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:Â 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 &Â 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:Â 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. Â 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
What do you think that the balloon in my experiment that you could do that is filled with the COâ‚‚, that is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, is going to do when released? It sure will not rise to the ceiling like one that has Helium in it. It will sink and if the oceans are cooling they will absorb COâ‚‚ and if they are warming because the earth's climate is warming, the water will release COâ‚‚. This is what the ice core findings show; that there is over an 800 year lag between when temperature rise and the rise in COâ‚‚. I ask you to explain how this 120 ppm increase in COâ‚‚ could be construed to be a bad thing when basically the earth is in need of more of this essential for life trace gas. Recall that one ppm is like one inch in the number of inches in 16 miles or one minute in the number of minutes it takes to add up to two years worth of minutes.
Icarus62; What you say is your bottom line is, is not the line that people who know what is going on with this issue of anthropogenic global warming or I guess now since there has been 19 years with no warming according to the satellite data, it is now called "climate change".
Allow me to offer up some quotes in response to the one you say is attributable to the American Physical Society.
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper
“Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” Bertrand Russell
You claim that you "have shown the proof three times now, on this page. Please re-read it." & I have yet to see any of that proof while Dr. Ed certainly demonstrated how and why you were wrong; because you have no proof of anything that backs up your assertions.
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts." Mark Twain
Here is a quote from Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki that well sums up my feeling about this subject that you do not have enough faith in your convictions about what you say you believe to even use your real name.
“When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/12/a-lette…
Icarus62; This below sure doesn't mirror the "resultant warming is on the order of 50 times faster than that driven by natural forcings." that you are maintaining. Remember that the all time high temperature for the whole earth was set in 1913 at Death Valley.
U.S. Historical Climatology Network – Monthly Data
You have chosen site 241044, BOZEMAN MONTANA SU, Montana
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=241044&am…
This information that follows runs counter to the baseless fear mongering that you are presenting, with no proof.
Aren’t we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?
“Mean Sea Level Trends 999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica
The mean sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.”
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend…
The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months in 2015 and now is even with the 1981 to 2010 average. It fell below the record highs set in 2014 in July, 2015.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/glo…
Icarus62; This below sure doesn't mirror the "resultant warming is on the order of 50 times faster than that driven by natural forcings."
"It really was very cold in 1940’s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/…
“In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-0…
It appears that since NOAA became politicized that they have taken this site down. This does nothing to build trust in such organizations as NOAA and NASA after all of the falsification of temperature records was revealed.
''Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade. Figure 2 is a map of the precipitation departures from normal in terms of a percentage of normal (total precipitation divided by normal precipitation) for the Dust Bowl region for 1930 to 1940.''
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ama/?n=dust_bowl_verses_t…
No wonder Peter Gleick and company no longer use carbon isotope arguments to argue human CO2 is responsible for all or even most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Look at the trash he offered up in 2011 that cost him most of his credibility, as though he had any.
Peter Gleick The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/0…
Dr. Ed,
You seem to be ignoring my question about use of our peer review system for the evaluation of your research. What do you think Einstein and Fehnman would say about that? Do you suppose their understanding of the "scientific method" would not include the review of one's work by one's peers. So again, have you submitted your work highlighted on this post to some peer-reviewed journals? If so, how is it going. If not, why have you not? Are you afraid of what the most scientifically competent scientists might say about your work? Are you afraid that science might prove to be more competitive than sail boat racing? If your views concerning the unimportance of future CO2 emissions are correct, shouldn't that good news be shared with the larger scientific community?
Eric
Dear Eric, Can you read the line at the top of this post? Probably not. It says:
"This paper is open for critical scientific and editorial review and comment. – Ed"
This is how all potential papers should be reviewed before submission for journal publication. If you or anyone could show that my paper is wrong, then I would admit it is wrong and retract it. But so far, neither you nor anyone has been able to show my paper is wrong. Amazing. However, you and others have asked questions that give me material to address when I extend this paper. I appreciate that.
How does it feel to not be able to show my paper is wrong when it totally destroys everything you have been preaching for years about global warming?
How could you have fallen for such a hoax when simple logic shows you cannot prove human CO2 caused all or even a significant part of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2?
But thank you for trying. I did not realize how easily your isotope argument fails until you brought it up.
Ed.
The greatest problem I have with your argument in this post is that your have not shown what you would expect the atm CO2 level to have been if the emission rates changed as you describe. That is the hardest thing to predict because the atm levels of CO2 are a function of many things – only one of which is emission rates. Others include rates of missing into and out of the oceans and the surface reservoirs including plants.
Now if you think my criticism is not valid, then stick to your guns and submit your paper to one of the peer reviewed papers. In that case, however, I expect it would not fly for the same reason I have explained. If it did pass peer review, however, that would be impressive.
Eric
Dear Eric,
The goal of my paper is to prove wrong Claim#1, namely, that "Human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2." To do that, I have shown the logical failure of the arguments for Claim#1.
In science, showing that a hypothesis is wrong is an end in itself. I do not need to go any further. I do not need to propose or prove an alternative to Claim#1.
The burden for those on your side of this issue is to come up with a new and better argument to support Claim#1.
Once we acknowledge that I do not need to propose an alternative to Claim#1 to prove the present arguments for Claim#1 are invalid, I will be happy to entertain ideas to address your interest in other possible causes of the rise in atmospheric CO2.
I asked Ed Berry a question and got a reply from John Swallow as if he had written the article we are commenting on. Are they the same person?
Dear John, the best hypothesis is that ocean temperature caused the increase. Salby's math shows that rate of change of atmospheric CO2 follows temperature. The earth has warmed in the last 400 years.
Dear John, Is your question the one where I answered as follows?
Dear John, the best hypothesis is that ocean temperature caused the increase. Salby’s math shows that rate of change of atmospheric CO2 follows temperature. The earth has warmed in the last 400 years.
But Ed, You say,
"The goal of my paper is to prove wrong Claim#1, namely, that “Human CO2 caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.” To do that, I have shown the logical failure of the arguments for Claim#1."
If you have, in fact, accomplished your goal, that alone would constitute HUGE news in the climate change science. So why in the world are you not sharing this news with others via the peer reviewed journals. What are you afraid of? As a climate scientist wouldn't this be your obligation. I am sure Einstein and Fehnman would think so.
Or perhaps you don't really believe in your work?
Eric
Dear Eric, Everything takes time. But thanks for your acknowledgment that I am correct. I may wait until the government will pay my publication costs, like it has for all the alarmist articles. It's not my obligation to fork over thousands of dollars for publication costs.
The '4-step argument' explicitly states that the natural world has adjusted by absorbing around half of our COâ‚‚ emissions, thus becoming a net sink. Any scenario in which we're not responsible for 100% of the rise in atmospheric COâ‚‚ is logically ruled out. I illustrated this with one of your scenarios above (land = -2000Gt, ocean = +850Gt, net natural change = -1150Gt COâ‚‚, thus 100% of the 120ppm increase in atmospheric COâ‚‚ is due to anthropogenic emissions, and none of it is due to nature).
Here's an analogy:
10 million years ago the world cools enough for snow to start accumulating on Greenland and turning to ice. The ice weighs down the Earth's crust, which sinks, but the ice accumulates faster, so the surface elevation rises, and it's now at (say) 2km – much higher than the original land surface. All of the rise in elevation is due to snowfall, and none of it is due to rising of the Earth's crust – in fact, the crust has actually sunk. Snow accumulation is responsible for 100% of the rise in surface elevation – in fact more than 100%, if you take into account the sinking of the crust. In the same way, anthropogenic emissions are responsible for 100% of the rise in atmospheric COâ‚‚ (or more than 100%, if you take into account the fact that we have offset the large natural sink).
