1. I came here to specifically say the same as Warren. I believe there’s some convergence here with WUWT. And today Monckton had a great update: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/,

      Great work and read as well. Time to join forces! As I commented on WUWT:
      “Alas, I fear you’re proofs will fall on corrupt ears. Social engineering on the left always moves to the path that saves face, keeps them in power and the money flowing, whatever it takes. Ad hominem attacks and anecdotal non-science will continue, if not escalate. We got record fires in CA, don’t ya know. And a President to impeach. ‘Tis the season. [sarc]”

      Your work is nonetheless obviously important and we appreciate it. Time to pile on the real science.

  1. Dr Ed,
    I really like your observations and analysis. It reminds me of my Science rducation!
    WRT the CO2 reaction rate, my Chemistry is more than sixty years behind me however I have kept an open mind! Reaction rates with dilute reactants are typically proportional to the concentration of the reactants. When the system is heterogenous, the interface could be the limiting factor, however I suspect CO2 and water is not limited by the surface. I realise that Henry’s Law applies but the aqueous reservoir is vastly larger than the atmospheric one.
    Good luck with your presentation.

  2. For additional info on climate change, check out “real.video”. This is a venue set up by Mike Adams, author of Natural News as Conservatives are being censored through Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. Once at real.video, type in Climate Change or any other topic of interest.

  3. This entire “analysis” is, unfortunately, pure pseudo-scientific nonsense. Anyone can easily demonstrate to themselves, with little more than grade school arithmetic, that the current CO2 increase in the air cannot possibly be caused by “nature”.

    Humans currently emit around 33 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. However, the level of CO2 in the air is increasing by only around 19 billion tons every year. Where are the other 14 billion tons going? They can’t just magically disappear. They have to be going somewhere.

    There is only one possibility: nature is taking that CO2 out of the air. Yes, even though nature puts a lot of CO2 into the air, it currently takes even more back out of the air.

    Obviously nature cannot possibly be responsible for the CO2 increase in the air, just like taking more money out of your bank account than you put into it cannot possibly make your bank account increase either.

    Because nature cannot be responsible for the CO2 increase, humans therefore must be responsible for the CO2 increase. ALL of the CO2 increase.

    1. Dear MGC, You say you can easily demonstrate your case but you did not demonstrate your case.

      Your 33 billion tons, which you use for scare tactics, amounts to 4.5 ppm per year. Nature emits, according to the IPCC, 98 ppm per year. Therefore, the composition of today’s atmosphere is 4 percent human CO2 and 96 percent natural CO2. If you could stop the 4 percent human CO2, the 96 percent natural CO2 would still remain. Very simple physics.

    2. MGC
      I’m afraid you have fallen for the simple but erroneous explanation for a complex process. Your banking analogy is the same one given at the Skeptical Science website but it sits on some invalid assumptions so is not an appropriate analog of the atmospheric CO2 evolution. Better to compare the bank’s deposits to the atmospheric CO2. Hundreds of deposits and withdrawals will join my meager additions and lessor subtractions.

      If the bank records a net gain at year end that exceeds my net deposit record can I claim to be solely responsible for their gain? The fact that my gain is larger than the banks divulges no information about the flow of funds except the end result. The assumption that anthropogenic additions to CO2 are the only new source and all historical sources match historic sinks does not stand up to any scrutiny.

      One thing that the net gain of CO2 being less than anthropogenic emissions tells us is that sinks are in fact proportional to the CO2 content, a central point in Dr. Ed’s analysis. Another thing it implies is that the variability in the flux into and out of the atmosphere is so large that the human emissions are lost in the noise of the natural system.

      I recommend the work of Salby and Harde in addition to Dr. Ed’s to get a better handle on this subject.

Leave a Reply

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

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