http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

Your comment may or may not be correct – over the next decades, we may see the truth emerge from the data.

However, your tone with me and especially with Roy is aggressive and ill-advised.

Re: “It is known to all…”:

Really, such hogwash. I am reminded of that IPCC highlight, Mann’s hockey stick, that eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age; also of the Divergence Problem. Mann and the IPCC were clearly wrong – the only remaining question here is not one of error, it is one of fraud.

I am also reminded of the greatly exaggerated climate sensitivity used by the IPCC to produce their scary scenarios, and the ridiculous climate models that continue to predict catastrophic warming, even though Global Warming ceased a decade ago.

I remind you that ice core data shows a ~600 lag of CO2 after temperature at that time scale. I have provided evidence at shorter time scales. Ernst Beck has provided significant evidence at intermediate time scales, and has suffered scorn from the likes of you.

I also remind you of the “missing sink”, whereby only half of humanmade CO2 reports to the atmosphere. The rest, presumably, is hidden away by evil climate skeptics (or do you prefer the term “climate deniers”).

Still, there may be a significant humanmade CO2 component, which cannot be ruled out at this time.

So even if the final conclusion in my paper turns out to be wrong, it will still be a much closer to the truth than any of the IPCC’s scary conclusions, which are clearly false, alarmist, self-serving and extremely expensive for humanity.

There has been no Global Warming for a decade, and evidence is mounting that Earth will enter a 20-30 year cooling period as the PDO has shifted to cool mode.

I await the IPCC’s smooth transition from Catastrophic Humanmade Global Warming to Catastrophic Humanmade Global Cooling, and your spirited defense thereof. Watch out for whiplash when you change directions.

Best wishes to all for the Holidays!

Best regards, Allan”

I have read your paper with interest and looked at your charts.
You said,

“In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. The attached Excel spreadsheet (“CO2 vs T”) shows that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months (Figures 2, 3 and 4). The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.

There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature (“ST”), Lower Troposphere Temperature (“LT”) and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 (“dCO2/dt”) (Figures 1 and 2). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (“CO2″) (Figures 3 and 4).”

Your analysis leaves out an important factor. It is known to all, including the scientists who wrote the IPCC report, that the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is driven by 2 things:
1) An accelerating upward trend in CO2 due to human caused emissions.
2) The variation in the oceans’ ability to absorb the CO2, which decreases with increasing sea surface temperature.

One half of the CO2 added by industrial emissions is absorbed by the oceans over time. When the earths temperature peaks temporarily, driven by peaks in ocean temperature, for instance during el Nino events the, oceans can even emit CO2. This was shown in the graphs put up by Spencer. This accounts for the location of the short term peaks in temperature correlated with the peaks in the rate of change of CO2 with time.

Since two mechanisms are at work a long term increase in CO2 due to emissions and rapid changes in the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2, the location of these peaks is not proof that the short term effect and the long term effect have the same cause. The oceans’s influence on the temperature is cyclical over and the CO2 influence is a constant forcing factor.

The presence of the short term correlation is not proof that the IPCC is wrong about the influence of human caused emissions on the global temperature over the long run.

In addition the total emissions since the industrial age is twice the increase in concentration, which leads to the conclusion that the natural world is a sink for CO2. A large part of that sink is the ocean. In some years, when the surface of the ocean is warm, because of the solubility of CO2 goes down with increasing temperature, some CO2 may be emitted from the ocean, but that is an exception.

If there were no industrial emissions there would be no increase.
The whole isotope argument is nonsense. This should be a no- brainer for anyone with any sense.

How can a PHD scientist be so blinded by his own opinion that he can’t see how silly his argument is!!!????? This article could only be published on a CO2 denier site. It certainly wouldn’t pass peer review.

At the “flask: sites (the majority), two flasks have to agree with a high accuracy.
Differences between sites nay be due to slight variation in imposing the restrictions.

All measurements outside the rstricted conditions are rejected and concealed.

Until we have widespread and preferably representative measurements of concentration and its variabilioty much of this discussion is merely speculative,

NNFI = Mauna Loa inferred emissions – anthropogenic emissions

If we were to plot the NNFI on the same diagram, I think we would see that (a) it is almost always negative and (b) that it has a downward long term trend.

In that case, the corrlation between temperature and NNFI is negative in the long term, but positive in the short term (i.e. once the time-series have been detrended). This seems difficult to reconcile with the new theory.

This suggests to me that the long term trend is due to an increase in radiative forcing from anthropogenic emissions (partly offset by environmental uptake), but the short term variations are due to the modulation of the NNFI by the ENSO (which limits the partial uptake of anthropogenic emissions).

Can someone with access to the data plot the NNFI to see if this is the case?

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6674&Method=Full

They only focus on “sinks” and completely ignore the possibility of outgassing”

This is just a BBC press release. Having retrieved the original article (Canadell et al., 2007, PNAS online) it’s written (p.3) that 65+/-16% of … d²CO2/dt² (translation of “increase of atmospheric CO2 growth rate”) is attributed to “the increase in the global economy”, the remaining 35+/-16% being attributed to “the increase in carbon intensity in the global economy” and 18+/-15% to “the decrease in the efficiency of the lands and ocean sinks in removing anthropogenic CO2″.

I haven’t yet studied the article in detail but my thoughts are that the relative uncertainties are high, as expected since the atmospheric CO2 level at a given time is the response of the complex carbon cycle to the net anthro increase (6 Gt from fossil + est 2 Gt from land use change), small but not negligible compared to the gross carbon cycle fluxes (90 Gt to/from ocean, 120 Gt to/from biosphere). Such response takes some time (a few months to a few years) and has much noise from many “natural” (i.e. non directly anthropogenic) factors, including increased/decreased ocean outgassing (or “decrease/increase of the net ocean sink”) from temperature change. Those factors are expected to dominate the short term (huge) variations of d²CO2/dt² and (before digging into the article) I would have some doubts in making positively any attribution like 65+/-16% to “the increase in the global economy”. On the other hand the “mean sign of d²CO2/dt² on the long term” (translation: the trend of dCO2/dt) is expected to be positive (fossil fuel consumption/land use change still increases), and … it is.

Best

Yves

Best regards, Allan

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6674&Method=Full

They only focus on “sinks” and completely ignore the possibility of outgassing.