Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2

242 Comments

1. Ed,

   Would you give us permission to copy your article and post on EFN-USA. We would post updates and changes. A link to this article on your website would be posted on top of the text.

   In the info below, I've given the link to the place on our website where your article would be posted.

   I want to have as many articles like yours by qualified scientists as possible. I get criticism for posting articles like yours, even by a physicist at Oxford University.

   The battle won't be over until it is over.

   Thanks.

   John Shanahan

   Reply

   1. John Shanahan:

      You say'

      "I want to have as many articles like yours by qualified scientists as possible."

      OK. Please email me if you want my 2008 paper that Ed twice references in his above article.

      Richard

      richardscourtneyATaol.com

      (for AT substitute @)

      Reply

2. Dr. Berry,

   Your science is great but you need pictures of polar bears, whales, children, and Yetis to reach the thinking centers of the proponents of human caused climate change. Facts seem to be unnecessary to the true believers. Keep trying, but as they said in The Princess Bride, get used to disappointment. I have dealt with many believers that can't understand the most basic science and logic of the arguments refuting their claims; it just doesn't penetrate their defensive screen.

   Reply

3. Perhaps the Aztecs had it right. We should roll a few well selected heads down the steps at the UN headquarters to see if it works.

   Reply

4. Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.

   Others have shown the likely causes of climate change, and they DO NOT include human use of fossil fuels. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. I make a further point here.

   Here's why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

   99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.

   Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030–$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity's cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

   A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas. Coal has always competed effectively with natural gas. Illinois Basin coal now costs less than 1/3 the equivalent cost of natural gas at their respective sources. Coal is more competitive with gas today than it was in 1995.

   Reply

5. "3) In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise." Blatantly incorrect, per your own graphic.

   Reply

   1. What graph are you looking at? figure 3 shows you are completely wrong in your assessment.

      Reply

   2. You may wish to look again at the graph Stan and revisited your assertion.

      Reply

   3. It took me a little while to figure out why Stan is correct.

      While the level of CO2 growth falls from 1988 to 1993, it was still growth, according to the graph. BUT there was a *huge* drop in CO2 growth, and human emissions continued expanding.

      Reply

      1. Thank you, Stan and Eric. I corrected my sentence you quoted to read:

         "In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, the rate of increase of Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.”

         Reply

6. Well done, Dr. Ed. If I may, I will refer this article to the many climate alarmists with whom I battle every day – especially those cretins who write for the Leftist press.

   Reply

7. Excellent article.

   I think you are making figure one do too much work.

   You may like to consider repeating it three times and making adjustments or additions to it each time to make each point.

   Reply

8. Objections taken from twitter exchange about this paper:

   1. 'he fails to explain the loss of natural carbon sinks which have equally disrupted the carbon cycle.'

   2. 'if the co2 is a completely neutral cycle, then how does he explain ocean acidification?'

   3. 'how does he address the added carbon from deforestation and erosion? Those sinks have been lost.'

   4. 'and his carbon map misses the mark on a lot of outlying factors.'

   Reply

   1. Dear RJ, Thank you for summarizing Twitter comments. To reply:

      1. There is no evidence in the CO2 data that the carbon cycle has changed. The annual cycle still goes up for 8 months and goes down for 4 months during the growing season.

      2. The oceans are not acidic. The small changes in pH do not affect the carbon cycle.

      3. I don't need to address deforestation and erosion because the CO2 data show the carbon cycle has not changed since 1960.

      4. By definition, "outlying factors" are not critical to the argument. The alarmist claim does not include "outlying factors" in its argument. Therefore, I do not need to include "outlying factors" in my proof the alarmist claim is wrong.

      In summary, to prove the alarmist claim is wrong, I do not need to include any factors the alarmist case does not use in its claim. If I have omitted any relevant factor, then the alarmist claim has also omitted the same factors. Therefore, to the extent any comments above apply to this discussion, then they help prove the alarmist case is wrong.

      The comments miss the point of the scientific method. The alarmist case predicts that Human CO2 emissions cause ALL of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. I have proven that is impossible. Therefore, the alarmist case is wrong. Period.

      Here are two articles that discuss the scientific method:

      http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypot…

      http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/a-physics-view-o…

      Here is another article that proves that CO2 does not cause warming:

      http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/new-study-sun-no…

      Reply

9. I add this comment to respond to some comments delivered to me personally rather than in comments on this article.

   The alarmist case is based upon their "belief" that man cannot do something to our atmosphere without causing serious damage. The alarmists then put together their argument to support their belief. They claim Human CO2 caused 100 percent of the observed rise in CO2 since 1750.

   I summarized the alarmist argument. Then, I showed how this alarmist fails using their own numbers. This is why I used the IPCC (2007b) and other references to their numbers.

   I concluded that the effect of Human CO2 is to cause at most only 4 percent of the observed rise in Atmosphere CO2. Using Salby (2015), I conclude the Human-caused rise can be as low as zero. So I am between zero and 4 percent.

   Remember, the burden of proof is upon the alarmists to show Human CO2 causes 100 percent of the observed rise. I believe my argument shows their theory fails. I don't need to prove my argument for zero to show the alarmist case is wrong.

   I don't need to go into the details of how the ocean moves CO2 around, or whether ocean "acidification" and land "deforestation" complicate my case, as some environmentalists have claimed.

   I don't need to include any details that the alarmist argument for 100 percent did not include. If there is a relevant omission in my argument, then the alarmist case also makes that same relevant omission, and is, therefore, wrong. Therefore, my proof the alarmist case is wrong still stands.

   Reply

10. I agree that changing atmospheric CO2 levels are not a major driver of temperature change. However, the reason is based on relatively invariant spectral properties and radiative heat transfers above a miniscule concentration of CO2. In brief, the green house effect can only be enhanced by massive CO2 increases and a multilayer model, which is unproven.

    Dr Ed’s error lies in the term “equilibrium”. Figure 3 shows that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, which means that total global emissions and absorptions are not balanced. That is, the CO2 cycle is currently not in equilibrium, regardless of the reason.

    In the lake analogy, if the only sources and sinks were land and sea, and all other factors were stable including temperature, then the system would be in equilibrium and the atmospheric CO2 level would not change on average. In the current situation, an extra source is being added to an otherwise closed system. That is, geo-locked carbon is being introduced into the carbon cycle.

    If this third source was removed, then the system would return to equilibrium at a higher, but constant CO2 level. However at present, the total carbon being recycled is not constant. The injected new carbon is being re-distributed to the sinks, but not as fast as the additional in-flow. Hence, there is increasing carbon at the inject site, which is the atmosphere.

    The claim that the new CO2 is processed at the same rate as existing CO2 is incorrect. Isotope studies are clear on this point, and furthermore, provide direct evidence that carbon fuels are contributing to increasing atmospheric CO2.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/isotopes/…

    Climate alarmism is a curse on science. The misconceptions in this paper are not helping.

    Reply

    1. Dear Periodically Correct, Thank you for your comment.

       I make no claim our CO2 cycle is currently at equilibrium. I use equilibrium in the examples because it is key to understanding atmospheric CO2, just like in many physical processes. When the inputs to the lake change, there is a new equilibrium lake level. It takes time to reach that level.

       We do not know what the present equilibrium level is for atmospheric CO2 without human CO2. It could be 800.

       The human CO2 being added to the system is small compared to nature’s inputs. The source of the human CO2 is irrelevant. Human CO2 input of 4 can change the lake level (atmospheric CO2) by only 4 percent over the natural level. It can’t be responsible for 100 percent of the present level.

       If the human CO2 input were removed, the system would return to wherever nature wants it to be. That could be higher or lower.

       You have no data to support your claim that CO2 flow to the sinks is slower than the human CO2 input. The annual CO2 cycle goes up about 8 and then sinks about 6. That shows the natural cycle is greater than the human CO2 input of 4. Your claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human CO2 is not supported by data.

       Please use isotope data to support your point. Perhaps watch Salby (2015) or read his book before you do because he shows that isotope data cannot prove the point you claim.

       Reply

       1. Dr. Ed

          Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

          1. The term equilibrium applies to a closed system such as the contents of a sealed bottle of soda in a refrigerator. When a system experiences equal external flows in and out, it is open and at steady state.

          2. There is an inconsistency in the article’s statements “This will raise the lake level until the outflow equals 104”, and later, “the effect of Human CO2 on Atmosphere CO2 will be ZERO!”.

          3. Your response contains, “It can’t be responsible for 100 percent of the present level.” I understand your argument. In a unit of time in the model, 104 units of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere, and 104 units are returned to it. The flows are balanced. However, four of the 104 units returned are externally-derived, leaving only 100 from natural sources. That’s 104 sent out to natural sinks, but only 100 returned from them. This can only happen when the sinks are huge and their concentrations are not affected by the extra 4 units they are receiving. This also requires the extra 4 units to be mixed deep into the sinks. In the case of the oceans, this is not so on yearly timescales. As such the return from the oceans shallows could gradually creep up from 100, and more so from land. Conceptually, over time this limited redistribution within the sinks could raise the atmospheric level well above 104.

          The problem is this. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. On this I think we all agree. In recent decades the level has roughly raised from 350 ppmv to 400 ppmv. This is considerably more than the 4 percent expected from the model.

          Salby, in his 2015 video concludes that most, if not all, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is thermally derived. This was difficult to understand initially, given that the earth has not warmed for almost 2 decades. Clarity came in question time. Salby believes that the current global temperature is set too high and this is causing outgassing (not his term).

          Evidence is presented in his initial graphs where CO2 emissions are moderately low in the years 1990-2002 and three times higher in the following years. Despite this, atmospheric CO2 levels shown in the next graph continued to rise steadily with time, and “didn’t blip”. Two problems. First, the figures presented are the increases in emissions. This exaggerates the modest changes in total emissions. Second, close inspection of the second graph for atmospheric CO2 levels reveals a flattening for about three years from 1991. There is a blip, although mild. The next slide shows Net Global Emission as a time curve in green overlaid with the Human Contribution in red. Salby concludes there is no resemblance between their shapes. On the contrary, a smooth average through the green curve correlates well with the red.

          4. “You have no data to support your claim that CO2 flow to the sinks is slower than the human CO2 input.” I stand corrected, although the statement is true in the early phases before steady state is achieved. Two of many possibilities for the observed atmospheric CO2 levels above the modelled “104” are, Salby’s outgassing, and my “limited sinking”. The reason may be neither. Whatever the explanation, solid evidence is required.

          5. I think the concept of differential isotope uptakes is adequately explained in the NOAA link.

          Reply

          1. Dear Politically Correct,

             1. Agree. But I defined the system as all the water in my Lake analogy, or all the carbon in the earth’s carbon cycle that participates in the CO2 cycle.

             2. Agree. But my ZERO conclusion is based on the additional assumption that nature totally controls atmospheric CO2.

             3. “This can only happen when the sinks are huge and their concentrations are not affected by the extra 4 units they are receiving.”

             The errors in our knowledge of the limits to CO2 absorptions of Land and Oceans easily leaves room for absorption of the extra 4 units of Human CO2.

             The point of Salby’s graph is: if Human CO2 drives Atmospheric CO2, and absorptions by Land and Oceans are limited, then Atmospheric CO2 must increase molecule by molecule for all Human CO2 that exceeds the absorption limits. The alarmist hypothesis says Land and Oceans are at their absorption limits.

             But Atmospheric CO2 did not change its rate of increase after 2002. Therefore, Human CO2 cannot be driving Atmospheric CO2. Land or Oceans have not at their absorption limits.

             4. Indeed, we cannot prove a theory is true. We can only prove a theory wrong.

             5. Also, please see the comments below by Eric Grimsrud and me on the isotope subject.

11. Thanks for your article. I'd lost track of Murry Salby but was able to catch up via your reference. Strange that he was speaking at UC London, which is usually a hotbed of alarmism.

    I remember some years ago there was a lot of interest in the isotopic distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a different isotopic composition to CO2 from all other sources. Other assumptions were then made to come up with the result that the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to anthropogenic emissions was only 3-4% of the total increase. What's happened to this work? Disproved? Irrelevant? Bad measurements ….

    Reply

    1. Dear Kevan, Salby (2015) and Salby (2012) shows why the C-13 isotope from fossil fuels is the same as from plants. So, C-13 is not a definitive way to map human CO2.

       Reply

12. If CO2 flows from the dam, half goes to the land the other half goes to the sea. The CO2 that flows to the land , is use by the vegetation ,trees , grass . This vegetation creates oxygen for all animals to breath. The more co2 the more oxygen. The co2 that flows to the ocean is use by algae and other green plants. They produce oxygen that is release in the water, so fish and mammals can breath. All this produces food , we need to live.

    Reply

13. Are you familiar with the Revelle factor?

    Reply

    1. Whomever has posted as 'and Then There's Physics',

       You ask nobody specific,

       "Are you familiar with the Revelle factor?"

       I am, so I could reduce your ignorance if you were to say what it is you want to know.

       Richard

       Reply

       1. Richard,

          I think I understand it fairly well, and the reason I asked was because it is quite a crucial thing to understand if one is going to make claims about the carbon cycle. If, however, you would like to explain your understanding, please go ahead.

          Reply

          1. …and Then There's Physics :

             No, dear boy (or girl, man, woman, bot, etc.).

             You posed your question without adequate clarification and you now claim you know whatever answer you had wanted. So, you say you did not post your question to obtain information because you now claim (probably falsely) that you know whatever information you were requesting.

             Clearly, you posed your question for some unstated (probably nefarious) purpose. The most likely explanation of your purpose was an attempt to falsely pretend you knew of something which contradicts the above analysis by Dr Ed.

             Your mischievous posts are a silly distraction from consideration of the article by Dr Ed and your attempt to get me to assist in waving your 'red herring' fails.

             Richard

          2. Richard,

             Okay, the Revelle factor is the ratio of the fractional change in atmospheric CO2 to the fractional change in dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. If you work through some carbonate chemistry for sea water you discover that it is about 10. This means that – in equilibrium – a 1% change in dissolved inorganic carbon the oceans produces a 10% change in atmospheric CO2. Given the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon in the oceans, the oceans can only take up about 70-80% of our emissions (depending on how much we actaully emit). Therefore, not only is the rise in atmospheric CO2 anthropogenic, but about 20-30% of our emissions (or an enhancement in atmospheric CO2 equivalent to 20-30% of our emissions) will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

             More than happy for the author of this post to produce some kind of analysis that contradicts this result of carbonate chemistry, but it is a pretty well understood result that has been known for quite some time. It will probably take more than a blog post with some colourful diagrams.

       2. I was aiming it at the author of the post. IMO, anyone who thinks they've re-written our understanding of the carbon cycle should be familiar with the Revelle factor. The reason I asked is because many are not.

          I think I do understand it pretty well, but if you would like to explain your understanding, please go ahead.

          Reply

          1. …and Then There's Physics;

             You provide an additional 'red herring' when you write

             "More than happy for the author of this post to produce some kind of analysis that contradicts this result of carbonate chemistry, "

             There is absolutely no reason for "the author of this post" to contradict your irrelevant twaddle because

             (a)

             your assertion applies to equilibrium conditions

             but (b)

             the above analysis pertains to the situation of DISEQUILIBRIUM which exists.

             Indeed, in his above analysis Dr Ed considers the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration to be an effect of the carbon cycle system moving towards the constantly changing equilibrium state (which it probably never attains).

             To assist you in future, I add that pretending to know something when you clearly don't understand what you are talking about does yourself a disservice whether or not you hide behind an alias.

             Richard

          2. Richard,

             (a)

             your assertion applies to equilibrium conditions

             Well, indeed, but the equilibrium calculation indicates that 20-30% of our emissions will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years (or, more correctly, an enhancement equivalent to 20-30% of our emissions).

             (b)

             the above analysis pertains to the situation of DISEQUILIBRIUM which exists.

             Indeed, and in disequilibrium, we would expect more than 20-30% of our emissions to be in the atmosphere. Observations indicate that the airborne fraction is around 45%.

             So, to summarise, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to our emission of CO2 into the atmosphere and we would expect about 20-30% of our emissions to remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years (again, an enhancement equivalent to 20-30%, rather than specific molecules from our emissions).

             To assist you in future, I add that pretending to know something when you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about does yourself a disservice whether or not you hide behind an alias.

             Using your actual name doesn't suddenly mean that you do know what you're talking about. It's not that hard to work out who I am. I do have an "About Me" page on my blog.

             Since this is unlikely to become any more constructive (you did get me blogging, by the way) here is a post that explains the basics of seawater carbonare chemistry, and here is a post that includes a discussion of the relevance of the Revelle factor (probably more for the lurkers, if there are any, than anything else).

14. Dear Edwin Berry,

    it is waste of effort to tell the liars that they are lying. The geoengineering henchmen know that their claims are far from reality.

    Their intention is not science, but distraction from a global crime!

    So we should ask, why do they need to create an endless heap of lies to propagate such a scam?

    What is their profit?

    Who is profiting from it?

    What are they hiding from minds?

    What is the reality?

    The fraudster has always to lie to cover his main lie!

    The reason of this problems is the devoutness of the dumb!

    The TRUTH is always the opposite of the LIE!

    What is the MAIN LIE of the Geoengineering Mafia?

    #FAQ about #CO2!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/2016/06/questi…

    A scam from the first start!

    It is all about WATER GRABBING !!

    Reply

15. Dear Dr Ed,

    Your paper deals with fluxes of CO-2. My question is about static amounts of CO-2 (in megatons) present in the atmosphere as compared with the C0-2 related compounds dissolved in the oceans. My guess is that the ratio (ocean/atmosphere) between these two compartments is huge.

    According to NOAA the oceans contain 321,003,271 cubic miles of water. As most of this huge water volume is under immense pressure and also cold it will be able to dissolve huge amount of carbon dioxide and related ions.

    Over the years, I have tried to find any information. Until now I have found no info that could help me to calculate the ratio ocean/atmospheric CO-2. As IPCC from the beginning was made up by meteorologists I suspect that either they did not know they should or did for other reasons not care to incorporate the supposedly huge amount of CO-2 that is in equilibrium – albeit very slow – with the atmosphere.

    My question to you is simple:

    How much Carbon Dioxide (and related) is there in the oceans and how much in the atmosphere? If you know the answer, please send a valid reference and a copy of the passage in that paper that pertains to my question.

    Reply

    1. Dear Erik,

       Here is where you can find a chart that shows the information you request. It is in the IPCC Climate Change 2013 report:

       http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=As…

       Reply

16. Ed,

    As I would expect you to know, there are at least two reasons why we know that our present high levels of CO2 (now over 400 ppm) did not result from natural emissions.

    The first is that we know from the ice core record that our atm CO2 levels had not exceeded 300 ppm for the 800,000 years prior to beginning of the Industrial Age in the about 1850 and only then steadily increased to higher levers, now about 400 ppm. You claim these recent high levels are due to “natural” emissions – just a coincidence, I guess, that the increase above 300 just happened to began when mankind started burning fossil fuels on a large scale. In case you don’t know that is a silly thought.

    In addition, the carbon isotope (C-13 and C-14 relative to C-12) signatures in atmospheric CO2 have shown that the extra biological carbon now present in the biosphere came from an ancient source of carbon, such as the fossil fuels and not from natural emissions of CO2.

