Carbon Dioxide and the Global Temperature Disparity

Written by Bevan Dockery, PSI Researcher

On 16 September 2012, the Arctic sea ice extent set a record minimum, since satellite recording began in 1979, of 3.41 million sq. kms. [1]. Two years later, on 22 September 2014, the Antarctic sea ice extent set a record maximum of 20.11 million sq. kms. [2]. icebergs
 
These events corroborate the trends in the satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the Polar regions, latitudes 60 degrees to 85 degrees, available at Dr Roy Spencer’s web site [3]. The data extends from December 1978 until October 2014, a period of 36 years. It shows the North Polar region having had a rate of rise in average monthly temperature of 0.044096 deg C pa. while the South Polar regions had a rate of fall in temperature of 0.00014 deg C pa.
dockery 1
 
 In contrast, data from the station closest to the North Pole at Alert, NW Canada, [4] provides average monthly atmospheric CO2 measurements with a trend of + 1.673 ppm pa for the period  July 1975 to Dec, 2013. Data from the NOAA station at the South Pole [5] gave an almost identical trend of +1.672 ppm pa for the recording period December 1978 to 2013.
dockery 2
 
The North Pole satellite temperature trend equates to a rise in temperature of 1.54336 deg C in 35 years while the Alert trend line equates to a rise in CO2 of 58.57 ppm or 17.39%.
The South Pole satellite temperature trend equates to a drop in temperature of 0.0049 deg C in 35 year period while the NOAA data trend line equates to a rise in CO2 of 58.52 ppm or 17.47%.  Trend line calculations are quoted here because of the obvious difference in seasonal variation between the North and South Poles due to the large differences in land area and vegetation cover which generates those variations.    
 
Here we have clear evidence that not only does increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration not cause warming of the Earth’s surface, as exhibited by the South Polar region, but the surface temperature is independent of a change in CO2. The IPCC claim of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causing global warming is patently false.
 
 
Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist.
formerly:  
Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists,
Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

 

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Dockery

    |

    Rosco, for your further information:

    North Pole satellite lower tropospheric temperature: rate of change 0.044 deg C pa, 90% confidence interval 0.038 to 0.050 deg C pa, with zero probability that rate is zero,
    South Pole satellite lower tropospheric temperature: rate of change -0.00014 deg C pa, 90% confidence interval -0.0073 to 0.0070 deg C pa, with probability of 97% that rate is zero,
    South Pole CO2 concentration: rate of change 1.672 ppm pa, 90% confidence interval 1.658 to 1.686 ppm pa, with zero probability that rate is zero,
    North Pole (Station Alert) CO2 concentration: rate of change 1.673 ppm pa, 90% confidence interval 1.622 to 1.725 ppm pa, with zero probability that rate is zero.

    Naturally, this is predicated on the measurement errors being randomly selected from a zero mean, Normal statistical distribution.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    No criticism of the author intended but isn’t it time we stopped playing their ridiculous games of precision in all measurements ?

    Any temperature recorded with better than ~0.5 degrees C is just plain and simple BS.

    Have you seen weather stations ?

    Of the many I have seen in Queensland Australia – I was a local government health inspector and local councils record much of the weather data so I knew the people recording the data – precision of 0.2 degrees was nothing more than a guess – 0.5 may be reasonable.

    To claim global average temperatures to even .01 degree C precision from a data set with no better than 0.5 degree C precision would have resulted in a severe reprimand in any high school science course.

    Precision of 1.673 ppm in CO2 measurements ?

    I simply do not buy data like this.

    To me the take home message is that without data fudging like this there is no underlying trend that is anything but natural and cyclic.

Comments are closed