1. You have settled the science of CO2 to my satisfaction. The only thing man-made about climate change is the alarmist. Thank you.

  2. Dr Ed

    I just found and read Humlum et.al (Global and Planetary Change 100 (2013) 51–69) which is a through analysis of CO2 and temperature on annual time frame. It completely agrees with your analysis here. The conclusions are:

    There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric

    CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether

    representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower

    troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric

    CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.

    (1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears

    to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to

    3) the lower troposphere.

    (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–

    12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

    (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months

    behind changes in global air surface temperature.

    (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months

    behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

    (5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial

    part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January


    (6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence

    on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and

    changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human


    (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic

    eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2,

    presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects

    from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic


    (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably

    especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent

    a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

    Thought you might be interested.

      1. Dr. Ed

        The bottom link attempts to defeat Humlum using the diluted C12 argument that Salby demonstrated to be incorrect. I can't remember all the in and outs of Salby's argument but it made good sense to me when I watched it. Something about inverse production of C12 from natural sinks I think. I don't believe Salby's work has made it to print yet. Do you know of any other scientist that has reproduced his refutation of the "dilution smoking gun" argument and got it into publication?

        1. Dear DMA, Yes, I included the third link to Kern & Leuenberger because it is the only attempt to defeat Humlum but it does not succeed. K&L do not show Humlum is wrong. They only say "what if?"

          K&L have their scientific method reversed. Alarmists use the CO2 quantity argument as their primary case to claim human emissions cause all the increase in atmospheric CO2. The burden of proof is on the alarmists. It takes only one example to show their hypothesis is wrong.

          Humlem defeats the alarmist argument. K&L do nothing to show the Humlum made a mistake. So Humlum's argument stands and the alarmist case fails.

          Also, I and others defeat this alarmist argument in Part 1 of this discussion.

          Then K&L try to substitute the C12 argument, which is an admission that they have not shown Humlum to be wrong. We discussed the C12 argument in Part 1. I claim that my side easily defeated the C12 argument. Eric tried the C12 and C14 arguments but he was not able to show he had an equation to match all of the unknowns in those arguments. It was all hand-waving with no numbers.

  3. Dr. Ed

    Thank you for your quick, clear response and your fine web site.

    I hate to ask too many questions but have you seen Pat Franks error propagation analysis of the global Circulation Models? As a land surveyor I am familiar with error propagation and find his video very reasonable in denying any predictive value for the models we have been using. The modelers will have nothing of it and claim he is "out to lunch". I would appreciate your take on it if you have the time and inclination.


  4. Dear DMA, To do my PhD thesis (additional publications here), I had to thoroughly study Scarborough's "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Numerical-Mathematical-Analysis-Sixth-Scarborough/dp/B0010KJL8G/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486230493&sr=1-12&keywords=scarborough+numerical+analysis&quot; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Numerical Mathematical Analysis." My thesis is still considered a breakthrough in numerical analysis as well as in cloud physics. With that background, I reviewed papers by Pat Frank so I could reply to your request. In general, Frank has a point. There should always be an error analysis for numerical calculations.

    First, Frank is wrong in one regard: we don't need to find the exact initial conditions. We need to do the calculation for a range of initial conditions. We need to test for the sensitivity to initial conditions. If our calculation converges to the same result for a realistic range of initial conditions, then we have a stable numerical calculation. If our calculation diverges with changes in initial conditions, we have an invalid numerical calculation.

    Second, every step in a numerical calculation will generate errors. A large part of the study of numerical analysis involves how to minimize these errors. At the same time, it is possible to calculate the likely error at each time step.

    Only a mathematician who is involved in climate model programming will know how much error the calculation produces. I assume those who run climate models must have people who look at this source of error and they should be able to tell us how much error is likely.

    In my opinion, I do not think numerical errors are the biggest concern we should have about climate models. I think our biggest concern should be whether the models have used the right physics and numerical formulas.

    The alarmists have reversed cause and effect when they claim CO2 drives temperature. It is likely they have inserted the same error in physics into their models.

    David Evans is an expert mathematician who has studied climate models. He <a href="http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html&quot; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">concludes the models include serious mistakes in their design. He inserted proper methods of calculations into climate models and found his corrections caused the climate models to drastically reduce their predicted temperatures and more closely approximate observed data.

    1. Dear David, Thank you for the reference.

      You claim "real scientists" wrote the article you reference but there is no author to the article. Is that how "real scientists" do it?

      Further, unless someone can show my post in Part 1 in incorrect, then I have proved the article you referenced is wrong. No wonder no one wants to add their name to it.

      Sorry, David, you have proven once again that you are not a "real scientist."

    1. Dear Jan,

      Thank you for your very interesting presentation. You conclusions leave room for Salby's hypothesis to be correct. Does your article negate the hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature?


      1. In my assumptions about global temperature CO2 doesn't come in to it.

        I would refer to Murry Salby, Henrik Svensmark ans also David Avans, for that issue.