Dear Icarus62, The 4-step argument incorrectly assumes the natural world absorbs only enough human CO2 emissions to account for the excess in its argument. That is illogical because it does not allow the natural world to absorb any more than this amount.
What physics would constrain the natural world to absorbing only enough human CO2 to support the unfounded alarmist hypothesis?
None! It is a hand-waving argument with no physical basis, and no support from the argument itself. If the natural world can absorb about half, the natural world can absorb all of human CO2 emissions.
The 4-step argument assumes the natural world cannot absorb more CO2 than an amount specified in the assumption. And, lo and behold, the 4-step argument concludes its own assumption is correct. That is a perfect case of garbage in, garbage out. Sorry. That proves the 4-step argument is a religion and not a science.
The 4-step argument still has more unknowns than equations.
Ed,
You apparently don't know that many of the best peer reviewed journals do not charge much at all, if anything, for the publications of articles that pass their review process. I have published more that 100 papers in the peer reviewed journals and had to pay very little. So if you are afraid to submit your work for peer review, you'll have to think of another excuse. Since you have already shown and discussed your work on this website, preparation time should not be a big deal. Everything – worth doing – takes some time, of course.
PS. And I don't recall saying your work was correct. I did, however, tell you why I thought it came up short. If you hope to get published in the top journals, you must learn to not just make stuff up as you do on your website.
Eric
Eric Grimsrud says; "I have published more that 100 papers in the peer reviewed journals and had to pay very little."
How many of your hundreds of peer reviewed publications were as flawed as this one in what is known as the Gold Standard for climate science reports, the ICC? The truth matters not when it comes to alarmist publications. Just look at what NOAA and NASA have become under the Obama administration.
"An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China"
CORRECTION On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement: "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.'" This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded. The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming". This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound. WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.
file:///C:/Users/win7/Downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf
Eric Grimsrud: Have you read this book that I found to be very interesting when I read it and it explains much of how the peer review processes is done for the IPCC?
"The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert" by Donna Laframboise
The author did extensive research and discovered that much of the information that the IPCC says is peer reviewed should be referred to as being pal reviewed.
Donna Laframboise shows clearly, with supporting evidence, that the IPCC does not use 100% peer-reviewed science as its source material. Most of this "peer reviewed science" is WWF and Greenpeace press-releases. She shows many IPCC contributors are volunteer members of a WWF institution that leads to totally mistaken reports about the `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.'” The IPCC has declined to adopt any conflict of interest policy for the AR5 report, despite having years to do so. She shows how IPCC authors don't abide by their own deadlines or requirements about source material. And she shows many other flaws in IPCC processes. This is a valuable book as the IPCC is a critical foundation component in climate change policy. Using clear source material to substantiate every criticism, Donna Laframboise has demonstrated the IPCC is far short of a gold-standard. In fact, its reports are extremely compromised; but, I well imagine that is no problem for you, Eric.
Is this how your peer review process should work? People with strong ties to environmental activist organizations leading and writing chapters for the assessments. Lead authors are allowed to use literature they themselves co-authored, and rejecting all relevant scientific literature and opinions of real experts & if things don't seem just they wanted it to appear, they are allowed to add material into the report after the expert review process is over, including literature published after its over.
That this organization would be corrupt and biased is written into its charter that reads:
"… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.".
With this kind of a mandate, the IPCC's existence depends on its own reports. The IPCC has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence & that can be expanded to include most of the alarmist "science".
John,
So are you saying that the peer reviewed scientific community, of which Einstein and Fehnman, were integral parts no longer serves as the central place where scientific thoughts are to be tested? If so, where is that function now served? By Ed Berry's website perhaps? I suspect that both Einstein and Fehnman might not agree with you.
Perhaps Dr. Ed could shed some light in this question. Should "publication' in Edberry.com be sufficient for assessing legitimacy in science or should we continue to use our peer reviewed systems? Unlike you, John, I vote for the latter. I wonder what Dr. Ed thinks – he does claim to be an expert on the "scientific method", you know.
Eric
If you fill a balloon with water vapour it will not drift into the air. Yet water vapour is present in the atmosphere.
In the same way. CO2 is present throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.
Your balloon analogy does not work.
Eric: Is this how you taught chemistry for all those years at MSU, Bozeman? Through deception, subterfuge and hoping that your impressionable young students would just buy into your nonsense, without question? I do not recall that Albert Einstein ever wasted his precious time on such mundane subject such as if the trace gas, COâ‚‚, dictated what the earth's climate does.
Then you drag the good name of Richard Feynman into your preposterous comment.
Here’s how Feynman described real science:
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
The question is; Eric Grimsrud , where is YOUR experiment that I have asked you for repeatedly that gives empirical proof that COâ‚‚ does what you claim that it does to influence the earth's climate? "…. if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."
This is about Feynman dismissing inexact science, in case you were unable to notice. People making claims that they can't prove yet claiming it as if it was proven.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Dr. Richard Feynman
You do your best when you are resorting to conjecture with out the bases of proof.
What would make you believe that ; "I know you have not regard for the peer reviewed scientific literature"? Below is a sample of your choice of sources for your "scientific" statements.
"Miami, however, is doomed" ericgrimsrud | July 12, 2013
"For the full scope on this story see"  ;http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620#ixzz2X0NGzxLY
https://ericgrimsrud.org/2013/07/12/miami-however…
Rolling Stone is your sources of "peer reviewed" scientific information, it appears.
I would supply the links to the replies that I offered up to you and the Stones crappy fictional story about
sea-level rises. If anyone is interest in my replies, that many are from peer reviewed sources, they can go to your site that has the link above.
One can go to my comments on this subject on December 27, 2016 at 8:08 pm where I prove that Eric's favorite Senator , Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, has no idea at all what he is talking about regarding sea-levels.
There are too many variables to be able to say that; "If you fill a balloon with water vapour it will not drift into the air" What if that Hâ‚‚O in vapor form is steam? I know that you have seen the pictures of power houses that the environmentalist like to show of all of the steam being emitted a cold day in hopes that the uninformed will believe that it is some kind of pollution. That Hâ‚‚O in the form of steam certainly raises. I have been on the hike to Everest Base Camp and Everest always has snow on it. It comes from Hâ‚‚O that has condensed into clouds of ice crystals which are Hâ‚‚O. The very high sheet-like clouds, Cirrostratus, are composed of ice crystals. It is a fact that at 18,000' there is about 1/2 of the atmosphere one has at sea level and if COâ‚‚ is indisputably 1 & 1/2 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere, then you can suggest to me just how much of it is the atmosphere at say 30,000'.
“ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2”
Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry……
Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg
It is a fact that Hâ‚‚O is the principle green house gas.
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
“One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/sci…
John, Evidently a clarification is needed. On this post Ed has claimed that future CO2 emissions will not cause increased atm CO2 levels and has provided his evidence for that. I have suggested that he test his idea by the submission of his work to a peer reviewed journal. What's the problem with that, John. Do you not know that this is standard scientific procedure? Eric
So if seems you agree that the natural world has absorbed half of the anthropogenic COâ‚‚ emissions since the pre-industrial, making it a net sink, as in your sample (though physically improbable and contradicted by the evidence) scenario above.
Given that the natural world is a net sink, all of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric COâ‚‚ is anthropogenic. Logic does not permit of any alternative.
Your own scenario demonstrates this, where you imagine the land absorbing 2000Gt and the oceans emitting 850Gt, making the natural world a net sink, and meaning that the rise in atmospheric COâ‚‚ can *only* be due to anthropogenic emissions. There is no other possible source to offset the natural net sink and raise atmospheric COâ‚‚ by 120ppm.
QED, as I said before.
Just to be clear. You think increased ocean temperatures have released all, or most, of the CO2 which upped atmospheric ppm from a relatively stable 280ppi for a couple of thousand years to the 400ppm we have now?
