{"id":294013,"date":"2024-01-06T16:13:56","date_gmt":"2024-01-06T15:13:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=294013"},"modified":"2024-01-06T16:13:59","modified_gmt":"2024-01-06T15:13:59","slug":"temps-cause-co2-changes-not-the-reverse-2024-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=294013","title":{"rendered":"Temps Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse. 2024\u00a0Update"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This post is about proving that CO2 changes in response to temperature changes, not the other way around, as is often claimed.  In order to do  that we need two datasets: one for measurements of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time and one for estimates of Global Mean Temperature changes over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate science is unsettling because past data are not fixed, but change later on.  I ran into this previously and now again in 2021 and 2022 when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers (discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end).  Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too <\/strong><\/a>posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up.  The two sources of data were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Temperature anomalies from RSS here:  http:\/\/www.remss.com\/missions\/amsu<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO2 monthly levels from NOAA (Mauna Loa): https:\/\/www.esrl.noaa.gov\/gmd\/ccgg\/trends\/data.html<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changes in CO2 (\u0394CO2)<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Uploading the CO2 dataset showed that many numbers had changed (why?).<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The blue line shows annual observed differences in monthly values year over year, e.g. June 2020 minus June 2019 etc.  The first 12 months (1979) provide the observed starting values from which differentials are calculated.  The orange line shows those CO2 values changed slightly in the 2020 dataset vs. the 2014 dataset, on average +0.035 ppm.  But there is no pattern or trend added, and deviations vary randomly between + and -.  So last year I took the 2020 dataset to replace the older one for updating the analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now I find the NOAA dataset starting in 2021 has almost completely new values due to a method shift in February 2021, requiring a recalibration of all previous measurements.\u00a0 The new picture of\u00a0\u0394CO2\u00a0<\/strong>is graphed below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The method shift is reported at a NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory webpage, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) WMO Scale<\/strong><\/a>, with a justification for the difference between X2007 results and the new results from X2019 now in force.  The orange line shows that the shift has resulted in higher values, especially early on and a general slightly increasing trend over time.  However, these are small variations at the decimal level on values 340 and above.  Further, the graph shows that yearly differentials month by month are virtually the same as before.  Thus I redid the analysis with the new values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Global Temperature Anomalies (\u0394Temp)<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The other time series was the record of global temperature anomalies according to RSS. The current RSS dataset is not at all the same as the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Here we see some seriously unsettling science at work.  The purple line is RSS in 2014, and the blue is RSS as of 2020.  Some further increases appear in the gold 2022 rss dataset. The red line shows alterations from the old to the new.  There is a slight cooling of the data in the beginning years, then the three versions mostly match until 1997, when systematic warming enters the record.  From 1997\/5 to 2003\/12 the average anomaly increases by 0.04C.  After 2004\/1 to 2012\/8 the average increase is 0.15C.  At the end from 2012\/9 to 2013\/12, the average anomaly was higher by 0.21. The 2022 version added slight warming over 2020 values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RSS continues that accelerated warming to the present, but it cannot be trusted.  And who knows what the numbers will be a few years down the line?  As Dr. Ole Humlum said some years ago (regarding Gistemp): \u201cIt should however be noted, that a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the above manipulations, I went instead to the other satellite dataset UAH version 6. UAH has also made a shift by changing its baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020.\u00a0 This resulted in systematically reducing the anomaly values, but did not alter the pattern of variation over time.\u00a0 For comparison, here are the two records with measurements through December 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Comparing UAH temperature anomalies to NOAA CO2 changes.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Here are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies now referenced to the 1991-2020 period.  As stated above, CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example June 2022 minus June 2021).   Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1979 with a simple mathematical formula:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For each subsequent year, the co2 level for each month was generated<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO2  this month this year<\/sub> = a + b \u00d7 Temp this month this year<\/sub>  + CO2 this month last year<\/sub><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jeremy used Python to estimate a and b, but I used his spreadsheet to guess values that place for comparison the observed and calculated CO2 levels on top of each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9986 out of 1.0000.  This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which are small in comparison, rise steadily and monotonically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comment:  UAH dataset reported a sharp warming spike starting mid year, with causes speculated but not proven.  In any case, that surprising peak has not yet driven CO2 higher, though it might,  but only if it persists despite the likely cooling already under way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Previous Post:\u00a0 What Causes Rising Atmospheric CO2?<\/h5>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This post is prompted by a recent exchange with those reasserting the \u201cconsensus\u201d view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.<\/span>

The IPCC doctrine which has long been promoted goes as follows. We have a number over here for monthly fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and a number over there for monthly atmospheric CO2. We don\u2019t have good numbers for the rest of it-oceans, soils, biosphere\u2013though rough estimates are orders of magnitude higher, dwarfing human CO2.\u00a0 So we ignore nature and assume it is always a sink, explaining the difference between the two numbers we do have. Easy peasy, science settled.What about the fact that nature continues to absorb about half of human emissions, even while FF CO2 increased by 60% over the last 2 decades? What about the fact that in 2020 FF CO2 declined significantly with no discernable impact on rising atmospheric CO2?<\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

These and other issues are raised by Murray Salby and others who conclude that it is not that simple, and the science is not settled. And so these dissenters must be cancelled lest the narrative be weakened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The non-IPCC paradigm is that atmospheric CO2 levels are a function of two very different fluxes. FF CO2 changes rapidly and increases steadily, while Natural CO2 changes slowly over time, and fluctuates up and down from temperature changes. The implications are that human CO2 is a simple addition, while natural CO2 comes from the integral of previous fluctuations.  Jeremy Shiers has a series of posts at his blog clarifying this paradigm. See Increasing CO2 Raises Global Temperature Or Does Increasing Temperature Raise CO2 <\/strong><\/a>Excerpts in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following\u00a0graph which shows the change in CO2 levels (rather than the levels directly)<\/strong>\u00a0makes this much clearer.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Note the vertical scale refers to the first differential of the CO2 level not the level itself. The graph depicts that change rate in ppm per year.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

There are big swings in the amount of CO2 emitted<\/strong>. Taking the mean as 1.6 ppmv\/year (at a guess) there are +\/- swings of around 1.2 nearly +\/- 100%.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, surprise surprise, the change in net emissions of CO2 is very strongly correlated with changes in global temperature.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This clearly indicates the net amount of CO2 emitted in any one year is directly linked to global mean temperature<\/strong> in that year.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For any given year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be the sum of<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n