    Simple facts can be such troubling things when they go against what one wishes to believe. Since it is Christmas Day, however, one might be allowed rely mainly on belief and faith – at least today. Have a Merry One, but how about moving on to science tomorrow.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, You bring up the carbon isotope hypothesis as your attempt to prove human CO2 is the primary cause of rising atmospheric CO2. Therefore, I assume you agree that I have demolished the CO2-quantity hypothesis.

       It is interesting that the group that follows Peter Glick did not use the carbon isotope hypothesis as their reason to claim human CO2 causes all the rise in atmospheric CO2. Keith Pickering presented the CO2-quantity hypothesis for Peter's group in a comment referenced in my post above. I think they have given up on the carbon isotope argument because they have learned it does not get them anywhere.

       Therefore, you need to make a clear statement of your hypothesis. You should do so in a mathematical equation. All your quantities should have error bars. When you do that properly, your calculation will show that your resulting error bar will be too great to prove your point.

       We know that C-13 in the atmosphere has decreased as CO2 has increased. We know that fossil-fuel-derived human CO2 is low in C-13, compared to the C-13 in the atmosphere. Therefore, the simplistic argument is that fossil-fuel emissions have caused the decrease.

       But to use that argument, you will need to show there are no serious competing sources of low C-13 emissions. The oceans sometimes emit low C-13 CO2. Plant decay emits low C-13 CO2. The error bars on the other sources of low C-13 are too great to prove that the observed decrease of C-13 in the atmosphere is evidence that it was caused by human emissions.

       I welcome you to try to prove your point with a mathematical equation with proper error bars..

       You also refer to "coincidence" as a reason to believe human CO2 caused the rise in atmospheric CO2. Surely, you realize "coincidence" and correlation do not prove cause and effect.

       There was a time when the length of the dress hemlines worn by New York models was very well correlated with the level of Lake Titicaca. Last time I checked, no one proved cause and effect.

       But all this is irrelevant because the point made by Salby (2016), that we discuss in your next comment, proves human CO2 does not drive atmospheric CO2.

       Reply

17. Ed,

    Do you not vet these scientific morons that you display on your website or at the very least pay some attention to what they say?

    To pick just one of countless examples:

    In about the 10th minute of Professor Salby’s presentation, he claims to be comparing CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 increases during two recent decades and “THEN CLAIMS the CO2 emissions in the second decade were THREE TIMES greater than in the preceeding one.” What a bunch of garbage.

    Any careful or even casual look at CO2 emissions rates over the last decades will show that the annual increase have been about 3% or so. Over a decade to decade time span of 10 years that amounts to an increase of about 30 to 40% from one decade to another. Another way of looking at it is that in 2000 the global CO2 emission rate was about 6.7 gton/yr carbon and ten years later, in 2010, it was about 9.0 gtons Again that is an increase of about 30 to 40% over that decade. Salby’s claim of 300% is whacko. Again, where did you find this moron and why do you highlight him on your website?

    And why does your peanut gallery not pick up on silly claims such as these. No wonder no Q and A was allowed after Professor Salby’s presentation. The Deneir’s club just wanted something to throw at their scientifically illiterate followers.

    Your Welcome, Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, Your criticism of Salby (2016) is inaccurate. This is simple high-school physics but I will explain it to you.

       About 9 minutes into his presentation, Salby refers to the significant increase in the rate of increase in human CO2 emissions after 2002. I show this increase in my Fig. 3 above, which uses original data and not Salby's chart. Do the following steps:

       Draw a horizontal dotted line from the emissions line at 2002. Its value is about h = 3.3.

       Draw another dotted line from the same point to the end of the emissions line in 2013. The end point is e = 4.6.

       Draw a dotted line to match the slope of the emissions line before 2002 and extend it to 2013, where its value is d = 3.7. This line represents what you call "business as usual."

       Now, calculate the change in slope of the human CO2 emissions:

       Change in slope = (e – h) / (d – h) = (1.3) / (0.4) = 3

       That's the 3 times slope increase Salby refers to. The emissions slope after 2002 is 3 times "business as usual" before 2002.

       This simple fact, that the rate of increase of human CO2 emissions increased by a factor of 3 after 2002, while the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 remained virtually unchanged after 2002, proves human CO2 emissions do not cause the increase in atmospheric CO2.

       (You said you could not enter a comment on the Salby video. Please notice there are other comments on Salby's video. These readers did what everyone who is familiar with WordPress did. They clicked on the title of the post to open the comment box.)

       Reply

18. Eric,

    Proper English requires that you spell correctly…"Deniers".

    Also, "You are welcome" is properly shortened to "You're Welcome".

    Reply

19. Ed,

    From inspection of your figure 3, one sees that the annual increase in CO2 emissions prior to 2002 was about 2% and after 2002 it was about 3%. This is roughly in line with other reports I have seen.

    So sure, the ratio of slopes of these increases over those two recent decades appears to be about 3/2 =1.5. But so what? these slopes measured over two recent 10 year periods would not cause one the think that the Atm level of CO2 would have increased by say 150%, would they? The effect of this 1% increase in CO2 emissions over the last decade would be much, much smaller and difficult to assign cause to because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at any point it time represents the integration of all that has happened over 160 years since the beginning of the Industrial Age. This includes, of course, any changes in the transport of C to and from its land and ocean reservoirs. So if the Professor is suggesting that the effects the 1% increases in CO2 emissions over a recent selected decade should already be apparent, he is does not appear to understand the complexities of the carbon cycle. The effect of these emission increases, if they are continued, would become apparent only after many more years of letting it play out and after we learn more about the effects of surface and ocean exchanges, which also contribute to atm CO2 levels.

    And in any case, CO2 emissions did not increased by 300 % during the last decade relative to the previous on, as the Professor stated. That claim is clearly nonsense. But., at the same time, yes the two slopes pointed to by Ed in Figure 3 do differ by up to 150 %. But how Ed’s slopes might be related to Atm CO2 level observed over that period was not explained by Ed and is far more complex and smaller than Ed and the Professor would lead you to believe. They are both using an exceedingly flawed presentation – apparently to fool the public. I don’t know for sure what their motivations are but it is possible that they simply don’t understand the “junior high school” level of science involved here.

    My criticism of the Professor Salvy's talk stands. And also as I pointed out in another comment, why did our CO2 levels suddenly take off exceeding the 300 ppm for the first time in 800,000 years at the beginning of the industrial age – if recent levels, now over 400 ppm, are due to natural emissions and not due to the combustion of fossil fuels? You might want to refer to some grade school science in order to answer that one. Very little math of any kind is required here.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, All your mumbo-jumbo does not change the fact that Human CO2 emissions increased at the rate of 0.4 per decade before 2002, and 1.3 per decade thereafter. That is a factor of 3 no matter how you cut it.

       But it is not the specific factor or 3 that is critical. The alarmist hypothesis argues that Human CO2 emissions exceeded the increase in Atmospheric CO2 each year. Therefore, they argue, Human CO2 caused and drove the observed increase in Atmospheric CO2. Necessary to this hypothesis is that the Land and Oceans have reached some kind of absorption limit, and what Land and Oceans can't absorb must end up in the Atmosphere.

       This hypothesis predicts that if Human CO2 emissions increase then Amospheric CO2 must increase in lock step, because there is no where else for the additional Human emissions to go.

       Well, we humans, inadvertently, have done the perfect experiment. Human CO2 increased significantly after 2002, and it had no observable effect on the rate of increase in Atmospheric CO2.

       This means Human CO2 does not exceed the ability of Land and Oceans to absorb it. This also means nature, not Human CO2 emissions, controls Atmospheric CO2.

       A prediction of the hypothesis was wrong. Therefore, the hypothesis is wrong.

       Reply

20. Ed,

    In order to explain how the carbon isotopic signature of the C in atm CO2 has been used to prove that increases in industrial age CO2 was caused by the combustion of fossil fuel, it if easiest to do this using carbon -14, the radioactive nuclide having a half life of roughly 6 thousand years. Since fossil fuels are much older than 6 thousand years, they have essentially no C-14 left in them. Thus when fossil fuels were burned, producing more atmospheric CO2, the amount of C-14 in our atmosphere was observed to decrease – prior to about 1950 when nuclear tests added more C-14 the atmosphere and thereby ruined this method of CO2 age detection. (Since then only C-13 measurement have been used.)

    Nevertheless, the measurements perform on air samples collected before 1950s showed that the additional CO2 being added to our biosphere up to that time came from fossil fuel combustion. (ongoing C-13 measurements have shown the same)

    .For the full ten yards on C-14 measurements, see http://www.pnas.org/content/112/31/9542.full.pdf

    It will be very difficult for you to BS your way around this one so I will not expect you to respond. Again the C14 measures are so clear that only junior high science is required to understand them. Again, your welcome (for sharing some real and easily understood science on this website. For more, any reader is invited to visit mine at ericgrimsrud.org

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, Glad you agree with my argument on C-13. So you now wish to move to the C-14 argument.

       Indeed, fossil fuels have essentially no C-14. Clearly this C-14 deficient CO2 will decrease the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. No problem, so far.

       Here's the catch that you must explain. Suppose nature kept Atmospheric CO2 constant. Human CO2 would still decrease the C-14 in the atmosphere.

       In other words, the fact that Human CO2 decreases C-14 in the atmosphere does not mean Human CO2 caused the observed increase in Atmospheric CO2.

       Using my Lake analogy above, the Human inflow can have a tracer (or lack of a tracer) that is not in the Lake water. It will add its tracer to the Lake water. The Lake water is well mixed before it goes over the dam. We can measure the addition of the tracer in the Lake. This does not mean the Human input caused 100 percent of the water flow over the dam.

       Reply

21. Ed, You think the fact that atm CO2 began to rise at the onset of the Industrial Age was just a coincidence. And you think the fact that the C-14 content of atm CO2 decreased significantly prior to 1950 was also a coincidence. You have your but covered – there are no cause and effect correlations in science. You can just say that all apparent correlations are merely coincidence. But then if fossil fuel combustion was not the cause of the CO2 increases starting right at the beginning of the Industrial Age, what was that increase due to and what is your evidence. And finally how to you know that other correlations, if you have any, were not just coincidence. I don't think Fehnman would be pleased with your claim that you learned your "scientific method" from him.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, you are attempting to prove Human CO2 emissions caused all or most of the observed rise in Atmospheric CO2. You have the burden of proof, not me.

       Yet you continue to base your "proof" on correlations. You know as well as I do that correlation does not prove cause and effect. So you have no proof.

       Then you ask what might have caused the increase in Atmospheric CO2. That is a fair question if you intend to exclude all other possible causes for the increase in Atmospheric CO2. But exclusions of unknowns is a logical error because we can't exclude what we don't know.

       That approach also does not work because temperature is a possible cause. If you follow Salby's (2015) math, you will see he did a good job in showing Atmospheric CO2 follows the integral of temperature.

       Your hypothesis still has the problem that it made an incorrect prediction. Feynman would certainly and forcefully have told his class that this means the hypothesis fails.

       Reply

22. These questions are coming up as I read. Perhaps this is answered further on…

    However, in brief, the article seems to suggest that Humans added 171 units of CO2 to the atmosphere. The Land and Oceans added 26 000 units to the atmosphere. This should total 26 171 units added correct?

    Land and Ocean absorb 26 000 units from atmosphere including the 171 units of human induced CO2.

    Therefore, there should be 171 units left from the total original added should it not?

    What have I missed here?

    Reply

    1. Dear Dale,

       The reason I did not add 171 to 26,000 to get 26,171 is because our estimate of the 26,000 has an error of at least 10 percent, or 2,600. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk of 26,171 units. The exact numbers are not critical.

       The important fact is that the ratio of natural to human CO2 emissions is 152 to 1.

       Reply

23. Ed,

    You seem to have the impression that even for complex physical systems, that there is a “proof” that will exactly describe all cause and effect relationships and lead to absolute “truth” concerning that system. Only those who have not been involved in real research seem to hold that view. The rest of us know how science really works. We observe things through measurements and then offer the best explanations we can think of and then continuously test and refine those explanations – again and again – hoping that our best fits increasingly get nearer the truth – probably without ever getting things perfect.

    I have noted, however, that you apply the unobtainable standard of absolute proof to everyone’s thoughts – but your own. If that was how science worked, we would have to acknowledge that we know absolutely nothing about science. But that is not how it works. Some ideas get so thoroughly time tested that they become generally accepted even to eventually become part of out "common sense" view of the Earth.

    For example, I have met very few scientists who think that the rise of CO2 just coincidentally began to occur when mankind began burning fossil fuels. Adding to that the isotopic fingerprint evidence concerning the sources of today’s biospheric carbon, I am sure that the scientific community would label someone who doubts the role of fossil fuel combustion on the rise of atm CO2 to be absolutely “wacko” – a nut case of the most extreme kind – if that person also claimed to be a scientist.

    Ed, Your motivations are your own business, of course, but clearly have nothing at all to do with science or understanding nature. You are clearly operating in the first part of Lincolns famous quote: “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but …” and I have no doubt that there is still a lot of money to be made in them thar hills – especially within the scientifically illiterate Republican environment in which we live.

    It is a shame that you put so much effort into the advance of global warming.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, You think my approach demands perfection in a hypothesis. It does not.

       I use the correct scientific approach, which is to try to prove a hypothesis wrong. You focus on trying to prove your hypothesis is right, which is fundamentally impossible. Every scientist should try to prove his hypothesis is wrong, and accept that his hypothesis is wrong if the hypothesis makes one bad prediction.

       You are correct to argue there may be many things right in your hypothesis and maybe only one part needs fixing. But as it stands, it does not work. Like a car with a dead battery, it won't work. Until you find the bad part and fix it, your hypothesis is wrong.

       So far, we have reviewed and rejected three hypotheses related to the increase in atmospheric CO2: the CO2 quantity argument, the C-13 argument, and the C-14 argument.

       Now, the only thing you have left is your appeal to others to "believe" your climate religion because of correlation and your feelings. That is not science.

       Look at the Aztecs. After so many days of cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple stairs, it finally rained. Aztec priests took that as proof that their hypothesis was correct. So they continued their practice. Their belief became "generally accepted" and they considered it "common sense."

       In a way, the Aztecs had more proof than you do to support their hypothesis. They could repeat their experiment until it finally rained. On the other hand, after we negate your hypotheses, you refuse to consider that you might be wrong.

       Reply

24. It is amazing that Eric Grimsrud would make this statement to you:

    "Ed, Do you not vet these scientific morons that you display on your website or at the very least pay some attention to what they say?"

    I had gone to his site and this was one of his featured presentations that he thinks everyone should watch:

    "Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island just gave his 151st speech concerning climate change to the USA Senate. This one focused on the effects of rising sea levels on our eastern seaboard. As usual, this presentation is first rate with respect to its inclusion of the best science available.

    He discusses many changes expected to occur well within the current 21st century. This is a “must see” video and is available at" 

    https://ericgrimsrud.org/2016/12/08/senator-white…

    I will not at this time get involved in why Eric is so mistaken about a trace gas that is absolutely essential for all life on earth, CO₂, but deal with this You Tube statement by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. I watched it and was amazed at just how mistaken these kinds of people can be. He claims that the ocean is warming, and that may well be true, and that is causing the Antarctic sea ice to melt, and that is decidedly NOT true, because the sea ice has reached all time high levels in Antarctica in recent years.

    Then Whitehouse involves himself in nothing but conjecture about rising sea levels and how devastating they will be for the Eastern seaboard of the US and for the planet in general. I am left to wonder at why Eric and Whitehouse can not look at readily available information on this subject and then come away knowing that either they are willfully ignorant of the truth or just out right lying about the subject of sea levels.

    It is claimed that "By 2050, mean sea level around Florida is expected to rise about a foot…." doesn't seem to fit in with what the NOAA sea level site says. One is left to wonder just who is lying and why & maybe Eric can answer that question for us?

    Just a short way down the coast at Miami Beach we see this projection made by NOAA.

    Mean Sea Level Trend 8723170 Miami Beach, Florida

    The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

    interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

    1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend…

    This is the report and projections for what should be one of the most sensitive areas for sea level rise, Key West, Florida.

    Mean Sea Level Trend 8724580 Key West, Florida

    The mean sea level trend is 2.37 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

    interval of +/- 0.15 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

    1913 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend…

    Don't these people know that The United Arab Emirates has built sand islands in the Persian Gulf & that China is building sand islands in the South China Sea?

    "Mean Sea Level Trends 605-041 Quinhon, Vietnam

    The mean sea level trend is -1.25 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

    interval of +/- 1.60 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

    1977 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.41 feet in 100 years."

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend…

    Aren't we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?

    "Mean Sea Level Trends 999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica

    The mean sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

    interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

    1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years."

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend…

    The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months in 2015 and now is even with the 1981 to 2010 average. It fell below the record highs set in 2014 in July, 2015.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/glo…

    Mark Twain was talking about this bit of scare mongering that was presented by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

    "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts." Mark Twain

    Reply

25. Ed,

    The C-14 measurements I described above provide a clear proof of the large contribution of fossil fuel combustion to atm CO2. Therefore, you simply choose to ignore it. If there is a good reason why you ignore it, please explain what that is..

    Eric

    Reply

26. And Ed,

    In discussion the C-14 evidence, lets discuss the C-14 evidence itself and not some other analogy to it. That would be the closest thing to the scientific method and, in addition, the real thing in this case is very easy to model. There is no need for an analogy in this case. Looking forward to your response and hope it is something other than ignoring this evidence or "moving the target".

    Eric

    Reply

    1. As I explained above, we agree that Human CO2 has lowered the fraction of C-14 in the atmosphere. But that would have occurred even if the total CO2 in the atmosphere had remained constant. So the C-14 data do not prove Human CO2 caused most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2.

       To make your case, you must construct an equation or numerical model that proves Human CO2 caused most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2. You have not done that. All you have done is to give a hand-waving, qualitative argument. That does not qualify as science. If you want to play science, produce some numbers.

       Reply

27. Ed,

    Yes, I thought you would simple ignore the C-14 measurement and not look them up yourself. So you want numbers. Fine, they are everywhere in the literature. See https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-… for example, in which this literature is summarized. Note that the original papers are referenced there.

    Let me know if you need help in understanding the clear story told by Figure 4 – measurement of c-14 in ATM co2 prior to 1950. – Even though I am sure you will also just ignore this quantitative evidence.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric,

       The source you reference may be the most pathetic attempt to produce a scientific argument I have ever read.

       It begins with the same alarmist argument I disposed of in this post. It ends with a C-14 argument that lacks a C-14 transfer equation followed by supporting numerical calculations. It is not the "quantitative evidence" you claim it is.

       They should turn the fairy-tale articles in Skeptical Science into a children's coloring book.

       Reply

28. Ed,

    So your method of ignoring the C-14 measurement has now moved on to “shooting the messenger” in this case, Skeptical Science, who was simply reviewing the literature, not presenting new science.

    So now you should look up some of that peer reviewed literature, starting with Stuiver and Quay, 1981, whose figure was used in the SS review.

    Also note that the C-14 approach to determining the contribution of fossil fuel combustion to our atmosphere is now over a half century old. See Revelle and Suess, 1959. It can be pulled up at http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environm…

    Note that this study provided the % of fossil fuel derived atm CO2 observed in each decade prior to 1950 – when it was approaching 3%.