Dear Icarus62, thank you for your continued effort to prove your 4-step argument is valid. You help me make a better case that proves your 4-step argument is invalid.
To help you understand my point, I added an Appendix to my article above so I could show explicity another version of Fig. 1. Fig. 1 is a scenario were atmospheric CO2 can remain constant while human emissions are 4 units per year.
Fig. 4 is a scenario where we add 2 units to net Ocean emissions. In this scenario, Oceans supply a net of 2 units per year to the atmosphere while Land absorbs 4 units to equal Human CO2 emissions.
The 4-step argument that claims “human CO2 caused all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2” does not exclude this scenario. No data or physical equation exists to exclude this scenario. Therefore, the 4-step argument is inconclusive and invalid.
Therefore, there is no scientific basis to support the alarmists 4-step argument and its conclusion.
Until you or someone can produce real physical evidence that excludes all scenarios that contradict your 4-step conclusion, you have no case. No case and no QED.
Dear John H, yes.
Please see the Appendix that I just added above that adds Fig. 4. Fig. 4 is a scenario where Oceans supply the CO2 to increase Atmospheric CO2 while Land absorbs not only its own emissions but also Human emissions.
Remember, to make my point (according to the scientific method), I do not need to prove my Fig. 4 scenario is what occurs because there are an infinite number of such possible scenarios. I only need to show one possible scenario that the alarmist 4-step argument does not exclude, to prove the 4-step argument is invalid. I did that.
Also, please see my reply to the comment by Icarus62 today. Thanks.
Figure 4 in your new appendix perfectly illustrates my point.
The natural world is absorbing 104 units from the atmosphere and emitting 102, making a net sink (-2 units).
The atmospheric concentration is rising (+2 units).
Anthropogenic contribution is +4 units.
Therefore the anthropogenic contribution of +4 is offsetting the natural sink of -2 and and causing all of the rising atmospheric contribution of +2, exactly as I've been pointing out all along.
Worse than that (taxing and capping CO2), climate change alarmism is a vehicle for full control. Out with the oil and gas industries and everything that relies on them, in with a new frontier of "green" energy and everything. Wealth redistribution. Also, environmental experimentation – to go along with their social engineering.
My argument is that science shouldn't be unapproachable like the climate science is. Just as government regulation shouldn't be 2,000 pages of legalese; science shouldn't either – especially as it is becoming more and more governmental.
I super appreciate Dr. Berry using his time, energy and faculties to help refute this.
Dear Icarus62, Your "therefore" conclusion is wrong.
Fig. 1 shows how Land can absorb all Human CO2 while Oceans keep Atmospheric CO2 constant. Fig. 4 shows the same scenario except Oceans add 2 units per year to Atmospheric CO2 to make it increase.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 scenarios assume Oceans control the rate of change of Atmospheric CO2, independent of Land and Human emissions.
All you have offered in your comment is a "hand-waving" interpretation of Fig. 4. Your interpretation does not exclude the Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 scenarios. Therefore, your argument does not prove Human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Suppose there are ten possible reasons your car will not start. Yet you claim the reason it will not start is because it has no fuel. You cannot prove your claim is correct unless you (a) add fuel and make your car start, or (b) exclude all other possibilities, such as clogged fuel filter, no ignition spark, bad spark plugs, etc.
Yet, that is the argument you make when you claim human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. You have not done either (a) or (b). So, you have no proof your claim is correct.
Your argument fails elementary logic.
We are part of nature! It's time to start thinking of humans as part of nature, part of the ecosystems. As such, nature is accounting for us!
I think you are repeating the mistake unidentified and explained in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18
Dear John H, Thank you for pointing out the YouTube presentation. I reviewed it and here is my reply.
The YouTube presentation points out errors where bloggers repeated mistakes of other bloggers. I have not used any other blogger source to make my case. All the data I use come from CDIAC, IPCC, and NOAA.
The YouTube presentation makes a critical mistake in physics. It ASSUMES nature will keep the exact same CO2 fluxes before humans emitted CO2, after humans emitted CO2. That will not happen. Nature will adjust to seek a new "balance" when humans emit CO2.
In other words, the presentation incorrectly constrains nature to arrive at it its conclusions, which are therefore false conclusions. That is not physics. That is a mistake that would deserve an "F" grade in Physics 101.
The fact is all fluxes follow partial pressures. Any change in atmospheric CO2 concentration, changes its partial pressure, and thereby changes its CO2 flux between Land and Oceans. If nature did not work this way, nature could not have "balanced" before human CO2.
The presentation makes the same physical mistake in its tank model. The tank model incorrectly separates the human CO2 "faucet" from the "pump" and "drain" inside the tank. It calls human CO2 "extra" CO2 that unbalances nature. The tank model gets the wrong conclusion because it does not allow the "drain" to adjust to the human CO2 input.
This is garbage physics in and garbage conclusions out. The incorrect physical assumptions produce the incorrect physical conclusions. The presentation is a horrible misrepresentation of physics. No qualified physicist would believe such junk. Climate alarmists base their claims on junk physics.
By contrast, my lake model correctly simulates how the lake level (or atmospheric CO2) controls the outflow of water (or CO2).
In summary, my argument uses accepted data and correct physics to arrive at its conclusion. Those with a good physics background will understand my argument and be able to critique my physics if they find errors.
Fig 1 is an idealised cycle where 100% of what is released is absorbed. Obviously this does not represent the world as we know it.
Fig 4 recognises a more realistic scenario where an excess of 4 remains unabsorbed.
Fig 5 might illustrate what it means once the rate of release exceeds the rate of absorption as shown in Fig 4?
That unabsorbed excess of 4 will serve to bolster the following years 4, becoming 8, and 12, and so on.
This is how the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere built from around 280ppm to 400ppm isn't it?
Dear John H, Thank you again for your comment.
Fig. 5 (not yet drawn) will require an equation that describes how "the rate of release exceeds the rate of absorption." We don't have such an equation.
My lake analogy illustrates the proper physics. When more water flows into the lake from any source, the lake level rises (simulating the rise in atmospheric CO2). When the lake level rises, more water flows over the dam. A new equilibrium lake level is reached when outflow equals inflow.
The lake level will not continue to go up after it reaches equilibrium, unless the total input is further increased. So, your assumption "that unabsorbed excess of 4 will serve to bolster the following years …" cannot happen.
Remember, human CO2 of 4 units per year merely adds to the Land and Ocean inputs that total about 100 unite per year. So, the human input of 4 can be responsible for only about 4 percent to the total lake level.
Fig. 3 is evidence that there is no present limit on the rate of absorption. If there were such a limit, then the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 after 2002 would have increased much more than the rate of increase in human CO2. But the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 remained essentially constant.
This proves there is no present limit on the rate of absorption. So, human CO2 emissions of 4 units per year have only a 4% effect on the amount of atmospheric CO2. Therefore, an act of nature, that accounts for 96% of the total CO2 input into the atmosphere, is the only reason atmospheric CO2 increased from 280 to 400.
Ed,
In your comment of Jan. 3, you implied that you would like to submit your work described on this post to a peer reviewed journal but were unwilling to pay for the publication costs. I then pointed out that there are many opportunities for publication in peer reviewed journals that do not require the author to pay for anything.
Following up on my comment, I looked up some info provided by Elsevier Press. Their journal called "Atmospheric Environment" is one such journal that is widely read by climate change scientists. You will find everything you need for submission to Atm. Env. at https://www.elsevier.com/journals/atmospheric-env….
So there you are – an open field for testing your work at the peer reviewed level and also a means of getting wide exposure to all climate change scientists. The only question I would have at this point is do you actually have the guts to test you thoughts at that level – as hundreds of other climate scientists do every year. From inspection of your resume, it appears to me that this would be an experience you haven't had in recent decent decades – even though you claim to be a climate change research scientist.
