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.

My related article was posted Jan.31/08 with a spreadsheet on http://icecap.us/

Roy Spencer and I have been discussing this subject since I emailed him on Dec. 31/07.

Here are further thoughts from Richard Courtney, with my comments, posted on climate skeptics:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/message/44900

I sincerely thank Richard S. Courtney for getting my point. I am not trying to prove Veizer correct in this paper; it would be sufficient to merely prove the IPCC is incorrect – the future can not cause the past…

… In personal correspondence, which I quote with Richard’s explicit permission, he wrote:

“The data show what they show: i.e. when an ST change happens then a CO2 change happens 9 months later. This is a clear demonstration that it is physically impossible for the CO2 change to be the cause of the ST change (this is because – in the absence of a time machine – an effect cannot occur before its cause exists). And it strongly suggests that the ST changes are causing the CO2 changes.

Of course, some other and unknown cause (e.g. hypothetical feedbacks) may be inducing both the ST and the CO2 changes. If there is some other and unknown cause then the 9 month difference between ST and CO2 changes would be the difference between the response times of the ST and CO2 to that cause. However, there is no evidence that such an additional and unknown cause exists. Therefore, the scientific indication of the data is that the observed ST changes cause the observed and later CO2 changes (Occam’s Razor). And this indication will remain the scientific conclusion unless and until there is evidence that an additional and unknown cause exists.

Simply, the data indicate that the ST changes cause the CO2 changes.

Science says that the indication of the data should be accepted until contrary evidence is produced.”

I would suggest that the Sun is the primary driver, and ST, LT, dCO2/dt and finally CO2 follow, but Richard’s point remains. Lacking a time machine, the only possible alternative explanation that is consistent with the IPCC position is that the ~9 month lag of CO2 behind ST, LT and dCO2/dt is a positive feedback mechanism, and a minor one. Nevertheless, this “minor feedback mechanism’s” signal stands out loud and clear. Richard also made this same point when he said in an earlier post:

“But if anthropogenic emissions were a driver of CO2 changes then they would over-ride the observed driving of CO2 changes by temperature (both up and down). QED the temperature changes drive the CO2 changes.”

As Richard says, in the absence of solid evidence that this 9 month lag is a feedback mechanism, my hypothesis stands as the simplest and best explanation consistent with the data. If evidence exists of a positive feedback mechanism, and that evidence stands up to reasonable scrutiny, then let’s see it. If there is no such evidence, let’s see the time machine. Failing both these criteria, my hypothesis stands.

Best regards, Allan

P.S. I have since plotted humanmade CO2 emissions vs atmospheric CO2 and dCO2/dt and the correlation is very poor to non-existent. So according to the “feedback” argument, the [temperature:dCO2/dt] signal survives loud and clear atop a noisy, messy, even non-existent [humanmade CO2: atmospheric CO2} non-signal. Can someone please explain how this is practically possible, using logical and probabilistic rigor.

Summary, posted on icecap.us:

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING:
THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST

Despite continuing increases in atmospheric CO2, no significant global warming occurred in the last decade, as confirmed by both Surface Temperature and satellite measurements in the Lower Troposphere. Contrary to IPCC fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Earth may now be entering another natural cooling trend.

Earth Surface Temperature warmed approximately 0.7 degrees Celsius from ~1910 to ~1945, cooled ~0.4 C from ~1945 to ~1975, warmed ~0.6 C from ~1975 to 1997, and has not warmed significantly from 1997 to 2007.

CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.

The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data.

In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. The paper (HYPERLINKED) and Excel spreadsheet (“CO2 vs T”) (HYPERLINKED) show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. 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”). 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″).

******************************

I still want to see that WWII bump vs. Postwar recession CO2 trough.

And if fuel consumption and industrial production dropped by a third or even more during the Great Depression that CO2 output only dropped under 20% and only very briefly. History seems to conflict with the ice core measurements.

About the Great depression: even if the industrial use of fossils fuels dropped about 30%, household heating still needed fuel (although maybe mostly wood?), thus a 20% drop in total seems reasonable…

I have plotted the Law Dome data (available at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html ) here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_co2.jpg

As you can see, there is a peak around 1940 and a reduction thereafter. If you take into account that the ice core CO2 is smoothed (with about 5 years for LD 1 and LD 2, more for LD 3 and much more for Siple Dome, which were drilled in shallower ice layers), then we see a peak and reduction of about 1 ppmv CO2 1940-1945, which is within the accuracy of the measurements (+/-1.2 ppmv). The variation in emissions even is much smaller: about 0.1 ppmv. The emissions/yr simply are too small to be measured in ice cores, only after at least 3 years, the signal is better than the accuracy…

Emission figures (year/GtC):
1935 1.0
1936 1.1
1937 1.2
1938 1.1
1939 1.2
1940 1.3
1941 1.3
1942 1.3
1943 1.4
1944 1.4
1945 1.2
1946 1.2
1947 1.4
1948 1.5
1949 1.4
1950 1.6

It is only after 1950 that fossil fuel use increased rapidely.

Oceans absorb and degass somewhere about 90 to 100 Gigatonnes annually, (IPCC figures) so I’m not sure why you’ve added up 1990-2002, to get 80GtC, presumeably those are man’s emmissions.
They do sound more significant when added up 12 to 13 years at a time though..
I must admit to hearing quotes of CO2 has increased by 4% since 2002 (I think) , so that does not exactly tally with man’s emmissions either,
maybe a bit of exageration in the adding up (or the method used) to get to 22% perhaps…..
The hypothesis as I understand it is that a small change in temperature of the world’s oceans causes the Solubility pump to change the amount of CO2 “pumped”, this can (and does) easily dwarf man’s emissions.
Which seemingly they do. (Depending on how you add up, obviously.)

Although the oceans exchange about 90GtC/season and vegetation about 60 GtC/season, most is turnover and the net change over a year is only -3 +/- 2.5 GtC (thus a net sink) over a trend, and the sink is increasing, while the emissions and the trend are increasing in time.

The 1992 Pinatubo cooling and the 1998 El Niño warming caused a decrease and an increase in trend (not in absolute value), of about 6 GtC/°C or 3 ppmv/°C. The total temperature increase 1959-2004 was 0.6°C, thus only 1.8 ppmv is caused by more ocean outgassing, the rest is from anthro emissions…

The trend of CO2 level is related to the quantity of CO2 released in the atmosphere. In fact, it doesn’t matter if you do that for one year, or ten years or 50 years: in all cases (with an ever increasing emission) you will find an increase more or less in ratio with the emissions, but more variability for shorter periods, as some years are warmer or colder than others, causing a temporarely variation in increase speed.
Spread over several years, the variations level out and in average reach near zero around the trend. That is clearly visible in graph nr.3 of Dr. Spencer in the introduction: The straight black line is the trend, the red one the emissions and the difference between both is the net sink in the oceans and/or vegetation.

Thus the emissions over 12 years (1990-2002) or 4 years (2003-2006) and the increase of CO2 levels over the same periods are thightly correlated, no matter how many years you group together.

The 4% you heard of is the increase in absolute level (about 370 ppmv) since 2002. The 20% is the increase in additional CO2 levels over a period of in average 8 years, caused by emissions increasing by 22% over the same time span…