Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too

In 2011 Professor Murray Salby showed CO2 follows temperature and not as is usually claimed rising CO2 causing rising temperatures.  However he did not show his method or reveal his data sources.  In this post I reproduce some of his work showing both data and method, so you will be able to reproduce his results too.

I downloaded CO2 and RSS temperature anomaly data from WoodForTrees

The CO2 data came originally from www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The RSS data came originally from  http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu

Here is the  python script I used to create plots and numbers for this post.

If you don’t like python here is a excel worksheet which does almost everything the python script does.  The python script does a fit to determine two numbers but the worksheet doesn’t.

In this post I show slides  and describe a talk given by Professor Murray Salby on 24 July 2012 at Sydney Institute.  The post has a link to a youtube video of the talk, which I suggest you watch as it’s really interesting.

In brief Professor Salby showed

  1. a plot of temperature anomaly versus CO2 which clearly showed  temperature anomalies did not follow the rise in CO2.
  2. a plot of net changes in level of CO2 which clearly did follow temperature anomalies closely. From this Professor Salby deduced levels of CO2 are determined by temperatures.  It’s kind of hard to think of any other explanation.
  3. a graph showing observed and calculated levels of CO2 where the calculated CO2 levels agreed closely with observed levels.

So for lack of a better idea this is what I’m going to do.

co2_v_tempThe CO2 data is monthly, this plot shows, for each month, the differences from the previous year.

co2AnnualDiff_v_temp

The next figure shows both observed and generated (i.e. calculated)  monthly co2 levels.  The agreement is so close the generated values obscure the line for observed values most of the time.

The correlation between observed and generated values is 0.9995

I reckon that’s pretty good.

observedAndGeneratedCo

So how were the values generated.

First the temperature data is monthly anomalies.  This means (as far as I know) the relationship between different months is unknown.  If you know differently please let me know – jeremy at jeremyshiers.com.

Observed values were taken for the first 12 months – you’ve got to start somewhere.

For each subsequent year, the co2 level for each month was generated

CO2  this month this year = a + b × Temp this month this year  + CO2 this month last year

Hang on a minute you might be thinking – Ein minuten bitte

Is this right?  It’s certainly wacky!

Well I agree, but there didn’t seem to be much choice given the lack of absolute temperature data.

  1. If you think about it what this means is for every month in a year CO2 levels are going up each year an amount  a
  2. In addition each months level changes an amount b times current months temperature anomaly from the CO2 level in the same month the previous year. So there is also variation in CO2 level for each month in different years based on the current temperature anomaly for that month and year (apart from first year).
  3. As the generated values are ‘seeded’ with the first years monthly observed values, these set the overall shape for each subsequent year. Though each years shape can be stretched or shrunk based on current temperatures.

Perhaps you will agree with me that it is striking, to put in mildly, that the CO2 levels for the 34 years from 1980 to 2013  can be determined from the 1979 levels with the aid of just temperature anomalies and 2 numbers.

By the way the numbers are

a = 1.59812

b = 1.52506

In the face of this (obviously inspired by Murray Salby) it seems impossible to accept CO2 causes temperatures to rise?

What do you think?

Postscript

If there is anything I feel uncomfortable with it is the constant annual step increase in CO2 (a = 1.59812 ).

It seems almost certain to me there is some other mechanism (maybe it’s not currently active) which will eventually lower CO2 levels at some point in the future.  An ice age?

[update 20 Jan 2014]

On rereading the post I feel I should have discussed the annual variation in CO2 emissions more.

These are attributed to plant growth and as most of earths land is in northern hemisphere the effect of plants CO2 emissions, due to photosynthesis, follows the northern hemisphere timetable (i.e. rising in spring, highest in summer then falling back to a low in winter).

It might be possible to model this using absolute temperatures but not with temperature anomalies.  In any case the overall shapes is roughly the same each year so taking the first years ‘shape’ and adjusting it by temperature anomalies seems reasonable to me.

[end update]

 

This entry was posted in Climate Change, Coastal Squeeze, DEFRA, EA, Sea Level, SMP, Temperature and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too

  1. Grant says:

    I am very much a novice to this topic so i am only going to explore this on a basic level.
    It is my understanding that the results you are presenting are well known amonge climate scientists.
    While the greenhouse effect of C02 is relatively easy to demonstrate in a lab, applying it in the real world is very different.
    I am led to believe that the alarm regarding the extra C02 in our atmosphere is due to what the scientists call “positive” forcings.
    In the past, as shown in the natural Milankovich cycles it is largely agreed that the slight changes in the earths orbit over time attributes to periods of warming. The problem to this theory is that according to the mathematicians the amount of warming that is possible from the earths aspect changes is nowhere near enough to account for the extent of the natural warming cycle. So in order for the climatologists to explain the shortfall they have a well-established premise that once the very minor injection of solar energy from the natural cycle begins that there are mechanisms within the system that enhance the warming effect.
    Notably the main mechanism that is attributed to the extra warming is that once the oceans receive the extra energy they begin to release gasses including C02. It is then causation for a mild runaway effect… C02 rises from the oceans, energy is trapped, resulting warming causes further warming,C02 is released etc.
    So if the theory stands the fact that in the past there is a lagging of C02 levels behind rises of temp is neither surprising nor meaningful in an argument against C02 as being a significant contributor to global warming.
    In conclusion i suggest that if the information i have accumulated on this subject is reliable you have been attacking a problem from the wrong angle. If what I have shared is a close representation of the modern take on the science the graphs being so closely scrutinized actually elegantly confirm the concern for the threat of our civilizations actions regarding C02 emissions.
    Thought?

  2. Jeremy says:

    Grant for whatever reason you’ve used a lot of words to make your argument

    But totally ignored the graphs and numbers in this post

    And the graphs and numbers, based on observational data, indicate your point is wrong

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags are not allowed.

284,283 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

Anti-Spam Quiz:

CommentLuv badge