So why not go for it? Isn't it about time you shared your thought with the entire community of climate scientists?
Eric
Dear Eric,
Thank you very much for your information on where I might publish my climate articles. I will follow up on your suggestions. Based upon the many comments here, I can improve my article when I rewrite it for scientific publication.
You mention "guts." Hey, that has never been my problem. My philosophy is, it is far better to try and fail than to not try at all. I am doing other things right now that take far more "guts" and time as well. This leaves me with about 20% of my time for my climate interests.
Thank you again.
Eric Grimsrud: This invitation below that Dr. Ed offered up is, in my mind, better than having the venue being a journal that no one reads.
"Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2 This paper is open for critical scientific and editorial review and comment. – Ed"
After I read the book: “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise & the evidence that she painstakingly presented, I do not think that, regarding the study of the climate, that most of the information is worth the paper it is written on. The Climategate scandal also put the thoughts and writing of certain people, such as Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley, an older player who became increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal, Ben Santer and one can not miss the totally dishonest and disingenuous Mike Mann and his "hockey stick graph" that was totally debunked by Ross McKitrick & Steve McIntyre. Eric should know that the "hockey stick graph" was required by the IPCC to explain why the graph that showed the RWP, The MWP and the LIA could have happened without the new devil in the sky, COâ‚‚. The Mann "hockey stick graph" was the fraudulent way to not have to explain the graphs that were used until Mann invented his graph.
Statement of Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media
[…]"In 1995,I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?…
Anyway, so much for the peer review process in climate studies. Something that should catch Eric's attention is the number of comments that Dr. Ed has received addressed to this piece that he submitted. It is well over forty, I'm guessing, and he publishes those that are critical of his contentions without redacting them to the point that there is nothing left for anyone to discover what the point may have been that whom ever submitted a disputing viewpoint was trying to state. It would almost appear that Dr. Ed welcomes these views so that he can more fully detail his claims. It seems to work because he does have a good following and for sure not everyone agrees with him; but, they are allowed to express their views unaltered.
The land does not have to absorb human CO2 while the oceans release CO2. The oceans could simultaneously release natural CO2 due to a temperature-change and absorb virtually all our emissions. This can happen at the same time. That may seem intuitive for people unfamiliar with Henry's law, but it's entirely possible and this is what I believe has occurred. The argument as to how this is possible is explained within the following blog-post (updated from 2013): https://chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/an-argu…
Eric
Skeptical Science is run by a cartoonist and Nazi impersonator
Dear Richard, Your article is excellent. I will add the link to your article to my references.
You show how all ten alarmist claims are invalid. I chose to only show how claim #3 of the ten is invalid. The scenario you suggest is certainly possible. Even the alarmist scientists have admitted that only one possible scenario defeats their argument.
I think the UN has tried that with Israel and failed already.
This is what I believe is happening. I will demonstrate with a toy model.
The warmist argument goes something like this. Let A be atmospheric content, and O, be oceanic content. We have differential equation relationships
dA/dt = (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) + H
dO/dt = (A – r*O)/((1+r)*tau1)
H is the anthropogenic input, and tau1 is a fairly short time constant. The factor r partitions the amount of CO2 in the oceans versus the atmosphere, i.e., with no H, the system strives to set A to r*O within a time interval of perhaps 3*tau1 (settling time).
We see that dA/dt+dO/dt = H, so all change to the system comes from human inputs, and is conserved. With
A+O = A(0)+O(0) + integral(H)
and A := r*O (:= means "approximately equal")
A := A(0) + integral(H)/(1+1/r)
So, if r is approximately 1:1, we get about half the integrated anthropogenic inputs going into the atmosphere. So, a great deal of handwaving and legerdemain is expended on justifying that r is approximately 1, and approximately half of anthropogenic inputs go into the atmosphere, and half into the oceans.
But, r is not even close to 1. The oceans ultimately hold vastly most CO2 than the atmosphere, and r is therefore a very small number.
The ratio r is, in fact temperature dependent. However, temperature dependence of r does not lead to a buildup of CO2, merely a small change in proportionality. But, there is another temperature dependent process which has been left out of the equations which has a much larger long term impact, and that is equlibration with the deep oceans. Equilibration with the deep oceans takes on the order of the time needed for the thermohaline circulation – hundreds if not thousands of years.
So, let us specify O in the above equations as representing merely the surface layer of the oceans. To the equations above, we will ad CO2 content of upwelling waters, U, and transport in the downwelling waters proportional to O, obtaining
dA/dt = (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) + H
dO/dt = (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) + U – O/tau2
Nominally, U and O/tau2 are in balance, but tau2 is temperature dependent, becoming even longer with increasing temperature. Thus, we can say approximately that
O/tau2 := U – k*(T-T0)
for some k scale factor and T0 equilibrium temperature related to the partial derivative of tau2 with respect to temperature and the nominal upwelling. We have
dA/dt = (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) + H
dO/dt = (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) + k*(T-T0)
The approximate solution of these equations is
A := integral(H+k*(T-T0))*r/(1+r)
O := integral(H+k*(T-T0))/(1+r)
Since r is small, the bulk of both the source H and the temperature constricted outflow k*T goes into the oceans. Suppose, e.g., that r = 0.01. Then, 1% of the integrated H goes into that atmosphere, not 50%, and the great majority of the anthropogenic input goes into the oceans. Since the observed rise is about 50% of H, have have
0.01*integrated(H + k*(T-T0)) := 0.5*integrated(H)
which means that integrated(k*T) = 49*integrated(H). 98% of the observed rise would be due to natural sources, and only 2% due to human inputs.
This is along the lines of what we see in the data.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/fro…
The observations very closely follow a pattern described by
dA/dt := k*(T – T0)
Obviously, the actual system is even more complicated than this. There are exchanges with land and biota and so forth. There are diffusion processes with effectively many time constants. But, I think this simple system demonstrates how it can be that human inputs have little impact, and the observations of the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 very closely track temperature anomaly with respect to an appropriate baseline.
Unfortunately, I am late to this party, and my comments may never even be read. But, on this, in your write-up:
"There is also another variable which is Ua representing the total annual anthropogenic absorption of CO2, but this is considered negligible and so is omitted."
The problem with this argument is that we must have the same ratio between Ua and Ea as we do between Un and En. Otherwise, we are saying that the sinks treat natural and human CO2 differently. Therefore Ua = Un*Ea/En, which is not insignificant, as Un/En is very nearly unity.
This is a dynamic system. Sink activity is induced by Ea, and the sink activity it stimulates, though using natural mechanisms, would not have existed without that stimulation. For all intents and purposes, this is artificial sink activity.
I always call it the "pseudo-mass balance" argument, so as not to dignify it as a true mass balance argument. It is a very stupid argument, made by people who do not understand dynamic systems.
Dear Bart,
Thank you for your comment. Perhaps you can explain this a little more. I do not understand what you mean by Ua. Obviously, human processes that emit CO2 do not also absorb CO2.
I have assumed that all the natural processes on Land and in Oceans absorb Ea. Maybe that is what you refer to. Clearly, we both view the processes as part of a dynamic system.
Dear Bart,
You have done an excellent job of putting equations into a WordPress comment.
I like your formulation of this subject into differential equations. I purposely avoided that format because I wanted the general public to be able to read my article.
Unless I missed something, I agree that your equations describe the system under discussion. We might note that r is about 1/50. Also, I might have replaced H with dH/dt but that is a minor point.
Your final equation, as you no doubt realize, is the equation that Salby derived directly from the data.
Thank you for your input.
Hi, Ed. The SS argument goes something like this.
The annual increase is given by
C = Ea + En + U
where U is the natural sink uptake, Ea is anthropogenic emissions, and En is natural emissions.
It is observed that C is approximately 1/2 of Ea, so we have
0.5*Ea := Ea + En + U
Therefore, En + U := -0.5*Ea which is less than zero. Therefore, nature is a net sink, and cannot be responsible for the observed rise.
