Guy Callendar: Data shows CO2 changes LAG BEHIND temperature changes

Posted: February 16, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism, Incompetence
Tags: , , , ,

UPDATE: This post mistook the upper curve for CO2 in the figure 4 from Callendar’s paper, cropped by the Guy Callendar twitter account. It is actually 5yr smoothed temperature, as pointed out by commenter ‘berniel’ in comments. So the apparent ~2.5yr lag between the upper and lower curve is due to the smoothing of the temperature data. This doesn’t change the fact that CO2 lags temperature at all timescales, but does invalidate the analysis in this article.

Back in 1938, Guy Callendar wrote a paper “The artificial production of CO2 & its influence on temperature”. In it is a figure showing how they both rose in the early C20th. MET office PR man Richard Betts retweeted the Guy Callendar twitter account this morning.

Unlike more modern misrepresentations given by climate scientists, which spuriously splice the instrumental record from 1950 onto ice core records (with a large temporal mismatch), Callendar uses actual empirical measurements of airborne CO2. His data reveals something sceptics have frequently pointed up: Temperature changes lead CO2 changes. Check my annotation to Callendar’s plot below the break.

callendar-lag

Note how temperatures start to rise around 1893, but CO2 doesn’t start to rise until a couple of years later. Same thing when temperature starts to rise around 1907. CO2 starts to rise several years later around 1911. Same thing around 1901 when temperature starts to fall. CO2 doesn’t start to fall for several years.

Callendar labels the upper curve “CO2 EFFECT”

Maybe he should have labelled the lower curve “TEMPERATURE CAUSE”

In any case, Callendar’s conclusions are part of the reason he is only rarely wheeled out as a ‘father of AGW theory’. As Jaime summarises in comments:

“small temperature increases” to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuels would be “beneficial to mankind”, aid the growth of plants, extend the northern margin of cultivation and indefinitely “delay the return of deadly glaciers”

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    .
    .

  2. tallbloke says:

    See how Richard Betts leaps from Callendar’s empirical observations of the lag between rises in temperature and rises in CO2 to telling me I don’t accept the GHE?

    Is this really the quality of MET office scientific debate?

    CO2 is a tiny part of the GHE (or ATE – Atmospheric Thermal Effect). Perhaps he’s forgotten about water vapour because it’s not on Callendar’s plot.

  3. M Simon says:

    I think you made a mistake:

    Temperature changes lag behind CO2 changes.

  4. tallbloke says:

    oops, Fixed – thanks.

  5. M Simon says:

    I think your graph shows CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes. And please – leave my prior up indefinitely. If I’m in error the world should know.

  6. M Simon says:

    LOL. Good fun eh?

  7. tallbloke says:

    Yep, early morning brain-burp.🙂

    In my defence, it’s my birthday, and I enjoyed a couple of scoops last night.

  8. Jaime says:

    Nice to see Met Office scientists paying due homage to a paper which declares that “small temperature increases” to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuels would be “beneficial to mankind”, aid the growth of plants, extend the northern margin of cultivation and indefinitely “delay the return of deadly glaciers”!

  9. Bryan says:

    CO2 lagging temperature is exactly what you would expect.
    Hot water holds less dissolved CO2 than colder water.
    Oceans cover 70% of Earths surface area.
    So as Ocean temperature rises more CO2 outgassed into atmosphere.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Jaime: Thanks for the quote, I knew Callendar thought it would be beneficial (and it is), but didn’t have the deatils to hand. I’ll edit it into the article.

    Bryan: Yes, lower cloud albedo, warmer water, more outgassing. I expect Ferdinand Englebeen will be along to try to convince us it doesn’t account for the CO2 rise in more recent years, but that’s fine.

  11. Roger Clague says:

    in replying, &Ir. c;. S. CALLENDAR said he realized the extreme corn-
    plexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s
    and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established,
    but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer
    of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or dis-
    tribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be
    inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.