    Should I now guess that your next move will be to trash the reputations of Stuiver, Quay, Revelle, and Suess? All very high respected scientists and the top flight journals their work appeared in?

    No problem if you do. There are many other studies out there showing the same.

    In your own studies of atm sci, you obvious missed a lot.

    Really Ed you should try reading the peer reviewed literature once in a while instead of just making up crap and ignoring real science. If your argument is that scientist are crooked and linked by some sort of international conspiracy, I guess you think that would also include to five old fellows I referred to above.

    Eric

    Reply

29. A Correction here to my previous comment. By 1950 the C-14 measurements of Revelle, and Suess showed that 12% of the CO2 in the atmosphere had com from fossil fuel combustion, not 3%. The 3% figure was the % increase measured over just the single century from 1940 to 1950.

    Reply

30. "Kudos to a US Senator Posted by: ericgrimsrud | May 18, 2016

    "As an example of them, I am providing here one that focuses on the other enormous ecosystem – the oceans – that is also being decimated by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Senator Whitehouse makes it clear that action against carbon dioxide emissions is also urgently needed in order to stop acidification of our oceans. The acidification of our oceans caused by its absorption of CO2 is damaging our oceanic ecosystems because it makes the calcium carbonate shells of marine critters more soluble thereby stressing and killing those critters. […] And why, one might ask, is there so little scientific expertise of this sort among the elected officials of our country? And when are we going to learn that we cannot dictate our preferences to Mother Nature, but instead, must use our vast scientific knowledge to live in harmony with Her." (That is a great question, Eric, and it would be great if your favorite Senator did acquire some valid scientific knowledge)
    https://ericgrimsrud.org/2016/05/18/kudos-to-a-us…

    I feel the need to remind Eric and perhaps the Senator that the "YouTube" that he presented about the run away tides, which has to be a figment of his imagination and more about that later; but, he maintains in his video about the sea levels, at minute .5, that the oceans have trapped about 90% of the excess heat that the alarmist devil in the sky, CO₂, according to them, has caused warming & that the oceans are expanding & that his state has seen an almost 4⁰F increase in H₂O temps since the 1960s.

    "Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of lemonade, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. Warm lemonade cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of lemonade.

    Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.

    Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water."

    So, Eric, are the laws of physics to be put on hold so that you & Senator Whitehouse can tell your poorly fabricated little fictional stories about the oceans?

    What are you using for a base line that enables you to say: "acidification of our oceans caused by its absorption of CO2"? You must know, being a chemist, that "The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909  and revised to the modern pH in 1924"

    Ocean Acidification can never occur because of the buffering action of calcium carbonate. Our oceans are solidly basic with a pH of about 8.0 that varies a little depending mostly on ocean temperature. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will only decrease alkalinity (pH) a tiny amount, far less than natural variations.

    You & Senator Whitehouse also seem to be forgetting this in your groundless conjecture & you do not know that this circulation takes up to 1,000 yrs. to be completed?

    "Thermohaline circulation behaves like a conveyor belt. Originating in the Northern Atlantic Ocean, cold, dense water sinks to the deep ocean. These waters travel across ocean basins to the tropics where they warm and upwell to the surface. The warmer, less dense, tropical waters are then drawn to polar latitudes to replace the cold sinking water."

    http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/impact…

    Reply

31. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, in his "You Tube" presentation mentions Alaska and also Hawaii and sea level increases, all of which is pure fabrication and for what purpose?

    This man, Nils-Axel Mörner, has spent a life time studying sea levels and this is his conclusion, which is far different from the Senator's, tell us this:

    "Abstract In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10±10 cm (or +5±15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios."

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/…

    This chart for Sitka, AK, where I lived for several years, seems to back up Dr Nils-Axel Mörner's observation.

    Mean Sea Level Trend

    9451600 Sitka, Alaska

    The mean sea level trend is -2.28 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

    interval of +/- 0.28 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

    1924 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of -0.75 feet in 100 years.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltren…

    Mean Sea Level Trend

    1611400 Nawiliwili, Hawaii

    The mean sea level trend is 1.41 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

    interval of +/- 0.45 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

    1955 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.46 feet in 100 years.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltren…

    Eric makes this comment: "You are clearly operating in the first part of Lincolns famous quote: “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but …” and I have no doubt that there is still a lot of money to be made in them thar hills – especially within the scientifically illiterate Republican environment in which we live."

    Abe Lincoln also said: "When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." Which will it be for you, Eric Grimsrud?

    Reply

32. Dear Eric, Readers cannot help but notice your comments to me about science are laced with your personal criticisms of me. You regularly set up incorrect, straw-man predictions about how I might respond to your comments, and on the basis of your incorrect predictions, you draw invalid conclusions, none of which helps your hypothesis.

    So, let's get back to your science issues.

    Revelle and Suess did a good job considering their work was before 1957. They did not have the benefit of the C-14 data from the atomic bomb tests that ended in October 1963. If you intend to prove your point that C-14 data prove human CO2 emissions caused the increase in atmospheric CO2, you will have to do much better than that.

    Also, their abstract reads:

    From a comparison of C14/C12 and C13/C12 ratios in wood and marine material, and from a slight decrease of the C14 concentration in terrestrial plants over the past 50 years, it can be concluded that the average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it is dissolved into the sea is of the order of 10 years.

    This means most of the CO2 released by artificial fuel combustion since the beginning of the industrial revolution must have been absorbed by the oceans. The increase of atmospheric CO2 from this cause is at present small but may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel combustion continues to rise exponentially.

    And in one paragraph, they write:

    It seems quite improbable that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of as much as 10% could have been caused by industrial fuel combustion during the past century, as Callendar’s statistical analyses indicate.

    They go on to suggest that temperature is a possible cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, their paper does not offer any support of your hypothesis.

    I could not find any recent data on atmospheric CO2. Perhaps you have such data since they are critical to your hypothesis. We agree that human CO2 emissions will cause atmospheric C-14 to decrease. But that alone does not support your hypothesis. Atmospheric C-14 has decreased on its own since 1963.

    The latest data I have show atmospheric C-14 has not yet reached the pre-atomic bomb test level, which we would consider nature's equilibrium level. At minimum, you would need to prove human C-14 emissions (in the form of CO2) have forced atmospheric C-14 below the previous equilibrium level. Are we there yet?

    Reply

33. Dear Eric, My reply to your second comment is included in my reply to your first comment above.

    Reply

34. While we are waiting for Ed to digest the article by Revelle and Suess, 1959, to be found at http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environm… , I will point out here how the contributions of fossil fuel combustion have long been known to affect our classic carbon dating method – precisely because the new CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels. Yes, the CO2 in our atmospheric is increasingly being provided by fossil fuel combustion. Up until the 1950s this caused a decrease in C14 in atm CO2, as expected since very old carbon has no C14. Due to nuclear bomb testing in the 50s and 60s, C14 levels in atm CO2 then increased. Since then it has again decreased so that the level is now approximately back to what it was before the Industrial age. In the future it is now expected to continue to decrease again due to the high amounts of fossil fuel combustion. You can read all about this at

    http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imp…

    or any other modern article about C dating.

    What all of this means, of course, is that our recent high levels of atm CO2 have come from the combustion of fossil fuels, not from natural emissions. In addition, this has been known for many decades going back to the 1940s when the C dating method was first developed. Thus, the title of this thread "why our co2 emissions do not increase atm CO2" appears to be grossly incorrect and be about 70 years out of date.

    So Ed, where are you. Have you decided to continue to ignore conventional scientific literature? Instead, why not surprise me and face the music.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, Perhaps you added your above comment at the same time I replied to your previous 2 comments above. It seems you have not "digested" the Revelle and Suess paper properly. I will copy part of my above reply to your previous comments here:

       Revelle and Suess did a good job considering their work was before 1957. They did not have the benefit of the C-14 data from the atomic bomb tests that ended in October 1963. If you intend to prove your point that C-14 data prove human CO2 emissions caused the increase in atmospheric CO2, you will have to do much better than that.

       Also, their abstract reads:

       From a comparison of C14/C12 and C13/C12 ratios in wood and marine material, and from a slight decrease of the C14 concentration in terrestrial plants over the past 50 years, it can be concluded that the average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it is dissolved into the sea is of the order of 10 years.

       This means most of the CO2 released by artificial fuel combustion since the beginning of the industrial revolution must have been absorbed by the oceans. The increase of atmospheric CO2 from this cause is at present small but may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel combustion continues to rise exponentially.

       And in one paragraph, they write:

       It seems quite improbable that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of as much as 10% could have been caused by industrial fuel combustion during the past century, as Callendar’s statistical analyses indicate.

       They go on to suggest that temperature is a possible cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, their paper does not offer any support of your hypothesis.

       We agree that human CO2 emissions will cause atmospheric C-14 to decrease. But that alone does not support your hypothesis. Atmospheric C-14 has decreased on its own since 1963.

       The latest data I have show atmospheric C-14 has not yet reached the pre-atomic bomb test level, which we would consider nature's equilibrium level. At minimum, you would need to prove human C-14 emissions (in the form of CO2) have forced atmospheric C-14 below the previous equilibrium level. Are we there yet?

       Also, you suggest the fact that human CO2 emissions have complicated C-14 dating is proof your hypothesis is true. That, of course, is absurd. Let's stick to the subject of your C-14 hypothesis.

       So far, after many comments, you have utterly failed to product a valid argument to support your claim that C-14 data proves human CO2 emissions caused most of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

       Reply

35. Ed,

    You appear to be in a very select group of scientists that does not know why the C14 content of atm CO2 was observed to continuously decrease between 1850 and 1950 and again why it again began to decrease after atomic bomb tests where stopped in the 1960s – and how this information has been used to deduce the factional contribution of fossil fuel derived CO2 to that coming from natural sources.

    And I have also noted that the “insights” of this “select group” have been regularly highlighted on your web site. Yes indeed, “birds of a feather do flock together” or put another way that better applies in this case, “sh_t sticks”.

    For that reason, you actually do the field of science a favor. If any climate scientist wants to know if someone is full of sh_t, he needs only to see if that person has “held forth” on EdBerry.com. For that reason, Ed, please do keep up the “good work”

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric,

       Thank you for proving your global warming belief is a religion and not science.

       Reply

36. I am sorry Ed,

    A link with multiple complicated graphs is not a simple answer to this simple question:

    How much Carbon Dioxide (and related) is there in the oceans and how much in the atmosphere? If you know the answer, please send a valid reference and a copy of the passage in that paper that pertains to my question.

    In the meantime I have found my simple answer from a Swedish paper written in Swedish by a professor in oceanography, Gösta Walin. From his paper I got to know how that all carbon dioxide in the athmosphere is just about 2 % of the chemically reactive carbon dioxide pool in the oceans.

    When I get back to Sweden I will contact Stockholm Environmental Institute to ask them exactly where in their publications I can confirm or refute this info.

    https://www.sei-international.org/stockholm/about…

    In case I find some clear info I´ll get back to you

    Reply

    1. Erik,

       In pre-industrial times, the atmosphere had about 580GtC (giga-tonnes of carbon). Today it is about 850 GtC. The ocean contains about 38000 GtC. If you Google "carbon cycle" you will probably find some sources. A paper with some numbers is Archer 2005.

       Reply

37. Dr. Ed; It is now time to move beyond one of Eric Grimsrud's favorite Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, and his unbelievable fictionalized account of the tides and the climate to this issue that you have brought up, CO₂, and how Eric Grimsrud tries to make people believe that it drives the earth's climate. He stated that:

    "The first is that we know from the ice core record that our atm CO2 levels had not exceeded 300 ppm for the 800,000 years prior to beginning of the Industrial Age in the about 1850 and only then steadily increased to higher levers, now about 400 ppm."

    In the words of the one that he fervently wanted to see elected president, HRC: "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

    One needs to take a look at some of the properties of this trace gas that is absolutely essential for all life on earth, other than perhaps around the deep sea volcanic vents where plenty of it is being ejected from the interior of the earth.

    Some of the properties of CO₂ that Eric will not acknowledge is that it is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the atmosphere it is in. Due to this fact, it is easy to believe in intelligent design because everything that requires CO₂ lives on the surface of the earth.

    This point was sadly proven 30 years ago on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake. "Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to "hug" the ground and descend down the valleys where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (164 ft) thick and it traveled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres (12–31 mi) per hour. For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos,Kam,Cha,and Subum.

    To this fact about the density of CO₂, it must be acknowledged that at 18,000' there is only 1/2 of the atmosphere that one experiences at sea level; so, the question is, just how much of this trace gas, CO₂, that is use in fire extinguishers, is at any altitude to cause the kinds of climate changing effects that Eric wants us to believe happens? I know that there is H₂O in its various forms far above where there is ample O₂ because of the snow on such mountains as Everest.

    Before this gets too long, I'll just offer up some of the things that one can use to visualize just how little difference 400 ppm CO₂ makes in the atmosphere especially when one considers that it is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of atmosphere & this is something that Eric will not honestly deal with. He would rather muddy the waters by bringing up something that makes no difference at all, C-14. Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, carbon dioxide released by man near ground level sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere.

    A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink. A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons per gallon. One inch in 16 miles About one minute in two years One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco. One penny in $10,000. I know you understand that these 400 ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 400 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000. At 400 ppm, CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.

    Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 1063 ft. high. If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

    http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

    Eric and his hero Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, with absolutely no experiment proving their hypotheses about CO₂, want to subject humanity to the destitution that would exist without the thing that has lifted humanity up from being just another animal crawling around on the surface of the earth to what we see today. People like Eric and his hero, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, seem to have no heart or care one iota about humanity.

    "Modern energy services are crucial to human well-being and to a country’s economic development; and yet globally 1.2 billion people are without access to electricity and more than 2.7 billion people are without clean cooking facilities. More than 95% of these people are either in sub-Saharan African or developing Asia, and around 80% are in rural areas.

    Fast facts:

    17%of global population lack access to electricity, despite modest improvements

    38%of global population lack clean cooking facilities

    http://www.iea.org/topics/energypoverty/

    Reply

38. To those who have an open and operative brain.

    Looking back over my recent discussions with Ed, I noted this comment by Ed:

    "As I explained above, we agree that Human CO2 has lowered the fraction of C-14 in the atmosphere. But that would have occurred even if the total CO2 in the atmosphere had remained constant. So the C-14 data do not prove Human CO2 caused most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2."

    But we do know that at CO2 has increased. The cause of that is what we are talking about.

    And the carbon isotopic info is consistent with the commonly assumptions that the additional CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion. If the excess came form natural source, how would the isotopic info then be explained – it could not be – because such a cause would have not changes the C isotopic content. Only the emissions of very ancient C could cause C14 to decease significantly over a time span of one century.

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, You still have not shown, as is required in all legitimate science, the data, the C-14 transfer equation, how it links to the CO2 transfer equation, and a numerical solution of these equations that supports your hypothesis.

       You have not provided the physics, logic, scientific method, and math necessary to support the points you wish to make. So far, you have more unknowns than you have equations.

       Reply

39. Human activity is responsible for all of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂ since the preindustrial.

    From 1870 to 2014 we emitted 545 ± 55 GtC, consisting of:

    400 ± 20 GtC from fossil fuels & cement

    145 ± 50 GtC from land use changes

    This carbon has been absorbed by the climate system, thus:

    Atmosphere: 230 ± 5 GtC (causing ~120ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂)

    Ocean: 155 ± 20 GtC (causing decline in ocean pH)

    Land: 160 ± 60 GtC

    Hence 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO₂ since the pre-industrial is anthropogenic.

    QED.

    Reply

    1. Dear Icarus62, Thank you for your comment. However, to do science, you will need to do much better than that.

       You have merely repeated, like a green parrot, the alarmist creed. Repeating a creed has no bearing on a scientific discussion of its correctness. Such repeating is part of religion not science.

       If you had read my article first, you would have realized that I stated the alarmist hypothesis just like you have. Then I proceeded to show by physics why your alarmist hypothesis is wrong.

       So, if you wish to join the scientific discussion, you will need to show where I may have made a mistake in my physics. You notice I wrote at the top, that my article is open for scientific discussion. I invite all who can do science to critique my physics and logic. So far, no one has proven my article wrong.

       Reply

       1. Ed,

          I really do think that you should consider that the argument you've made is so obviously flawed that noone believes that you are remotely capable of admitting its error. If you were, you probably wouldn't have made such an obviously flawed argument in the first place.

          Reply

          1. Dear "Then There's Physics," Please enlighten our readers on exactly what is "so obviously flawed" in my argument? Really, I am looking for reasons that my argument is incorrect. That is how science works.

             For some reason the following scientists agree with me:

             Rorsch, Courtney, & Thomas (2005), Siddons & D’Aleo (2007), Courtney (2008), Spencer (2009), Wilde (2012), Cox & Cormack (2013), Caryl (2013), and Rust (2013). And, of course, Salby (2012, 2015, 2016).

             Seems we all need your expert help.

          2. Ed,

             I'm certainly not suggesting anyone needs "my expert help". I'm suggesting that someone presenting a paradigm shifting argument that few seem willing to spend much time refuting should at least consider that this is because their argument is so obviously flawed that noone really regards them as someone willing to be convinced of the flaws.

             P.S. Maybe you could provide some links to those papers as I can't find them all. If Spencer (2009) is Roy Spencer, then my understanding is that he accepts that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is probably mostly anthropogenic.

          3. Dear “Then There’s Physics,” You did say "obviously flawed" and now your cannot explain what is "obviously flawed."

             Now, you say that since no one has refuted my argument, therefore, it must be wrong! That is the most circular, illogical argument yet. Sorry, it won't fly. Salby presented the same argument to expert professional physicists. None of them told Salby he was wrong. My argument is identical to Salby's. I just present it simpler for a more general audience. (You have read his book, haven't you?)

             You reveal you have not even read my article before you commented. If you had read it, you would have seen that I supplied all the links you ask for in my references.

          4. Ed,

             Now, you say that since no one has refuted my argument, therefore, it must be wrong!

             No, I said no such thing. Do you want to try reading what I wrote again and indicate that you do understand the point I'm making?

          5. If you had read it, you would have seen that I supplied all the links you ask for in my references.

             Oh, I see. I was searching Google Scholar for what I thought were actual publications when, mostly, they were simply blog posts or websites. No wonder I couldn't find them. This Roy Spencer post says

             While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels.

          6. Dear “Then There’s Physics,” here's what you wrote:

             "… should at least consider that this is because their argument is so obviously flawed that no one really regards them as someone willing to be convinced of the flaws."

             You are obviously claiming my and Salby's argument is wrong because not enough people have objected to it.

             And Spencer wrote:

             "But when we start examining the details, an anthropogenic explanation for increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes less obvious."

             Spencer's article criticizes the very argument you support. But we are not discussing Spencer. Let's go back to square one:

             Question: Can you explain where my and Salby's argument is wrong?

             Neither you nor anyone else has done so. My article has been widely read by the atmospheric science community. They would be more than happy to show me where I and Salby are wrong if they could find an error in our argument.

          7. You are obviously claiming my and Salby’s argument is wrong because not enough people have not objected to it.

             Hmm, no, that is very clearly not what I am obviously claiming. Is what I said too complicated for you?