It is a very stupid argument. The reason is that this is a dynamic system. Nature reacts to the sum total of inputs. That means that U is composed of a sum of two terms, Un which is induced by En, and Ua which is induced by Ea, U = Ua + Un. We then have
0.5*Ea := Ea + En – Ua – Un
which says that nature on its own is
En – Un := Ua – 0.5*Ea
But, we don't know Ua. If the sinks are very responsive, it can be as high as Ea itself, which leaves
En – Un = 0.5*Ea
and nature on its own is positive, therefore a net source. Only if Ua were less than 0.5*Ea, which would indicate a very weak response, would nature be a net sink.
I have tried to get this very basic point across to the pseudo-mass balancers time and again, and they just do not get it, because they are not familiar with dynamic systems. The guy who wrote the argument up at SS is a computer scientist, untrained in the hard sciences.
The fundamental point is that, in a dynamic feedback system, all inputs induce a reaction. Ua would not exist if Ea did not. Ea causes it to be. U is not a static variable. It depends upon both En and Ea, and one cannot put it strictly on one side or the other of the ledger. It must be split up into portions, one due to forcing En, and one due to forcing Ea, Un and Ua, and each placed on the appropriate side of the balance.
Keeping the nomenclature consistent throughout, I should have written the last equation as
dA/dt := r*k*(T – T0)
Or, I could have redefined it as some other constant. Since k depends on the total flow U, it is sure to be very large, and this term simply dominates the term in H. If you choose r = 1/50, then it would do so in ratio of 24:1, and the observed rise would be 96% natural.
Dr. Ed,
In discussing your excellent analysis in another forum, I received the following commentary. I suspect that the answers can all be found above but would appreciate your thoughts to help me reply with a succinct response with full attribution to you. Thanks in advance! Just trying to get the word out in a very hostile environment…
"This paper asserts, " Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2."
Several flaws:
1. It misses the elementary matter of marginal contributions. Prior to the increase in human emissions, total annual carbon dioxide emissions were relatively equal to annual absorption in sinks. The outcome was a relatively stable atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
2. The increase in human emissions led to total annual emissions > total annual absorption. The outcome was an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
3. Even as the paper rules out the impact of a human contribution (incorrect, IMO, and in the scientific consensus), it offers no plausible mechanism for the rise in atmospheric concentration that has occurred, especially in the past 50-100 years. The idea that the carbon sinks had suddenly reduced their uptake of carbon dioxide. There is little compelling evidence that the kind of dramatic reduction necessary to explain the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (absent a human impact) has occurred. There is also little evidence of any kind to suggest the kind of dramatic increase in natural carbon dioxide emissions necessary to explain most or all of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
All said, assuming the blog entry reasonably represents the paper and its conclusions, the paper contains fundamental flaws. I would be surprised if it passes peer review."
Dear Climate Change,
Thank you for forwarding a critique of my paper on an eco-freak blog by people who do not understand physics and are afraid to debate a subject on its original website with the author.
Here is my reply to those who claim there are “several flaws in my paper”:
1. Their claim #1 is the standard, invalid ecological assumption that before we humans got involved, nature was perfectly balanced. That is not physics. That is a religious belief.
2. Their claim #2 assumes human emissions upset nature’s pristine balance. They assume all carbon sinks remain constant even when atmospheric CO2 changes. Their assumption violates the laws of physics. Therefore, their critique is invalid.
3. Their claim #3 says my paper “rules out the impact of the human contribution.” More correctly, my paper proves their argument, to support their claim that human emissions drive atmospheric CO2, is unphysical. I don’t need to go any further than that. They have the burden of proof to defend their hypothesis and they have failed.
References in my paper show that ocean surface temperature drives the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. The comments by Bart also show how this works. The effect of ocean surface temperature on atmospheric CO2 overwhelms the human contribution.
Other references in my paper show the statistical correlation between human emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO. Where there is no correlation, there is no cause and effect. Game over.
Those who write the eco-freak blog that claims my paper is wrong, do not understand how nature accomplishes its “balance.” If they did, they would also understand why their claims are false. Fundamentally, they are not physicists, and they are playing where they do not belong.
If they had a valid case to show my paper is wrong, they would make their case in comments on my website. The fact that they are afraid to do so, proves they have no case.
"Their claim #1 is the standard, invalid ecological assumption that before we humans got involved, nature was perfectly balanced. That is not physics. That is a religious belief."
Indeed, it is. There is particularly a problem in positing that the CO2 level was perfectly stable for a long time, and then it just took off due to a small external forcing.
A stable balance rarely occurs in nature except as the result of feedback, which maintains balance by means of equally opposed forces with equal sensitivity to changes in the equilibrium point. Tight control about the equilibrium is associated with high bandwidth – the higher the bandwidth of the feedback control, the quicker it can respond to deviations and correct them.
Very stable CO2 levels for an extended time indicates wide bandwidth regulation. Such regulation is insensitive to external forcing. And so, there is a disconnect in the narrative. On the one hand, the CO2 regulatory system must be high bandwidth to confer such remarkable stability, but it must be low bandwidth to allow such high sensitivity to outside forcing. But, this is not possible – you cannot have both high and low bandwidth at the same time.
IMO, the source of the disconnect is likely the ice core records of CO2. We already know that resolution is lost due to diffusion. I suspect we do not fully appreciate the full extent of this process. Other proxy records do not indicate this unusual degree of stability, and they are shunned for it. Confirmation bias is indicated.
BTW Ed, please feel free to use anything I have written here in anything you wish to publish without recompense or recognition. I would be honored to be able to contribute. For professional reasons, I do not wish for any publicity for myself.
Re- human emissions:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smalle…
Re- temp precedes CO2:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-tempera…
Pretty flaccid stuff. First is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Second is just hand waving.
Ed,
Note that if you ever do submit your paper concerning CO2 levels not tracking emission rates, you will now have to include years 2015 and 2016, both all time record highs. FOR this and other reasons, I doubt you will every get around to that fool's task. Unlike performing before your peanut gallery, you would get the sh-t kicked out of you. Stick to the peanut gallery.
Eric
To what are you referring? To the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 jumped to high levels in 2015 and 2016? At a time when emissions were touted as having stabilized? This is only digging your hole deeper.
The past two years were part of the El Nino temperature peak and, as Ed has stated, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to temperature anomaly (with appropriate baseline).
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/…
The data are consistent the temperature driven model, not the emissions driven one. You lose.
I've attached a link below to an ongoing discussion in the American Wx Forum Climate Change section about Dr. Berry's article. American Wx is a great read as to all things weather and receives substantial input from meteorologists. The dialogue in the climate change section is another story – very one-sided and tilted very heavily to the religion of climate change.
To those of you who have not surrendered to this religion, HELP! It would be awesome to see the direct exchange of thoughts on that forum which I believe will make clear to anyone with an open mind that the science is not close to being settled.
Eric Grimsrud, your review of the discussion and input is also welcome. Someone, in an effort to discredit Dr. Berry, linked to your 2015 hit piece entitled "What if Professor Harold Hill came to Montana?"
Do you still seriously question Dr. Berry's credentials as an atmospheric physicist?
Also, there are links to articles by Richard Telford, a professor of palaeoecology. I question the credibility of a palaeoecologist to deride the work of Dr. Salby, and implicitly, the work of Dr. Ed, and would love to see your thoughts as to that in the American Wx Forum.
Anyway, would greatly appreciate any input in the post linked below.
https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/49569-dr-ed-b…
Thanks.