    Betts uses the same defence that Callender uses.
    Energy transfer delay by CO2

    Didn’t make sense then, still doesn’t.

  12. tallbloke says:

  13. Couple of comments.

    First the rise and fall of CO2 and Temp in the graphs could arise merely by chance, easy with short stretches of time series data. Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor addressed this question and concluded that

    “We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period.”

    Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor, Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561–596, 2012

    URL: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012.html

    Second, The MET are not denying that water vapour is a GHG. They appear to claim that the positive feedback from water vapour outweighs the negative feedback effects, i.e. from low strato-cumulus clouds. When of course, they should be admitting nobody really knows.

    In 2010 Judith Lean (NASA) did a review paper on solar irradiance and mentioned both precipitation and GCR but never once mentioned clouds.

    http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/10S1_JKatzenberger_SolarIrradianceClimate.pdf

    Judith Lean: “Areas vulnerable to the hydrological cycle—monsoons, rainfall, drought—appear especially sensitive to solar-driven climate change, which is implicated in the cultural histories of the Mayans, precolonial societies in East African and Chinese Dynasties.”

    “Open flux modulates the heliosphere thereby controlling the flux of galactic cosmic rays that produce cosmogenic isotopes, whereas closed flux accounts for the sunspots and faculae whose variations alter irradiance. How the solar dynamo alters and organizes the proportion of open and closed fluxes, and sunspot and facular regions, is not known.”

    “The current historically low levels of solar activity and high-cosmic ray fluxes are motivating such speculation but the ‘historical’ context pertains only to the relatively recent period since about 1960. As Figure 5 shows, neither current levels nor cycle length is anomalous in the multi-century perspective.”

    My comment: Study of galactic cosmic rays is merely generating speculation?

    News item on science.nasa.gov: December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA’s Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery. “Voyager data show that the Fluff is much more strongly magnetized than anyone had previously suspected—between 4 and 5 microgauss*,” says Opher. “This magnetic field can provide the extra pressure required to resist destruction.”

    Judith Lean, “The future climate scenario in Figure 2 suggests an average warming rate of 0.17 Wm-2 per decade in response to projected solar irradiance cycles similar to cycle 23 and an anthropogenic forcing of 0.37 Wm-2 per decade (the trend in the recent past).”

    My comment: The estimate of variability of solar radiance should be cited with error bands,

    A year after this review paper Greg Kopp and Judith Lean published paper which stated,

    “[1] The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric
    laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use.”

    Greg Kopp and Judith L. Lean, A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L01706, 2011

    URL:

    http://chicagowilderness.org/members/downloads/Strategic/February%2011_CCTF_solar_irradiance.pdf

    My comment: So the previous estimate of total solar irradiance was too high by 4.6 Wm-2. Can NASA now claim they have the ability to detect a trend of 1.7 Wm-2 per century? And this can be used to project future climate scenarios?

    These figures for solar irradiance need to be assessed in context and that is given in a paper by

    Stephens et al. 2012: “The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from the rise in OHC. The uncertainty in the TOA net energy fluxes, although smaller, is also much larger than the imbalance inferred from OHC.”

    Graeme L. Stephens et al, An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5 October 2012

    URL: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf

    Notes for lay readers:OHC = Ocean Heat Content; TOA = Top Of Atmosphere; “order of magnitude” means “ten times greater or less than”.

    My comment: This figure for net surface energy imbalance was reduced to 0.5 W-m2 in a later paper by many of the same authors several of who from NASA. What is striking here is the huge uncertainty, 34 times as great as the estimate of the claimed energy imbalance.

    These are all interesting papers, but the more I read, the more the act seems like smoke and mirrors.

  14. Roger Clague says:

    Happy Birthday.
    Interesting to see these examples of CO2 lagging, following, temperature changes in Callender’s paper. Good to know your critical faculties are working well.

    The its a co-incidence reply was given then
    Callender thought the effect were small and beneficial.

