Wave Drowns CO2 Warming

Update May 13 below

This post presents key findings from the recently published paper:
Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle (here) by
François Gervais
Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences & Techniques, François Rabelais University, Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France

In the synopsis below, Gervais puts his study in context, followed by his conclusions.

The Global Warming Debate Rages

The impact on climate of the CO2 emitted by burning of fossil fuels is a long-standing debate illustrated by 1637 papers found in the Web of Science by crossing the keywords

“anthropogenic” AND “greenhouse OR CO2” AND “warming”

This is to be compared to more than 1350 peer-reviewed papers which express reservations about dangerous anthropogenic CO2 warming and/or insist on the natural variability of climate.

Signatures of 60-year Climate Wave

Time series of sea-level rise are fitted by a sinusoid of period ~ 60 years, confirming the cycle reported for the global mean temperature of the earth. This cycle appears in phase with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The last maximum of the sinusoid coincides with the temperature plateau observed since the end of the 20th century. A 60-year climate cycle is confirmed in sea-level rise and global sea ice area, as well as in measured temperature series.

Onset of the Declining Phase

The four following indicators sign for the onset of the declining  phase of the 60-year cycle.

  1. The recent change of sign of global sea ice area anomaly which
    reveals an excess in Fig. 3, a sensitive indicator of climate, is unexpected
    from model projections (AR5, 2013).
  2. The AMO index indicates the onset of a declining phase.
  3. A negative temperature slope is measured from 2002 to 2015 independently by different satellites in the low troposphere by Remote Sensing System (RSS, 2015) and by UAH (Spencer et al., 2015) as shown in Fig. 4. The plot is voluntarily restricted to 13 years, viz. less than 1/4 of the 60 year-cycle, to evaluate the sign of the tangent to the sinusoid.
  4. A deceleration of the sea-level rise measured by satellite altimetry is also found since 2002 (Chen et al., 2014; Cazenave et al.,2014).

Rising Temperatures cause rising CO2

The correlation of yearly CO2 increase, therefore, appears not with MEI or SOI but with global mean temperature to which El Niño and La Niña contribute. This temperature/CO2 correlation may be tentatively explained, at least partly, by the solubility of CO2 into water which decreases with temperature, consistent with sea pH maps (Byrne et al., 2010). Warm temperature fluctuations favor CO2 release from the oceans which contain 60 times more CO2 than the atmosphere (AR5, 2013), whereas cooler fluctuations favor its oceanic Capture.

Summary: 60-year Wave Rules

Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies. On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.

The whole paper is well worth the read, and is chock full of links to sources and references supporting his analysis.

Here is a recent Youtube video of Francois Gervais presenting his findings (with English translation)

Update May 13

In the comments below ren points to the declining NAO, with the implication that a cooling phase is underway in the North Atlantic SSTs.  The cold blob in the North Atlantic was subject of a post here and elsewhere, and Paul Homewood posts today on the increasing cold water, not only surface but coming from below.

Dr. Gerard McCarthy is a lead researcher on the RAPID array project measuring the AMO heat transport and provides a good context on their observations and the implications for the climate cooling in coming decades.

Our results show that ocean circulation responds to the first mode of Atlantic atmospheric forcing, the North Atlantic Oscillation, through circulation changes between the subtropical and subpolar gyres – the intergyre region. This a major influence on the wind patterns and the heat transferred between the atmosphere and ocean.

The observations that we do have of the Atlantic overturning circulation over the past ten years show that it is declining. As a result, we expect the AMO is moving to a negative (colder surfer waters) phase. This is consistent with observations of temperature in the North Atlantic.





  1. Hans Erren · June 9

    ” Rising Temperatures cause rising CO2″, but only 10 ppm since 1900 as is demonstrated by the Medieval Warm Period.


    • Ron Clutz · June 9

      You are probably right, but that gets into CO2 proxy issues. In Gervais’ video, he shows that there is no way to double CO2 this century at present rates.


    • chipstero7 · June 10

      The 10ppmv “demonstrated by the Medieval Warm Period” is based on the ice-core and that has issues and may underestimate past CO2 concentrations. Some of these issues include gravitational compression forcing gases up to the surface, the formation of clathrates causing the ice to crack when decompressed, different extraction methods (i.e. dry/wet); with the wet-extraction methods showing CO2 as high as 900ppmv and also measurements showing higher CO2 levels have been inappropriately deleted from the record by the likes of Neftel. There have actually been measurements of CO2 in the surface-snow in Antarctica and these show that the surface-snow can underestimate atmospheric CO2 by as much as 50% (Jaworowski et al 1992: A Critical Review). So yeah, the ice-core is not without issues and of course it contradicts other paleo-climate data such as Stomata.


      • Ron Clutz · June 10

        Thanks for confirming what I had read from Murray Salby in Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate 2012 p65:
        “Older records of temperature and composition rest on proxy evidence, which is limited by coverage and uncertainty. Atmospheric properties inferred from ice cores are subject to a number of unknowns. At shallow depth, their layering resolves individual years. However, at greater depth, such features are blurred by diffusion, which limits temporal resolution. The isolation and stability of air trapped inside ice is a matter of ongoing debate. So is the dating of features, which is pursued through half a dozen different techniques (e.g., Ruddiman and Raymo, 2003; Petit et al., 1999; Jouzel et al., 1996; Lorius et al., 1985; Sowers et al., 1993). Discrepancies in timing between those techniques range from centuries at shallow depth to millennia at greater depth. Those uncertainties are not allayed by cores from neighboring sites, which reveal similar discrepancies (Parrenin et al., 2007).”


  2. craigm350 · June 9

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.


  3. joekano76 · June 9

    Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.