          8. Dear “Then There’s Physics,” I guess it is. So, you should be smart enough to show where Salby and I are wrong. I will wait until you do that before I reply again.

          9. Ed,

             It has nothing to do with how smart I might, or might not, be.

    2. Icarus62

       It was so refreshing to see someone who recognizes real science on this website!! A rare occurrence.

       Eric

       Reply

       1. Thank you Eric.

          Reply

    3. icarus62 says: "Human activity is responsible for all of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂ since the preindustrial." and only backs up the comment with conjecture. Show the proof behind your statement.

       I maintain that of the 186 billion tons of CO₂ that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

       The world's natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

       It is obvious that the gases that comprise the atmosphere mix and move but it is also obvious that the heavier gases such as CO₂, that is one and one-half times heavier than what is called "air", sinks. Here is information taken from the Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry; therefore, that the information was presented comes from the above stated source. The mass of CO₂ in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg . The Mass of Oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere is: 0.23 x (5.12 x 1018kg) = 1.1776 x 1018 kg (1.2 x 1018 kg)

       % increase in CO₂ per year = 1.1 x 1015/1.23 x 1018 x 100% = 0.089% or 8.9 x 10-4

       Total % increase in CO₂ in one year is: 8.9 x 10-4 x 0.03 = 2.7 x 10-5

       So, in one year the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere would change from 0.03% to 0.030027%. (these figures are for the burning of gasoline)

       To increase CO₂ by a third: 1.23 x 1018/3 = 4.1 x 1017.

       would take: 4.1 x 1017/1.1 x 1015 = 372 years.
       http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/is_there_enough_ox…

       This is answers the question as far as just what difference does it make about the additional CO₂ in the atmosphere, especially when it is a fact derived from the Ice core samples that it is the earth's T that increase BEFORE the rise in atmospheric CO₂.

       "ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2"

       Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry……

       Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg

       Reply

       1. John Swallow, I have shown the proof three times now, on this page. Please re-read it.

          Reply

40. It couldn't be simpler: 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 for 100% of the 120ppm rise. Agreed? It cannot possibly be otherwise.

    Reply

    1. Dear Icarus62, Thank you again for your comment. "It could not be simpler," said the Aztec priests. We simply cut out beating hearts and roll heads down the temple steps … and it rains. They all believed it.

       What is missing? The scientific method and good physics are missing. You are using what Richard Feynman called Cargo Cult science.

       My article explains why your physics above is wrong. You have not shown I have made a mistake. That does not prove I am right. But my (and Salby's) argument is well explained and, to date, no one has shown it to be wrong.

       Reply

       1. I just showed why your argument is wrong.

          Reply

          1. Dear Icarus62, All you did was repeat the alarmist creed, or hypothesis. It is only a hypothesis.

             My article shows why that hypothesis is invalid. It is invalid because it ignores nature's emissions that are about 100 times as large as human emissions.

             My argument then becomes my hypothesis. The alarmist creed does not prove my argument is wrong. It can't because it ignores nature and I include nature.

             Happy New Year. I will return next year.

          2. 1: Anthropogenic sources have emitted ~2,000Gt of CO₂ since the preindustrial.

             2: Atmospheric concentration has risen by ~850Gt / 120ppm.

             3: The remaining ~1150Gt is no longer in the atmosphere – it has been sequestered by the land and oceans.

             4: Hence the land and oceans have been a net sink for atmospheric CO₂ over this period, and 100% of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂ is anthropogenic.

             This proves your argument wrong. If you disagree, please let me know which of these four items you dispute, and why. Thanks…

          3. Dear Icarus62, Thank you for your comment because it is directly on point. You have presented the key 4 steps of the standard argument that human CO2 caused 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

             They are the same 4 steps that I present and rebut in my article above. The 4 steps fail because of invalid wording in steps 3 and 4. The phrase "land AND oceans" should be "land OR oceans." The fact that (land + oceans) is less than 0 does not prove (land is less than 0) AND (oceans is less than 0).

             The fact is that land can be a net sink even while oceans can be a net source. Therefore, step 4 is invalid.

             The 4-step argument does not prove human CO2 drives atmospheric CO2. That is because there are other scenarios where oceans can drive atmospheric CO2, while still meeting all the constraints of steps 1-3 after the "and" in step 3 is changed to "or" as required by logic.

             My Fig. 1 above is the scenario were land absorbs all the human CO2 while ocean emissions equal its absorption. In that scenario, atmospheric CO2 would remain constant. Steps 1-3 (with the "or") do not exclude this scenario.

             A second scenario can be where land absorbs all human CO2 emissions while oceans add CO2 to the atmosphere. (Simply change the ocean input in Fig. 1 from 44 to 46.) Steps 1-3 (with the "or") do not exclude this scenario.

             As you can see, there are an infinite number of scenarios that prove the 4-step argument is wrong.

             You are not the first to challenge me with this 4-step argument. Keith Pickering, writing for Peter Gleick and company, challenged me with the same 4 steps. Keith acknowledged that I would win if I could produce even one scenario that showed his argument wrong. I did and Keith provided no counter argument.

             To my knowledge, Peter Gleick and company no longer use carbon isotope arguments to argue human CO2 is responsible for all or even most of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

          4. Your comment is not a valid rebuttal. I can replace "the land and oceans" with "the natural world" and the logic is still the same – it's immaterial how that 1150Gt of anthropogenic CO₂ that is no longer in the atmosphere has been partitioned between land and oceans. The natural world as a whole (land + oceans) has been a net sink of CO₂ from the atmosphere since the preindustrial and there is no scenario in which we can be responsible for less than 100% of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂.

             To take one of your scenarios as an example:

             If the land had absorbed 2,000Gt CO₂ since the preindustrial, while the oceans had added ~850Gt to the atmosphere, the net natural change would be -1150Gt, i.e. a net sink. 100% of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂ would be due to us, because in the absence of our emissions, the natural world would have caused a decline to 130ppm, instead of the increase to 400ppm we have actually observed. Not a physically realistic scenario, but it does demonstrate why your argument is wrong.

          5. Dear Icarus62, Thank you again for your comment.

             You make an invalid assumption. You assume the "natural world" does not adjust to human input of CO2. Only a very small adjustment by the "natural world" will easily compensate for human CO2 emissions.

             If humans add CO2 to the atmosphere, land will absorb more CO2 and oceans will reduce their CO2 transfer to the atmosphere. That is because transfer rates are controlled by partial pressures of CO2

             Nothing in the 4-step argument excludes that ocean temperature controls the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. Since the 4-step argument cannot exclude this alternative, the 4-step argument is NOT proof that human CO2 caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2.

             Further, the 4-step argument does not exclude the Fig. 1 alternative that shows atmospheric CO2 can remain constant if atmospheric CO2 is at equilibrium with ocean temperature. In Fig. 1, the "natural world" is a net sink but atmospheric CO2 remains constant.

             Remember, to be proof, the 4-step argument must exclude all possible scenarios where atmospheric CO2 can remain constant in the presence of human CO2 emissions. The 4-step argument does not accomplish that proof.

             The 4-step argument is a case of having more unknowns than equations. For example, if there were an equation that proved land and oceans emissions would not adjust to human CO2 emissions, then that would be sufficient to be a proof. But there is no such equation. So the 4-step argument is based on an invalid assumption.

          6. The '4-step argument' explicitly states that the natural world has adjusted by absorbing around half of our CO₂ emissions, thus becoming a net sink. Any scenario in which we're not responsible for 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO₂ is logically ruled out. I illustrated this with one of your scenarios above (land = -2000Gt, ocean = +850Gt, net natural change = -1150Gt CO₂, thus 100% of the 120ppm increase in atmospheric CO₂ is due to anthropogenic emissions, and none of it is due to nature).

             Here's an analogy:

             10 million years ago the world cools enough for snow to start accumulating on Greenland and turning to ice. The ice weighs down the Earth's crust, which sinks, but the ice accumulates faster, so the surface elevation rises, and it's now at (say) 2km – much higher than the original land surface. All of the rise in elevation is due to snowfall, and none of it is due to rising of the Earth's crust – in fact, the crust has actually sunk. Snow accumulation is responsible for 100% of the rise in surface elevation – in fact more than 100%, if you take into account the sinking of the crust. In the same way, anthropogenic emissions are responsible for 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO₂ (or more than 100%, if you take into account the fact that we have offset the large natural sink).

          7. Dear Icarus62, The 4-step argument incorrectly assumes the natural world absorbs only enough human CO2 emissions to account for the excess in its argument. That is illogical because it does not allow the natural world to absorb any more than this amount.

             What physics would constrain the natural world to absorbing only enough human CO2 to support the unfounded alarmist hypothesis?

             None! It is a hand-waving argument with no physical basis, and no support from the argument itself. If the natural world can absorb about half, the natural world can absorb all of human CO2 emissions.

             The 4-step argument assumes the natural world cannot absorb more CO2 than an amount specified in the assumption. And, lo and behold, the 4-step argument concludes its own assumption is correct. That is a perfect case of garbage in, garbage out. Sorry. That proves the 4-step argument is a religion and not a science.

             The 4-step argument still has more unknowns than equations.

          8. So if seems you agree that the natural world has absorbed half of the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions since the pre-industrial, making it a net sink, as in your sample (though physically improbable and contradicted by the evidence) scenario above.

             Given that the natural world is a net sink, all of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂ is anthropogenic. Logic does not permit of any alternative.

             Your own scenario demonstrates this, where you imagine the land absorbing 2000Gt and the oceans emitting 850Gt, making the natural world a net sink, and meaning that the rise in atmospheric CO₂ can *only* be due to anthropogenic emissions. There is no other possible source to offset the natural net sink and raise atmospheric CO₂ by 120ppm.

             QED, as I said before.

          9. Dear Icarus62, thank you for your continued effort to prove your 4-step argument is valid. You help me make a better case that proves your 4-step argument is invalid.

             To help you understand my point, I added an Appendix to my article above so I could show explicity another version of Fig. 1. Fig. 1 is a scenario were atmospheric CO2 can remain constant while human emissions are 4 units per year.

             Fig. 4 is a scenario where we add 2 units to net Ocean emissions. In this scenario, Oceans supply a net of 2 units per year to the atmosphere while Land absorbs 4 units to equal Human CO2 emissions.

             The 4-step argument that claims “human CO2 caused all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2” does not exclude this scenario. No data or physical equation exists to exclude this scenario. Therefore, the 4-step argument is inconclusive and invalid.

             Therefore, there is no scientific basis to support the alarmists 4-step argument and its conclusion.

             Until you or someone can produce real physical evidence that excludes all scenarios that contradict your 4-step conclusion, you have no case. No case and no QED.

          10. Figure 4 in your new appendix perfectly illustrates my point.

              The natural world is absorbing 104 units from the atmosphere and emitting 102, making a net sink (-2 units).

              The atmospheric concentration is rising (+2 units).

              Anthropogenic contribution is +4 units.

              Therefore the anthropogenic contribution of +4 is offsetting the natural sink of -2 and and causing all of the rising atmospheric contribution of +2, exactly as I've been pointing out all along.

          11. Dear Icarus62, Your "therefore" conclusion is wrong.

              Fig. 1 shows how Land can absorb all Human CO2 while Oceans keep Atmospheric CO2 constant. Fig. 4 shows the same scenario except Oceans add 2 units per year to Atmospheric CO2 to make it increase.

              Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 scenarios assume Oceans control the rate of change of Atmospheric CO2, independent of Land and Human emissions.

              All you have offered in your comment is a "hand-waving" interpretation of Fig. 4. Your interpretation does not exclude the Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 scenarios. Therefore, your argument does not prove Human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2.

              Suppose there are ten possible reasons your car will not start. Yet you claim the reason it will not start is because it has no fuel. You cannot prove your claim is correct unless you (a) add fuel and make your car start, or (b) exclude all other possibilities, such as clogged fuel filter, no ignition spark, bad spark plugs, etc.

              Yet, that is the argument you make when you claim human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. You have not done either (a) or (b). So, you have no proof your claim is correct.

              Your argument fails elementary logic.

       2. No wonder Peter Gleick and company no longer use carbon isotope arguments to argue human CO2 is responsible for all or even most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Look at the trash he offered up in 2011 that cost him most of his credibility, as though he had any.

          Peter Gleick The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/0…

          Reply

    2. icarus62 says: "Therefore nature had been a net sink of CO2 from the atmosphere over this period and we’re responsible for 100% of the 120ppm rise." Now for the question; just what difference does it make when this absolutely essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO₂, that makes up only .04% of the total atmosphere and is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere and is 400 ppm at present? I imagine that you, like Eric, believes that this this devil of his, CO₂, is going to cause the end of humanity and the earth. He can not admit that it is this, much heaver than the rest of the air trace gas, sinks out of the atmosphere soon after being emitted from what ever source. You and Eric could do a little simple experiment. Fill one balloon with H₂, another with just ambient air and the third with CO₂ & observe what happens.

       This is what CO₂ did when it erupted from the depths of Lake Nyor in Cameroon 30 years ago.

       This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than “air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.

       http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest…

       I assume that your are wanting, for some strange reason, discount entirely how much CO₂ Tambora , when it erupted in

       April 10, 1815, put into the atmosphere. How about Krakatoa, Aug. 27, 1883 or Novarupta, June 6, 1912 and the fairly recent eruption of Pinatubo, June 15, 1991 that caused the US to abandon military bases in the Philippines. You sure wouldn't want to acknowledge that Santa Maria, that spewed ash that was detected as far away as San Francisco when it erupted in Oct. 24, 1902, could have put CO₂ into the air. I have climbed Kilimanjaro, that is one very huge volcano in Tanzania, that sure must have spewed out great amounts of CO₂ into the air, somewhat like the Siberian Traps being blamed for the Permian-Triassic Extinctions.

       Are you aware that the period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example of how your "Human activity is responsible for all of the 120 ppm rise in atmospheric CO₂ since the preindustrial" makes no difference at all as far as the earth's climate goes.

       The Holocene Maximum is so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 5000 to 3000 BC & that is long before humans invented industrial carbon dioxide that I guess you are wanting to believe is at the root of all of humanity's woes.

       Reply

       1. If CO2 falls out of the sky as easily as you imply how do you explain the continuous rise in atmospheric CO2 from around 280ppm for thousands of years to 400ppm since the industrial revolution?

          Reply

          1. What do you think that the balloon in my experiment that you could do that is filled with the CO₂, that is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, is going to do when released? It sure will not rise to the ceiling like one that has Helium in it. It will sink and if the oceans are cooling they will absorb CO₂ and if they are warming because the earth's climate is warming, the water will release CO₂. This is what the ice core findings show; that there is over an 800 year lag between when temperature rise and the rise in CO₂. I ask you to explain how this 120 ppm increase in CO₂ could be construed to be a bad thing when basically the earth is in need of more of this essential for life trace gas. Recall that one ppm is like one inch in the number of inches in 16 miles or one minute in the number of minutes it takes to add up to two years worth of minutes.

       2. John Swallow, the bottom line is that human activity is now by far the largest driver of global climate change, and the resultant warming is on the order of 50 times faster than that driven by natural forcings. Hence the concern from every single scientific organisation on the planet… for example:

          "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

          American Physical Society.

          Reply

          1. Icarus62; What you say is your bottom line is, is not the line that people who know what is going on with this issue of anthropogenic global warming or I guess now since there has been 19 years with no warming according to the satellite data, it is now called "climate change".

             Allow me to offer up some quotes in response to the one you say is attributable to the American Physical Society.

             “The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper

             “Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley

             “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” Bertrand Russell

             You claim that you "have shown the proof three times now, on this page. Please re-read it." & I have yet to see any of that proof while Dr. Ed certainly demonstrated how and why you were wrong; because you have no proof of anything that backs up your assertions.

             "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts." Mark Twain

             Here is a quote from Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki that well sums up my feeling about this subject that you do not have enough faith in your convictions about what you say you believe to even use your real name.

             “When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground.”
             http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/12/a-lette…

          2. Icarus62; This below sure doesn't mirror the "resultant warming is on the order of 50 times faster than that driven by natural forcings." that you are maintaining. Remember that the all time high temperature for the whole earth was set in 1913 at Death Valley.

             U.S. Historical Climatology Network – Monthly Data

             You have chosen site 241044, BOZEMAN MONTANA SU, Montana
             http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=241044&am…

             This information that follows runs counter to the baseless fear mongering that you are presenting, with no proof.

             Aren’t we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?

             “Mean Sea Level Trends 999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica

             The mean sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

             interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

             1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.”
             http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend…
             The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months in 2015 and now is even with the 1981 to 2010 average. It fell below the record highs set in 2014 in July, 2015.
             http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/glo…

          3. Icarus62; This below sure doesn't mirror the "resultant warming is on the order of 50 times faster than that driven by natural forcings."

             "It really was very cold in 1940’s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West.
             http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/…

             “In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.”
             http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-0…

             It appears that since NOAA became politicized that they have taken this site down. This does nothing to build trust in such organizations as NOAA and NASA after all of the falsification of temperature records was revealed.

             ''Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade. Figure 2 is a map of the precipitation departures from normal in terms of a percentage of normal (total precipitation divided by normal precipitation) for the Dust Bowl region for 1930 to 1940.''
             http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ama/?n=dust_bowl_verses_t…

       3. If you fill a balloon with water vapour it will not drift into the air. Yet water vapour is present in the atmosphere.

          In the same way. CO2 is present throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.

          Your balloon analogy does not work.

          Reply

          1. There are too many variables to be able to say that; "If you fill a balloon with water vapour it will not drift into the air" What if that H₂O in vapor form is steam? I know that you have seen the pictures of power houses that the environmentalist like to show of all of the steam being emitted a cold day in hopes that the uninformed will believe that it is some kind of pollution. That H₂O in the form of steam certainly raises. I have been on the hike to Everest Base Camp and Everest always has snow on it. It comes from H₂O that has condensed into clouds of ice crystals which are H₂O. The very high sheet-like clouds, Cirrostratus, are composed of ice crystals. It is a fact that at 18,000' there is about 1/2 of the atmosphere one has at sea level and if CO₂ is indisputably 1 & 1/2 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere, then you can suggest to me just how much of it is the atmosphere at say 30,000'.

             “ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2”

             Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry……

             Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg

             It is a fact that H₂O is the principle green house gas.

             This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.

             “One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth

             At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
             http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/sci…

41. Ed. In science we test ideas by the submission of them to the peer reveiwed literature. How are your submissions doing? Eric

    Reply

    1. Eric Grimsrud needs to quit worrying about his "ideas" & provide us with the experiment that shows that CO₂ does what he maintains as far as being the driver of the earth's climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall's 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO₂ emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth's climate. If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree, in other words, his believe becomes like a religion that cannot provide empirical proof of the existence of some supreme being.

       It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more "research" money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.

       If these experiments below can be done, then why hasn't one about how much CO₂ would be required in the atmosphere to do what Eric wants us to believe it causes regarding the earth's climate?

       Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:

       Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds.
       http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=…

       Here are some other experiment that HAVE been conducted.

       Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit.

       http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.ht…

       Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever the charlatans now call it: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” Albert Einstein.

       This is in rely to Eric's peer reviewed literature remark.