  15. Stephen Richards says:

    Betts still clinging to the party line. He will be the last pirate off the ship and eveyone will be pointing at him.

  16. Happy birthday Rog.
    Callendar’s conclusions are worth quoting in full:

    “In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”

    The discussion at the end is interesting too. People point out that you need to take into account the change in convective heat transport, rather than just do a radiative calculation, to get a real temperature change, and that this is very difficult to do.

  17. oldbrew says:

    Have they fixed those ropey climate models yet? The ones that almost unanimously proclaim non-existent increases in warming these last 10-15-20 years, whatever it is.

    Endless forecasts of jam (warming) tomorrow are pretty much worn out. If the theories are sound, why the problem?

  18. Richard111 says:

    I’ve lived and worked in deserts where summer DAYTIME temperatures reached upper 40’s yet by dawn the temperature was down to nearly freezing. Wish I’d known the Roman ice making trick back in those days. Well, we didn’t have computers either. Anyway, not much water vapour in the desert in summer time. So what cooled the air?

    “”Callendar labels the upper curve “CO2 EFFECT” “” Guy, any chance of an explanation for how CO2 warms anything. Doesn’t matter how small, just how much and the science of the effect. I know the sun can warm CO2 but that energy never reached the surface so doesn’t count. If you think it does count please explain the science.

  19. craigm350 says:

    Nothing changes but the shoes…

    in the 1950s and 1960s when the CO2 was increasing more rapidly than ever before the prevailing temperatures were falling. Callendar himself was worried by this discrepancy and contacted both me and Professor Gordon Manley about it. There seem, in fact, to have been a number of shorter runs of sometimes up to 50 years with either rising or falling temperatures often setting in suddenly, and with no clear correspondence to changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. We also see that account must be taken of psychological reactions—even in the influential research community—to the variations towards greater or less warmth as and when they occur…”

    HH Lamb – The Changing Climate(Routledge Revivals): Selected Papers Note – the paper was ‘The changing climate, past and present; which appeared in Weather, October 1958, Vol 145, pp. 299-318

  20. Stephen Richards says:

    Is this really the quality of MET office scientific debate?

    Oh no. Roger. It gets much worse than that as you well know.

    VOTE UKIP. I can’t.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Frederick Colbourne (February 16, 2015 at 11:44 am) quoted a nasa article:
    “The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist.”

    raises philosophical issue:
    so what’s “physics” ??

    “physics says should not exist.”

    increasingly seems
    “physics” (…AndSoItsCalled) = unrealistic modeling based on false assumptions

    e.g.
    Lean’s 0.1 C / solar cycle narrative is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. It fails the most elementary diagnostics and yet it has been repeated so many times by politically motivated “experts” that timid, innumerate people lacking the means to check it and understand deeply firsthand have (not to shy away from being frank & blunt (…let’s dare to start being real)) been brainwashed.

    Paul Matthews (February 16, 2015 at 1:14 pm) wrote:
    “People point out that you need to take into account the change in convective heat transport, rather than just do a radiative calculation, to get a real temperature change, and that this is very difficult to do.”

    We have spatiotemporal proof based on the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum that the solar cycle paces kinetic energy variations on Earth. Kinetic energy mixes. Mixing intensity is proportional to the forcing driving it.

    The implications are nontrivial.

    Frederick Colbourne (February 16, 2015 at 11:44 am) quoted:
    “Judith Lean: “Areas vulnerable to the hydrological cycle—monsoons, rainfall, drought—appear especially sensitive to solar-driven climate change, which is implicated in the cultural histories of the Mayans, precolonial societies in East African and Chinese Dynasties.””

    I’ll be back with a related background link for pioneers slowly realizing the Milankovitch framework can be generalized to include spatiotemporal fields & the solar cycle.

  22. M Simon says:

    Yes. Happy Birthday. I crashed out after my 9:57 am. And missed your response ’til now.