Bart, I suggest that you actually read Ed's argument based on his Fig 3. You asked me
"to what are you referring? To the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 jumped to high levels in 2015 and 2016? At a time when emissions were touted as having stabilized?"
while Ed's argument is that CO2 levels did not go up over a period when emissions had greatly increased (not stabilized). The inclusion of years 2014, 2015, AND 2016 show that atm levels of CO2 went up very sharply – thus not fitting Ed's theory. If Ed wished to stick with the claim of this thread, he'll now have to explain this latest data in terms of his theory. Good Luck ED, But I suspect we have heard the last of his unsubstantiated claim.
Eric
Dear Eric, I agree that my Fig. 3 is merely a preliminary argument that atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with human CO2 emissions. The proper way to test this is to use annual data in a statistical analysis that detrends the data.
Jamal Munshi, an expert statistician, has done this for us for data for the period 1958-2015. You may note that my references include his paper:
Munshi, Jamal, 2016: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Part 2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_…
His conclusion is that the subject correlation is essentially ZERO. His robust statistical conclusion is that changes in atmospheric CO2 cannot be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
Perhaps you can read his paper and show us where he made a mistake in his statistical analysis.
Munshi is addressing an entirely different problem. His note addresses the relationship between annual fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric concentration of CO2. Internal variability dominates on an annual scale.
The issue as to whether fossil fuel emissions contribute to an increase in atmospheric CO2 over time is a completely different matter. The very low correlation in the former problem does not, repeat not, address the link between fossil fuel emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2 over time.
For purposes of illustration, one could address whether annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and annual changes in temperature are correlated. The correlation is low, as internal variability e.g., ENSO, dominates on an annual basis.
However, if calculates the correlation between the level of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, the coefficient of correlation is very high (>0.9).
Using Munshi's paper to address the issue of fossil fuel emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2 over time is analogous to using the weak correlation between annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and annual changes in temperature to assert that the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is weak (when, in fact, it is not).
The conclusions in Munshi's paper are sound. The overgeneralized conclusion that his paper demonstrates that the long-term change in atmospheric CO2 "cannot be attributed to fossil fuel emissions" is technically unsound.
Dear Don, You are correct to identify short-term and long-term as two different issues for discussion.
Munshi found no correlation using annual data for 57 years. That means human emissions did not cause the observed, almost steady increase in atmospheric CO2. There is no significant cause and effect.
The statistics for 57 years strongly imply that we would find the same result if we had 1000 years of data.
So, I disagree with your statement that a long-term correlation can be significant when the annual correlation for 57 years is zero.
To support your position, you must state a testable hypothesis that predicts there is a significant long-term correlation in the absence of a short-term annual correlation for 57 years.
One can't draw the conclusion that a low correlation between fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 mean that "human emissions did not cause the observed…increase in atmospheric CO2." Annual changes in atmospheric CO2 are a function of natural emissions, anthropogenic emissions, and absorption. Natural emissions and absorption are subject to the influences of internal variability. Therefore, highlighting a weak correlation between fossil fuel emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 is insufficient for demonstrating that there is no meaningful link between fossil fuel emissions and the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (Chapter 6) went beyond correlations and provided a number of specific "lines of evidence" that suggested the existence of such a link (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf, pp.493-494).
"…while Ed’s argument is that CO2 levels did not go up over a period when emissions had greatly increased (not stabilized). The inclusion of years 2014, 2015, AND 2016 show that atm levels of CO2 went up very sharply – thus not fitting Ed’s theory."
But, Ed was right. CO2 levels increased at a steady rate when emissions were accelerating. And, during the latest El Nino, they accelerated when emissions appeared to level out. In both cases, the data fit Ed's scenario. In both cases, they are inconsistent with the prevailing paradigm.
But, they are not really "lines of evidence". They are rationalizations, with a predetermined outcome. In the years to come, they will be considered object lessons in confirmation bias.
Dear Don, Thank you for your comment.
You are rejecting fundamental science. If there is no correlation, there can be no cause and effect, or more accurately, any cause and effect is insignificant. The zero correlation between human emissions and atmospheric CO2 change proves there is no significant cause and effect.
Indeed, atmospheric CO2 is a function of both natural and human emissions. That is what my post is about. It concludes human emissions may be up to 4 percent of the total effect and natural emissions are 96 percent. No scientific argument has contradicted this conclusion.
The human 4 percent is negligible compared to nature. That is why there is zero correlation between human CO2 with atmospheric CO2. Human CO2 is in the noise level of natural emissions.
The IPCC report you reference is inadequate to make your point because it claims "lines of evidence" and omits the scientific method. We have been through all these "lines of evidence" in the many comments. These "lines of evidence" do not prove that human CO2 drives atmospheric CO2, and they do not overcome the fact that human emissions are only 4 percent of total emissions.
If you wish to make your prior point about long-term, you still need to state your hypothesis for discussion.
Dr. Berry,
I'm not rejecting science at all. At the same time, I'm not suggesting or implying that there are not residual uncertainties, along with other areas where additional research is required.
Lack of a correlation against short-term variability that is largely driven by natural factors does not mean that there is no long-term correlation among the two variables (human CO2 emissions and the observed increase in atmospheric CO2). I'm suggesting that if one uses annual changes in atmospheric CO2, internal variability, which predominates, masks the long-term contribution of human fossil fuel emissions.
For an analogy, ENSO plays a large role in influencing annual global land and ocean temperatures (I don't think there's serious dispute about the role of that oceanic cycle). As a result, the correlation of CO2 to year-by-year changes in temperature is relatively small. Yet, over the long-term (and when one accounts for ENSO, among other variables), there is a very high correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Over the past 40 years, the coefficient of correlation between atmospheric CO2 (Mauna Loa) and the GISS LOTI anomaly is approximately 0.91.
Finally, my point about raising the IPCC report was simply to note that IPCC has gone beyond correlations in asserting the role that the human contribution has played in increasing atmospheric CO2. IPCC has laid out what it asserts are various lines of supporting evidence for its very high level of confidence in the role of human emissions.
There's a relationship between El Niño and increases in atmospheric CO2. That relationship was discussed as early as 1985.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1985Meti…
But, in 1985, we did not have data that showed CO2 rate of change tracking temperature anomaly over the long term. The long term trend matches when you scale for the variability. The match is particularly good for Southern hemisphere sea surface temperatures
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/…
Emissions also have a long term trend, but as it is already accounted for by the temperature relationship, it is not needed. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is that they have no significant impact.
If it is true that, as posited, we have a temperature to CO2 dynamic of
dCO2/dt := k*(T – T0)
then it is impossible for CO2 to significantly impact temperatures in a positive sense, as that would produce a positive feedback system that cannot be stabilized even by T^4 radiation, and we would have reached a tipping point eons ago.
Try coupling the equation above with a perturbation system of the form
dT/dt = -a*T^4 + b*CO2
It has no stable equilibrium.
The "multiple lines of evidence" are rationalizations – a seeking out of seemingly plausible scenarios and data which are prima facie consistent with the predetermined outcome. That is how you get confirmation bias and erroneous conclusions.
It has no stable equilibrium for positive b, is what I wanted to say.
Bart,
The runaway temperature rise from positive feedback could only occur if CO2 could only move in one direction (increase). There is a finite amount of CO2 on earth (stored land/ocean and in the atmosphere). The differential equation by itself, a variation of Newton's equation relating to temperature and motion of an object, isn't a problem so to speak. The underlying assumption being made is flawed.
It is an instability that would drive the system to its boundary. Maxed out. We are not at a boundary condition.
Looking over your comment at this later date, I would like to add this:
"Over the past 40 years, the coefficient of correlation between atmospheric CO2 (Mauna Loa) and the GISS LOTI anomaly is approximately 0.91. "
The real correlation, as has been stated, is between the rate of change of CO2 and temperature anomaly:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/…
That means that CO2 is proportional to the integral of appropriately baselined temperature anomaly, not to temperature itself, and that puts the arrow of causality in the direction of temperature to CO2, not CO2 to temperature.
