by Edwin Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics – also published in NewsWithViews
The genius of Al Gore
Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:
- Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
- Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.
What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.
Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of “science deniers,” some with misinformed PhD’s. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.
The alarmists’ goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.
Those who believe Al Gore’s marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.
Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.
Both of Al Gore’s two assumptions are wrong. This article shows how his first assumption is wrong. Nature, not human CO2 emissions, causes the changes in Atmosphere CO2.
The Logical Fallacy of Climate Change
Climate alarmists tell us climate change causes bad stuff to happen, and if bad stuff happens, they claim it is our fault. The alarmist logic goes like this:
If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.
This alarmist claim is the well-known logical fallacy called “Affirming the Consequent.” Here is an example that illustrates this logical fallacy:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
The logical error is to assume that every result has only one possible cause. Shrinking glaciers do not prove we caused them to shrink.
The relevant climate change questions are about cause and effect.
The relevant climate change questions are not whether the climate has changed. Climate always changes. The only relevant climate change questions concern cause and effect:
- Do Human CO2 emissions significantly increase Atmosphere CO2?
- Does Atmosphere CO2 significantly increase climate change?
Climate alarmists must prove BOTH answers are YES. Otherwise, they lose their case.
This article shows why the answer to the first question is NO. A future article will show why the answer to the second question is also NO.
Why Human CO2 emissions do not cause climate change.
Fig. 1 shows why nature’s CO2 emissions, not Human CO2, are the major cause of the observed change in Atmosphere CO2.
All numbers in this article represent amounts of CO2. CO2 units are in parts per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2. Gigatons of Carbon (GtC) convert to ppmv using: 1 ppmv of CO2 = 2.13 GtC.
In the middle of Fig. 1 is a box that represents the CO2 in our atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere in 2015 was 400.
Land and Ocean CO2 emissions into the Atmosphere total about 100 each year (plus or minus ten percent). An almost equal amount flows from Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2 each year (References: CDIAC, 2016; IPPC, 2007a; IPPC, 2007b).
Let’s use an analogy to help understand Fig. 1. Let water in a lake represent Atmosphere CO2.
Two large rivers flow into the lake. One river represents Land CO2. The other river represents Ocean CO2. Together, they supply about 100 units per year to the lake.
Lake water spills over a dam. The inflow of 100 raises the lake level until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow.
Similarly, the flow of Land and Ocean CO2 into our Atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere. Increased Atmosphere CO2 increases CO2 outflow to Land and Ocean. Like the lake, Atmosphere CO2 is at equilibrium when outflow equals inflow.
If inflow exceeds outflow, the lake level (Atmosphere CO2) will rise until outflow equals inflow. If outflow exceeds inflow, the lake level will fall until outflow equals inflow.
The dam separates the CO2 spill into two parts. One part goes back to Land. The other part goes back to the Ocean.
Fig. 1 includes the much longer CO2 cycle where Land CO2 becomes Fossil Fuels. Human CO2 emissions complete this CO2 cycle by returning Fossil Fuel CO2 to the Atmosphere.
A small river, with a flow of 4, also flows into the lake. This small river represents the Human CO2 flow into our Atmosphere. This small river adds only 4 percent to the Land and Ocean flow of 100 into the lake. This small river raises the total flow into the lake to 104. This will raise the lake level until the outflow equals 104.
The contribution of Human CO2 to the new lake level (Atmosphere CO2) is only 4 percent of the lake level above the dam, or only 4 percent of the total flow into and out of the lake. Ninety-six percent of the CO2 flow into and out of our Atmosphere is due to nature.
Fig. 1 shows a scenario where the total inflow into the Atmosphere equals the total outflow, and where the Human CO2 contribution goes to Land to support vegetation growth. Because inflow equals outflow, Atmosphere CO2 will remain constant, whether Atmosphere CO2 is 400 or 300 or any other value.
Salby (2016) comes to the same conclusion. Salby (2012) authored the comprehensive textbook, “The Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.”
Our Atmosphere does not treat Human CO2 any differently than CO2 from Land and Ocean. Human CO2 is simply another input to Atmosphere CO2 that will increase the outflow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land or Ocean by the same amount as the Human CO2 flow into the Atmosphere.
Temperature controls Atmosphere CO2.