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    background for understanding how/why there’s no 100ka “problem” (as political distortion artists need you to believe to keep IPCC from being stripped of it’s medals for CO2 doping):

    Wang+2014 The global monsoon across timescales – coherent variability of regional monsoons
    http://www.clim-past.net/10/2007/2014/cp-10-2007-2014.pdf

    further details forthcoming (easier to digest for those familiar with background info on monsoons – no time for more details this week)

  24. M Simon says:

    oldbrew says:
    February 16, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    They “renormalize” the models every 5 years to minimize the divergence from reality. Just wait. Soon it won’t look so bad. Unless we are headed for a Little Ice Age.

    Rumor has it that MM says that in 5 or 10 years all will be well and warming will resume. They are not in error. Just a small mistake. They failed to consider a few things (like the sun!). It can happen to anyone.

  25. Bitter& Twisted says:

    Maybe Richard Betts is not aware of this paper:
    Humluma,Stordahlc, Solheimd (2013) The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.
    Global and Planetary Change; Volume 100, Pages 51–69

    Conclusions below:

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
    ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
    ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

  26. Anything is possible says:

    Interesting biography of Guy Callender here :

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Science-And-The-Wars

    Money quote for me :

    “Yet he did not predict the cooling trend of the post-war years, and was at a loss to specifically account for it.”

    Unlike post-normal modern scientists, it would appear that Callender started to have doubts about his theory when the empirical data began to diverge from his prediction.

    It should be also be noted that he achieved everything he did WITHOUT the aid of a multi-million pound supercomputer and I, for one, would argue that his work was all the better for that.

  27. Every once in a while science reaches a point which I call, THE MOMENT OF TRUTH.

    I think that point is now upon us , and by the end of this decade we will know if solar is the main driver of the climate (which I believe 100%) or CO2.

    The contrast(low solar (cooling) versus higher co2(warming) ), is now in place for this to play out.

    It is a rare opportunity when mother nature will likely reveal which side is correct. We have that distinct possibility now.

  28. correction rare not rear. thanks.

  29. Betts is deep green, personally, not professionally…. but twitter feeds have been pronounced personal by him with no influence of professionalism!

  30. myrightpenguin says:

    “See how Richard Betts leaps from Callendar’s empirical observations of the lag between rises in temperature and rises in CO2 to telling me I don’t accept the GHE?

    Is this really the quality of MET office scientific debate?”

    Classic deflection, throw in a curve-ball, the equivalent of crying “squirrel”. Good to see you quickly avoided falling into the trap.

  31. wayne says:

    tallbloke, but that still implies some tie between co2 and temperature that if Callendar had lived long enough to see the NEXT thirty years, when co2 rose and temperatures plummeted, into the “omg, an ice age is upon us” period I don’t think he would still take that stance. What about you when looking over the entire 1910 to 1975 some sixty-five year period as a cycle?

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Frederick Colbourne (February 16, 2015 at 11:44 am) quoted:
    “Judith Lean: “Areas vulnerable to the hydrological cycle—monsoons, rainfall, drought—appear especially sensitive to solar-driven climate change, which is implicated in the cultural histories of the Mayans, precolonial societies in East African and Chinese Dynasties.””

    Here’s the illustration from
    Wang+ (2014). The global monsoon across timescales: coherent variability of regional monsoons.

  33. berniel says:

    There seems to be a terrible mistake here and as I skimmed through the comments I cant see that anyone pointed it out…

    Both the top and the bottom graph are depicting the temperature trend. The top one is smoothed

  34. berniel says:

    Rog,

    Let me be very clear, and if I am right, I suggest you place an update at the top of this post or others risk ridicule from your sparing partner.

    If I am reading the post correctly, the argument about CO2 lagging behind temperature is based on a lag of the top trend line behind the bottom trend line as they appear in this extract you have made of Fig 4 in Callendar (1938).