       "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." — Thomas H. Huxley 

       Reply

42. Fig 1 implies complete CO2 balance. How then do you account for the increase of atmospheric CO2 from around 280ppm for 2000 years to 400ppm since the beginning of the industrial Revolution?

    Reply

    1. Dear John, the best hypothesis is that ocean temperature caused the increase. Salby's math shows that rate of change of atmospheric CO2 follows temperature. The earth has warmed in the last 400 years.

       Reply

43. John,

    I know you have not regard for the peer reviewed scientific literature which even the likes of Einstein and Fehnman had to use to in order the test their ideas. So I was not asking you in my recent question posted above.

    I was wondering what Ed thought, of course, about using the peer reviewed literature to test his ideas – like the rest of us scientists have to do.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. You do your best when you are resorting to conjecture with out the bases of proof.

       What would make you believe that ; "I know you have not regard for the peer reviewed scientific literature"? Below is a sample of your choice of sources for your "scientific" statements.

       "Miami, however, is doomed" ericgrimsrud | July 12, 2013

       "For the full scope on this story see"&nbsp ;http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620#ixzz2X0NGzxLY
       https://ericgrimsrud.org/2013/07/12/miami-however…

       Rolling Stone is your sources of "peer reviewed" scientific information, it appears.

       I would supply the links to the replies that I offered up to you and the Stones crappy fictional story about

       sea-level rises. If anyone is interest in my replies, that many are from peer reviewed sources, they can go to your site that has the link above.

       One can go to my comments on this subject on December 27, 2016 at 8:08 pm where I prove that Eric's favorite Senator , Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, has no idea at all what he is talking about regarding sea-levels.

       Reply

44. Dr. Ed,

    You seem to be ignoring my question about use of our peer review system for the evaluation of your research. What do you think Einstein and Fehnman would say about that? Do you suppose their understanding of the "scientific method" would not include the review of one's work by one's peers. So again, have you submitted your work highlighted on this post to some peer-reviewed journals? If so, how is it going. If not, why have you not? Are you afraid of what the most scientifically competent scientists might say about your work? Are you afraid that science might prove to be more competitive than sail boat racing? If your views concerning the unimportance of future CO2 emissions are correct, shouldn't that good news be shared with the larger scientific community?

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, Can you read the line at the top of this post? Probably not. It says:

       "This paper is open for critical scientific and editorial review and comment. – Ed"

       This is how all potential papers should be reviewed before submission for journal publication. If you or anyone could show that my paper is wrong, then I would admit it is wrong and retract it. But so far, neither you nor anyone has been able to show my paper is wrong. Amazing. However, you and others have asked questions that give me material to address when I extend this paper. I appreciate that.

       How does it feel to not be able to show my paper is wrong when it totally destroys everything you have been preaching for years about global warming?

       How could you have fallen for such a hoax when simple logic shows you cannot prove human CO2 caused all or even a significant part of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2?

       But thank you for trying. I did not realize how easily your isotope argument fails until you brought it up.

       Reply

45. Ed.

    The greatest problem I have with your argument in this post is that your have not shown what you would expect the atm CO2 level to have been if the emission rates changed as you describe. That is the hardest thing to predict because the atm levels of CO2 are a function of many things – only one of which is emission rates. Others include rates of missing into and out of the oceans and the surface reservoirs including plants.

    Now if you think my criticism is not valid, then stick to your guns and submit your paper to one of the peer reviewed papers. In that case, however, I expect it would not fly for the same reason I have explained. If it did pass peer review, however, that would be impressive.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric,

       The goal of my paper is to prove wrong Claim#1, namely, that "Human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2." To do that, I have shown the logical failure of the arguments for Claim#1.

       In science, showing that a hypothesis is wrong is an end in itself. I do not need to go any further. I do not need to propose or prove an alternative to Claim#1.

       The burden for those on your side of this issue is to come up with a new and better argument to support Claim#1.

       Once we acknowledge that I do not need to propose an alternative to Claim#1 to prove the present arguments for Claim#1 are invalid, I will be happy to entertain ideas to address your interest in other possible causes of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

       Reply

46. I asked Ed Berry a question and got a reply from John Swallow as if he had written the article we are commenting on. Are they the same person?

    Reply

    1. Dear John, Is your question the one where I answered as follows?

       Dear John, the best hypothesis is that ocean temperature caused the increase. Salby’s math shows that rate of change of atmospheric CO2 follows temperature. The earth has warmed in the last 400 years.

       Reply

       1. Just to be clear. You think increased ocean temperatures have released all, or most, of the CO2 which upped atmospheric ppm from a relatively stable 280ppi for a couple of thousand years to the 400ppm we have now?

          Reply

          1. Dear John H, yes.

             Please see the Appendix that I just added above that adds Fig. 4. Fig. 4 is a scenario where Oceans supply the CO2 to increase Atmospheric CO2 while Land absorbs not only its own emissions but also Human emissions.

             Remember, to make my point (according to the scientific method), I do not need to prove my Fig. 4 scenario is what occurs because there are an infinite number of such possible scenarios. I only need to show one possible scenario that the alarmist 4-step argument does not exclude, to prove the 4-step argument is invalid. I did that.

             Also, please see my reply to the comment by Icarus62 today. Thanks.

       2. I think you are repeating the mistake unidentified and explained in this video.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18

          Reply

          1. Dear John H, Thank you for pointing out the YouTube presentation. I reviewed it and here is my reply.

             The YouTube presentation points out errors where bloggers repeated mistakes of other bloggers. I have not used any other blogger source to make my case. All the data I use come from CDIAC, IPCC, and NOAA.

             The YouTube presentation makes a critical mistake in physics. It ASSUMES nature will keep the exact same CO2 fluxes before humans emitted CO2, after humans emitted CO2. That will not happen. Nature will adjust to seek a new "balance" when humans emit CO2.

             In other words, the presentation incorrectly constrains nature to arrive at it its conclusions, which are therefore false conclusions. That is not physics. That is a mistake that would deserve an "F" grade in Physics 101.

             The fact is all fluxes follow partial pressures. Any change in atmospheric CO2 concentration, changes its partial pressure, and thereby changes its CO2 flux between Land and Oceans. If nature did not work this way, nature could not have "balanced" before human CO2.

             The presentation makes the same physical mistake in its tank model. The tank model incorrectly separates the human CO2 "faucet" from the "pump" and "drain" inside the tank. It calls human CO2 "extra" CO2 that unbalances nature. The tank model gets the wrong conclusion because it does not allow the "drain" to adjust to the human CO2 input.

             This is garbage physics in and garbage conclusions out. The incorrect physical assumptions produce the incorrect physical conclusions. The presentation is a horrible misrepresentation of physics. No qualified physicist would believe such junk. Climate alarmists base their claims on junk physics.

             By contrast, my lake model correctly simulates how the lake level (or atmospheric CO2) controls the outflow of water (or CO2).

             In summary, my argument uses accepted data and correct physics to arrive at its conclusion. Those with a good physics background will understand my argument and be able to critique my physics if they find errors.

          2. Fig 1 is an idealised cycle where 100% of what is released is absorbed. Obviously this does not represent the world as we know it.

             Fig 4 recognises a more realistic scenario where an excess of 4 remains unabsorbed.

             Fig 5 might illustrate what it means once the rate of release exceeds the rate of absorption as shown in Fig 4?

             That unabsorbed excess of 4 will serve to bolster the following years 4, becoming 8, and 12, and so on.

             This is how the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere built from around 280ppm to 400ppm isn't it?

          3. Dear John H, Thank you again for your comment.

             Fig. 5 (not yet drawn) will require an equation that describes how "the rate of release exceeds the rate of absorption." We don't have such an equation.

             My lake analogy illustrates the proper physics. When more water flows into the lake from any source, the lake level rises (simulating the rise in atmospheric CO2). When the lake level rises, more water flows over the dam. A new equilibrium lake level is reached when outflow equals inflow.

             The lake level will not continue to go up after it reaches equilibrium, unless the total input is further increased. So, your assumption "that unabsorbed excess of 4 will serve to bolster the following years …" cannot happen.

             Remember, human CO2 of 4 units per year merely adds to the Land and Ocean inputs that total about 100 unite per year. So, the human input of 4 can be responsible for only about 4 percent to the total lake level.

             Fig. 3 is evidence that there is no present limit on the rate of absorption. If there were such a limit, then the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 after 2002 would have increased much more than the rate of increase in human CO2. But the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 remained essentially constant.

             This proves there is no present limit on the rate of absorption. So, human CO2 emissions of 4 units per year have only a 4% effect on the amount of atmospheric CO2. Therefore, an act of nature, that accounts for 96% of the total CO2 input into the atmosphere, is the only reason atmospheric CO2 increased from 280 to 400.

47. But Ed, You say,

    "The goal of my paper is to prove wrong Claim#1, namely, that “Human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.” To do that, I have shown the logical failure of the arguments for Claim#1."

    If you have, in fact, accomplished your goal, that alone would constitute HUGE news in the climate change science. So why in the world are you not sharing this news with others via the peer reviewed journals. What are you afraid of? As a climate scientist wouldn't this be your obligation. I am sure Einstein and Fehnman would think so.

    Or perhaps you don't really believe in your work?

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, Everything takes time. But thanks for your acknowledgment that I am correct. I may wait until the government will pay my publication costs, like it has for all the alarmist articles. It's not my obligation to fork over thousands of dollars for publication costs.

       Reply

       1. Ed,

          You apparently don't know that many of the best peer reviewed journals do not charge much at all, if anything, for the publications of articles that pass their review process. I have published more that 100 papers in the peer reviewed journals and had to pay very little. So if you are afraid to submit your work for peer review, you'll have to think of another excuse. Since you have already shown and discussed your work on this website, preparation time should not be a big deal. Everything – worth doing – takes some time, of course.

          PS. And I don't recall saying your work was correct. I did, however, tell you why I thought it came up short. If you hope to get published in the top journals, you must learn to not just make stuff up as you do on your website.

          Eric

          Reply

          1. Eric Grimsrud says; "I have published more that 100 papers in the peer reviewed journals and had to pay very little."

             How many of your hundreds of peer reviewed publications were as flawed as this one in what is known as the Gold Standard for climate science reports, the ICC? The truth matters not when it comes to alarmist publications. Just look at what NOAA and NASA have become under the Obama administration.

             "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China"

             CORRECTION On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement: "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.'" This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded. The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming". This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound. WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.

             file:///C:/Users/win7/Downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf

    2. Eric Grimsrud: Have you read this book that I found to be very interesting when I read it and it explains much of how the peer review processes is done for the IPCC?

       "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert"   by Donna Laframboise  

       The author did extensive research and discovered that much of the information that the IPCC says is peer reviewed should be referred to as being pal reviewed.

       Donna Laframboise shows clearly, with supporting evidence, that the IPCC does not use 100% peer-reviewed science as its source material. Most of this "peer reviewed science" is WWF and Greenpeace press-releases. She shows many IPCC contributors are volunteer members of a WWF institution that leads to totally mistaken reports about the `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.'” The IPCC has declined to adopt any conflict of interest policy for the AR5 report, despite having years to do so. She shows how IPCC authors don't abide by their own deadlines or requirements about source material. And she shows many other flaws in IPCC processes. This is a valuable book as the IPCC is a critical foundation component in climate change policy. Using clear source material to substantiate every criticism, Donna Laframboise has demonstrated the IPCC is far short of a gold-standard. In fact, its reports are extremely compromised; but, I well imagine that is no problem for you, Eric.

       Is this how your peer review process should work? People with strong ties to environmental activist organizations leading and writing chapters for the assessments. Lead authors are allowed to use literature they themselves co-authored, and rejecting all relevant scientific literature and opinions of real experts & if things don't seem just they wanted it to appear, they are allowed to add material into the report after the expert review process is over, including literature published after its over.

       That this organization would be corrupt and biased is written into its charter that reads:

       "… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.".

       With this kind of a mandate, the IPCC's existence depends on its own reports. The IPCC has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence & that can be expanded to include most of the alarmist "science".

       Reply

48. John,

    So are you saying that the peer reviewed scientific community, of which Einstein and Fehnman, were integral parts no longer serves as the central place where scientific thoughts are to be tested? If so, where is that function now served? By Ed Berry's website perhaps? I suspect that both Einstein and Fehnman might not agree with you.

    Perhaps Dr. Ed could shed some light in this question. Should "publication' in Edberry.com be sufficient for assessing legitimacy in science or should we continue to use our peer reviewed systems? Unlike you, John, I vote for the latter. I wonder what Dr. Ed thinks – he does claim to be an expert on the "scientific method", you know.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Eric: Is this how you taught chemistry for all those years at MSU, Bozeman? Through deception, subterfuge and hoping that your impressionable young students would just buy into your nonsense, without question? I do not recall that Albert Einstein ever wasted his precious time on such mundane subject such as if the trace gas, CO₂, dictated what the earth's climate does.

       Then you drag the good name of Richard Feynman into your preposterous comment.

       Here’s how Feynman described real science:

       "In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

       The question is; Eric Grimsrud , where is YOUR experiment that I have asked you for repeatedly that gives empirical proof that CO₂ does what you claim that it does to influence the earth's climate? "…. if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."

       This is about Feynman dismissing inexact science, in case you were unable to notice. People making claims that they can't prove yet claiming it as if it was proven.

       "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Dr. Richard Feynman

       Reply

       1. John, Evidently a clarification is needed. On this post Ed has claimed that future CO2 emissions will not cause increased atm CO2 levels and has provided his evidence for that. I have suggested that he test his idea by the submission of his work to a peer reviewed journal. What's the problem with that, John. Do you not know that this is standard scientific procedure? Eric

          Reply

49. Worse than that (taxing and capping CO2), climate change alarmism is a vehicle for full control. Out with the oil and gas industries and everything that relies on them, in with a new frontier of "green" energy and everything. Wealth redistribution. Also, environmental experimentation – to go along with their social engineering.

    My argument is that science shouldn't be unapproachable like the climate science is. Just as government regulation shouldn't be 2,000 pages of legalese; science shouldn't either – especially as it is becoming more and more governmental.

    I super appreciate Dr. Berry using his time, energy and faculties to help refute this.

    Reply

50. We are part of nature! It's time to start thinking of humans as part of nature, part of the ecosystems. As such, nature is accounting for us!

    Reply

51. Ed,

    In your comment of Jan. 3, you implied that you would like to submit your work described on this post to a peer reviewed journal but were unwilling to pay for the publication costs. I then pointed out that there are many opportunities for publication in peer reviewed journals that do not require the author to pay for anything.

    Following up on my comment, I looked up some info provided by Elsevier Press. Their journal called "Atmospheric Environment" is one such journal that is widely read by climate change scientists. You will find everything you need for submission to Atm. Env. at https://www.elsevier.com/journals/atmospheric-env….

    So there you are – an open field for testing your work at the peer reviewed level and also a means of getting wide exposure to all climate change scientists. The only question I would have at this point is do you actually have the guts to test you thoughts at that level – as hundreds of other climate scientists do every year. From inspection of your resume, it appears to me that this would be an experience you haven't had in recent decent decades – even though you claim to be a climate change research scientist.

    So why not go for it? Isn't it about time you shared your thought with the entire community of climate scientists?

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric,

       Thank you very much for your information on where I might publish my climate articles. I will follow up on your suggestions. Based upon the many comments here, I can improve my article when I rewrite it for scientific publication.

       You mention "guts." Hey, that has never been my problem. My philosophy is, it is far better to try and fail than to not try at all. I am doing other things right now that take far more "guts" and time as well. This leaves me with about 20% of my time for my climate interests.

       Thank you again.

       Reply

    2. Eric Grimsrud: This invitation below that Dr. Ed offered up is, in my mind, better than having the venue being a journal that no one reads.

       "Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2 This paper is open for critical scientific and editorial review and comment. – Ed"

       After I read the book: “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise & the evidence that she painstakingly presented, I do not think that, regarding the study of the climate, that most of the information is worth the paper it is written on. The Climategate scandal also put the thoughts and writing of certain people, such as Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley, an older player who became increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal, Ben Santer and one can not miss the totally dishonest and disingenuous Mike Mann and his "hockey stick graph" that was totally debunked by Ross McKitrick & Steve McIntyre. Eric should know that the "hockey stick graph" was required by the IPCC to explain why the graph that showed the RWP, The MWP and the LIA could have happened without the new devil in the sky, CO₂. The Mann "hockey stick graph" was the fraudulent way to not have to explain the graphs that were used until Mann invented his graph.

       Statement of Dr. David Deming

       University of Oklahoma

       College of Earth and Energy

       Climate Change and the Media 

       […]"In 1995,I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

       I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

       The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages."
       http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?…

       Anyway, so much for the peer review process in climate studies. Something that should catch Eric's attention is the number of comments that Dr. Ed has received addressed to this piece that he submitted. It is well over forty, I'm guessing, and he publishes those that are critical of his contentions without redacting them to the point that there is nothing left for anyone to discover what the point may have been that whom ever submitted a disputing viewpoint was trying to state. It would almost appear that Dr. Ed welcomes these views so that he can more fully detail his claims. It seems to work because he does have a good following and for sure not everyone agrees with him; but, they are allowed to express their views unaltered.

       Reply

52. The land does not have to absorb human CO2 while the oceans release CO2. The oceans could simultaneously release natural CO2 due to a temperature-change and absorb virtually all our emissions. This can happen at the same time. That may seem intuitive for people unfamiliar with Henry's law, but it's entirely possible and this is what I believe has occurred. The argument as to how this is possible is explained within the following blog-post (updated from 2013): https://chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/an-argu…

    Reply

    1. Dear Richard, Your article is excellent. I will add the link to your article to my references.

       You show how all ten alarmist claims are invalid. I chose to only show how claim #3 of the ten is invalid. The scenario you suggest is certainly possible. Even the alarmist scientists have admitted that only one possible scenario defeats their argument.

       Reply

    2. Unfortunately, I am late to this party, and my comments may never even be read. But, on this, in your write-up:

       "There is also another variable which is Ua representing the total annual anthropogenic absorption of CO2, but this is considered negligible and so is omitted."

       The problem with this argument is that we must have the same ratio between Ua and Ea as we do between Un and En. Otherwise, we are saying that the sinks treat natural and human CO2 differently. Therefore Ua = Un*Ea/En, which is not insignificant, as Un/En is very nearly unity.

       This is a dynamic system. Sink activity is induced by Ea, and the sink activity it stimulates, though using natural mechanisms, would not have existed without that stimulation. For all intents and purposes, this is artificial sink activity.

       I always call it the "pseudo-mass balance" argument, so as not to dignify it as a true mass balance argument. It is a very stupid argument, made by people who do not understand dynamic systems.

       Reply

       1. Dear Bart,

          Thank you for your comment. Perhaps you can explain this a little more. I do not understand what you mean by Ua. Obviously, human processes that emit CO2 do not also absorb CO2.

          I have assumed that all the natural processes on Land and in Oceans absorb Ea. Maybe that is what you refer to. Clearly, we both view the processes as part of a dynamic system.

          Reply

          1. Hi, Ed. The SS argument goes something like this.

             The annual increase is given by

             C = Ea + En + U

             where U is the natural sink uptake, Ea is anthropogenic emissions, and En is natural emissions.

