Responding to the CO2 Coalition's "Fact #27" on Post WWII Temperatures

CO2 Coalition's "Fact #27" depends almost entirely on cherry picking. Here we're told that for 33 years, global temperatures cooled while CO2 emissions increased. "We have seen that the beginning of the modern increase in CO2 emissions began in the post-WW II industrial boom. Yet that great rise in CO2 was accompanied by a significant 33-year span of global cooling from 1944–1976. If CO2 is the primary driver of modern temperature change, why did temperatures actually fall during this time span?" Here's the graph they posted.
I'll answer their question after clarifying the issues here. The graph above contains numerous problems. First, they posted monthly temperature anomalies from HadCRUT4 (which is out of date) and annual emission CO2 emission values for 1944-1976. The decision compare monthly temperatures to annual emissions appears to be an attempt to exaggerate the differences between the two. CO2 Coalition should have used annual values for each. Beyond this, the correlation between GMST and CO2 is not specifically between temperature and emissions. Rather, there's a log correlation between GMST and CO2 concentrations, a linear correlation between GMST and CO2 forcings, and a linear correlation between GMST and cumulative emissions. CO2 Coalition didn't plot any of these. Let's fix the graph by plotting GMST from HadCRUT5 and CO2 concentrations.
In this graph you can see that CO2 increased by about 20 ppm, while there's not much of a discernable trend in temperatures. The HadCRUT5 trend for 1944-1976 is actually -0.03 ± 0.037°C/decade (2σ). Since the 2σ CI is larger than the trend, we can't rule out the possibility of warming to 95% certainty, so it's not accurate to call this a cooling trend. I do think that since we have 30+ years without a statistically significant trend, we can call this a "pause" while CO2 increased from 310.2 ppm to 332.03 ppm. So the real question from this would be, why did temperatures pause while CO2 increased? Does this present a problem for climate science?

To answer these questions, we need to do a little math. The radiative forcing increase for this increase CO2 can be calculated as RF = 5.35*ln(332.03/310.2) = 0.36 W/m^2. If all other forcings are stable, this would lead to about 0.2 C warming (assuming TCR is ~2 C). Since temperatures were flat, we should consider whether there was some other forcing that offset the warming influence of CO2. It turns out that there was a large ramping up of aerosol pollution following World War II that exerted a cooling influence on the climate. This was quantified in Gillet et al 2021[1].


The graph above shows the cooling influence of aerosol following WWII in the blue line with a large confidence interval. There are significant uncertainties associated with aerosol forcings, but needless to say it's quite obvious that this forcing can easily explain why GMST paused while CO2 increased.
And CO2 Coalition is clearly cherry picking. If they had shown a graph of CO2 concentrations with GMST since 1850, the correlation between CO2 and temperature would be undeniably obvious. There's a reason why CO2 Coalition doesn't show you either the graph above or the graph below.
The correlation between GMST and CO2 forcings can be quantified to about r^2 = 0.88. In other words, even with the 30-year pause in GMST, CO2 forcings continue to be a very good predictor of global temperatures.


References

[1] Gillett, N.P., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Ribes, A. et al. Constraining human contributions to observed warming since the pre-industrial period. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 207–212 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00965-9







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marketing of Alt-Data at Temperature.Global

Image
Temperature.Global (12-month running average, sort of) A few years ago, I started seeing people post links to a new dataset for global temperatures at a website called temperature.global. There are at least four unique features of this dataset. First, the website claims to update global temperature in near real time. Second, every year in the dataset averages below "normal." Third, there is absolutely no transparency regarding their methodology (those who administer it are anonymous, most of the data is hidden, and much of their methodology is unclear). And fourth, what is disclosed about their methodology reveals that what they are calculating is not the Earth's surface temperature. Description of Temperature.Global If you go to the temperature.global website, it becomes almost immediately apparent that this website has little concern for transparency. The website is hosted by Parler (the alternative social network), which if nothing else is pretty odd. There are no name
Read more

Are Scientists and Journalists Conspiring to Retract Papers?

Image
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr has published two posts recently having to do with extreme weather and the IPCC. In the first post , he expresses frustration over an apparently inevitable retraction of a paper on extreme weather. The paper is Alimonti et al 2022 (A22) published in The European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP)[1]. I became aware of this paper about a year ago; it was not a good paper and was not particularly influential; it received almost no attention except for a brief period of time when the usual blogs promoted it, and then after SkyNews in Australia publicized this study as demonstrating there is no climate emergency. In the second post , Pielke summarized what he believes the IPCC's position is on extreme weather, and here he refers again to this previous paper. He declares that he believes that popular and scientific treatments of extreme weather have become far mor extreme than the position taken by the IPCC. According to him, "with the exception perhaps of only extr
Read more

Tropical Cyclone Trends

Image
In a previous post , I covered the distinction between detection and attribution. These are normally considered sequentially. First you detect a signal above natural variability, then you examine if some portion of that signal can be attributed to human activity. The previous post shows that the two are statistically independent from each other, so there is no need to limit attribution studies to signals that are detectable above natural variability. This distinction and clarification I think is important in discussions of tropical cyclone trends. While trends are clear since 1980, the longer term record (since ~1850-1900) is less clear due to selection biases arising from our increasing ability to detect tropical cyclones. This makes detection difficult long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that scientists can't also examine ways in which human activity is affecting tropical cyclone trends. Detection in the Satellite Record (Since 1980) The satellite record provides us
Read more