        But the question would be of no consequence, once it could be established that human emissions are not the driver of atmospheric CO2.

        The issue would return to be a purely scientific one.

        Activists, greedy vultures and politicians would have to start looking for something else to torture our minds with, and fill their pockets.

        1. David, Academia kicked out Salby because academia and what you call the "scientific community" does not support real science.

          Every comment you make, proves you don't understand science.

  5. Ed, until you published in respected peer reviewed journals, you will be completely ignored and just be seen as another blogger who can do no more than self-publish.

    Sorry, but that's how it goes. As a PhD, you should be well aware of this.

    1. David, As I said before, David, you are a circus bear who wears a funny hat and pedals his little bicycle from blog to blog to blog.

      The new book by Khvorostyanov and Curry, "Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds," references some of my professional papers. I don't see your name among the references.

      Also the 1975 book by Voloschuk and Sedunov, "Processes of Coagulation in Disperse Systems," references my work. But I guess you can't read Russian so you would not know.

  6. Salby. Tossed out of academia. No one takes him seriously. No one even tries to reproduce his results.

    I feel kind of sad for him.

    Who's paying him these days? And why?

    1. Appell, you have become nothing more than a gadfly.

      Why you have the need to post on this blog is a mystery.

    2. David, You hold up academia as the final word on climate science. What a moron you are. You use academia as an authority argument in your futile attempt to make your case. Of course, as Aristotle taught and you never learned, authority is not any basis for a scientific argument.

      It is sad that academia has lost its way in climate science. Academia has substituted politics for science. Academia discards good scientists and keeps losers, like you.

      You remind me of one of the circus bears in "The Bear that Wasn't." When asked if the bear outside the circus was a bear, the circus bears replied,

      "No. If he were a bear, he would not be outside with you. He would be in the circus, wearing a pointed hat, and riding a bicycle with us."

      Apple, you are a circus bear.

  7. Icarus62 wrote:

    "We’ve emitted twice as much CO2 since the preindustrial as remains in the atmosphere today. Therefore, nature had been a net sink of CO2 from the atmosphere over this period and we’re responsible."

    The planet has absorbed roughly 1/2 of the CO2 we've emitted.

    That's not a "net sink," it's a relative sink. If it were a "net sink," it would have absorbed all of what we emitted or more.

    There are no mysteries here whatsover.

  8. Wrong Ed. The article clearly says it is written by "eric." It's easy to find who RC means by that. If you can't figure that out, let me know.

    You are putting up false — obviously false — information here, pseudoscience, totally unsupported by any evidence. Then you're afraid to submit it to the real scientific process of peer review and publication. You just hide here on your little blog. I can't believe that's how you were taught to do science. Obviously it wasn't.

  9. I am a climate sceptic but an open minded one I hope, but I'm afraid that Icarus is correct. I accept your scenario that the warming oceans can be a source of CO2 whilst the land is a sink. However the land does not distinguish between manmade CO2 and natural CO2, it simlpy absorbs. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, man has added CO2. The CO2 in the atmosphere must be greater because of mans contribution. It doesnt matter how you adjust the flows.

  10. Dear Alan,

    You are correct that land does not distinguish between human and natural CO2. It can't because there is no way to tell the difference.

    Regarding the relative contributions of human and natural CO2 emissions to the level of atmospheric CO2, human CO2 emissions are only 5 percent of nature's CO2 emissions.

    Therefore, simple physics says, at equilibrium, the human contribution to the level of atmospheric CO2 is only 5 percent of nature's contribution. And we are only about 4 years away from equilibrium. That makes the human contribution about 18 ppmv out of 400 ppmv. Nature is responsible for the remaining 382 ppmv.

    The IPCC assumes, incorrectly, that human CO2 emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above the year 1750 level of 280 ppmv. The IPCC has abandoned physics.

    1. Hi Dr Ed,

      I am enjoying your blog and your clear way explaining the physics of the atmosphere. Thank you for your work.

      In the lake analogy, I think what trips people up is that the size of the lake is fixed, whereas atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Am I correct in saying that if we take the analogy further, the lake grows marginally in size when there is an increase in temperature?

  11. Dr. Ed,

    There are many holes in the "co2" AGW theory.

    Has any consideration been given to what affect cumulatively adding 8 billion heat producing people, along with their heat producing activities has had on regional temperatures?

    For example, we know that London is generally warmer than surrounding areas because of the UHI.

    The local UHI effect is a product of human activity. Nothing to do with atmospheric co2 . But it affects temperatures.

    It requires one to kick the alleged dubious co2 link out of the mind for a moment.

    The average human radiates about 100w, their cars and trucks run at ~90°c, then there's the heat generated (not the co2) from their requirements for heating, the same for their cooling, and, the list goes on and on.

    There might well be AGW, but it may have nothing to do with co2.

    Or is that heat I've described just too small to have been measured?


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.