In an in press article, I estimated a CO2 climate sensitivity factor (CSF) for CO2 doubling in the atmosphere of 1.7 C which is significantly smaller than the average IPCC AR5 value of 3.0 C. My CO2 CS estimate is based on fitting an equation to the NOAA 1880 - 2015 global temperature anomaly data.
For more details, please read: J.E. Szulejko, P. Kumar, A. Deep, K.-H. Kim, Global warming projections to 2100 using simple CO2 greenhouse gas modeling and comments on CO2 climate sensitivity factor, Atmos. Pollut. Res., (2016 in press).
Not that much. That would correspond to a CO2 climate sensitivity (CSF) of 1.5 C for a CO2 doubling in the atmosphere.
The average IPCC AR5 CSF of 3.0 C will project a temperature rise of 1.6 C about 2 times larger. A CSF of 6.0 C (IPCC AR5 high end value) gives a temperature rise of 3.2 C about 4 times larger than the actual temperature rise of 0.8 C. Arrhenius in 1906 and Callendar in 1938 estimated a CSF of ~1.7 C for CO2 doubling in concert with water vapor. The true CO2 CSF is around 1.5 C.
In addition of CO2 effects, there are natural 10, 20, and 60 year cycles. That is reason for the pause in global warming after ca 1995. These cycles cancelled the warming due to CO2 after ca. 1995. For the period 1975 - 2000, the 60 year cycle contributed 50% to the observed global warming; the 60 year cycle has a amplitude of 0.15 C. The natural CO2 sinks have increased (but not enough) to keep the projected increase in CO2 level to about 50% of that expected from fossil fuel emissions. Removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is linked to El Nino/La Nina cycles.
The ENSO appears to influence the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 level (due to fossil fuel emissions). In strong El Nino episodes, the growth in CO2 levels is higher vs. lower growth during La Nina episodes (even negative during WW II). The correlation is not that strong
If all the fossil fuel carbon stocks were converted to CO2 and release into the atmosphere (assuming fossil fuel CO2 emissions have no sinks), then the maximum possible CO2 concentration would be ~825 ppm (fossil fuel C stock = 1000 Pg.C, lower estimate) or ~1150 ppm (fossil fuel C stock = 1940 Pg.C, upper estimate). The total fossil fuel stock data were taken from IPCC AR5. However, fossil fuel CO2 emissions into the atmosphere have an apparent removal estimate of 50%, so maximum CO2 levels will be reduced to ~525 ppm (low estimate) or 715 ppm (high estimate). Therefore, atmospheric CO2 level will max out at ~600 ppm if all fossil fuel stocks were expended.
I am talking mainly about the apparent removal efficiency (ARE) of fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere and that is modestly correlated with the ENSO. Please read my article for further details: J.E. Szulejko, P. Kumar, A. Deep, K.-H. Kim, Global warming projections to 2100 using simple CO2 greenhouse gas modeling and comments on CO2 climate sensitivity factor, Atmos. Pollut. Res., (2016, in press). In La Nina episodes, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is less compared to El Nino episodes. I am talking about the annual rate of change in CO2 concentration. I agree with you that ENSO has minimal effect on gross atmospheric CO2 concentration.
(1) What database are you using for annual ENSO data?
Ans) For the period 1950 to present: NINO 3.4
Pre-1950 from this article: Giese, B.S., Compo, G.P., Slowey, N.C., Sardeshmukh, P.D., Carton, J.A., Ray, S., Whitaker, J.S., 2010. The 1918/19 el Niño. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. vol 91, pp 177-183.
(2) Which ENSO are you using? NINO 3.4?
Ans) NINO 3.4
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
(3) How do you define La-Nina years and El-Nino years?
Ans) Negative anomaly: La-Niña, Positive anomaly: El-Niño
(4) What time frame are you using for CO2?
Ans) 1800 – 2015 (Antarctica ice core data (pre 1958) and Mauna Loa Observatory data (post 1958)
Dear Ashkan, The effective CO2 climate sensitivity factor (CSF) for CO2 doubling in the atmosphere is probably in the range 1.0 to 1.8 C considering all feedbacks. High CSF values of 6.0 C are totally unrealistic. The GCMs are not that reliable, they produce a CSF range from 1.0 to 6.9 C with an average of 3.0 C which the IPCC AR5, politicians, and activists use for scaremongering purposes even though "the science is settled". The simple models used by Arrhennius in 1906 and Callendar in 1938 outperform any GCM. Another problem with GCMs, they can not model 10, 20, 60 year natural cycles. Please see attached pdf of an in press article written by me for more details. In short, the effective CO2 CSF is not that high.
Dear Kenneth, Thank you for the ENSO temperature anomaly vs, atmospheric CO2 concentration trend plots. There appears to be some confusion. I am discussing how the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (i.e., as %.yr-1) (and not the actual concentration) is correlated with the ENSO and the apparent removal efficiency (ARE) of fossil fuel CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. During hot El Nino episodes, ARE was only 5.7% in 1998 and 23.3% in 2015. In non El Nino years, ARE is about 60 - 80%.
Dear Ashkan, Thank you. I am aware of the blog you mentioned. The reality it that no one really knows the true CO2 climate sensitivity factor (CSF) even though the IPCC made a bald assertion/claim that "the science is settled". The term that the science is settled is purely political in nature and not scientific. I suspect that the actual CO2 CSF is about 1.7 C for doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. If all the fossil fuel stocks were burnt, the atmospheric CO2 level will max out to around 750 ppm and this will correspond to a temperature increase of 0.8 C.
When I look at average global temperature over a long time period (millions of years), the present warming period (1970 - 2015) is nothing unusual in Earth's history. A another temperature rise of 0.8 C may be within the Earth's historical range. I surmise that the real purpose in controlling fossil fuel CO2 emissions (it is merely a distraction or false flag) is resources management (in disguise) and has nothing to do with "saving the planet".
Dear Kenneth, I should added "and other unknown effects" as a weasel term. Also revise "there is no doubt that" to "2015 is almost certainly the warmest year since 1800".
A short history of global warming
(a) 1930's global warming (the arctic will become tropical again)
(b) 1970's global cooling
(c) 1980's global warming
(d) 2000's global climate change
(e) 2010's global climate disruption
(f) what next?
I have also read similar historical newspapers articles (1900 - 1950's) reporting on drastic global or regional warming trends and also on the retreat of glaciers in the Swiss Alps and the Rocky Mountains for the period (1860 - 1900). Old is new again. In the Roman warm period, there was wine making in England. Besides Al Gore, other people had predicted that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free by now, e.g., Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
Dear Kenneth, I would like some opinions and comments on the following observations:
Figure 1: Global temperature gradient (DGTA (L – O)) between global land temperature anomaly (GLTA) and global ocean temperature anomaly (GOTA) for the period 1880 – 2015.
Figure 2: Global temperature anomaly (GTA) vs. fossil fuel CO2 emissions for the 1950 - 2014 period
Please see attached MS-Word file to view figures.
Kenneth ... Thank for the excerpt from Charles Darwin's records. I have seen a few papers where researches are examining the ships' logs of major European maritime colonial powers to extract historical weather and climate patterns in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. When Captain Vancouver explored Vancouver Island, it was not possible to navigate the inside passage as it was blocked by glaciers from the mainland. Today, those glaciers are no more.
Dear Kenneth. Thank for the historical weather report for Nain and how it compares to the present. In places in Australia remote from any large urban centers, there has been no significant warming in the past 150 years.