It is not difficult to obtain a spurious correlation in the domain of total CO2, because it is very low frequency, with low information content. All you've got is that they both are moving vaguely upward as nearly affine functions with slight curvature, and the fact that two affine functions are affinely similar to one another is a tautology.
Plus, you have to contend with the fact that the "adjustments" to the temperature record very much appear to have been made with an eye to producing a similarity to the CO2 record:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvcaBlAWgAESL4n.jpg
and, they are drinking their own bathwater.
Bart,
Yes, one can test the relationship between instantaneous changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature using the second derivative. In fact, there's a fairly recent paper on that topic and the relationship between CO2 and temperature was found to be statistically significant.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6316…
Dr. Berry,
The ongoing discussion between Bart and Don on January 21 is showing up before Don's comment onJanuary 20. Can this be fixed so those following don't miss anything?
Climate Changes,
The issue may have something to do with the blogging platform. If so, there may be little Dr. Berry can do about it.
It appears to be saying there is a statistically significant relationship between the rate of change of CO2 and global mean temperature, which is what Salby, Ed, I and others have been saying. It further appears to be saying there is a statistically significant relationship between the 2nd derivative of CO2 and SOI, which is not surprising as there is a statistically significant relationship between SOI and the rate of change of global mean temperature.
It then appears to suggest that the rate of change of CO2 is thereby influencing global temperatures. This would lead to an absurd scenario in which atmospheric CO2 could increase to an extremely high level, but once it stopped increasing, temperatures would snap back to their original levels irrespective of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is because of that absurd scenario that we conclude that the arrow of causality is in the other direction – that increasing temperatures result in an increasing rate of change of atmospheric CO2.
The paper makes no such argument of CO2 rising to an extreme level with temperatures 'snapping back' once CO2 stopped rising. That interpretation stretches the paper's findings beyond what the paper discussed. To reach such a conclusion, one would have to assume that (1) CO2's radiative properties were vastly overstated and/or (2) CO2 would have an exceptionally short lifetime. Neither is the case.
CO2's radiative efficiency is well-established. Questions about the actual rise in temperature with a doubling of CO2 deal with factors other than CO2's radiative properties e.g., feedbacks.
CO2 does not have an exceptionally short lifetime, even as no precise value can be given.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1… (starting at p.731)
Dear Climate Changes, Indeed, as Don says, WordPress is in control of how the comments are sorted.
We control where our comment appears in the chain when we select the "Reply" link below other comments. We can select a new top-level comment by going directly to the Post Comment box at the bottom.
I have the threaded comments set to 4. There is no level 5. I could consider setting it to 5 or 6, but that may not solve the problem either. Besides, the higher the level, the more narrow the comment.
Thank you both Don and Bart for your excellent discussions in my absence. I had to finish up the second edition of my book that I now advertise in the right-hand column.
"The paper makes no such argument of CO2 rising to an extreme level with temperatures ‘snapping back’ once CO2 stopped rising."
It is implied when one notes that the rate of change is proportional to temperature, and then suggests CO2 is driving the temperature.
"CO2’s radiative efficiency is well-established."
In the laboratory under controlled settings, without any confounding feedbacks. It is quite a stretch to project that to assured warming of the very complex, massively interconnected feedback system that is the Earth's climate.
Dear Bart, I agree. If we accept the premise that
dCO2/dt = T – To
then we must conclude that (T – To) drives the dCO2/dt.
While simple physics with no feedbacks can assume that more CO2 causes higher Temperature, there is no physical hypothesis that says the dCO2/dt can cause a higher temperature. As you say, if dCO2/dt controlled temperature, the temperature would decrease just because dCO2/dt went negative with no regard to its concentration in the atmosphere.
Regarding the actual effect of CO2 on temperature, I plan to introduce the recent work by Miklos Zagoni for discussion … in a new post. We don't want to get into Zagoni's work in this post because it would complicate the comments in this post. Suffice it to say, I think Zagoni is correct, and if he is, then our atmosphere compensates for changes in CO2 in a manner that keeps the overall greenhouse effect constant.
What a complete pile of dipshittery.
Have you ever heard of carbon isotopes?
Explain their changing ratio.
Explain where exactly all our yuge CO2 emissions went? Just disappeared into thin air?
Please let us know who all rejects your so-called paper.
"The differential equation by itself, a variation of Newton’s equation relating to temperature and motion of an object,"
What?????
What Newtonian equation are you talking about????
"If we accept the premise that
dCO2/dt = T – To
then we must conclude that (T – To) drives the dCO2/dt."
This is stone stupid.
Humans are burning carbon INDEPENDENT OF THE TEMPERATURE.
They aren't waiting around until temperature changes to start burning carbon.
They are burning it all the time.
In this case CO2 obviously — OBVIOUSLY — leads temperature.
Stop being stupid.
Dear Dipshit, I mean David, seems you didn't read the discussion above about isotopes.
Everyone who has commented on this post (including Eric) has made polite, reasonable scientific arguments no matter which side they take. Everyone except you. You come along and make a total fool of yourself by calling people names and making comments with no scientific substance. Normally, I would block anyone who makes such impolite and foolish comments.
However, you are a special case. You show the world how truly irrational an alarmist can be. You are part of the alarmist zoo. Sane people enjoy visiting the alarmist zoo to watch you perform your antics. Would it make you happy if we throw you peanuts and bananas? Can you reach your hands through the bars and catch your food? Do the alarmist mash for us to make us laugh.
Dear David, If you understand what Don is talking about, you would understand that he inadvertently did not use a complete sentence. Give those who comment a little slack in small grammar errors.
Dear Stupid, I mean David, clearly you do not understand the meaning of the equation, nor logic.
The conclusion follows from the premise. So if you accept the premise but not the conclusion, you do not understand logic.
If you deny the premise then you should say so. That is the subject of the discussion of this post.
However, if you deny the premise then you, as a claimed scientist, should be able to produce a rational argument to back up your position. That would mean you must show that my post and all the references that also support the conclusions of my post are incorrect.
No one, so far, has done that.
You claim "obviously" CO2 leads temperature. "Obviously" is not a scientific argument, especially when data show your claim is wrong.
David Appell:
You ask,
"Explain where exactly all our yuge(sic) CO2 emissions went? Just disappeared into thin air?"
I answer,
all emissions of CO2 to the air become involved in the carbon cycle and the contribution of CO2 emission from human activities is a trivially small addition to the total CO2 emission to the air.
At issue is what the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be if the CO2 emission from human emissions (i.e. the anthropogenic emission) were absent.
In his above article Ed Berry repeatedly references our analyses which show the atmospheric CO2 concentration would probably be the same if the CO2 emission from human emissions were absent. it would probably be the same. Those analyses show the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to each of our six different models, the total emission of a year affects the equilibrium state of the entire carbon cycle system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium. So, the atmospheric CO2 concentration slowly changes in response to any change in the equilibrium condition.
Importantly, each of our models demonstrates that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system caused by, for example, the anthropogenic emission or may be solely a result of desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it.
The most likely explanation for the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is adjustment towards the altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system provided by the temperature rise in previous decades during the centuries of recovery from the Little Ice Age.
This slow rise in response to the changing equilibrium condition also provides an explanation of why the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere continued when in two subsequent years the flux into the atmosphere decreased (the years 1973-1974, 1987-1988, and 1998-1999).
Richard
…and Then There's Physics :
Clearly, you like to pretend you possess knowledge you don't have.
Not content with your above display that you don't understand equilbrium effects are not relevant to consideration of disequilibrium conditions, you now pretend you know what atmospheric CO2 concentration was centuries before anybody could measure it.
There are two main proxies for past atmospheric CO2 concentration; viz. ice core data and stomata data.