  4. I won’t get into the CO2 debate here because my forte is 40+ years in the energy industry – electrical engineering. None of us agree with the present course on PV or concentrated IR solar nor with wind turbine as anything more than is weak overall solution. Having just returned from a fact finding mission in Germany, we see clearly that the reason behind so many wind turbine fires is electric fires resulting some time after wind turbine lightning strikes. Attempts to resolve these unanticipated consequences are not working out very well even with highspeed fiberoptic lightning sensors. In the case of solar concentrator sites such as Ivanpah the efficiency is far below results anticipated and the tower collectors attract insects which, in turn, attracts many thousands of birds per year. Over 10,000 per years are being incinerated in flight with others permanently blinded.

    This is why engineering should not be circumvented by those with too much money and power and not enough pure science related skills….. I am talking about the US federal and state governments, computer and internet companies such as Google and misguided environmental “informal experts” who all too often make claims to be scientists.

    And as a result the technically challenged mainstream news media is an easy target for these misguided fools.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ron Clutz · June 10

      Thanks for commenting, dry. As you point out, the renewables tech is not ready, but is pushed to answer the non-problem of fossil fuel emissions.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. ren · June 10

    Very high levels of radiation galactic.



    • Ron Clutz · June 10

      And what is the significance?


      • ren · June 10

        The radiation level is such as during the minimum cycle of 22/23.


      • ren · June 10

        Low solar activity causes anomalous increase in pressure over the polar circle.


  6. ren · June 10

    1. Introduction
    Our previous study showed that the response of tropospheric pressure to variations of solar activity (SA) and
    galactic cosmic ray (GCR) fluxes reveals a regional structure determined by the positions of the main
    climatic atmospheric fronts, as well as it strongly depends on the epochs of the large-scale circulation
    [Veretenenko and Ogurtsov, 2012]. In the epochs of increasing intensity of the meridional circulation (the
    form C according to Vangengeim-Girs classification [Vangengeim, 1952; Girs, 1974]) an increase of GCR
    fluxes at minima of the 11-year cycle is accompanied by an intensification both of extratropical cyclones at
    Polar fronts of middle latitudes and Arctic anticyclones at high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere, as well
    as by a weakening of the equatorial trough at low latitudes. In the epochs of decreasing meridional
    circulation the troposphere response to SA/GCR variations reveals a similar regional structure, i.e., the
    regions of most pronounced effects are closely related to the climatic atmospheric fronts, but the sign of
    SA/GCR effects in these regions is opposite.
    It was also detected [Veretenenko and Ogurtsov, 2012] that the evolution of the meridional circulation
    is characterized by a roughly 60-year periodicity which, in turn, influences the sign of SA/GCR effects on
    troposphere pressure. Indeed, the reversals of the correlations between sea-level pressure at high latitudes
    and sunspot numbers occurred in the 1890s, the early 1920s, 1950s and the early 1980s and coincided well
    with the changes in the evolution of the C-type meridional circulation. Hence, the aim of this work is to
    study what processes may influence the evolution of the large-scale circulation and, then, the character of
    SA/GCR effects on troposphere pressure.


    • Ron Clutz · June 10

      Thanks for commenting ren. Your charts and graphs are always intimidating to those of us not steeped in the field. If I take your point, you are showing solar activity and cosmic ray fluxes are involved in the quasi-60 year cycle. I need some time to study the linked paper.


  7. ren · June 11

    Thanks. Pay attention still on the research of 2009, when the GCR was extremely high, about 6800 counts in Oulu.
    4. Summary
    Ground-based measurements of middle atmospheric profiles of temperature, O3,
    CO, and N2O mr were carried out from Thule, Greenland, during winter 2008-2009. These
    measurements add further information to previous analyses aimed at studying the evolution
    of the 2009 winter stratosphere and to tracking the exceptional SSW that occurred during the
    second half of January. Main findings of this analysis are:
    1. In the first part of January the polar vortex was stable and cold. PSCs were
    detected between 17 and 22 km on 18-19 January (not shown).
    2. At Thule, the SSW event was initially detected at θ~2000 K on January 19 by a rapid decrease in CO mr. The first evidence of a temperature increase was observed at about
    50 km on 22 January, when lidar measurements were first able to reach this altitude. The
    warming progressed downward reaching about 15 km altitude on 29 January. The maximum
    physical temperature, 289 K, was observed at layers between 1300 and 1500 K on 22
    January. In late January the temperature profile became near isothermal, particularly in the
    altitude layer between 15 and 45 km.
    3. Backward trajectories at the various altitudes studied indicate that airmasses
    approaching the polar region during the warming peak were subjected to a rapid
    compression and an intense adiabatic warming. This is estimated to maximize with ΔT ~50
    K at ~1000÷1300 K.
    4. The passage of the vortex edge over Thule associated with the vortex breakup
    was marked by a sudden increase in N2O and decrease in CO mixing ratios measured by the GBMS below and above 1000 K, respectively. PV, N2O, and CO are in good agreement inidentifying the vortex breakup. The vortex reformed rapidly and strongly above 1000 K at the beginning of February, but not in the lower stratosphere. Rapid changes in N2O, O3, and CO are associated with the advection of airmasses of different origins, in some cases not
    detected by PV analyses. Maxima in N2O mr in late January and mid February are associated
    with rapid transport of extra-tropics airmasses.
    5. Mesospheric CO measurements inside the reformed vortex indicate descent rates
    between (0.30 ± 0.05) and (0.20 ± 0.05) km/day for starting altitudes between 62 and 58 km, respectively, from mid-February to early March.


  8. ren · June 12

    Ron, NAO is low.


  9. Pingback: Science On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown | Atlas Monitor
  10. Pingback: Arguing at cross purposes | DON AITKIN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s