It seems there has been a 1 degree change in surface temperature since 1900.
The increase from soils is 1.5 PgC – some 20% of human emissions. The increase from tropical vegetation is 3.5 PgC.
I never said it was dominant – merely significant. Read harder as they say Matthew.
Harold Doiron I take the 0.25 Deg C not attributable to natural variability was caused by green house gases and other effects? I mention greenhouse gases because I noticed methane concentration did increase rather fast until the 1990’s. I wouldn’t limit the discussion to CO2.
I don’t get it:
Does anyone know how to disentangle natural variations from recent greenhouse gas contributions to the near surface temperature?
If not, what’s all the hot air about?
So we look at the last ten thousand years, and we see a warming like all the others which have never stopped alternating with coolings; we see a dribble of sea level rise since the late 1700s which is as normal as cornflakes in the morning; we see polar ice variations well in line with what everybody USED to know about the medieval period till recently…
Is there any room for an anthro “contribution”? Not saying it’s not possible, just that it’s hard to squeeze it in where everything is so ho-hum and normal.
Actually – the increase from soils is only from 1989.
Climatereason, 8/25/14 @ 2:59 pm: I am doubtful about the ice core records for co2 values. They seem to have been at similar levels to today in the recent past but it is difficult to explore this aspect without people invoking Ernst Beck. tonyb
First and notwithstanding any other considerations, we can rely on the ice core data to debunk IPCC until IPCC retracts the data.
Second, the ice core data are certainly suspect when the ice age is shorter than the closure time. For Vostok, that means data are suspect if less than about 1000 years old, but the samples are about 1500 years apart. Other cites are not so lucky.
Third, the Vostok CO2 and air temperature records tend to confirm one another, under the assumption that the Antarctic air temperature follows the sea surface temperature. The confirmation comes from Henry’s Law and the shape of Henry’s Coefficient for CO2 in water.
Fourth, an apparent problem with ice core CO2 not matching MLO data has two origins. One is that the Keeling Curve is a manufactured curve with a reconstituted mean and variability, coupled with the fact that MLO is in the plume of major CO2 outgassing from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, and the plume likely wanders across the island with the prevailing wind. MLO CO2 is a regional effect that IPCC erases by calibrating all stations to that “master time series”.
The second aspect is that the MLO samples data in one minute or less, while Vostok CO2 is open for over half a millennium or so. In other words, Vostok CO2 is heavily filtered compared to MLO, both being low pass filters, and the data would be rejected if the means of the two records matched. Did Ernst Beck take low pass filtering into consideration?
The Control knob hypothesis has to do with explaining the entire historical record. It states EXPLICITLY that C02 is not the only knob.
In the modern era if you want to see all the knobs read the IPCC.
The only people who believe in a one knob theory are people who believe their opponents believe in a one knob theory.
But go ahead, find the published scientific theory that posits c02 as the one knob.
you might find sun cranks on the web who argue that.
you might find nuts who grunt “natural variability” is one knob..
besides that.. not much
it’s pretty good.
we believe in one knob.
Bart, I’m just a spectator and a kibitzer, but it seems to me the IPCC could use better graphics. If you want me to send you a few examples I can (I used to prepare power point shows for a huge multinational’s management).
By the way, I copied your data from a newspaper article, mangled it and graphed it, and showed it with three Mexican wrestlers I labeled using “deniers”, “moderates” and “extremists”.
Climatereason, 8/25/14 @ 2:59 pm: PS:
A fifth reason for liking the ice core CO2 record is that it has tons of character to its shape. It does what objective theory says it should.
Mostly, it’s all about corruption. The data is corrupted. The government-education AGW community is corrupt. And, rather than magic windows into our future, the only use for academia’s mathematical global warming models are their utility in helping to give power to the most unaccountable, unworldly and fundamentally dishonest sector of Western society.
As opposed to the much higher resolution stomatal record that has higher peaks and greater variability.
ttp://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/steinthorsdottir_co2_stomata_2013_zps0180f088.png
…we see polar ice variations well in line with what everybody USED to know about the medieval period till recently…
…and, 2000 years ago and 4000 years ago–e.g., we recently learned through the work of Christian Schluechter and Ulrich Joerin that Hannibal’s army crossed the Alps through a forest not over a glacier. “A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers here at all,” says Swiss scientist, Ulrich Joerin. “Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest.”
Joerin spots the ideal specimen. “Up there, that is a prime example,” he says, pointing to a tree trunk in the ice, deep and unreachable. The scientists will have to return at another time, but they have already set a date. By October the glacier will have receded another 50 meters, freeing the tree trunk for the chainsaw and the microscope. ~Hilmar Schmundt, ‘The Coming and Going of Glaciers: A New Alpine Melt Theory [i.e., the "Green Alps" theory].’ Spiegel Online International
I thought aerosols was the control knob.
The CAGWer apostles’ Creed:
I believe in the CO2 knob, the Father of all climate, Creator of Earthly warmth; and in Global Warming, its mythical son: That was conceived by the Holy Hansen, born of the IPCC, suffered under Anthony Watts, was crucified by Mark Steyn, died of the pause and was buried. It descended into PR hell; the third decade It rose again from the dead; Surface temps ascended into El Nino, are seated at the right hand of Barack the Obama; from thence they shall come to judge the coal and the oil and the gas. I believe in the Hockey Stick, the Holy Warmist Church, the communion of “Climate Scientists”, the banning of fossil fuels, the resurrection of Copenhagen, and decarbonization everlasting. Amen.
Sure looks like a policy looking for justification.
So Willard, which Musketeer are you?
Pathetic?