The ice core data are smoothed during the time prior to ice closure (the IPCC says this is 83 years) so cannot be compared to modern measurements because we have only been measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa since 1958 (i.e. less than 83 years). And there are very good reasons to think the ice core data indications are plain wrong.
Among the reasons to doubt the ice core indications is that the stomata data indicate similar atmospheric CO2 concentrations to now existed prior to the industrial revolution.
Richard
PS The reason you hide behind an alias is becoming obvous.
Eric Grimsrood:
It seems there is nothing – absolutely nothing – you understand about the scientific method.
This one of your extraordinary assertions is so wrong that it is jaw dropping; i.e.
" In science we test ideas by the submission of them to the peer reveiwed literature. "
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
In SCIENCE we test ideas by their predictive ability. Where, how and by whom ideas are published is not relevant.
For example, two bicycle salesmen published their seminal work on aeronatics in a magazine about bee-keeping. The worth of their work is not indicated by the Wright brothers' lack of formal education, their inability to get their paper published in a peer reviewed journal, or the fact that few except bee keepers would have read it in its first publication. The worth of their work is demonstrated e.g. by the existence of Airbus Industries.
Countless similar examples exist.
Richard
David Appell is an no-account gadfly who appears regularly on comment boards to harass serious scientists with his incoherent arguments, flurries of propaganda links, and personal insults. He has neither scruples nor class. He gets his yucks by referring to eminent researchers such as Dr. Judith Curry as "Aunt Judy", a porn-related reference, which is where he probably spends most of his apparently copious time on the web.
Now, back to serious matters. Here is an interesting link to a new paper. It is behind a paywall, so I have not read it and cannot vouch for it personally. The tide is building. When temperatures turn south, and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 along with it, the dam will burst.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/…
"Humans are burning carbon INDEPENDENT OF THE TEMPERATURE."
He is right about that. Yet, CO2 concentration is manifestly dependent on temperature via its impact on the rate of change. That is precisely why human inputs cannot be the major driver. They are not dependent on temperature.
Having read the isotope material carefully, the original post is correct as a matter of logic.
If you want to show human emissions have increased CO2 ppm you have to show that they did it.
Showing that they were the cause of a change in the isotope content does not show that. It just shows that they changed the isotope content. That is not the same as changing the CO2 ppm.
Dr Ed's thought experiment is valid. He asks, whether, if you assume human emissions have changed isotope content, this predicts higher or lower ppm. And he correctly observes that it predicts neither one. It is compatible with both outcomes.
Therefore, it cannot be used either to prove or to disprove the statement that human emissions are causing rises in ppm.
I am trying to think of a medical analogy. Something like this maybe. We assume eating saturated fats raises cholesterol levels. It may. We then argue that this shows raised cholesterol levels cause the rises we observe in CHD. They may, but our argument has not shown it.
Its a logical fallacy. If you want to show or refute that human emissions are causing rises in ppm, you have to formulate some theory which predicts that, and then confirm or disconfirm it. If you want to show that raised cholesterol causes more CHD you have to show that. Whether eating saturated fats raises cholesterol is irrelevant.
Could I also say this was a very interesting and valuable piece. I had not really appreciated the logic of the argument before coming on this, and had just assumed the isotope argument was valid. But in fact there is an obvious logical hole in it once someone draws attention to it.
Very valuable site – keep on with the logic! In all great policy errors there is usually some logical error in the reasoning. An assumption that something has been proven which in fact turns out to be false once the policy is well under way and failing to deliver the forecasts which were used to justify it.
Another which I came on recently occurs in the defence of the Hockey Stick. We start out claiming that the studies which show a Medieval Warm period just show regional warming. But in fact, when you implement non-standard PCA as in MBH98, the effect is to over weight some particular tree ring series, so the effect is to produce a regionally based handle to the stick…!
Yes, when policy enters the science wars, the first casualty is logic.
So true, Rajiv. In my PhD studies, we were drilled on mathematical proofs. Our instructors were quick to leap on any shortcomings, most of which took the form of pointing out exceptions to our logic. You quickly learned that you could not assume anything, because the assumptions always left a path open to negate the premise. For physical systems, it often turns out that the thing assumed is itself dependent on the state of the system. A degree of freedom that, if not constrained in some fashion, ineluctably drives the system away from the intended steady state.
I have had to massage my temples repeatedly in viewing all the leaps of logic made to support the hypothesis of human induced global warming. There are fallacies galore, and enough loopholes to weave a rug that carpets an entire city. The people who jumped on this bandwagon, in my estimation, are very poor scientists. Somehow, they seem to have missed the rigor in which I and my classmates were immersed. It is a very sad spectacle, that can only end in humiliation and ruin.
Dr. Ed, as I have had many years of discussion with Bart about this topic, I don't want to repeat that here and now, as I have other priorities for the moment. But the remarks on the work of Munshi need an answer.
Modern engineering is overfocused on frequency analyses and similar tools, up to ridiculous results. Munshi's work is no exception. I am from the (very) old school where one looks at all the evidence, not only the "match" between two highly variable curves…
What is the problem in comparing the variability in human emissions and temperature with the resulting increase in the atmosphere?
Human emissions show a lot of increase and hardly any variability since 1959:
A fourfold increase in yearly emisions and total emissions +170 ppmv since 1959. Year to year variability less than 0.5 ppmv in emissions, simply not detectable in the monthly increase in the atmosphere (which "by coincidence" also increased a fourfold in the same time span).
Temperature shows a lot of variability and hardly any increase since 1959:
Increase: 0.4°C, variability +/- 0.3°C. If we may use Henry's law for the temperature-CO2 releationship (16 ppmv/K for seawater, static as good as dynamic), that gives at full equilibrium 6 ppmv extra in the atmosphere over the full time span1959-2017 and a (monthly) variability of +/- 4.5 ppmv.
Thus we have two variables influencing atmospheric CO2:
One with a huge trend and undetectable variability and one with a huge variabilty and a small trend.
What has Munshi done?
He compares the rate of change in human emissions with the rate of change of the increase in the atmosphere. The latter shows the same variability as the temperature changes as that gives all the variability and taking the derivative only shifts a sinusoidal change 90 deg. backward in time, but hardly changes the appearance.
As human emissions show hardly any variability, of course there is no correlation between the variabilities, as the correlation is not in the temperature caused noise, but in the total increase over time of the emissions, which he largely removed by taking the derivatives…
If you compare the temperature rate of change with the CO2 rate of change, you still have the high correlation, but the trend of the temperature derivative is zero with a small offset, as temperature shows a small, irregular linear increase. On the other side, the total emissions show a small quadratic increase as good as the CO2 increase in the atmosphere does:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
With an extreme good correlation between both:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
Of course the latter doesn't prove causation, but in this case, that is extremely plausible.
In the derivatives, that shows up as a linear trend in the emissions rate of change which is around twice the average trend of the atmospheric CO2 rate of change in the atmosphere (within the huge noise):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
Conclusion: by looking at the derivatives, Munshi largely removed the cause and effect in this case and his findings only show that there is a huge correlation between the variability of temperature rate of change and CO2 rate of change, which is the noise (+/- 1.5 ppmv) around the trend (90 ppmv). That says absolutely nothing about the cause of the trend…
More detailed background here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_var…
Yes, Ferdinand has been my sparring partner for many years now. He insists on a fantastic, Rube Goldberg type, system response to explain away the remarkable consistency between the temperature record and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 as mere coincidence. William of Occam rolls in his grave.
Scientifically, though, his model does not work. It assumes that the natural balancing mechanisms are in equilibrium, and have no further influence. Upon this foundation, he builds his model, taking the natural equilibrium as a given and decoupling it from the response to anthropogenic forcing.
Yet, the balance must be maintained, and anthropogenic inputs are necessarily subsumed into that balancing act. As a result, they cannot contribute more to offsetting that balance than the proportion by which they add to the natural input flows. And, that proportion is only a few, small percentage points.