1. DMA says:

Dr. Ed
WUWT just put up an article by Dr. Spencer about declining CO2 sink rates. (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/15/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/)
I have not had time to follow the links to Dr. Spenser’s paper but I think it is based on accepting the assumption that all the recent increase is human caused. I would really appreciate your take on it. When I previously commented on his earlier article my explanation of your work was rejected but never rebutted.

2. Dear DMA,

His Eq (1) is the continuity equation: The rate of change of level equals the inflow E(t) minus the outflow S(t). We can neglect his third term with the beta coefficient for this discussion.

The idea that S(t) = ks [ CO2 (t) – CO2eq] equals outflow has no physical basis. So, his Eq (2) is simply wrong.

CO2eq is a consequence of the condition where outflow equals inflow and outflow. But outflow is not a direct function of CO2eq.

Then he does meaningless curve fits. His conclusions are invalid because his physics is invalid.

You are correct that he incorrectly assumes human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm. He compares the CO2 level for both nature and human inflows, but he uses only the human CO2 inflow. He has not separated the natural and human CO2 flows and levels as he should have done.

He should reference my 2021 paper because it shows the physics needed for his paper.

I put this comment on WUWT.

1. DMA says:

“The idea that S(t) = ks [ CO2 (t) – CO2eq] equals outflow has no physical basis.”
Isn’t this similar to Salby’s review of the Kohler equation that had sinks still taking out Co2 after there was nonr left? This looks to me like it is saying when the excess above equilibrium reaches the equilibrium amount sinks stop altogether. I think past concentrations of 5000 PPM would have to invalidate that .
By the way THANKS for responding. It will be interesting to see what goes on at WUWT.

1. Dear DMA,

Similar. In Kohler’s critique of Harde, Kohler referenced an equation by Cawley who had such an equation.

Spencer’s (2) says outflow is zero when the level is at equilibrium. That does not work. There will still be an outflow, but it will equal the inflow. The CO2eq does not belong in (2).

3. Jim Breeding says:

You look at C12 and C14. Do you have any comment on the C12/C13 isotope ratio that some activists use as “evidence” to “prove” that most of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? I have never bought into that hypothesis but haven’t been able to find where that argument fails (haven’t looked that hard at it to be honest).

4. DMA says:

Well I did not think I would initiate this much response. Thank you Dr. Ed for defending your work. I do hope that someone like Happer or Lindzen will really dig into your paper. I don’t think it will be refuted but if it is we will have learned more than we know now. If they can’t refute it they need to let the world know. I haven’t found any of the critiques convincing yet. Coincidentally I wrote to CO2 Coalition just last week to get their thoughts and Greg said they disagreed but would not give me any reasons. Keep making the commenters look at the paper. So many go off on tangents that the paper does not address. The most common problem with many of their comments is assuming nature is constant.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.