    Now, you may notice that the trend line that you taken for the CO2 trend line has the range marked “.4°”, which matches the range -.2 to +.2 in the chart below. But for some reason you (and followers) think that this is some measure of CO2. Perhaps you have been mislead by Callendar’s proposed partial influence of CO2 on the temperature rise; the ‘CO2 effect’, or what his biographer, Fleming, likes to call, after Plass, ‘the Callendar Effect.’ However this CO2 effect is marked by the ” – – – -” straight line (a rate of 1/2 degree per century as I recall) beginning (in this graph anyway) just after 1900.

    The proposal for this effect on temperatures is based on calculations of the physics of the atmosphere including the diminishing direct screening effect of CO2 . The argument is not about a correlation of rising and falling CO2 with rising and falling rising temperatures–as with the ice age debate and Idso’s lag claim.

    If you go back and have a look at Callendar’s article, you will see in Part 1 (p224-5) a discussion of on ‘the rate of accumulation,’ but there are only vague references to a trend. The discussion gives the general impression that in the late 1800s the average ppm concentrations were in the high 200s, while by the mid 1930s they were in the low 300s. The most definite statement is below Table 1: ‘From 1900 to 1936 the increase should be close to 6%’. This suggests that Callendar is thinking that behind all the varying measurements is a gradual generalized rise (supported by Keeling much later). Even though the measurements quote are some time lower at later date, I don’t think he is arguing that global averages were rising and falling.

    Now, if you go down to the Figure 4 (from which you make your extract above), you find it in section 6 ‘The Observed Temperature Variations on the Earth.’ Looking at the full figure, I think it becomes pretty clear that all the trend line are temperature trend lines. See Fig 4 here:
    https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/global-temperature-graphs/1938-globaltemperaturegraph_callender/

  35. berniel says: February 17, 2015 at 10:25 am

    “Rog, Let me be very clear, and if I am right, I suggest you place an update at the top of this post or others risk ridicule from your sparing partner. ”

    berniel,
    I can find evidence of only 26 measurements of “atmospheric” CO2 between 1850 and 1957. All others come from ice cores with questionable relevance to atmospheric CO2 levels. The core levels show that 1940 had the same ppmv CO2 as 2010.
    http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm

    -will- 🙂

  36. tallbloke says:

    Berniel: You’re right, I was fooled by the ‘CO2 EFFECT label and the way the graph plots were cropped by the Guy Callendar twitter account. My bad, should have known better than post early on the morning after I’d been out on Birthday celebrations.

    CO2 does lag temperature at all timescales though. 🙂

  37. Exactly. CO2 is a result of the climate not the cause.

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    Faithful only to the center of political axis, lukes are campaigning to opportunistically corrupt interpretations of natural history — e.g. 400ka cycles “do not exist”, 100ka cycles “do not exist”, 100ka cycles are “caused by CO2”, &/or 100ka cycles are a chance consequence of “random internal variations”:

    That’s figure 20 from:
    Wang+ (2014). The global monsoon across timescales: coherent variability of regional monsoons.

    Something very simple has been overlooked about 100ka & 400ka.
    I’ll be sharing more details when the time is ripe.

  39. linneamogren says:

    In regards to C02 lag for example in the ice core studies, which seem to mirror Mr. Callendars findings, we see temps fall at the end of interglacial periods and C02 remain high and decline slowly. So, the over all temp change is not dramatic ( 1k over 1000 years ) after the lag. I assume this means C02 is not much of a driver. But, I was told today that there are some ice core studies where C02 leads temp, but I can’t find any source of such studies and I was also told Callendars lag was proved wrong by orbital forcing by the 1940s. I also can find no such info.

    My apologies Roger for the suggestion area : )

  40. oldbrew says:

    ‘we see temps fall at the end of interglacial periods and C02 remain high and decline slowly’

    So during that era CO2 would be declining as temperatures rose. So much for ‘forcing’?