Salby (2015) shows, directly from data and with no hypotheses, that Temperature sets the rate at which Atmosphere CO2 increases or decreases. This means temperature sets the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Fig. 1 indicates the Temperature effect by the symbol for the Sun.
If the Sun, cloud cover, or ocean currents change to increase temperature, the increased temperature will cause more Land and Ocean CO2 to flow into Atmosphere CO2. This will increase Atmosphere CO2 until outflow balances inflow.
Temperature is like the accelerator in your car. Atmosphere CO2 is like the speed of your car. Atmosphere CO2 follows Temperature – like the speed of your car follows your accelerator. Press down, your car speeds up. Let up, your car slows down.
Contrary to what Al Gore told you, CO2 does not control temperature. Temperature controls CO2.
Climate alarmists present their case.
Climate alarmists claim our CO2 emissions cause 100 percent of the observed rise in Atmosphere CO2. We will show why their claim is unphysical and invalid.
Here is the alarmists’ four step argument they claim proves their case:
- From 1750 to 2010, humans added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere and Atmosphere CO2 increased by 113 units. This leaves 58 units.
- Land and Oceans absorbed the 58 units of Atmosphere CO2.
- Therefore, Land and Oceans are net absorbers of CO2.
- Therefore, Human CO2 caused 100 percent of the increase in Atmosphere CO2 since 1750 and 1960.
Here is my rebuttal to the Alarmists case:
During the same period that Human CO2 emissions added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere, the Land and Ocean CO2 emissions added 26,000 units to our Atmosphere. Land and Ocean also absorbed about 26,000 units of CO2 from our Atmosphere, including the 171 units from Human CO2. There were no 58 units left over.
Fig. 2 illustrates how Land & Ocean CO2 emissions compare to Human CO2 emissions during this period. The ratio is 152 to 1.
The alarmists case fails because it omits Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Their omission leaves Human CO2 emissions as 100 percent and makes their claim that Human CO2 caused ALL the Atmosphere CO2 increase artificial.
During the 260-year period (during which we have reasonable measurements), Human CO2 caused “at most” 1/152 or 0.7 percent of the 113 ppmv rise in Atmosphere CO2.
“At most” is because Salby (2015) “Atmospheric Carbon: Why its not pollution and Why humans cannot regulate it,” shows that Temperature controls the rate of change of Atmosphere CO2, and the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Under that scenario, Land and Ocean emissions and absorptions will adjust to neutralize the effect of Human CO2 emissions, and the effect of Human CO2 on Atmosphere CO2 will be ZERO!
The Atmosphere does not know whether its CO2 came from Land, Ocean, or Human CO2 emissions. No matter what the source, the greater the total Atmosphere CO2, the greater the flow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2. Therefore, Atmosphere CO2 will seek the same balance level with or without Human CO2 emissions.
Global Warming alarmists claim Land and Oceans will continue to absorb the same amounts of atmospheric CO2 with our without human emissions. They reject physics 101 which tells us the rate of absorption by Land and Oceans will increase as atmospheric CO2 increases. If that were not true, there could be no “balance of nature” that the alarmists admit exists. Balance only occurs when flow rates are proportional to concentrations.
Land can absorb CO2 from the Atmosphere while Ocean provides CO2 to the Atmosphere. Fig. 1 shows this scenario where Land absorbs ALL Human CO2 emissions while Atmosphere CO2 remains constant.
In 2015, Human CO2 emissions were 4 percent of Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Therefore, Human CO2 emissions caused “at most” only 4 percent of the rise in Atmosphere CO2.
A small river with an inflow of 4 cannot cause an outflow of 104. Yet this is what climate alarmists claim happens. The following tale illustrates the absurdity of the alarmist case:
An elephant crosses a bridge. A mouse, riding on the elephant’s back, says to the elephant, “We sure made that bridge shake, didn’t we?”
The alarmists’ case is a shell game. They would flunk physics.
Earlier publications that argue the same position I have argued, include Rorsch, Courtney, & Thomas (2005), Siddons & D’Aleo (2007), Courtney (2008), Spencer (2009), Wilde (2012), Cox & Cormack (2013), Caryl (2013), Rust (2013), and Evans (2017).
Three more reasons Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.
Fig. 3 shows Atmosphere CO2 scaled to fit Human CO2 emissions and the annual change in Atmosphere CO2 (References: NOAA, 2016; CDIAC, 2016; IPCC, 2007b).
Salby (2016) makes the following three arguments using Fig. 3.
- Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002 due to China’s contribution (Oliver, 2015). Yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.
- Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 (jagged line) do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions. (Also, Courtney, 2008.)
- 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.
Munshi (2015) and Munshi (2016) compared the annual change in atmospheric CO2 with annual human CO2 emissions. His detrended statistical analysis shows their correlation is zero.
Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.
Conclusions
Climate alarmists claim Human CO2 causes ALL the increase in Atmosphere CO2. Their argument fails because they omit Land and Ocean CO2 emissions that are many times greater than Human CO2 emissions.
Climate alarmists also omit how Land and Ocean CO2 emissions and absorptions balance Atmosphere CO2 with or without the presence of Human CO2. Temperature sets the equilibrium Atmosphere CO2 independent of Human CO2 emissions.
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.
Most public climate alarmist arguments use this invalid logic:
If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.
Such arguments are invalid because they do not prove Human CO2 caused the change.
If we stopped all Human CO2 emissions today, it would not change future Atmosphere CO2.
References
Caryl, E. 2013: The Carbon Cycle – Nature or Nurture? No Tricks Zone. http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.vvkCqrPI.dpbs
CDIAC, 2016: Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2013.html
Courtney, Richard S, 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York.
Cox, Anthony, & Cormack, Bob, 2013: AGW and CO2: If Humans are not responsible for the CO2 increase then there can be no AGW. The Australian Climate Sceptics. http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/defective-agw-science.html
Evans, Richard, 2017: Why the CO2 increase could be natural. https://chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/an-argument-why-co2-increase-could-be.html
Harde, Hermann (2017): Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change 152 (2017) 19-26. http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf
IPCC, 2007a: Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=95
IPCC, 2007b: Report 3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-03.pdf – Oceans Land Emissions = 100
Munshi, Jamal, 2015: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Anthropogenic Emissions: A Note. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
Munshi, Jamal, 2016: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Part 2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438
NOAA, 2016: ESRL CO2 data beginning in 1959. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
Olivier, Jos et. al., 2015: Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2015 Report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2015-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2015-report-98184.pdf
Rorsch, A; Courtney, RS; Thoenes, D; 2005: The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle. E&E, V16, No2.
Rust, J H; 2013: Phase Changes For Global Temperatures and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Heartland Institute. http://blog.heartland.org/2013/03/phase-changes-for-global-temperatures-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Salby, Murry, 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Salby, Murry, 2015: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-co2-follows-integral-of-temperature/
Salby, Murry, 2016: Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-Atmosphere-carbon-18-july-2016/
Siddons, A; D’Aleo, J; 2007: Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases. http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf
Spencer, R; 2009: Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
Wilde, S; 2012: Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions. Climate Realists. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
What graph are you looking at? figure 3 shows you are completely wrong in your assessment.
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.
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.
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.'
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…
You may wish to look again at the graph Stan and revisited your assertion.
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.
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 @)
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.
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.”
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.
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 ….
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.
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.
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.
Are you familiar with the Revelle factor?
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.
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
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.
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.
…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
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.
…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
Richard,
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).
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).
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).
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 !!
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.
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
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
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.
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.)
Eric,
Proper English requires that you spell correctly…"Deniers".
Also, "You are welcome" is properly shortened to "You're Welcome".
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
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
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.
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.
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
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
"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…
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?
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:
And in one paragraph, they write:
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?
Dear Eric, My reply to your second comment is included in my reply to your first comment above.
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
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:
And in one paragraph, they write:
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.
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
Dear Eric,
Thank you for proving your global warming belief is a religion and not science.
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
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:
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Icarus62
It was so refreshing to see someone who recognizes real science on this website!! A rare occurrence.
Eric
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ed,
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?
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
Dear “Then There’s Physics,” here's what you wrote:
You are obviously claiming my and Salby's argument is wrong because not enough people have objected to it.
And Spencer wrote:
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.
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.
Hmm, no, that is very clearly not what I am obviously claiming. Is what I said too complicated for you?
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.
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.
I just showed why your argument is wrong.
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.
Ed,
It has nothing to do with how smart I might, or might not, be.
Ed. In science we test ideas by the submission of them to the peer reveiwed literature. How are your submissions doing? Eric
Thank you Eric.
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…
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
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
John Swallow, I have shown the proof three times now, on this page. Please re-read it.
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
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.
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.
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.