             It is observed that C is approximately 1/2 of Ea, so we have

             0.5*Ea := Ea + En + U

             Therefore, En + U := -0.5*Ea which is less than zero. Therefore, nature is a net sink, and cannot be responsible for the observed rise.

             It is a very stupid argument. The reason is that this is a dynamic system. Nature reacts to the sum total of inputs. That means that U is composed of a sum of two terms, Un which is induced by En, and Ua which is induced by Ea, U = Ua + Un. We then have

             0.5*Ea := Ea + En – Ua – Un

             which says that nature on its own is

             En – Un := Ua – 0.5*Ea

             But, we don't know Ua. If the sinks are very responsive, it can be as high as Ea itself, which leaves

             En – Un = 0.5*Ea

             and nature on its own is positive, therefore a net source. Only if Ua were less than 0.5*Ea, which would indicate a very weak response, would nature be a net sink.

             I have tried to get this very basic point across to the pseudo-mass balancers time and again, and they just do not get it, because they are not familiar with dynamic systems. The guy who wrote the argument up at SS is a computer scientist, untrained in the hard sciences.

             The fundamental point is that, in a dynamic feedback system, all inputs induce a reaction. Ua would not exist if Ea did not. Ea causes it to be. U is not a static variable. It depends upon both En and Ea, and one cannot put it strictly on one side or the other of the ledger. It must be split up into portions, one due to forcing En, and one due to forcing Ea, Un and Ua, and each placed on the appropriate side of the balance.

53. Eric

    Skeptical Science is run by a cartoonist and Nazi impersonator

    Reply

54. I think the UN has tried that with Israel and failed already.

    Reply

55. This is what I believe is happening. I will demonstrate with a toy model.

    The warmist argument goes something like this. Let A be atmospheric content, and O, be oceanic content. We have differential equation relationships

    dA/dt = (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) + H

    dO/dt = (A – r*O)/((1+r)*tau1)

    H is the anthropogenic input, and tau1 is a fairly short time constant. The factor r partitions the amount of CO2 in the oceans versus the atmosphere, i.e., with no H, the system strives to set A to r*O within a time interval of perhaps 3*tau1 (settling time).

    We see that dA/dt+dO/dt = H, so all change to the system comes from human inputs, and is conserved. With

    A+O = A(0)+O(0) + integral(H)

    and A := r*O (:= means "approximately equal")

    A := A(0) + integral(H)/(1+1/r)

    So, if r is approximately 1:1, we get about half the integrated anthropogenic inputs going into the atmosphere. So, a great deal of handwaving and legerdemain is expended on justifying that r is approximately 1, and approximately half of anthropogenic inputs go into the atmosphere, and half into the oceans.

    But, r is not even close to 1. The oceans ultimately hold vastly most CO2 than the atmosphere, and r is therefore a very small number.

    The ratio r is, in fact temperature dependent. However, temperature dependence of r does not lead to a buildup of CO2, merely a small change in proportionality. But, there is another temperature dependent process which has been left out of the equations which has a much larger long term impact, and that is equlibration with the deep oceans. Equilibration with the deep oceans takes on the order of the time needed for the thermohaline circulation – hundreds if not thousands of years.

    So, let us specify O in the above equations as representing merely the surface layer of the oceans. To the equations above, we will ad CO2 content of upwelling waters, U, and transport in the downwelling waters proportional to O, obtaining

    dA/dt = (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) + H

    dO/dt = (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) + U – O/tau2

    Nominally, U and O/tau2 are in balance, but tau2 is temperature dependent, becoming even longer with increasing temperature. Thus, we can say approximately that

    O/tau2 := U – k*(T-T0)

    for some k scale factor and T0 equilibrium temperature related to the partial derivative of tau2 with respect to temperature and the nominal upwelling. We have

    dA/dt = (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) + H

    dO/dt = (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) + k*(T-T0)

    The approximate solution of these equations is

    A := integral(H+k*(T-T0))*r/(1+r)

    O := integral(H+k*(T-T0))/(1+r)

    Since r is small, the bulk of both the source H and the temperature constricted outflow k*T goes into the oceans. Suppose, e.g., that r = 0.01. Then, 1% of the integrated H goes into that atmosphere, not 50%, and the great majority of the anthropogenic input goes into the oceans. Since the observed rise is about 50% of H, have have

    0.01*integrated(H + k*(T-T0)) := 0.5*integrated(H)

    which means that integrated(k*T) = 49*integrated(H). 98% of the observed rise would be due to natural sources, and only 2% due to human inputs.

    This is along the lines of what we see in the data.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/fro…

    The observations very closely follow a pattern described by

    dA/dt := k*(T – T0)

    Obviously, the actual system is even more complicated than this. There are exchanges with land and biota and so forth. There are diffusion processes with effectively many time constants. But, I think this simple system demonstrates how it can be that human inputs have little impact, and the observations of the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 very closely track temperature anomaly with respect to an appropriate baseline.

    Reply

    1. Dear Bart,

       You have done an excellent job of putting equations into a WordPress comment.

       I like your formulation of this subject into differential equations. I purposely avoided that format because I wanted the general public to be able to read my article.

       Unless I missed something, I agree that your equations describe the system under discussion. We might note that r is about 1/50. Also, I might have replaced H with dH/dt but that is a minor point.

       Your final equation, as you no doubt realize, is the equation that Salby derived directly from the data.

       Thank you for your input.

       Reply

    2. Keeping the nomenclature consistent throughout, I should have written the last equation as

       dA/dt := r*k*(T – T0)

       Or, I could have redefined it as some other constant. Since k depends on the total flow U, it is sure to be very large, and this term simply dominates the term in H. If you choose r = 1/50, then it would do so in ratio of 24:1, and the observed rise would be 96% natural.

       Reply

       1. Dr. Ed,

          In discussing your excellent analysis in another forum, I received the following commentary. I suspect that the answers can all be found above but would appreciate your thoughts to help me reply with a succinct response with full attribution to you. Thanks in advance! Just trying to get the word out in a very hostile environment…

          "This paper asserts, " Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2."

          Several flaws:

          1. It misses the elementary matter of marginal contributions. Prior to the increase in human emissions, total annual carbon dioxide emissions were relatively equal to annual absorption in sinks. The outcome was a relatively stable atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

          2. The increase in human emissions led to total annual emissions > total annual absorption. The outcome was an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

          3. Even as the paper rules out the impact of a human contribution (incorrect, IMO, and in the scientific consensus), it offers no plausible mechanism for the rise in atmospheric concentration that has occurred, especially in the past 50-100 years. The idea that the carbon sinks had suddenly reduced their uptake of carbon dioxide. There is little compelling evidence that the kind of dramatic reduction necessary to explain the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (absent a human impact) has occurred. There is also little evidence of any kind to suggest the kind of dramatic increase in natural carbon dioxide emissions necessary to explain most or all of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

          All said, assuming the blog entry reasonably represents the paper and its conclusions, the paper contains fundamental flaws. I would be surprised if it passes peer review."

          Reply

          1. Dear Climate Change,

             Thank you for forwarding a critique of my paper on an eco-freak blog by people who do not understand physics and are afraid to debate a subject on its original website with the author.

             Here is my reply to those who claim there are “several flaws in my paper”:

             1. Their claim #1 is the standard, invalid ecological assumption that before we humans got involved, nature was perfectly balanced. That is not physics. That is a religious belief.

             2. Their claim #2 assumes human emissions upset nature’s pristine balance. They assume all carbon sinks remain constant even when atmospheric CO2 changes. Their assumption violates the laws of physics. Therefore, their critique is invalid.

             3. Their claim #3 says my paper “rules out the impact of the human contribution.” More correctly, my paper proves their argument, to support their claim that human emissions drive atmospheric CO2, is unphysical. I don’t need to go any further than that. They have the burden of proof to defend their hypothesis and they have failed.

             References in my paper show that ocean surface temperature drives the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. The comments by Bart also show how this works. The effect of ocean surface temperature on atmospheric CO2 overwhelms the human contribution.

             Other references in my paper show the statistical correlation between human emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO. Where there is no correlation, there is no cause and effect. Game over.

             Those who write the eco-freak blog that claims my paper is wrong, do not understand how nature accomplishes its “balance.” If they did, they would also understand why their claims are false. Fundamentally, they are not physicists, and they are playing where they do not belong.

             If they had a valid case to show my paper is wrong, they would make their case in comments on my website. The fact that they are afraid to do so, proves they have no case.

          2. "Their claim #1 is the standard, invalid ecological assumption that before we humans got involved, nature was perfectly balanced. That is not physics. That is a religious belief."

             Indeed, it is. There is particularly a problem in positing that the CO2 level was perfectly stable for a long time, and then it just took off due to a small external forcing.

             A stable balance rarely occurs in nature except as the result of feedback, which maintains balance by means of equally opposed forces with equal sensitivity to changes in the equilibrium point. Tight control about the equilibrium is associated with high bandwidth – the higher the bandwidth of the feedback control, the quicker it can respond to deviations and correct them.

             Very stable CO2 levels for an extended time indicates wide bandwidth regulation. Such regulation is insensitive to external forcing. And so, there is a disconnect in the narrative. On the one hand, the CO2 regulatory system must be high bandwidth to confer such remarkable stability, but it must be low bandwidth to allow such high sensitivity to outside forcing. But, this is not possible – you cannot have both high and low bandwidth at the same time.

             IMO, the source of the disconnect is likely the ice core records of CO2. We already know that resolution is lost due to diffusion. I suspect we do not fully appreciate the full extent of this process. Other proxy records do not indicate this unusual degree of stability, and they are shunned for it. Confirmation bias is indicated.

56. BTW Ed, please feel free to use anything I have written here in anything you wish to publish without recompense or recognition. I would be honored to be able to contribute. For professional reasons, I do not wish for any publicity for myself.

    Reply

57. Re- human emissions:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smalle…

    Re- temp precedes CO2:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-tempera…

    Reply

    1. Pretty flaccid stuff. First is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Second is just hand waving.

       Reply

58. Ed,

    Note that if you ever do submit your paper concerning CO2 levels not tracking emission rates, you will now have to include years 2015 and 2016, both all time record highs. FOR this and other reasons, I doubt you will every get around to that fool's task. Unlike performing before your peanut gallery, you would get the sh-t kicked out of you. Stick to the peanut gallery.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. To what are you referring? To the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 jumped to high levels in 2015 and 2016? At a time when emissions were touted as having stabilized? This is only digging your hole deeper.

       The past two years were part of the El Nino temperature peak and, as Ed has stated, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to temperature anomaly (with appropriate baseline).

       http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/…

       The data are consistent the temperature driven model, not the emissions driven one. You lose.

       Reply

       1. I've attached a link below to an ongoing discussion in the American Wx Forum Climate Change section about Dr. Berry's article. American Wx is a great read as to all things weather and receives substantial input from meteorologists. The dialogue in the climate change section is another story – very one-sided and tilted very heavily to the religion of climate change.

          To those of you who have not surrendered to this religion, HELP! It would be awesome to see the direct exchange of thoughts on that forum which I believe will make clear to anyone with an open mind that the science is not close to being settled.

          Eric Grimsrud, your review of the discussion and input is also welcome. Someone, in an effort to discredit Dr. Berry, linked to your 2015 hit piece entitled "What if Professor Harold Hill came to Montana?"

          Do you still seriously question Dr. Berry's credentials as an atmospheric physicist?

          Also, there are links to articles by Richard Telford, a professor of palaeoecology. I question the credibility of a palaeoecologist to deride the work of Dr. Salby, and implicitly, the work of Dr. Ed, and would love to see your thoughts as to that in the American Wx Forum.

          Anyway, would greatly appreciate any input in the post linked below.

          https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/49569-dr-ed-b…

          Thanks.

          Reply

59. Bart, I suggest that you actually read Ed's argument based on his Fig 3. You asked me

    "to what are you referring? To the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 jumped to high levels in 2015 and 2016? At a time when emissions were touted as having stabilized?"

    while Ed's argument is that CO2 levels did not go up over a period when emissions had greatly increased (not stabilized). The inclusion of years 2014, 2015, AND 2016 show that atm levels of CO2 went up very sharply – thus not fitting Ed's theory. If Ed wished to stick with the claim of this thread, he'll now have to explain this latest data in terms of his theory. Good Luck ED, But I suspect we have heard the last of his unsubstantiated claim.

    Eric

    Reply

    1. Dear Eric, I agree that my Fig. 3 is merely a preliminary argument that atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with human CO2 emissions. The proper way to test this is to use annual data in a statistical analysis that detrends the data.

       Jamal Munshi, an expert statistician, has done this for us for data for the period 1958-2015. You may note that my references include his paper:

       Munshi, Jamal, 2016: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Part 2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_…

       His conclusion is that the subject correlation is essentially ZERO. His robust statistical conclusion is that changes in atmospheric CO2 cannot be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.

       Perhaps you can read his paper and show us where he made a mistake in his statistical analysis.

       Reply

       1. Munshi is addressing an entirely different problem. His note addresses the relationship between annual fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric concentration of CO2. Internal variability dominates on an annual scale.

          The issue as to whether fossil fuel emissions contribute to an increase in atmospheric CO2 over time is a completely different matter. The very low correlation in the former problem does not, repeat not, address the link between fossil fuel emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2 over time.

          For purposes of illustration, one could address whether annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and annual changes in temperature are correlated. The correlation is low, as internal variability e.g., ENSO, dominates on an annual basis.

          However, if calculates the correlation between the level of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, the coefficient of correlation is very high (>0.9).

          Using Munshi's paper to address the issue of fossil fuel emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2 over time is analogous to using the weak correlation between annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and annual changes in temperature to assert that the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is weak (when, in fact, it is not).

          The conclusions in Munshi's paper are sound. The overgeneralized conclusion that his paper demonstrates that the long-term change in atmospheric CO2 "cannot be attributed to fossil fuel emissions" is technically unsound.

          Reply

          1. Dear Don, You are correct to identify short-term and long-term as two different issues for discussion.

             Munshi found no correlation using annual data for 57 years. That means human emissions did not cause the observed, almost steady increase in atmospheric CO2. There is no significant cause and effect.

             The statistics for 57 years strongly imply that we would find the same result if we had 1000 years of data.

             So, I disagree with your statement that a long-term correlation can be significant when the annual correlation for 57 years is zero.

             To support your position, you must state a testable hypothesis that predicts there is a significant long-term correlation in the absence of a short-term annual correlation for 57 years.

          2. Dr. Ed, as I have had many years of discussion with Bart about this topic, I don't want to repeat that here and now, as I have other priorities for the moment. But the remarks on the work of Munshi need an answer.

             Modern engineering is overfocused on frequency analyses and similar tools, up to ridiculous results. Munshi's work is no exception. I am from the (very) old school where one looks at all the evidence, not only the "match" between two highly variable curves…

             What is the problem in comparing the variability in human emissions and temperature with the resulting increase in the atmosphere?

             Human emissions show a lot of increase and hardly any variability since 1959:

             A fourfold increase in yearly emisions and total emissions +170 ppmv since 1959. Year to year variability less than 0.5 ppmv in emissions, simply not detectable in the monthly increase in the atmosphere (which "by coincidence" also increased a fourfold in the same time span).

             Temperature shows a lot of variability and hardly any increase since 1959:

             Increase: 0.4°C, variability +/- 0.3°C. If we may use Henry's law for the temperature-CO2 releationship (16 ppmv/K for seawater, static as good as dynamic), that gives at full equilibrium 6 ppmv extra in the atmosphere over the full time span1959-2017 and a (monthly) variability of +/- 4.5 ppmv.

             Thus we have two variables influencing atmospheric CO2:

             One with a huge trend and undetectable variability and one with a huge variabilty and a small trend.

             What has Munshi done?

             He compares the rate of change in human emissions with the rate of change of the increase in the atmosphere. The latter shows the same variability as the temperature changes as that gives all the variability and taking the derivative only shifts a sinusoidal change 90 deg. backward in time, but hardly changes the appearance.

             As human emissions show hardly any variability, of course there is no correlation between the variabilities, as the correlation is not in the temperature caused noise, but in the total increase over time of the emissions, which he largely removed by taking the derivatives…

             If you compare the temperature rate of change with the CO2 rate of change, you still have the high correlation, but the trend of the temperature derivative is zero with a small offset, as temperature shows a small, irregular linear increase. On the other side, the total emissions show a small quadratic increase as good as the CO2 increase in the atmosphere does:
             http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
             With an extreme good correlation between both:
             http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…

             Of course the latter doesn't prove causation, but in this case, that is extremely plausible.

             In the derivatives, that shows up as a linear trend in the emissions rate of change which is around twice the average trend of the atmospheric CO2 rate of change in the atmosphere (within the huge noise):
             http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…

             Conclusion: by looking at the derivatives, Munshi largely removed the cause and effect in this case and his findings only show that there is a huge correlation between the variability of temperature rate of change and CO2 rate of change, which is the noise (+/- 1.5 ppmv) around the trend (90 ppmv). That says absolutely nothing about the cause of the trend…

             More detailed background here:
             http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_var…

          3. Yes, Ferdinand has been my sparring partner for many years now. He insists on a fantastic, Rube Goldberg type, system response to explain away the remarkable consistency between the temperature record and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 as mere coincidence. William of Occam rolls in his grave.

             Scientifically, though, his model does not work. It assumes that the natural balancing mechanisms are in equilibrium, and have no further influence. Upon this foundation, he builds his model, taking the natural equilibrium as a given and decoupling it from the response to anthropogenic forcing.

             Yet, the balance must be maintained, and anthropogenic inputs are necessarily subsumed into that balancing act. As a result, they cannot contribute more to offsetting that balance than the proportion by which they add to the natural input flows. And, that proportion is only a few, small percentage points.

          4. Dr. Ed,

             Only a short reaction on what Bart said:

             Bart's whole theory is based on one graph: the nice fit between temperature changes and CO2 rate of change changes, using an arbitrary factor and offset. One can fit exactly the same graph by attributing all variability to temperature variability and (near) all slope to human emissions.

             The main difference is in the decay rate for any excess CO2 above equilibrium (whatever that equilibrium is): Bart's theory needs a very fast decay rate for any disturbance and the equilibrium is fully determined by temperature. My "theory" needs a moderate decay rate (~50 years e-fold rate) where there is a small influence of temperature on the setpoint and the variability (at 16 ppmv/K), not fast enough to remove all human emissions the same year as emitted, but fast enough to follow temperature over centuries to milennia…

             How to decide? Have a look at the observations: human emissions fit all known observations, Bart's theory none…

             See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_ori…

    2. "…while Ed’s argument is that CO2 levels did not go up over a period when emissions had greatly increased (not stabilized). The inclusion of years 2014, 2015, AND 2016 show that atm levels of CO2 went up very sharply – thus not fitting Ed’s theory."

       But, Ed was right. CO2 levels increased at a steady rate when emissions were accelerating. And, during the latest El Nino, they accelerated when emissions appeared to level out. In both cases, the data fit Ed's scenario. In both cases, they are inconsistent with the prevailing paradigm.

       Reply

       1. There's a relationship between El Niño and increases in atmospheric CO2. That relationship was discussed as early as 1985.

          http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1985Meti…

          Reply

          1. But, in 1985, we did not have data that showed CO2 rate of change tracking temperature anomaly over the long term. The long term trend matches when you scale for the variability. The match is particularly good for Southern hemisphere sea surface temperatures

             http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/…

             Emissions also have a long term trend, but as it is already accounted for by the temperature relationship, it is not needed. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is that they have no significant impact.

          2. Bart:

             "Emissions also have a long term trend, but as it is already accounted for by the temperature relationship, it is not needed."

             That is wishfull thinking: "my theory is good, so you don't need another explanation", while another theory (backed by all observations) shows the opposite view: human emissions explain almost the whole increase and temperature explains all the variability, but has little effect on the increase…

          3. Occam's Razor, Ferdinand. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Your hypothesis requires tortured, multi-leveled, decoupled interactions, and casual dismissal of what would have to be a colossal improbability in the remarkable match of the trend in temperature to the trend in the CO2 rate of change.

60. One can't draw the conclusion that a low correlation between fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 mean that "human emissions did not cause the observed…increase in atmospheric CO2." Annual changes in atmospheric CO2 are a function of natural emissions, anthropogenic emissions, and absorption. Natural emissions and absorption are subject to the influences of internal variability. Therefore, highlighting a weak correlation between fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 is insufficient for demonstrating that there is no meaningful link between fossil fuel emissions and the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

    The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (Chapter 6) went beyond correlations and provided a number of specific "lines of evidence" that suggested the existence of such a link (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf, pp.493-494).

    Reply

    1. But, they are not really "lines of evidence". They are rationalizations, with a predetermined outcome. In the years to come, they will be considered object lessons in confirmation bias.

       Reply

    2. Dear Don, Thank you for your comment.

       You are rejecting fundamental science. If there is no correlation, there can be no cause and effect, or more accurately, any cause and effect is insignificant. The zero correlation between human emissions and atmospheric CO2 change proves there is no significant cause and effect.

       Indeed, atmospheric CO2 is a function of both natural and human emissions. That is what my post is about. It concludes human emissions may be up to 4 percent of the total effect and natural emissions are 96 percent. No scientific argument has contradicted this conclusion.

       The human 4 percent is negligible compared to nature. That is why there is zero correlation between human CO2 with atmospheric CO2. Human CO2 is in the noise level of natural emissions.

       The IPCC report you reference is inadequate to make your point because it claims "lines of evidence" and omits the scientific method. We have been through all these "lines of evidence" in the many comments. These "lines of evidence" do not prove that human CO2 drives atmospheric CO2, and they do not overcome the fact that human emissions are only 4 percent of total emissions.

       If you wish to make your prior point about long-term, you still need to state your hypothesis for discussion.

       Reply

       1. Dr. Berry,

          I'm not rejecting science at all. At the same time, I'm not suggesting or implying that there are not residual uncertainties, along with other areas where additional research is required.

          Lack of a correlation against short-term variability that is largely driven by natural factors does not mean that there is no long-term correlation among the two variables (human CO2 emissions and the observed increase in atmospheric CO2). I'm suggesting that if one uses annual changes in atmospheric CO2, internal variability, which predominates, masks the long-term contribution of human fossil fuel emissions.

          For an analogy, ENSO plays a large role in influencing annual global land and ocean temperatures (I don't think there's serious dispute about the role of that oceanic cycle). As a result, the correlation of CO2 to year-by-year changes in temperature is relatively small. Yet, over the long-term (and when one accounts for ENSO, among other variables), there is a very high correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Over the past 40 years, the coefficient of correlation between atmospheric CO2 (Mauna Loa) and the GISS LOTI anomaly is approximately 0.91.

          Finally, my point about raising the IPCC report was simply to note that IPCC has gone beyond correlations in asserting the role that the human contribution has played in increasing atmospheric CO2. IPCC has laid out what it asserts are various lines of supporting evidence for its very high level of confidence in the role of human emissions.

          Reply

          1. If it is true that, as posited, we have a temperature to CO2 dynamic of

             dCO2/dt := k*(T – T0)

             then it is impossible for CO2 to significantly impact temperatures in a positive sense, as that would produce a positive feedback system that cannot be stabilized even by T^4 radiation, and we would have reached a tipping point eons ago.

             Try coupling the equation above with a perturbation system of the form

             dT/dt = -a*T^4 + b*CO2

             It has no stable equilibrium.

             The "multiple lines of evidence" are rationalizations – a seeking out of seemingly plausible scenarios and data which are prima facie consistent with the predetermined outcome. That is how you get confirmation bias and erroneous conclusions.

          2. It has no stable equilibrium for positive b, is what I wanted to say.

          3. Looking over your comment at this later date, I would like to add this:

             "Over the past 40 years, the coefficient of correlation between atmospheric CO2 (Mauna Loa) and the GISS LOTI anomaly is approximately 0.91. "

             The real correlation, as has been stated, is between the rate of change of CO2 and temperature anomaly:

             http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/…

             That means that CO2 is proportional to the integral of appropriately baselined temperature anomaly, not to temperature itself, and that puts the arrow of causality in the direction of temperature to CO2, not CO2 to temperature.

             It is not difficult to obtain a spurious correlation in the domain of total CO2, because it is very low frequency, with low information content. All you've got is that they both are moving vaguely upward as nearly affine functions with slight curvature, and the fact that two affine functions are affinely similar to one another is a tautology.

             Plus, you have to contend with the fact that the "adjustments" to the temperature record very much appear to have been made with an eye to producing a similarity to the CO2 record:

             https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvcaBlAWgAESL4n.jpg

             and, they are drinking their own bathwater.

          4. Bart,

             Yes, one can test the relationship between instantaneous changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature using the second derivative. In fact, there's a fairly recent paper on that topic and the relationship between CO2 and temperature was found to be statistically significant.

             https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6316…

          5. It appears to be saying there is a statistically significant relationship between the rate of change of CO2 and global mean temperature, which is what Salby, Ed, I and others have been saying. It further appears to be saying there is a statistically significant relationship between the 2nd derivative of CO2 and SOI, which is not surprising as there is a statistically significant relationship between SOI and the rate of change of global mean temperature.

             It then appears to suggest that the rate of change of CO2 is thereby influencing global temperatures. This would lead to an absurd scenario in which atmospheric CO2 could increase to an extremely high level, but once it stopped increasing, temperatures would snap back to their original levels irrespective of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

             It is because of that absurd scenario that we conclude that the arrow of causality is in the other direction – that increasing temperatures result in an increasing rate of change of atmospheric CO2.

          6. The paper makes no such argument of CO2 rising to an extreme level with temperatures 'snapping back' once CO2 stopped rising. That interpretation stretches the paper's findings beyond what the paper discussed. To reach such a conclusion, one would have to assume that (1) CO2's radiative properties were vastly overstated and/or (2) CO2 would have an exceptionally short lifetime. Neither is the case.

             CO2's radiative efficiency is well-established. Questions about the actual rise in temperature with a doubling of CO2 deal with factors other than CO2's radiative properties e.g., feedbacks.

             CO2 does not have an exceptionally short lifetime, even as no precise value can be given.

             https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1… (starting at p.731)

          7. "The paper makes no such argument of CO2 rising to an extreme level with temperatures ‘snapping back’ once CO2 stopped rising."

             It is implied when one notes that the rate of change is proportional to temperature, and then suggests CO2 is driving the temperature.

             "CO2’s radiative efficiency is well-established."

             In the laboratory under controlled settings, without any confounding feedbacks. It is quite a stretch to project that to assured warming of the very complex, massively interconnected feedback system that is the Earth's climate.

          8. Dear Bart, I agree. If we accept the premise that

             dCO2/dt = T – To

             then we must conclude that (T – To) drives the dCO2/dt.

             While simple physics with no feedbacks can assume that more CO2 causes higher Temperature, there is no physical hypothesis that says the dCO2/dt can cause a higher temperature. As you say, if dCO2/dt controlled temperature, the temperature would decrease just because dCO2/dt went negative with no regard to its concentration in the atmosphere.

             Regarding the actual effect of CO2 on temperature, I plan to introduce the recent work by Miklos Zagoni for discussion … in a new post. We don't want to get into Zagoni's work in this post because it would complicate the comments in this post. Suffice it to say, I think Zagoni is correct, and if he is, then our atmosphere compensates for changes in CO2 in a manner that keeps the overall greenhouse effect constant.

          9. "If we accept the premise that

             dCO2/dt = T – To

             then we must conclude that (T – To) drives the dCO2/dt."

             This is stone stupid.

             Humans are burning carbon INDEPENDENT OF THE TEMPERATURE.

             They aren't waiting around until temperature changes to start burning carbon.

             They are burning it all the time.

             In this case CO2 obviously — OBVIOUSLY — leads temperature.

             Stop being stupid.

          10. Dear Stupid, I mean David, clearly you do not understand the meaning of the equation, nor logic.

              The conclusion follows from the premise. So if you accept the premise but not the conclusion, you do not understand logic.

              If you deny the premise then you should say so. That is the subject of the discussion of this post.

              However, if you deny the premise then you, as a claimed scientist, should be able to produce a rational argument to back up your position. That would mean you must show that my post and all the references that also support the conclusions of my post are incorrect.

              No one, so far, has done that.

              You claim "obviously" CO2 leads temperature. "Obviously" is not a scientific argument, especially when data show your claim is wrong.

          11. "Humans are burning carbon INDEPENDENT OF THE TEMPERATURE."

              He is right about that. Yet, CO2 concentration is manifestly dependent on temperature via its impact on the rate of change. That is precisely why human inputs cannot be the major driver. They are not dependent on temperature.

          12. On a very short note:

              Bart's theory is:

              dCO2/dt = T – To

              That implies that whatever the amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere, the additional amount added over time to the atmosphere for a one-time temperature offset remains the same until eternity.

              In reality, dCO2/dt is not only temperature dependent, but also pressure dependent. Bart's formula only is right for To, the start of the release at a temperature jump (or slope, or…). Once CO2 is released, the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere increases and as for any (dynamic) equilibrium between any gas above and in a liquid, a higher pressure in the atmosphere gives either more flux into the liquid or less release from the liquid until equilibrium is reached again for the new temperature. According to Henry's law, a new (dynamic) equilibrium is reached at ~16 ppmv/K.

              The huge influence of pressure on CO2 fluxes totally lacks in Bart's theory…

          13. Forgot to add the graph of my "theory"

              http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…

              The 40 GtC/year is the permanent CO2 flux between deep ocean upwelling near the equator and the sink places near the poles. That quantity is based on both the 14CO2 decay rate after the peak caused by the atomic bomb tests in the 1950's and the "thinning" of the human 13C/12C "fingerprint" by the deep ocean – atmosphere CO2 exchanges.

              Any temperature change of the ocean surface waters has a temporarely effect on the momentary CO2 in/out fluxes, which level off by an appropriate response to the changes in the atmosphere caused by these fluxes.

          14. "That implies that whatever the amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere, the additional amount added over time to the atmosphere for a one-time temperature offset remains the same until eternity."

              No. It is a local (in time) equation. Over the time required for THC overturning, it would be modified, but it is sufficient for use over relatively short timescales.

              Henry's law only applies to the short term dynamics equilibrating the atmosphere with the ocean's surface. There is a much longer term dynamic involving equilibration of the surface oceans with the ocean depths.

61. Bart,

    The runaway temperature rise from positive feedback could only occur if CO2 could only move in one direction (increase). There is a finite amount of CO2 on earth (stored land/ocean and in the atmosphere). The differential equation by itself, a variation of Newton's equation relating to temperature and motion of an object, isn't a problem so to speak. The underlying assumption being made is flawed.

    Reply

    1. It is an instability that would drive the system to its boundary. Maxed out. We are not at a boundary condition.

       Reply

       1. Dr. Berry,

          The ongoing discussion between Bart and Don on January 21 is showing up before Don's comment onJanuary 20. Can this be fixed so those following don't miss anything?

          Reply

          1. Climate Changes,

             The issue may have something to do with the blogging platform. If so, there may be little Dr. Berry can do about it.

          2. Dear Climate Changes, Indeed, as Don says, WordPress is in control of how the comments are sorted.

             We control where our comment appears in the chain when we select the "Reply" link below other comments. We can select a new top-level comment by going directly to the Post Comment box at the bottom.

             I have the threaded comments set to 4. There is no level 5. I could consider setting it to 5 or 6, but that may not solve the problem either. Besides, the higher the level, the more narrow the comment.

    2. "The differential equation by itself, a variation of Newton’s equation relating to temperature and motion of an object,"

       What?????

       What Newtonian equation are you talking about????

       Reply

       1. Dear David, If you understand what Don is talking about, you would understand that he inadvertently did not use a complete sentence. Give those who comment a little slack in small grammar errors.

          Reply

62. Thank you both Don and Bart for your excellent discussions in my absence. I had to finish up the second edition of my book that I now advertise in the right-hand column.

    Reply

63. What a complete pile of dipshittery.

    Have you ever heard of carbon isotopes?

    Explain their changing ratio.

    Explain where exactly all our yuge CO2 emissions went? Just disappeared into thin air?

    Please let us know who all rejects your so-called paper.

    Reply

    1. Dear Dipshit, I mean David, seems you didn't read the discussion above about isotopes.

       Everyone who has commented on this post (including Eric) has made polite, reasonable scientific arguments no matter which side they take. Everyone except you. You come along and make a total fool of yourself by calling people names and making comments with no scientific substance. Normally, I would block anyone who makes such impolite and foolish comments.

       However, you are a special case. You show the world how truly irrational an alarmist can be. You are part of the alarmist zoo. Sane people enjoy visiting the alarmist zoo to watch you perform your antics. Would it make you happy if we throw you peanuts and bananas? Can you reach your hands through the bars and catch your food? Do the alarmist mash for us to make us laugh.

       Reply

    2. David Appell:

       You ask,

       "Explain where exactly all our yuge(sic) CO2 emissions went? Just disappeared into thin air?"

       I answer,

       all emissions of CO2 to the air become involved in the carbon cycle and the contribution of CO2 emission from human activities is a trivially small addition to the total CO2 emission to the air.

       At issue is what the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be if the CO2 emission from human emissions (i.e. the anthropogenic emission) were absent.

       In his above article Ed Berry repeatedly references our analyses which show the atmospheric CO2 concentration would probably be the same if the CO2 emission from human emissions were absent. it would probably be the same. Those analyses show the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to each of our six different models, the total emission of a year affects the equilibrium state of the entire carbon cycle system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium. So, the atmospheric CO2 concentration slowly changes in response to any change in the equilibrium condition.

       Importantly, each of our models demonstrates that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system caused by, for example, the anthropogenic emission or may be solely a result of desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it.

       The most likely explanation for the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is adjustment towards the altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system provided by the temperature rise in previous decades during the centuries of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

       This slow rise in response to the changing equilibrium condition also provides an explanation of why the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere continued when in two subsequent years the flux into the atmosphere decreased (the years 1973-1974, 1987-1988, and 1998-1999).

       Richard

       Reply

       1. David Appell is an no-account gadfly who appears regularly on comment boards to harass serious scientists with his incoherent arguments, flurries of propaganda links, and personal insults. He has neither scruples nor class. He gets his yucks by referring to eminent researchers such as Dr. Judith Curry as "Aunt Judy", a porn-related reference, which is where he probably spends most of his apparently copious time on the web.

          Now, back to serious matters. Here is an interesting link to a new paper. It is behind a paywall, so I have not read it and cannot vouch for it personally. The tide is building. When temperatures turn south, and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 along with it, the dam will burst.

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/…

          Reply

64. …and Then There's Physics :

    Clearly, you like to pretend you possess knowledge you don't have.

    Not content with your above display that you don't understand equilbrium effects are not relevant to consideration of disequilibrium conditions, you now pretend you know what atmospheric CO2 concentration was centuries before anybody could measure it.

    There are two main proxies for past atmospheric CO2 concentration; viz. ice core data and stomata data.

    The ice core data are smoothed during the time prior to ice closure (the IPCC says this is 83 years) so cannot be compared to modern measurements because we have only been measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa since 1958 (i.e. less than 83 years). And there are very good reasons to think the ice core data indications are plain wrong.

    Among the reasons to doubt the ice core indications is that the stomata data indicate similar atmospheric CO2 concentrations to now existed prior to the industrial revolution.

    Richard

    PS The reason you hide behind an alias is becoming obvous.

    Reply

65. Eric Grimsrood:

    It seems there is nothing – absolutely nothing – you understand about the scientific method.

    This one of your extraordinary assertions is so wrong that it is jaw dropping; i.e.

    " In science we test ideas by the submission of them to the peer reveiwed literature. "

    NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

    In SCIENCE we test ideas by their predictive ability. Where, how and by whom ideas are published is not relevant.

    For example, two bicycle salesmen published their seminal work on aeronatics in a magazine about bee-keeping. The worth of their work is not indicated by the Wright brothers' lack of formal education, their inability to get their paper published in a peer reviewed journal, or the fact that few except bee keepers would have read it in its first publication. The worth of their work is demonstrated e.g. by the existence of Airbus Industries.

    Countless similar examples exist.

    Richard

    Reply

66. Having read the isotope material carefully, the original post is correct as a matter of logic.

    If you want to show human emissions have increased CO2 ppm you have to show that they did it.

    Showing that they were the cause of a change in the isotope content does not show that. It just shows that they changed the isotope content. That is not the same as changing the CO2 ppm.

    Dr Ed's thought experiment is valid. He asks, whether, if you assume human emissions have changed isotope content, this predicts higher or lower ppm. And he correctly observes that it predicts neither one. It is compatible with both outcomes.

    Therefore, it cannot be used either to prove or to disprove the statement that human emissions are causing rises in ppm.

    I am trying to think of a medical analogy. Something like this maybe. We assume eating saturated fats raises cholesterol levels. It may. We then argue that this shows raised cholesterol levels cause the rises we observe in CHD. They may, but our argument has not shown it.

    Its a logical fallacy. If you want to show or refute that human emissions are causing rises in ppm, you have to formulate some theory which predicts that, and then confirm or disconfirm it. If you want to show that raised cholesterol causes more CHD you have to show that. Whether eating saturated fats raises cholesterol is irrelevant.

    Reply

67. Could I also say this was a very interesting and valuable piece. I had not really appreciated the logic of the argument before coming on this, and had just assumed the isotope argument was valid. But in fact there is an obvious logical hole in it once someone draws attention to it.

    Very valuable site – keep on with the logic! In all great policy errors there is usually some logical error in the reasoning. An assumption that something has been proven which in fact turns out to be false once the policy is well under way and failing to deliver the forecasts which were used to justify it.

    Another which I came on recently occurs in the defence of the Hockey Stick. We start out claiming that the studies which show a Medieval Warm period just show regional warming. But in fact, when you implement non-standard PCA as in MBH98, the effect is to over weight some particular tree ring series, so the effect is to produce a regionally based handle to the stick…!

    Yes, when policy enters the science wars, the first casualty is logic.

    Reply

    1. So true, Rajiv. In my PhD studies, we were drilled on mathematical proofs. Our instructors were quick to leap on any shortcomings, most of which took the form of pointing out exceptions to our logic. You quickly learned that you could not assume anything, because the assumptions always left a path open to negate the premise. For physical systems, it often turns out that the thing assumed is itself dependent on the state of the system. A degree of freedom that, if not constrained in some fashion, ineluctably drives the system away from the intended steady state.

       I have had to massage my temples repeatedly in viewing all the leaps of logic made to support the hypothesis of human induced global warming. There are fallacies galore, and enough loopholes to weave a rug that carpets an entire city. The people who jumped on this bandwagon, in my estimation, are very poor scientists. Somehow, they seem to have missed the rigor in which I and my classmates were immersed. It is a very sad spectacle, that can only end in humiliation and ruin.

       Reply

       1. Bart, I have followed your posts here on Dr. Berry's site and can see that you are a very bright fellow. I appreciate your contribution and thank you for it. People like David Appell are amazing in their shallowness and yet the man holds a PHD in Chemistry. WOW! You wonder how rigorous the process is or isn't to obtain a degree of that magnitude. In his case it wasn't very strenuous. It couldn't be. Thanks again, Bart!

          PS I would be remiss to not thank Dr. Berry on his very thoughtful article on CO2. The logic does appear to be irrefutable. Thank you, Dr. Berry for your contributions on the topic!

          Reply

68. "The huge influence of pressure on CO2 fluxes totally lacks in Bart’s theory…"

    No, it is all there in the toy model above.

    Reply

69. Occam’s Razor? What is the simplest – but still correct – answer to what happens in the atmosphere: human emissions which are average double the observed increase in the atmosphere and fits all known observations or assuming that temperature is the main driver in one process that "fits" all, but violates every single observation?

    With only two "assumptions" I can fit the same graph: that the setpoint for the ocean – atmosphere CO2 "steady state" obeys Henry's law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater at 16 ppmv/K and that any CO2 pressure above the steady state has an e-fold decay rate of ~51 year, as observed over the past 57 years of accurate measurements. Further an arbitrary factor for the short term CO2-T relationship (4-5 ppmv/K) in (tropical) vegetation that fits the observations.

    That shows exactly the same varibiality and slope as your arbitrary factor and offset, be it with a better fit in amplitude…

    The graph is enlarged over a shorter period to enhance the view on the synchronisation around the 1991 Pinatubo and 1998 El Niño:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…

    Where RSS-CO2 is the CO2 rate of change variability/slope according to Bart's theory, based on the RSS satellite record.

    dCO2/dt(obs) the observed CO2 rate of change.

    emiss-deriv the rate of change of the emissions.

    emiss-CO2-deriv the rate of change as calculated from the extra pressure in the atmosphere above the momentary steady state equilibrium, that is the human influence.

    and last but not least the combination of the human influence + the natural, temperature caused variability…

    Reply

70. Bart, there is nowhere any mention of the influence of an increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere in anyone of your formula's and what you wrote is contradicted by real life measurements:

    "Suppose, e.g., that r = 0.01. Then, 1% of the integrated H goes into that atmosphere, not 50%, and the great majority of the anthropogenic input goes into the oceans."

    This is completely unphysical. Human emissions are mixed into the bulk of the atmosphere and what is going into the deep oceans is not 99% of human emissions, but a total quantity (as mass) of about 50% of human emissions (it may be -50% to +150% in any year) composed of what is in the atmosphere in that year as human/natural mix.

    If at some early year, humans were 1% of the atmosphere and humans add 10 GtC into the 600 GtC of the atmosphere of that year, the mix gets 16 GtC from humans and the atmosphere increases to 610 GtC, of which is 2.6% human.

    Some 5 GtC is removed at a lot of places (mainly the deep oceans), wich then is composed of 0.13 GtC from human origin, 4.87 GtC from natural origin, leaving 15.87 GtC human in an atmosphere of 605 GtC, still with 2.6% human.

    97.4% of human emissions thus remains in the atmosphere (and are largely responsible for the increase), but as every year about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is replaced by CO2 from other reservoirs, human CO2 is redistributed over all reservoirs over time.

    Based on the 13C/12C ratio drop, human emissions currently represent 9% of the atmospheric CO2…

    Reply

71. The simplest answer is clearly that the temperature anomaly record is an affine match to the CO2 rate of change, and all you have to do is integrate that relationship to reproduce the CO2 record. Human inputs are not needed, and would skew the result if included.

    You take that relationship, and arbitrarily remove the perfectly matching trend in temperature, and replace it with human inputs. That is the lowest information portion of the signal, and so it is not difficult to find a match. But, you have removed something that is clearly there, and already fits. It is tortuous logic.

    Reply

72. "Bart, there is nowhere any mention of the influence of an increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere in anyone of your formula’s…"

    Yes, there is. That is the point of the (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) terms. They equalize the partial pressures of the oceans and atmosphere.

    "This is completely unphysical.

    No, it isn't. The oceans hold many times more CO2 than the atmosphere. The rest is just how the math works out.

    The rest of your post is just assertion.

    Reply

73. Bart,

    I didn't remove the temperature – CO2 relationship, I only used the established relationship, which is 16 ppmv/K, not k(T-To). That is Henry's law, backed by over three million seawater samples. That works for a single sample in static equilibrium as good as for the worldwide oceans in steady state.

    The perfect match with temperature is only in the variability, not in the trend and both are from different processes: near all variability is the response of (tropical) vegetation to temperature (and drought), while vegetation is a net sink for CO2 over periods of 1-3 years. That is shown by the opposite CO2 and δ13C rate of change variability with a lag after the temperature rate of change:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
    There is no trend in the temperature derivative, only a small offset and thus dT/dt doesn't cause the slope in dCO2/dt.

    There is zero evidence that temperature drives CO2 beyond the above 16 ppmv/K over the past 800,000 years.

    Using temperature, not the derivative, gives you a false comparison as the correlation is between T and CO2 or dT/dt and dCO2/dt, both with a lag, not between T and dCO2/dt.

    The integral of T is a non-physical entity.

    Again, in your formula, there is zero room for the effect of an increase of the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. That violates one of the fundamental laws of physics. The moment that there is an extra input of CO2 into the atmosphere, whatever the source, the pCO2 in the atmosphere increases and both less CO2 is emitted at the deep ocean upwelling places and more is pushed into the deep ocean sink places (and in plants). That is a negative feedback, which equalises any temperature increase of the ocean surface at 16 ppmv/K.

    Your formula should be:

    dCO2/dt = k(T-To) – k2(pCO2(t) – pCO2(to))

    Where dCO2/dt gets zero when

    k(T-T0) = k2(pCO2(t) – pCO2(to))

    or ΔpCO2/ΔT = k2/k = 16 ppmv/K

    That is for any change in ocean surface temperature, no matter if that is static or dynamic…

    Reply

74. Bart:

    That is the point of the (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) terms

    According to your theory, tau1 is very short and only temperature related, not pressure related.

    If tau1 is pressure related, it can be easily calculated:

    Currently that is a net sink rate of ~2.15 ppmv/year for a pressure difference of 110 ppmv above steady state. Or:

    110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = ~51 years for a linear process, which the sink rate shows over the past 57 years.

    Too slow to remove all human emissions (as mass) out of the atmosphere, the same year as emitted…

    As your theory is that temperature is the only influence, there is no influence of pressure and thus no pressure related sink rate.

    In that case the natural CO2 fluxes must have increased a fourfold over the past 57 years in lockstep with human emissions, observed increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate (or you violate the equality of CO2 for the sinks, whatever the origin). Theoretically possible, in real life not supported by any observation…

    Reply

75. Dear Ferdinand, Bart, Richard, Rajivgandhi, and others,

    Thank you for your recent and excellent comments. I will return to the discussions shortly. Meanwhile, I would like to bring to your attention the recent published paper by Hermann Harde.

    Harde’s paper shows in excruciating scientific detail why Murry Salby is correct and it supports my position in this post, where I have used a much simpler explanation.

    Reply

76. The above comment was a new reply, as the original reply was lost, due to moving the blog to a new server… Dr. Ed retrieved the original, thus here it is again:

    Bart,

    The formula's [note: r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1)] are about quantities, not pressure, which finally after full equilibrium indeed will get to some 1:50 ratio between the atmosphere and the deep oceans. The cause of the partitioning is an equilibrium in pressures, not quantities, quantities is the result. If the oceans were half the current volume, the partitioning would be 1:25 at the same equilibrium pressure…

    Then the following part:

    A+O = A(0)+O(0) + integral(H)

    and A := r*O

    where r ~ 1/50

    Next step:

    A := A(0) + integral(H)/(1+1/r)

    That is only true for the endpoint, not for the first year or any year before equlibrium between the atmosphere and the deep oceans is reached.

    Then you use the endpoint to "prove" that the change after 1 year can't be right:

    "So, if r is approximately 1:1, we get about half the integrated anthropogenic inputs going into the atmosphere."

    and

    "r is not even close to 1. The oceans ultimately hold vastly most CO2 than the atmosphere, and r is therefore a very small number."

    That is just a matter of time and pressure buildup. There is no reason at all that an extra shot of CO2 in the atmosphere is removed at a 1:1 ratio from year one on. If we may assume a constant human emission of 6 GtC/year into the atmosphere starting in year one:

    In year one, extra CO2 in the atmosphere: 6 GtC, that is ~3 ppmv or ~3 μatm above steady state. According to the remarkable linear net sink vs. extra pressure ratio in the past 57 years (0.02) , that gives an atmosphere/ocean increase ratio of 98:2, far from the current 1:1 and very far from the ultimate 1:50…

    In year 2, we get 3 + 2.94 = 5.94 ppmv [or] μatm extra pressure in the atmosphere. That gives a new partitioning of the extra input of that year to ~96:4.

    After many years, the partioning gets 0:1, when the extra pressure in the atmosphere is sufficient to push 3 ppmv/year (6 GtC/year) extra in the sinks. That is at 150 ppmv (3 / 0.02) above steady state…

    Of course, human emissions started quite small, but over the past 57 years, the ratio was – just by coincidence – about 1:1 as human emissions increased slightly quadratic over time (a fourfold since 1959) and so did the extra pressure in the atmosphere and thus the net sink rate with as result an about 1:1 ratio between atmospheric increase and sink rate in the oceans (and partly vegetation).

    If human emissions ceased today, the 1:50 partitioning may be approximately reached after 5 half lifes (for an observed ~35 years half life that is 175 years). Far faster than the IPCC expects, but a little longer than in a few years…

    Of course, temperature also plays a role by changing the level at which the steady state is reached, but that shifts not more than with 16 ppmv/K, or 10-16 ppmv since the depth of the LIA, not 110 ppmv as observed…

    Reply

77. "That works for a single sample in static equilibrium as good as for the worldwide oceans in steady state."

    The worldwide oceans are not in steady state. The boundary conditions are continually changing, with surface temperature being one of them.

    "Again, in your formula, there is zero room for the effect of an increase of the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere."

    Again, completely, totally, and utterly wrong. The terms in A-r*O are explicit invocations of Henry's law, and quickly equalize the partition between oceans and atmosphere. That is not where the long term build-up comes from. It comes from time of equlibration with the deep oceans.

    Reply

78. "The formula’s [note: r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1)] are about quantities, not pressure…"

    It is the pressure induced equilibration from Henry's law. Your outlook is shaped by assuming that the only temperature dependent variable is r. And, if that were approximately 1:1, and the only variable that changed with temperature, you would be correct in your assessment. But, it is not even close to 1:1, and you are ignoring other temperature dependencies.

    The characteristic time of exchange with the deep oceans is also temperature dependent, as expressed in this model as the temperature dependence of tau2. When you consider that, an imbalance in inflow and outflow results, leading to a persistent build-up in concentration of the surface waters, which ineluctably produces a persistent build-up in atmospheric concentration.

    Reply

79. "The alarmist case predicts that Human CO2 emissions cause ALL of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. I have proven that is impossible. Therefore, the alarmist case is wrong. Period."

    With respect, thats a sort of obtuse type of logic that dosnt

    have strength. Theres possibly some latin term for it.

    What i would like to ask is this.

    Would you feel your idea would be buttressed by evidence that

    showed a similar large rapid rise in

    CO2 concentration, in say, the last eight out of ten occasions biosphere temps were this high?

    In other words, a bit of a clear record that most times, as best

    as science can work out, when

    the biosphere temp gets to what it was in say 1900, , that threshold unleashes an extraordinarily fast rise in CO2.

    Would such buttressing be comforting to you?

    Or irrelevant?

    Reply

    1. Dear Li,

       Regarding your first question, my argument does prove that human emissions cannot be responsible for all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. The proof is in the fact that natural emissions of CO2 are almost 20 times human emissions. There is no "obtuse" logic involved. It is simple physics.

       Regarding your second question, I do not need past similarities to help my argument because I am using known and recognized laws of physics. However, your suggestion that the present rate of CO2 increase has been faster than previous rates of CO2 increase is not based on data because you are using two different kinds of data. It is well known that CO2 diffused through ice cores. This will make any fact increase of CO2 look much slower.

       More to the point, Ice-core data show CO2 was about 180 ppmv about 18,000 years ago. When our earth warmed out of the last great ice age, CO2 concentration rose to 280 ppmv according to ice cores. Did the warming stop the natural increase of CO2 at 280 ppmv?

       Climate alarmists assume it did, and further assume that the increase above 280 ppmv was caused by human emissions. These are two giant assumptions that have no proof. On the other hand, my simple model, that uses simple known physics, shows that the human contribution to the increase above 280 is only about 4 percent of nature's contribution.

       My argument is all in the physics. If you understand the physics, you will understand that my conclusions are correct.

       Reply

80. And briefly,

    If, concurrently, land sinks are

    increasing , and ocean sinks are increasing , and atmospheric sinks are increasing, where is the input for this increase in all three?

    Reply

    1. Dear Li,

       What evidence shows ocean sinks are increasing? Ocean temperature sets the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2. If ocean temperatures were decreasing, the oceans would absorb more CO2 and atmospheric CO2 would decrease. The only way atmospheric CO2 rose to 400 ppmv was for the equilibrium level to be 400 or above.

       The fact still remains that human input is only about 4 percent of natural input of CO2 into the atmosphere. The alarmists have not proven that the human 4 percent can dominate nature's 96 percent.

       For all we know, the temperature increase that warmed the earth out of the last major ice age, may have set the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 at 1600 ppmv, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still seeking its equilibrium level.

       Reply

81. One of your lines of argument is:

    Here are three more reasons Human CO2 does not cause ALL the rise in Atmosphere CO2:

    Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002, yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.

    Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions.

    In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, the rate of increase of Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.

    Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2.

    The last sentence is wrong. The points you have made only show there is annual variability in the amount of CO2 absorbed and emitted by the natural sinks and sources. It doesn't show that over time the land and oceans have not been net absorbers of CO2. Your argument is a non sequitur.

    Reply

82. Even correlation is not enough proof.

    “Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global

    warming” by M Beenstock, Y Reingewertz and N. Paldor

    The spuriousness of correlations between cumulative values

    Authors

    Jamal Munshi

    Reply

83. VPSRight

    Reply

84. https://niflheimmedia.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/cl…

    Reply

85. When I first read this theory I thought that it was rubbish, I'm now coming round to it. What Ed is saying essentialy is that the atmosphere has an equilibrium CO2 determined by temperature. This kind of makes sense. Consider a sealed bottle half filled with coke. Raise the temp, solubility goes down CO2 diffuses into the gas from the liquid. If we inject more CO2 into the bottle (top) increasing the gaseous part diffusion will restore the balance. If we have an infinite liquid reservoir (ocean) it will return to its previous (non human intervention) state. The only problem with this scenario is if CO2 effects raises the temp of the bottle. If it does then this will release further CO2, increasing the temp etc until the bottle explodes. The fact the Earth doesnt explode would suggest either CO2 doesnt raise temp or that other negative feedbacks come into play ie land vegetation sinks etc come into play.

    Reply

    1. Dear Alan, Basically, you are correct. The difference is I leave the temperature effect out of my model and only consider the carbon dioxide flow into the atmosphere that results from a change in temperature. I do this to focus on how carbon dioxide behaves after it enters the atmosphere.

       As always, I improve my explanation as I learn from my readers. Please see my latest post "A Model for Atmospheric Carbon Dixiode: Abstract" for my improved explanation. My full article will be ready soon.

       Reply

86. Ed how do you explain that the NASA chart for historical CO2 shows CO2 at about 380 higher that it has been for say 400,000 years. Previous highs being 300ppm?

    Reply

87. Incredible that someone with a PhD would start by discussing AlGore and then ignore al science including Quere Et al 2016

    Reply

88. Hi do you have an oppinion on whether the oceans are presently a sink or source of CO2. If a source how do you counter claims of decreasing pH of the oceans?

    Reply

89. During 1989, the Mount Pinatubo eruption caused a decline in decline in ocean temperatures and an increase in CO2 going into the oceans, hence less going into the atmosphere. Well understood ocean dynamics are the reason when the human emissions are steadily increasing while the increase of CO2 is more variable. The biggest increases in CO2 in the air come during El Nino years, while lesser increases occur during La Nino years or a year with a volcanic eruption.

    Reply

90. Take a look at the NASA graphs on ppm of CO2 added per year. The increase was about 1 ppm per year in the early 60s but has increased to an average of about 2.5 ppm per year as human fossil fuel emissions have increased. During the 2015/16 El Nino, the increase is about 3 ppm/year. Take a look at recent studies of the earth's carbon budget. These detailed budgets are published annually. They are open access and can easily be found on Google Scholar. Search Quere et al. 2016 and carbon budget.

    Reply

91. Can you explain how zeroing out the massive human input of CO2 could lead to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, while adding more CO2 from fossil sources could cause a decline? Seems to go against even the most basic ideas of a budget. CO2 was fairly stable between 200-300 ppm in the 10,000 years before humans started burning fossil fuels. That suggests a quasi equilibrium.

    Reply

92. Greetings etc.

    Reply

93. Bill

    The reasoning of Drs. Salby and Berry does not conclude that the end of human emissions would cause an increase or vice versa as you have questioned. Their point is that CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by nature and the uncertainty in our estimates of natural emissions and sinks (about 50 times human emissions each year) has plenty of room to put the puny human emissions in the noise of the estimates. A simple check of this is that the growth of atmospheric CO2 is not correlated to the rate of human emissions. There are three months each year when global sinks outpace all emissions both natural and from fossil fuel. If the sinks were saturated as is assumed by the warmists this would be impossible. Check out Ole Humlum's site Climate 4 you to see his analysis of the rates of emissions and atmospheric content.

    Reply

94. Randers Kommune

    Reply

95. Lord Corporation

    Reply

96. Hello Ed,

    You are wrong because you count all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural.

    In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.

    You are not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, you call all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.

    Your paper completely fudges the rate at which long term co2 sequestration occurs.

    Reply

    1. Dear Arkasia,

       I will answer your comment from the perspective of my later post:
       http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/human-co2-not-ch…

       You are making a few errors in your argument. First, you are treating human CO2 differently than natural CO2. And by "natural" I mean all CO2 that did not come from humans.

       Second, you are neglecting the effect of vapor pressure on the exchange rate. The higher the vapor pressure, which I call the level, the faster the exchange rate.

       Third, your claim that human CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of hundreds of years has no physical foundation, as I prove in my later post.

       If you wish to continue this discussion, please reply in my later post where we can discuss this in more detail after you have read my later post.

       Thanks, Ed

       Reply
97. Pingback: Publications - edberry.com
98. Pingback: apophatic / cataphatic - the crux of mystery

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