CAGW dogma.

        https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif

        Reply
  13. Centinel2012 says:
    January 2, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Don’t let Hansen or Gore see this!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *