Dr. Murray Salby on Model World -vs- Real World

Pierre Gosselin (and commenter Bill_W) tips us to this:

Die kalte Sonne website here has just posted the video presentation of Murry Salby in Hamburg in April. If anyone ever demolished the dubious CO2 AGW science, it’s Salby!

Most of the presentation is very mathematical and technical. But the last 10 minutes sums everything up very nicely for the laypersons.

Watch the divergence: 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Modeling and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

174 Responses to Dr. Murray Salby on Model World -vs- Real World

  1. climatologist says:

    Go Murry!

  2. Selected slides from and summary of presentation:

    Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html

  3. kramer says:

    Ever since I read about him and saw his video last year, I’ve been waiting to hear more from him. Thanks hockeyschtick and WUWT for posting this…

  4. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Couldn’t have put it better myself :-)

  5. milodonharlani says:

    This important talk sadly appears poorly attended.

    Thank God (not Gore) for the Internet.

  6. Jim Clarke says:

    “If it disagrees with observation, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it!”

    ‘Nough said.

  7. David, UK says:

    @ milodonharlani: Given how well attended WUWT and other internet forums are, I would say the attendance in the room during the lecture is pretty insignificant.

    Dr Murray is always very compelling. You almost expect him to turn to the alarmists and say: “Go ahead, punks, make my day!” The last 10 mins are so are killer.

  8. David, UK says:

    Oops – Dr Salby, I should have said, of course.

  9. David Riser says:

    A Man of science without a doubt.

  10. Eyal Porat says:

    Strong words of wisdom.

  11. Peter Miller says:

    “If the model’s predictions disagree with actual observations, then the model is wrong.”

    It could not be put simpler than that.

    Just a little something the IPCC modellers refuse to acknowledge.

  12. Rej Gagnon says:

    Great speaker, and impressive finale.

  13. KNR says:

    Its useful to remember that the first rule of climate ‘science’ is that when the models and reality differ in value its reality which is in error .
    Once you can get your head around such ’1984 logic’ it becomes much easer to understand why climate ‘scientists’ talk the way they do.

  14. DCA says:

    Dr Judith Curry had an article about Dr Salby a year or two ago about his then upcomming paper. Was it ever accepted and published?

  15. Don says:

    Dr. Salby appears possess a nice thick sharpened stake. Anyone know of a media hammer heavy enough to drive it home?

  16. Dr. Murry Salby has it right.
    Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels – not humans.

  17. milodonharlani says:

    @David, UK says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:47 am

    I guess it’s remarkable that anyone showed up in a country in which officials speak seriously of revoking the right to free speech for skeptics. A country I might add with a dire history of such suppression with extreme prejudice, so to speak, 1933-45.

  18. Ryan says:

    “If the model’s predictions disagree with actual observations, then the model is wrong.”

    Agreed. Why is he comparing observations to CO2 then?

  19. Russ R. says:

    Two points of criticism relating to the last 10 minutes (which is all I watched).

    1) The chart shown at 1:03:00 comparing CO2 increases and temperature anomalies only shows a large divergence because different scales are used.

    2) The chart shown at 1:04:20 comparing observed CO2 increases vs. “Native Emission” (the increase expected from the integral of temperature) isn’t long enough, and doesn’t have enough variability to conclude that the two are identical.

    I try to apply the same level of skepticism to all arguments I encounter… regardless of whether or not I agree with the conclusion.

  20. Philip Richens says:

    It’s an impressive talk.

    From 2011, the following criticism (last para) from another climate scientist (together with much gloating from other commenters):

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/unforced-variations-aug-2011/comment-page-2/#comment-212401

    This criticism now looks to me invalid because it doesn’t take account of the residence time of CO2, as Salby does.

    Other criticisms:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance

    I don’t know if this is any better founded.

  21. DirkH says:

    milodonharlani says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm
    “@David, UK says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:47 am

    I guess it’s remarkable that anyone showed up in a country in which officials speak seriously of revoking the right to free speech for skeptics. A country I might add with a dire history of such suppression with extreme prejudice, so to speak, 1933-45.”

    Hamburg is the warmist capitol of Germany. I worked there for two years and haven’t met anyone who doubted the warmist dogma; this was after COP 15 / climategate. It is also home to a strictly hard left public broadcaster, the NDR, and to the hard left agitprop front Der Spiegel.

  22. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Excellent presentation with the relationships clearly set down both for short and long timescales. I have referred others to it for their edification.

  23. Stephen Wilde says:

    “If the oceans warm for any reason they will release CO2 into the atmosphere because water holds less CO2 at higher temperatures.”

    From here:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041&linkbox=true&position=2

    Global Warming and Cooling – The Reality by Stephen Wilde
    Wednesday, May 7th 2008, 10:39 AM EDT

    Strange that we have had to wait so long for someone in authority to confirm the obvious.

  24. StanleySteamer says:

    I watched the whole thing and I know that 40 years ago, I understood most all of the math that he uses. It is truly a priviledge to watch someone walk through it who actually know what it means. For the other side, I have long suspected that it was all smoke and mirrors. Dr. Murray Salby takes away their mirrors.

  25. DesertYote says:

    David Riser says:
    June 10, 2013 at 11:02 am

    A Man of science without a doubt.
    ###

    No man of science is without a doubt. :P

  26. milodonharlani says:

    DirkH says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Maybe the turn-out would have been better in Berlin or Munich.

    I would surely hope so.

  27. Russ R. says:

    @ Ryan,

    I agree that Salby should be comparing model projections with observations, but that’s been done before.

    In case you missed it, the models didn’t do so well.

  28. richardM says:

    “….1% whacks the other 99% …” (in reference to CO2 and the factors involved in the global energy balance) and the divergence in 1998 between the model and observations is in my opinion, stunningly obvious.

  29. The Iceman Cometh says:

    Who worries about the turnout? It’s what the man says that matters. And what he says is that those who believe that a teeny weeny 1% factor can wag the whole system are wrong. Now can we please agree to carry Murray’s message to the great unwashed?

  30. Gary Hladik says:

    Dr. Salby concluded that the CO2 variation in ice cores could understate atmospheric variation severalfold. Yet ice cores from our interglacial seem to correspond well both with ice cores from previous interglacials and with atmospheric measurements, i.e. we have no indications of 1,000 ppm CO2 in the Holocene. Presumably there are other atmospheric CO2 proxy measures that could be compared with ice cores from thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago?

    His observation that climate models seem to depend in a simple way on only CO2 reminded me of Willis Eschenbach’s articles here on WUWT. The energy budget diagram with its dependence on water and cloud behavior brought to mind yesterday’s WUWT article on waterworld modeling and the slide presentations linked by Mosher in the comment thread.

    Much food for thought.

  31. JackT says:

    The alarmists will never let the truth get in their way. They are as consistent as the CO2 and rising temperature in their failed models.

  32. clipe says:

    It’s Murry, not Murray.

    Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

  33. Disko Troop says:

    I understand.

    I have come to the conclusion that if someone is explaining the truth it is much easier to understand than someone who is telling lies; or spreading disinformation or propaganda or espousing a belief system . This was obvious when listening to Dr Spencer and then the incoherent babblings of Gavin Schmidt on the same program for example. Whenever I find myself understanding a concept I feel that I am being told the truth. I have no knowledge of climate science or atmospheric physics but I have a deep understanding of logic: I have a finely tuned bullshit meter, and a keen sense of observation, both outside the window and on screen. Good talk, Dr Salby.

  34. JohnC says:

    I have seen a version of the presentation before, but have not seen a published paper although it was discussed previously. If there is a published paper, produce it. Intuitively it seems to me he is on to something, but without a published paper with verifiable data sources, it lacks the needed credibility.

  35. There are three blockbuster papers coming from Professor Salby.

  36. Ryan says:

    “I agree that Salby should be comparing model projections with observations, but that’s been done before.

    In case you missed it, the models didn’t do so well.”

    The Feb model/observation update from realclimate disagrees heartily with you.

  37. Eliza says:

    In 1 hour and 8 minutes this fellow presents REAL climate science as it should have been all along using proxy records and current data. One of the more salient findings is his explanation is the fact that ice cores only reflect a small amount of atmospheric Co2. Implying that during the ice ages atmospheric C02 was much higher. He actuallyfor the firts time, explains how climate worked BEFORE and how it is likely to function now and in the future. This man gives climate science a real possibility as a serious career prospect for younger graduates. Mann et al should be ashamed of themselves. I Think this video really exposes them as quacks who should not be working in this area. Well see if RC even comments on it LOL

  38. Eliza says:

    I would have thought that Lord Monckton who have been intensely interested in this work as it is pure maths LOL.

  39. Owen in GA says:

    The thing about the ice cores wasn’t so much that there may have been 1000ppm CO2 levels missed in the core, but that any high rate of change of CO2 would have been missed. This implies that events which spike CO2 rapidly to say 500ppm which then decay fairly rapidly back to whatever baseline would be entirely not in evidence in the cores.

    I also like the graph showing that the temperature integral seems to line up better with the CO2 measurements then trying to force temperature to relate to CO2 like the models do. It made more sense to me anyway.

  40. Greg Goodman says:

    Very nice explanation of how the very different geological time scale changes and recent rapid changes all fit together within the same model. The time constant of non conservative processes being the factor that distinguishes the two very different responses and phase relationships.

    Also the explanation of dC13 ratio was very useful.

    The only bit that did not ring true for me was the claim that ice core records underestimate CO2 by a factor of 15 at 100ka scale. I think if you followed that back to 1 million or 10 million years it would imply physically impossible levels of CO2. The numbers are getting to big too quickly.

    The general argument and equations explaining how diffusion would cause an underestimation seem sound though.

    Very interesting talk.

  41. commieBob says:

    Forgive me if I misunderstand:

    Dr. Salby makes much of the diffusion of CO2 in the ice column. He seems to treat the proxy temperature as though it doesn’t suffer from the same effect.

    Around 05:00 he refers to:

    proxy temperature inferred from isotopic oxygen

    If anything, I would guess that oxygen would diffuse faster than CO2. I don’t think that affects his conclusions. I wonder if some of his analysis is superfluous though.

    Dr. Salby spends a lot of time talking about Fourier analysis and makes a big deal of the fact that observed CO2 and temperature evolve in quadrature. (12:35) He spends a long time explaining why the proxy record does not exhibit this quadrature relationship. As far as I can tell, this part of the analysis is a waste of effort.

    Given two waveforms that closely resemble each other, except perhaps for a time lag, I will assume that there is no phase distortion (see also) between the two. A quadrature relationship between any of the frequency components will be a coincidence. If many of the frequency components of the two signals are in quadrature, this phase distortion will have the result that the waveforms will not resemble each other.

    While the instrumental record CO2 looks like the integral of temperature, the same isn’t true of the proxy CO2. Using diffusion to explain the difference really doesn’t work. The two waveforms are too similar to say that one is the integral of the other.

    Dr. Briggs, are you in the house?

  42. JM VanWinkle says:

    So, CO2 is the dependent variable (not cause) in both instrument and proxy records and the dependence of CO2 is on the integral of temperature. Then based on his analysis, which looked good to me, CO2 as a driver is unimportant. The inference then is that the temperature and CO2 variations in modern times are both natural and not anthropogenic. (if CO2 tracks the integral of temperature, the reverse of causation would be that CO2 was the independent variable and then temperature would have to depend on the derivative of CO2, which implies some unknown physical mechanism).

    What then is driving temperature, and, moreover, driving it in such a way of producing a nice monotonic CO2 rise?

    I wonder if Dr. Lindzen has seen this presentation?

  43. Michael Cohen says:

    http://www.climatescience.cam.ac.uk/community/file/download/843

    Eric Wolff does not accept Salby’s analysis. Anyone else have time to read this?

  44. Gary Hladik says:

    Owen in GA says (June 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm): “The thing about the ice cores wasn’t so much that there may have been 1000ppm CO2 levels missed in the core, but that any high rate of change of CO2 would have been missed.”

    Ah, thanks, that makes more sense.

  45. David Wright says:

    A natural teacher and communicator. An absolute mastery of his subject combined with a finely judged use of the measured pause and the killer fact. Anyone who has been taught by Professor Salby is a very lucky person indeed

  46. Stephen Wilde says:

    Dr Salby confirms as follows:

    i) The ice core record is too coarse to accurately reflect natural short term variability in atmospheric CO2. It appears to be far larger than generally supposed.

    ii) There are potential natural sources of low C13 CO2 which are capable of confounding the isotope based diagnosis. I have suggested that one such may be decomposing organic material in the oceans just as decomposing organic matter on land is low in C13.

    iii) CO2 involves only a tiny fraction of the energy absorbed by an atmosphere. I think he understates the role of mass in the presentation but impliedly acknowledges it when he refers to conduction and convection.

    iv) The potential variability of the speed of conduction and convection would provide a negative system response.

    All of those points are confirm my comments here and elsewhere over the years.

    The next step is to get a grip on the way the climate system changes when the effects of forcing elements other than mass, gravity and ToA insolation occur (primarily variations in atmospheric composition) and I think I have given plausible mechanisms in that regard.

    The ultimate truth must be that atmospheric composition changes, including radiative ability of constituent molecules will only ever result in circulation changes which would eventually return the system to the initial equilibrium set by mass, gravity and insolation if everything else remained equal.

    The key to that is climate zone shifting and changes in jet stream behaviour.

    The key diagnostic indicator as to whether the system is gaining energy or losing energy at any given time is global cloudiness and albedo.

  47. jjs says:

    I wonder if Dr Salby would be willing to debate al gore on live TV :) I would like to see al’s head explode….what a gory mess it would be.

    Thanks Dr Salby for all that you do. Along with Dr Spencer and now Dr Salby, I may be starting to gain faith in science again.

  48. Russ R. says:

    @ Ryan:

    “The Feb model/observation update from realclimate disagrees heartily with you.”

    I assume you are referring to this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/

    They present 5 charts that show the following:

    1) Climate models are much better at hindcasting than forecasting.
    2) Climate scientists would rather show adjusted data than actual data,
    3) The models got the direction of Ocean Heat Content right, but “If the models were to be simply extrapolated, they would lie above the observations”.
    4) Models failed spectacularly to either hindcast or forecast the rate of acrtic ice melt.
    5) The world has warmed less than Hansen et al (1988) Scenario C, despite GHG emissions and concentrations that have risen faster than Scenario B.

  49. Jimbo says:

    If he is right or mostly right then climate scientists have been grappling with the age old chicken or the egg question. We have been coming out of the Little Ice Age since the 19th century and there was a sharpish, mostly ‘natural’ warming between 1910 to 1940 (under the safe co2 level).

  50. Jimbo says:

    Dr. James Hansen on the climate models. 16 May 2013, assuming it’s a correct transcript.

    UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
    To be published as HC 60-i

    Q 12 Peter Aldous: Do you feel that climate feedbacks are adequately understood and factored into climate models?

    Professor Hansen: No. For example, one of the feedbacks is that as the planet gets warmer you melt ice. The Arctic sea ice is melting faster than the climate models indicated. The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate….
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/uc60-i/uc6001.htm

    But they can tell us the temperature of planet Water in 2100.

  51. Bart says:

    Philip Richens says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    “I don’t know if this is any better founded.”

    It has no foundation whatsoever. Ferdinand basically assumes the sinks are constant, and do not vary in response to the amount of CO2 in the system. Only in such a static situation is his “mass balance” argument applicable.

    But, that is not the case. Plants grow faster with increased CO2. Minerals weather faster and absorb more CO2. The oceans dissolve more with increased partial pressure. It is a dynamic feedback system. Static analysis is not applicable.

    While one can say that Nature is an overall sink, there is no way to determine on the basis of that information alone that it would still remain a sink if the anthropogenic input were taken away. This is because the sinks themselves grow in response to those anthropogenic inputs, and would shrink back down if the anthropogenic inputs were taken away.

    It is a classic feedback action. Really, very elementary.

  52. Mike Rossander says:

    Russ R. at 12:16 pm above offers two criticisms based on watching the final 10 min of the video. I assume this was based on Anthony’s recommendation for that section of the video. I think that was a mistake and urge you to watch the whole video. Salby addresses those issues in detail earlier in the video.

  53. Bart says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:04 am

    I went to your page, but I cannot seem to leave a comment. Your first poster is off base. That is not a plot of temperature and CO2, but of temperature and the rate of change of CO2, as the formula above it indicates.

  54. Matthew R Marler says:

    It’s a good video. Thanks for linking to it.

  55. John West says:

    Well, if he’s right about the atmospheric CO2 concentration being proportional to the integral of the temperature then perhaps Beck was right all along. It certainly makes sense (Henry’s Law) but I’m hardly convinced. The only way I see out of this alarm driven nightmare is for CO2 concentration to decline. There will always be some excuse or other “manifestation” of warming to invoke and of course ocean acidification to keep demonizing the use of fossil fuels.

  56. TomRude says:

    Impressive and implaccable logic.

  57. Maxbert says:

    Should be required viewing for all members of Congress. They wouldn’t understand the math, of course (they can’t even do budget arithmetic), but they might still get the point.

  58. TomRude says:

    Now compare Salby’s contribution to science to this:

    “3. Global Warming

    If you are worried about global warming and its effects globally and locally, coal trains are a bad idea. The proposed export volumes are huge: roughly 15% of the total coal usage of China. We will be a participant and contributor to a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. It is nice to drive our hybrids and use wind energy. The coal trains will compensate (in a bad way) for all our sacrifices and investments.”

    LOL Now name the author of this gem… ;-)

  59. After watching this video, I have to conclude that the science indeed is settled. CO2 has been found innocent and is free to leave the court.

  60. Streetcred says:

    Ryan says | June 10, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    “The Feb model/observation update from realclimate disagrees heartily with you.”
    —————-

    Is that before or after the hindcast corrections ? Undergraduate ?

    Refer to the segment where Dr Salby discusses model hindcasting … hindcasting is of no consequence, only forecasting. Now show us where the forecasts have accurately foretold the unadulterated observations.

  61. commieBob says:

    Michael Cohen says:
    June 10, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    http://www.climatescience.cam.ac.uk/community/file/download/843

    Eric Wolff does not accept Salby’s analysis. Anyone else have time to read this?

    Wolff doesn’t like that Salby says the ice core data loses its resolution because of gas diffusion. Wolff presents evidence that even old data can be resolved within 50 years.

    The ice core data contradicts Salby’s hypothesis that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a function of the integral of temperature. Even if we do allow that the proxy record is smeared because of diffusion, there’s no way the proxy CO2 behaves as a function of the integral of proxy temperature.

    I think Dr. Salby is wasting his time with the ‘diffusion’ thing. He should be able to find a low pass filter whose output fits both the proxy and instrument data. A first order filter with a time constant in the order of decades would be my initial guess.

  62. jorgekafkazar says:

    Marvellous talk. Judging from the number of warmist nay-sayers here, it’s devastating.

  63. Bart says:

    commieBob says:
    June 10, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    “The ice core data contradicts Salby’s hypothesis that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a function of the integral of temperature. “

    No, because it is the scaled integral of temperature anomaly, and neither the baseline for the anomaly nor the proportionality factor are necessarily constant in time. However, they may be modeled as such over finite durations to achieve an approximate system model within the neighborhood of a given operating condition.

    This is basic linearization theory for control systems, and successful applications are vast beyond description.

    I will give you an example of how such a process might come about. Suppose that a CO2 rich mass of waters from the thermohaline circulation starts upwelling in the tropics. Those cold waters start to heat up at the surface and release their CO2. If downwelling waters at the poles do not carry down as much CO2 as is being pumped into the surface system by the upwelling waters, then CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere. Since the rate at which it accumulates is proportional to temperature, this produces a relationship of the form

    dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)

    where dCO2/dt is the derivative or rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere, k is the proportionality factor, and Teq is an equilibrium temperature such that, if surface temperatures were to fall to it, the upwelling waters would no longer outgas their contents. This is precisely the relationship we see in the data. The solution of the above differential equations is, of course,

    CO2(t) = CO2(0) + integral( k*(T – Teq) from 0 to t )

    Now, several decades later, the upwelling waters become less CO2 enriched. The value of k decreases, and the temperature Teq needed to reestablish equilibrium drops. Thus, a new operating regime has been entered, and the parameters needed to accurately model what is happening have changed with it.

    The upwelling waters in the thermohaline pipeline have been charting their course for centuries. Their CO2 concentration is dependent on what it was at the time they originally downwelled, as well as any other processes they endured during their multi-century trek. There is no reason at all to expect that they would be homogeneous in content from one end of the pipeline to the other, any more than you would expect the flow of the Nile to be uniform over centuries. Properties change over time, and especially over the immense expanses of time characteristic of ocean circulation.

  64. willhaas says:

    This adds to the idea that there is no evidence that CO2 effects climate. It is hard for me to believe that man is not having a significant effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere but it does not seem to matter. The idea that CO2 spikes as well as temperature spikes in proxy data is low pass filtered out is well taken so there may have been CO2 changes in the past like we are seeing today and in the past man could have not possible been the cause. If CO2 levels in general do not effect climate then Man’s contribution cannot either. I have always contended that the IPCC computer models just beg the question and this article seems to support that idea. You hard code in that increased CO2 levels add heat so that is what your simulation results show. It has nothing to do with reality. Besides observations, I have a line of physical reasoning that supports the idea that CO2 does not effect climate but unfortunately I do not believe that what I have constitutes a “smoking gun” against the idea of human caused climate change. This article helps but I am still looking for it.

  65. Martin Lewitt says:

    Michael Cohen says:
    June 10, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    http://www.climatescience.cam.ac.uk/community/file/download/843

    Eric Wolff does not accept Salby’s analysis. Anyone else have time to read this?

    Wolff’s defense of the ice core concentration data seems credible. He doesn’t contradict Salby’s arguments about lack of data on the concentration dependent responses and carbon isotope concentrations of CO2 sinks.

  66. David Riser says:

    As far as the CO2 debate goes, Dr. Selby went into great detail concerning mathematical issue’s between old ice core proxy (I use proxy since the comparison is between icebound CO2 and atmospheric not necessarily the same thing) new ice core and actual observation. If you watch the entire presentation and have a decent grasp of math, what he says makes perfect sense. He is careful to not try and calculate actual amounts just notes that it is under represented which makes a logical sense considering we are talking ice, which has a tendancy to keep the local surface area to a bounded upper temperature, the CO2 observations have a huge annual variation, all which would tend to limit the moment to moment capture of the CO2.
    The interesting thing will be then next 10-20 years if the CO2 in atmosphere follows the integral of the temp we may see a leveling then a decrease in CO2 concentrations.

  67. deklein says:

    It’s good to hear a skeptic’s presentation delivered using a competent sound recording system. Heartland’s presentations were poorly edited and recorded, and every Lindzen presentation I’ve heard appears to have been recorded using a horn and a wax cylinder.

  68. Edim says:

    It’s the annual temperature cycle that causes the change in atmospheric CO2 (net emission). The cycle is a CO2 pump, whose flow is temperature dependent. At sufficiently low temperatures the flow is zero and negative.

  69. Allan MacRae says:

    I discovered the close relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature in late 2007 and in January 2008 I published the paper below at:
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

    I concluded that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature and its integral CO2 lags LT temperature by ~9 months.

    I summarized as follows:
    “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. This UPDATED paper and Excel spreadsheet 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.”

    When I wrote this conclusion I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate.

    Initially, this relationship (dCO2/dt varies with T and CO2 lags T by 9 months) was deemed incorrect.

    Then it was accepted as valid by some on the warmist side of this debate, but dismissed as a “feedback”.

    This “feedback argument” appears to be a “cargo cult” rationalization, derived as follows:
    “We KNOW that CO2 drives Temperature, therefore it MUST BE a feedback.”

    My “climate heresy” is now gaining some traction.

    Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.

    Regards, Allan

    Note that the above paper was written ~3 years before Murry Salby’s first address to the Sydney Institute in 2011.

  70. William McClenney says:

    So well worth the time, Dr. Salby! I thoroughly enjoyed that.

  71. Konrad says:

    Dr. Salby has shown that temperature drives CO2 concentrations, and that models that assume the opposite must fail.

    Dr. Spencer has shown that 73 climate models that assume CO2 concentration drives temperature have indeed failed.

    It is not just the AGW hypothesis that must be questioned, but also the radiative GHE hypothesis. Many sceptics and AGW believers accept the radiative GHE hypothesis, yet just like the AGW hypothesis, it remains unproven. Is there a case for claiming that the net effect of radiative gases is cooling?

    Dr. Salby raises an important point toward the end of his presentation. He states that the mechanical energy transfer from the surface to atmosphere through conduction and convection is two orders of magnitude greater than any expected CO2 warming effect.

    The slightest increase in mechanical energy transfer could therefore offset any radiative warming of the lower atmosphere by CO2.

    Radiative gases are critical to convective circulation in the troposphere. They add to heating of the lower atmosphere and allow radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere. Adding energy low in a moving gas atmosphere while removing it at altitude drives convective circulation. The speed and strength of tropospheric convective circulation is dependant of the concentration of radiative gases.

    To calculate the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere, the role of radiative gases in driving mechanical energy transfer must be solved simultaneously with the change in direct radiative flux. Does the “basic physics” of the “settled science” do this correctly? The answer is clearly no.

  72. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad.

    Although you get much right it cannot be right that GHGs are necessary for convective overturning to occur.

    One doesn’t need to add energy at the bottom AND remove it at the top to create overturning.

    All one needs is for pressure (and density) to reduce with height so that KE is converted to PE as one goes higher.

    The conversion of KE to PE with height produces a temperature decline because PE does not register as heat.

    The only two factors needed to provoke convective overturning are a pressure decline with height and surface heating and both are present in a non GHG atmosphere.

  73. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad said:

    “The speed and strength of tropospheric convective circulation is dependant of the concentration of radiative gases.”

    It is dependent on the pressure decline with height plus the strength and unevenness of surface heating.

    Whatever net effect that radiative gases might have (if any) is offset be an equal and opposite change in the speed and strength of the convective circulation.

    If GHGs reduce energy loss to space the convective circulation will have to work harder and if they increase energy loss to space the convective circulation will work less hard.

    That negative system response ensures that planets can retain their atmospheres whatever the compositional variations within an atmosphere.

    ALL compositional variations including radiative characteristics have their thermal effects cancelled by changes in the convective circulation.

    If it were not so then atmospheres could not be retained in the long term.

  74. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bart said:

    “The upwelling waters in the thermohaline pipeline have been charting their course for centuries. Their CO2 concentration is dependent on what it was at the time they originally downwelled, as well as any other processes they endured during their multi-century trek”

    I have been making that point for years.

  75. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 10, 2013 at 11:33 pm
    —————————————————————————-
    Prior to the AGW inanity, it was accepted that radiative gases were critical for convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and polar tropospheric circulation cells. A link to the pre AGW science is here -
    http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
    “…As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence..”

    Dr. Spencer describes what would happen to atmospheric circulation without radiative gases -
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
    “…Only the surface and a shallow layer of air next to the surface would go through a day-night cycle of heating and cooling. The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature. And without a falloff of temperature with height in the atmosphere of at least 10 deg. C per kilometer, all atmospheric convection would stop…”

    Most of Dr. Spencer’s analysis appears correct, however on the basis of empirical experiment, I challenge the claim “ The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature. My finding is that surface Tmax rather than surface Tav would the the driver of the resulting isothermal temperature of an atmosphere in which convective circulation is stalled. This means that an atmosphere without radiative gases would be far hotter than our current atmosphere.

    “..it cannot be right that GHGs are necessary for convective overturning to occur.
    One doesn’t need to add energy at the bottom AND remove it at the top to create overturning.”

    I urge you to build and run Experiment 4 -
    http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg
    With sufficient measurement points you should achieve the resulting temperature and circulation pattern -
    http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6

    I believe you are confusing adiabatic processes with diabatic processes. Pneumatic temperature changes and PE/KE changes in rising and descending airmasses are adiabatic processes. These have no effect on convective circulation as they do not alter the buoyancy of an airmass. What is needed for overturning and subsidence in tropospheric convection cells is diabatic energy loss at altitude. Radiative gases are the only mechanism for this in our atmosphere.

  76. BioBob says:

    We do not know much about the magnitude of natural sources and sinks of CO2 but we know enough to understand that temperature controls the RATES of both biotic and physical chemical processes.

    This relationship is the probable cause of seasonal and multiyear planetary CO2 variability not resulting from black swan events discussed by Dr. Salby.

    Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are largely controlled by life on earth or we would not have 21% Oxygen versus .04% CO2. It’s that simple. Photosynthesis versus respiration as life “breathes”. Or did you think all that oxygen came out of Al Gore’s ass ?

    AGW, Global Thermageddon, Climate Disruption, etc is and always has been so much bull$hit.

  77. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad said:

    “What is needed for overturning and subsidence in tropospheric convection cells is diabatic energy loss at altitude”.

    Diabatic energy gain to and loss from the surface is enough. You don’t need energy loss to occur at altitude for convective overturning to be present.

    A decline in pressure with height reduces both density and temperature even in a non GHG atmosphere.

    If there is diabatic loss at altitude such as when GHGs radiate to space (or any gases to some degree for that matter) then the diabatic energy loss from the surface need not be so strong and the circulation slows down.

    ToA radiative balance is maintained by the circulation changing speed to balance surface diabatic loss with ToA diabatic loss.

    It is the speed of the adiabatic convective overturning that takes energy from the surface and returns it to the surface so as to maintain the balance whatever the composition of the atmosphere happens to be.

    Better not get too far off topic on this :)

  78. Kasuha says:

    The hour spent on listening to the presentation was definitely one of the most interesting hours I have ever spent on the topic. But if I consider things carefully, I still see some inaccuracies and weak points.
    What he presents and more or less proves is the fact that CO2 is driven by temperature way more than temperature is driven by CO2. I agree with that. When we go to the part calculating the CO2 change however, human emission stop being as negligible as they were in the energy budget calculation. It is rather likely that if human emissions weren’t there, the CO2 would be actually declining with about the same slope it is now increasing. Because as long as the change is caused by imbalance between natural sources and sinks – imbalance driven by temperature – humans with their comparably tiny contribution have still successfully changed the imbalance to the exactly opposite direction.
    If he’s right, we probably don’t have to care about temperature. But we may still need to care about CO2. Not exactly to get rid of it, but to figure out and maintain level which is beneficial for us.

  79. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 11, 2013 at 1:41 am
    “Better not get too far off topic on this :)”
    —————————————————————-
    Perhaps for the best. But I would ask you to consider the difference between overturning and layering-
    http://i45.tinypic.com/29koww6.jpg
    Inertia and entrainment only work at small scale.

    However, the important point is this, the foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis is that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is warming. Few sceptics understand that this remains an unproven hypothesis.

  80. Myrrh says:

    Konrad says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    It is not just the AGW hypothesis that must be questioned, but also the radiative GHE hypothesis. Many sceptics and AGW believers accept the radiative GHE hypothesis, yet just like the AGW hypothesis, it remains unproven. Is there a case for claiming that the net effect of radiative gases is cooling?

    Dr. Salby raises an important point toward the end of his presentation. He states that the mechanical energy transfer from the surface to atmosphere through conduction and convection is two orders of magnitude greater than any expected CO2 warming effect.

    The real problem here is that Dr Salby and ilk do not understand that the AGW GHE does not have conduction and convection, and those supporting the AGW GHE do not understand the arguments bringing in conduction and convection because they don’t have it, because their gases are not real, but the ideal gas. Their ideal gases are a theoretical fiction turned into a fantasy world and it is this they pass off as if the real world, in ignorance that this was fraudulently created by person/persons unknown, to me, but who understand real physics as still taught in up to date traditional science and have manipulated it by sleight of hand changes by misappropriating its terms, to create a world that doesn’t exist.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect is impossible in the real world.

    As every meteorologist should know, who is expected to understand how we get our winds and weather from expanding and condensing real gas molecules of our mainly nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, which changes their weight under gravity creating areas of low and high pressure. Who should know that heat is transferred by convection in this as the real gases expand and become lighter than air taking away heat from the surface and then cooling condense becoming heavier than air forming high pressure volumes and so sinking back to the surface, flowing beneath the areas of low pressure hotter volumes at the surface. These are called winds, which are volumes of air on the move, convection currents.

    Hot air rise cold air sinks. Winds flow from high to low. Basic bog standard meteorolgy of real gases with individual volumes which expand and contract, real gases with mass under the pulling power of gravity which gives them weight relative to each other.

    The standard air against which the mass of gas molecules are measured, water vapour and methane lighter than air and carbon dioxide one and half times heavier. Lighter than air gases always rise in air, heavier than air gases always sink, spontaneously, it takes work to change this direction just as it takes work to change the direction of heat flow which is always from hotter to colder. This is a Law of Nature. It is never seen to be broken, not in nature and not in any industry utilising heat transfer by conduction and convection. The industrial revolution was built on the 2nd Law in which there is no fake fisics “net”. There is no GHE of “backradiation of heat from colder atmosphere to warmer Earth”.

    AGW’s The Greenhouse Effect is an illusion built on changing the properties of real condensable gases with mass, volume, attraction, relative weight under gravity comprising our heavy fluid ocean of gas which is our atmosphere, and replacing this with the theoretical fiction Ideal gas in empty space in an imaginary invisible container which does not exist.

    The AGWScienceFiction’s world does not have an atmosphere. How can it then have conduction and convection?

    The sooner all arguing about this realise that these are completely different viewpoints, completely different concepts of the world around us, the sooner we can begin untangling the damn mess that the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion has got us into.

    Ideal gas has no mass, therefore nothing for gravity to work on so it has no weight which gravity gives, it is not subject to gravity and so does not separate out by weight ; it has no volume, therefore nothing to individually expand and condense; it has no attraction, because ideal gas has only elastic collisions. Ideal gas is hard dots of massless nothing so empty space.

    This ideal gas cannot be called by the names of real gases such as nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide, which have all these properties.

    The AGWScienceFiction fisics has exchanged real gases for ideal in their fantasy world.

    The AGWScienceFictions fakenitrogen, fakeoxygen, fakecarbondioxide, are “massless hard dots of nothing travelling at great speeds through empty space under their own molecular momentum miles apart from each other, bumping off the sides of the container and each other in elastic collisions so thoroughly mixing.” – real gas nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide are not this.

    Our real world gases have volume, there is not empty space between them.

    Our real gases are impeded by the volume of the other real gases surrounding them.

    That’s how we get sound.

    We do not get sound in the empty space of the AGW ideal gas scenario..

    Our real gas atmosphere is a heavy fluid, gases and liquids are fluids, which weighs a stone on every square inch, a ton on our shoulders. Our atmosphere is not empty space but a heavy ocean of real gas with individual volumes which expand when heated and condense when cooled.

    This makes them lighter or heavier than air and those lighter will rise and those heavier will sink.

    Gravity’s force, its pulling power, acts on the mass of the individual gases and it is reduced the further away from the surface the gas which means there is less condensing pressure on the individual molecule, from gravity’s pull to the surface and from the weight of the other gases around it squashing it. Real gases under pressure condense, as the pressure lessens they expand.

    So, there are two ways for real gases to expand and condense, relative pressure from gravity’s pull and weight of the individual volumes of gases around them, and heating and cooling.

    Both are in constant play in our real gas fluid atmosphere.

    As a base all the real gases expand in volume the further they are away from the surface and condense the closer they are to the surface under the pull of gravity.

    This is the basic scenario of the lapse rate in which temperature decreases in known degrees per feet away from the surface, because the real gases have individual volumes which expand and condense under gravity.

    As they expand they take up more room – be careful here, you will not often see it said like that, but said “they get further away from each other” which gives the wrong impression of what is physically happening, implying there is empty space between them..

    For example, in liquid form the number of water molecules in a given volume on expanding will take up 1000 times more space as water vapour.

    As water vapour expands its volume increases taking up much more space and so the weight of the individual molecules of water are spread over a greater area, this is what gives us our low pressure areas.

    Low pressure areas are simply that, expanded gases of air and water weighing less heavily on us because their weight is spread over a greater area.

    So conversely, high pressure areas are where the gases are condensed so taking up less room so more of them in the same space, the combined weight now pressing down more heavily on us.

    AGWScienceFicition fisics does not have this. They do not have any atmosphere at all, they have replaced all this with empty space for their radiation claims.

    Not only does our bulk nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere of real gases act a blanket because real gases with individual volume under gravity, but they also play their part in convecting heat away from the surface as does water.

    Water in evaporation and with its high heat capacity taking away heat from the surface to the colder heights where it releases its heat and condenses back to liquid water and ice, coming down in cold precipitation, which, is also taking out all the carbon dioxide around it because it and carbon dioxide are attracted to each other forming carbonic acid – all natural unpolluted rain has a pH of 5.6-8 from its carbonic acid content.

    AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect has taken out the Water Cycle, it has no rain in is Carbon Cycle.

    This is where AGWSF has created its sleight of hand by taking out the natural real gas cooling of our atmosphere by all gases, which means that they have changed the meaning of “greenhouse”, which real world greenhouses both warm and cool, and in warming, have given the thermal blanket effect of the whole atmosphere under gravity to the trace gas which they fraudulently call carbon dioxide..

    All our real gases which comprise the our atmosphere are greenhouse gases.

    This is the base science fraud here, note it well -

    There is no AGW Greenhouse Effect of “33°C warming by their version of greenhouse gases from the -18°C”, because that figure is from real physics and it refers to the Earth without any of its real gas atmosphere. The comparison is with the Moon. Which has no atmosphere. All the Venus arguments are a distraction from this..

    Here, you can see what they’ve done in their science fraud by the real world physics of our real gas atmosphere:

    Temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all: -18°C.

    (Compare with the Moon’s -23°C.)

    Temperature of the Earth without water, think deserts, but with the rest of the real gas atmosphere in place which is practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen: 67°C.

    That’s what you call a thermal blanket!

    From -18°C to 67°C from the bulk of our real gas atmosphere which is nitrogen and oxygen.

    This is the difference between the Moon without an atmosphere and our Earth with its thermal blanket of nitrogen and oxygen, we avoid the extreme swings into cold of the Moon.

    But note, our great nitrogen and oxygen real greenhouse gases are also preventing us going into the extremes of heat of the Moon.

    Because they also take heat away from the surface of the Earth by convection.

    “When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C).”

    The convective power of heat transfer by oxygen and nitrogen brings that down to 67°C on our Earth.

    Now, this is just with the heat capacity of nitrogen and oxygen, when we add water back into our real gas atmosphere with water’s really big heat capacity, that 67°C is further reduced – to our goldilocks 15°C.

    So, bearing all this in mind, here’s what you ought to be comparing with, the Moon: http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html

    I’m sure you can see now where their AGWSF sleights of hand have created the illusion that there is “33°C warming” by their greenhouse gases, there is no mechanism for that..

    They have misattributed the -18°C and have taken out the whole real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen and water to create that illusion.

    From within which world are all of you arguing about this? Completely in the real of up to date physics as still taught traditionally, or completely in the fictional AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect word?

    From what I’ve seen of the arguments it is usually a mixture because the fake fisics memes produced by this scam were introduced into the general education system some decades ago and its basic memes taken as if real by those not specialising in the relevant fields.

    Hence all the confusion..

  81. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad said:

    “Perhaps for the best. But I would ask you to consider the difference between overturning and layering-
    http://i45.tinypic.com/29koww6.jpg

    Perhaps they should be labelled “with convection” and “without convection” ?

    There will be convection regardless of whether GHGs are present.

  82. Stephen Wilde says:

    The only objections put up by AGW proponents so far all seem to miss the point.

    Dr Salby demonstrates mathematically that it is his interpretation of the real world that fits observations whereas the assumptions of the AGW theory do not.

  83. alex says:

    Not bad, but a few caveats.

    The main one: the atmosphere CO2 is not first order equation.
    IPCC finds some 7(!) decay scales (that I also don´t trust), but certainly there are more than one decay scale and the equations is higher order.

  84. KenB says:

    Kasuha
    Without geting too far into the climate intricate mechanisms, it seems that professor Murry Salby is both well qualified as an atmospheric scientist, with a number of important publications to his credit and obviously more to come once the gatekeepers of so called “peer review” can’t find anything else to delay his papers/book publication. The important thing is, can we now with confidence, adapt to whatever climate serves up to us in the future. Seems from his talk that if we accept that C02 is NOT a driver of temperature, we should be able to avoid having to alter our economies dramatically to control a rather non event, due to guesswork and substandard model projections based on past guesswork.

    As an Australian I find it rather strange that our present government has relied on/or stacked its Climate Commission with either poorly qualified or not qualified in this field of science, activist CAGW promoters when they have available to them Professor Salby as chair of climate at an Australian University, and one might think the government would wish to make use of his expertise in that exact field.

    In the same way it is hard to understand why the Australian Broadcasting Commission, a taxpaper funded but independent broadcaster, whose charter is to provide a balanced media presentation to the Australian public (and under fire from other media for its almost total left wing biased reporting) hasn’t found time to ask Professor Murry Salby (or any other well qualified Australian sceptical climate scientists) to present such an alternative view, preferring the rather wild pronouncements by their Climate Commissioners, or failing to insist that those well qualified but sceptical scientists replace some of the Australian representatives that are also not specifically qualified in climate science, but often make pronouncements based solely on their authority conferred by participating as our “official” representatives at the IPCC. and enhanced recipients of much government funding and research dollars.?

    These self proclaimed “Climatologists” get instant media coverage (no credible alternative view permitted sir) as long as they support the political view of the present government that CO2 is framed as “dirty carbon” and so evil because it is driving temperature upward, to absolutely cause disaster and necessitating the most draconian economic reversal and taxation, driving up prices, adding to the taxation burden of ordinary australians.

    But even though this is hurting people now, costing jobs, why oh why doesn;t the Media and the ABC find equal time to present science instead of social twitterings, like that of unqualified people like Bill McKibben and others of similar backgrounds that get the red carpet treatment and a forum to spout their nonsense?.

    I am sure that Professor Salby, Bob Tisdale, and a host of other well qualified people would be willing to debate IPCC scientists, Climate Commissioners and the stream of unqualified CAGW believers who keep the faith.

    It is a travesty of justice the Australian public suffer from the stream of propaganda and science itself suffers as truth is silenced and available experts ignored.

  85. johnmarshall says:

    He was doing quite well until the last 10mins. How he got the insolation so wrong I do not know. TOA radiation is 1370W/m2, it can be measured, it has been measured! his model was the familiar K&T flat earth which does not bare any relationship with reality. Surface insolation is 1000W/m2, measured in the zenith position which averages over a sunlit hemisphere as 500W/m2.
    He started out well but failed at the post.

  86. alex says:

    johnmarshall says:
    June 11, 2013 at 3:39 am
    He was doing quite well until the last 10mins. How he got the insolation so wrong I do not know. TOA radiation is 1370W/m2, it can be measured, it has been measured! his model was the familiar K&T flat earth which does not bare any relationship with reality. Surface insolation is 1000W/m2, measured in the zenith position which averages over a sunlit hemisphere as 500W/m2.
    He started out well but failed at the post.

    ————————————-

    1370W/m2 is peak TOA radiation.
    Now you have to average it over the globe (including the angle of incidence!) and including the night side.

    Only then you get his (correct!) number.

  87. alex says:

    Area of a disk Sd=pi*R^2
    Globe area Sg=4*pi*R^2
    —————————-
    Average insolation per 1m2 of the globe is 1370*(Sd/Sg)=1370/4 = 342.5 W/m2
    or so.

  88. Chris Wright says:

    An absolutely superb presentation.
    For most of my life as a climate sceptic I have assumed that the increase in CO2 was entirely man-made. Now I find myself less and less certain.

    I believe it was thought that temperature did indeed drive CO2, but with a lag of around 800 years. This was due to the oceans releasing CO2 as they warmed, and the 800 years lag was due to the vast bulk of the oceans.

    However, I believe he didn’t mention this mechanism. It seems that, as temperatures rise, life becomes more active and prolific and, as a result, emits more CO2. Unlike the oceans, this will have a very small lag.

    Basically, it means all bets are off. It’s been totally obvious that the warming was primarily natural, and not driven by CO2. Now it seems a serious possibility that the increase in CO2 itself was also natural.

    We live in interesting times….
    Chris

  89. Peter Wilson says:

    In August 2011, Gavin gave this reply to a question about Salby on RealClimate. He implies Dr Salby is a little out of his field and out of date, and that his analysis implies much greater changes in CO2 during the ice ages. Dr Salby’s CV seems to make the first claim a little absurd, I’d be interested in a learned response to the second claim

    [Response: To a large degree being a scientist is all about correctly judging (most of the time) what is and what is not a fruitful line of research. Statistical reworkings of data has been available for years and which are well explained by our standard understanding, do not fall into the category of something that is going radically going to change our understanding. It is far more likely that someone a little out of their field, who isn't up to date, and has made the (very common) mistake of over-interpreting their statistics. The question to be asked in such circumstances is what would be implied if the conclusion was correct? In this case, it would imply radically bigger changes of co2 during the ice ages, some completely unknown source of carbon that dominates all others. This would be extraordinary, and would require far more than a few correlations to demonstrate to anyone else's satisfaction. I very much doubt you will see this 'play out' in the literature over the next few years. - gavin]

  90. Graham W says:

    Alex says:

    “Now you have to average it over the globe (including the angle of incidence!) and including the night side.”

    Why, though? Why not consider the energy budget, instead of globally-averaged, as at a fixed point on the Earth’s surface during peak TOA radiation. Then consider it again at this fixed location when the sun is setting or rising. Then again in the middle of the night. And repeat these budgets for various latitudes…so you can start to build up a picture of the overall Earth’s energy budget but as a globe rather than a disk, and more in real-time rather than ignoring the difference between night and day. Perhaps the idea of the energy budget you would end up with would be very different than the one based on averaging everything out.

  91. Edim says:

    The ~800 years lag (in average) is very likely an artifact, just like the absolute gas concentrations.

  92. alex says:

    Graham W says:
    June 11, 2013 at 4:31 am
    Alex says:

    Why, though? Why not consider the energy budget, instead of globally-averaged, as at a fixed point on the Earth’s surface during peak TOA radiation. Then consider it again at this fixed location when the sun is setting or rising. Then again in the middle of the night. And repeat these budgets for various latitudes…so you can start to build up a picture of the overall Earth’s energy budget but as a globe rather than a disk, and more in real-time rather than ignoring the difference between night and day. Perhaps the idea of the energy budget you would end up with would be very different than the one based on averaging everything out.
    ————————————-

    You must take the energy flux from the Sun within the Earth cross-section – that is a disk.
    The Earth surface is however a globe. It is 4x larger than that of disk.

  93. Graham W says:

    Alex says:

    “You must take the energy flux from the Sun within the Earth cross-section”

    Why is that though, excuse my ignorance?

  94. Solomon Green says:

    I found the talk riveting and most of the comments equally thought-provoking but, slightly off-topic a very naive question, why do so many commentators equate AGW with human release of CO2? Surely humans can increase temperatures, both locally and globally, without necessarily increasing CO2 levels? Can we not copy KenB’s terminology and distinguish between AGW and CAGW?

  95. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 11, 2013 at 3:01 am
    ———————————————–
    You are correct, the panels are mis-labled. Panel 2 should be labeled “shortly after radiative ability of the atmosphere is switched off” ;-) Astute viewers are meant to be familiar with Dr. Spencer’s analysis and work out the next isothermal temperature for the layers above the near surface horizontal convection layer. Also the vertical contraction of the near surface horizontal convection layer and increase in isothermal temperature. Radiative super heating of N2 and O2 stagnated at altitude comes later.

    It gets worse, far, far worse from there….Most of our atmosphere would super heat and be lost to space without strongly radiative gases. There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.

    “There will be convection regardless of whether GHGs are present.”
    I do not dispute this. But convection to altitude and full convective circulation are two very different things ;-)
    Maths won’t save you. You need to do the empirical experiments.

    Stephen, I have indicated previously, I have been building a list of responses to the following question -
    “Are radiative gases critical for convective circulation in the troposphere?” Yes or no?

    My current listings –

    Dr. Spencer – “Yes”
    Konrad – “Yes”

    Anthony Watts – “Unknown”
    Gary Hladik – “Un-answered”
    Jim D – “Avoided answering in such spectacular style screen shots were required.”

    Doug Cotton – “No”
    Nick Stokes – “No”
    Joel Shore – “No”
    Tim Folkerts – “No”
    Davidmhoffer – “No”
    TonyB- “No”

    Stephen, I really do not want to add you to the “No” side of the column. How about an “undecided”?

  96. Stephen Wilde says:

    Chris Wright said:

    “It seems that, as temperatures rise, life becomes more active and prolific and, as a result, emits more CO2. Unlike the oceans, this will have a very small lag.”

    I think he implied that oceans plus soil moisture release more CO2 (net) when temperatures rise but there is then a lagging response from the biosphere so atmospheric amounts rise in the meantime.

    However, the energised biosphere having taken up more but not all of the additional CO2 from warmed water at sea and on land then decomposes faster too which releases more low C13 CO2 in the decomposition process. Presumably that would apply to both the land based and oceanic biospheres together.

    That way one could get both increasing CO2 in the air and a reduction in the C13 proportion without human emissions being implicated.

    Furthermore, those natural processes are far larger than our puny emissions which seem to be taken up by the local and regional biosphere quickly so as to not affect the natural CO2 exchange significantly.

    I think it will take a while for this to be picked over and thought through properly.

  97. Konrad says:

    alex says:
    June 11, 2013 at 4:36 am
    “You must take the energy flux from the Sun within the Earth cross-section – that is a disk.
    The Earth surface is however a globe. It is 4x larger than that of disk”
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    Alex,
    I have previously listed what I consider the critical “do nots’ of atmospheric modelling -

    A. Do not model the “earth” as a combined land/ocean/gas “thingy”
    B. Do not model the atmosphere as a single body or layer
    C. Do not model the sun as a ¼ power constant source without diurnal cycle
    D. Do not model conductive flux to and from the surface and atmosphere based on surface Tav
    E. Do not model a static atmosphere without moving gases
    F. Do not model a moving atmosphere without Gravity
    G. Do not model the surface as a combined land/ocean “thingy”
    H. Do not apply SB equations to a moving gaseous atmosphere

    Modelling the earth as a flat disk is indeed a “do not”, but not what I would consider a critical problem. The only error that arises from modelling as a flat disk is in relation to albedo. It is an error, but it is not the error that invalidates AGW.

  98. Konrad says:

    Stephen,
    I did reply, just lost in m—–tion.

  99. alex says:

    Graham W says:
    June 11, 2013 at 4:44 am
    Alex says:

    “You must take the energy flux from the Sun within the Earth cross-section”

    Why is that though, excuse my ignorance?
    —————–
    School phys.
    Look at the Sun. You see it is a disk. Uniformly bright. Guess why.

  100. johnmarshall says:

    Alex.
    I know what he did I know this is wrong. It does NOT follow reality.
    TOA insolation is 1370W/m2. his model has a sunny night side which he divided by 4. This is obviously WRONG since the sun, providing that insolation, only shines on half the planet at a time since we do have a day/night divide. The day side receives radiation and radiates but the night side only radiates heat away so is cooling all night. Sunrise starts the warming cycle again with the average 500W/m2 and a zenith flux of 1000W/ms. this can be MEASURED AS EMPIRICAL DATA.
    The flat earth model is wrong because it does not model reality which is a sphere rotating once every 24 hours with sunrise, sunset a daily occurrence and 12 hours of zero energy arriving at the surface. Reality thinking means reality answers and a debunking of the GHE because that is unnecessary for the heating that reality proves we have.

  101. johnmarshall says:

    By radiative gas I suppose you mean GHG’s.
    Convection relies on density difference not radiation. The density difference is caused by temperature gained by, usually, conduction, ie. contact with a warmer surface. All gasses will convect regardless of their IR reactivity given a density difference. Convection happens on Jupiter, no GHG’s, and Venus, all GHG’s. So in this Spencer is correct the rest wrong.

  102. Kasuha says:

    KenB says:
    June 11, 2013 at 3:33 am
    Kasuha
    Without geting too far into the climate intricate mechanisms, it seems that professor Murry Salby is both well qualified as an atmospheric scientist…
    ____________________________________________________

    Your post is irrelevant to my argument. I’m used to seeing well qualified atmospheric scientists hiding things they don’t like in their presentations. This whole site is dedicated to unveiling such things in works of scientists like Mann or Hansen. Just because Dr. Salby is saying what you want to hear does not mean he’s not hiding anything.
    He’s not right because he’s well qualified.That’s argument from authority, a thing this site is dedicated to battle. He can be only right if he did a good job.
    I consider myself a climate skeptic. That means, I am skeptical to any claims about climate. Including those most people visiting WUWT want to hear.
    If you think Dr. Salby is right because he is well qualified (and says what you want to hear), you’re not a climate skeptic. You’re a believer who happened to choose the non-mainstream religion.

  103. johnmarshall says:

    Graham W.
    We seem to agree on this figure as the TOA insolation. Albedo and atmospheric losses reduce this to ~1000W/m2 at the surface. TOA of 340W/m2 is plainly wrong. 1000W/m2 flux will heat part of the surface, about 10%, and the same flux spread over the hemisphere is half that at 500W/m2.(zero at the poles) 1000W/m2 equates to 88C at radiative equilibrium much of this being lost to convection, latent heat of evapouration of water etc.
    Latent heat losses also explain the temperature difference between a very hot dry desert and a cooler rainforest at the same latitude.

  104. Patrick says:

    Like many others, I was also struck by the small scale of human emissions compared with ocean and land/ plant emissions.

    Is there data which allows one to compare the cumulative human emissions to date with the stock of CO2 dissolved in the oceans or absorbed in the land or by plants. It seems to be that this relationship would help one understand the materiality of the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, given that there are clearly many physical mechanisms at work which dictate the balance between CO2 in the atmosphere, on the one hand, and CO2 in the oceans/ land/ plants, on the other.

  105. Graham W says:

    Yes, I agree that this is the right figure for TOA insolation at a point on the Earth’s surface when at that location the sun is directly overhead. Then I’d agree that part of that is going to be reflected because of the atmosphere and clouds etc and so only a smaller amount is actually going to reach the surface…you say ~1000 W/m2, I’m not sure exactly how that’s calculated but it doesn’t seem unreasonable! Then at other times of the day, when the sun is not directly overhead, seems to me that the TOA insolation figure at that same location on the Earth’s surface will be less…and at night it will be zero. I would think that these differences should all be considered and taken into account when considering the Earth’s energy budget rather than just averaging everything out (dividing insolation by 4, averaging out night/day etc) because the energy you’re receiving from the sun during the day is going to be more than 340 W/m2 at TOA for the majority of the time.

  106. Forrest says:

    @Ryan

    The reason he showed the past is to explain that CO2 and Temperature are related, however rather than CO2 CAUSING increased Warming ( which would account for the 1% wagging the 99% ) he was demonstrating that CO2 via natural sources ( and to a limited extent Anthropological ) track temperature. He also indicated that the CO2 levels via proxy ice core data show a mean which suggest much higher elevations than what are demonstrated.

    Did you watch the talk?

  107. Hans Erren says:

    I’m afraid that anybody who concludes that the current high atmospheric Co2 level is not manmade has not been paying attention in bookkeeping 101 classes.

    I notified Ferdinand Engelbeen of this thread.

  108. MiCro says:

    Hans Erren says:
    June 11, 2013 at 10:29 am

    I’m afraid that anybody who concludes that the current high atmospheric Co2 level is not manmade has not been paying attention in bookkeeping 101 classes.

    You must have forgotten to account for the hefty payments of Co2 to the cold ocean surfaces near the poles.

  109. MiCro says:

    And since that sounds stupid, I must note Warm waters out gas Co2.

  110. commieBob says:

    Bart says:
    June 10, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    … No, because it is the scaled integral of temperature anomaly, and neither the baseline for the anomaly nor the proportionality factor are necessarily constant in time. However, they may be modeled as such over finite durations to achieve an approximate system model within the neighborhood of a given operating condition.

    My main contention was that Dr. Salby is wasting his time bothering about diffusion in the ice cores. That explanation is too easily disputed and it’s not necessary. He spends a lot of time trying to use diffusion to explain why the proxy CO2 and proxy temperature don’t exhibit the same behaviour as the instrumental versions.

    All the data is simply explained using a first order low pass filter analogue. Over periods shorter than one time constant, such filters integrate. Over long periods, the inputs and outputs are directly proportional. So simple. There is nothing about the waveforms that suggests that it is worthwhile to go for a more complicated relationship. As always, one should apply Occam’s Razor.

    Once we have established the relationship, we can worry about the physical mechanisms involved, which is what you are doing. (And yes I do realize that adaptive control systems are wonderful … until they break and you have to fix them. I built my first one in 1974.)

  111. Bart says:

    Hans Erren says:
    June 11, 2013 at 10:29 am

    “I’m afraid that anybody who concludes that the current high atmospheric Co2 level is not manmade has not been paying attention in bookkeeping 101 classes. “

    Or, they’ve moved well beyond such basic arithmetic and learned calculus.

  112. Bart says:

    commieBob says:
    June 11, 2013 at 11:30 am

    “All the data is simply explained using a first order low pass filter analogue.”

    I only sampled the video, so I could have gotten some low pass filtering and aliasing in my own perceptions, but I thought that was Salby’s point, that the diffusion process affects the measurements similarly to such a low pass filter. So, if someone asks how can it be that “Over periods shorter than one time constant, such filters integrate. Over long periods, the inputs and outputs are directly proportional”, he can answer: “this way”.

  113. Bill says:

    “Peter Wilson said: In August 2011, Gavin gave this reply to a question about Salby on RealClimate. He implies Dr Salby is a little out of his field and out of date, and that his analysis implies much greater changes in CO2 during the ice ages. Dr Salby’s CV seems to make the first claim a little absurd, I’d be interested in a learned response to the second claim”

    Peter, if I recall correctly, Salby has added quite a bit to his analysis since 2011. He just published the new edition of his atmospheric chemistry textbook as well. Hopefully he has one or more peer-reviewed papers on the way as well. I think the analysis with the firn and the decay rate and the arguments about the phase and quadrature are new since 2011, at least in the two talks I watched on You-tube. Some of the”rebuttals” are from people with a B.S. degree in Environmental studies so I don’t necessarily put them in the same league as Salby but of course what matters is the truth.
    Personally, I want to know about the cause of the decay of the signal. I assume it is just diffusion from the air bubble to the neighboring ice, which seems entirely reasonable. It amuses me when someone says that one experiment in modern times proves that the CO2 just stays in the air bubble and that this proves that it won’t diffuse out over 100,000 years.

    As far as the 2nd question, the changes in CO2 would be large, maybe up to 15 times larger (I think that is what Salby said) so up to several thousand ppm, but it has been that high in the distant past. I think that leaf stomata data implies that CO2 was higher in the past. Anyone have links for this?

  114. Bart says:

    Bill says:
    June 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    My thought would be, well, what do you expect Gavin to say? “Whoops! Oh, boy, was I wrong. Well, better clean out my desk and brush up my panhandling technique.”

    You may be assured, those who have everything to lose will hold out to the bitter end.

  115. Chad Wozniak says:

    @willhaas -
    Here’s your smoking gun: Temps today substantially lower than in the 1930s, 80 years ago, while CO2 is 40% higher. The correlation is negative, the causation nonexistent.

  116. Janice Moore says:

    Magnificent!

    Murry Salby utterly and forever demolished the intellectually dishonest propaganda of the IPCC.

    The Cult of Climatology’s glittering glass CO2 god lies smashed on the pavement.

    Never to be pieced together again.

    That was a deeply moving video, even for this layperson who watched (and, thanks to Salby’s excellent communication style AND THE EXCELLENT TEACHING I HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY WUWT’s SCIENCE GIANTS, with 90% comprehension) the entire thing.

    Thanks, Pierre Gosselin, Bill W, and A-th-y, for the joy of watching a science hero in action.

  117. Ronald Voisin says:

    The ice-core analysis makes clear the relative timing of events. And while it is certain that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature in both directions, so as to more readily be an effect and not a cause of temperature change, the one fact that is most uncertain from ice-core analysis is the exact magnitude of the CO2 spike that accompanies each and every interglacial (and also accompanies warming periods within a given interglacial).

    Why? Because, for one, these spikes are, by definition, the highest temporal frequency events – which, of course, bestow on them the greatest sampling uncertainty. But this uncertainty is of magnitude and not of relative timing. The CO2 peaks, as represented from the ice-cores, are the established values obtainable within a finite (and limited) temporal sampling resolution. If higher sampling resolution could be arbitrarily applied, it could only reveal yet higher peaks (i.e. yet higher frequency events). These are facts of statistical sampling. See Figure A, on p12 below (we are fortunate to get 500 years least-count time resolution on any parameter when we go back more than just a few 1000’s of years).

    Additionally, this uncertainty of magnitude is further muddied by an incomplete understanding of diffusion processes taking place distributed within an enormous pressure gradient (along with many other poorly understood processes). The uncertainty of this diffusion between ice layers can only act in such a way so as to underestimate the peaks of the highest frequency components as these peaks are also exactly, and by definition, where the diffusion gradient too is the very greatest. (There is no method to recover this lost information as it is no longer present within the samples.)

    Therefore an exceptionally important aspect regarding the ice-core analysis, and one that is seemingly wholly under-appreciated, is the fact that this uncertainty of magnitude is substantially (entirely) all in one direction. And that direction is up. The highest peaks (ones that might have durations of only several hundred years) would not be temporally resolved at the very same time that unquantifiable diffusion processes would attenuate them preferentially the greatest (and with most likely significant attenuation as the higher and sharper the peak the more and harder our post-dated analysis will knock it down). Therefore in the end, we do know with certainty that CO2 lags temperature. But for all we know, atmospheric CO2 has spiked to over 1000 ppm (not so unlikely), for a relatively short period of time (quite possibly up to 500 years or even more), during each and every prior interglacial (and to only a marginally lesser extent in prior warming periods of the current interglacial).

    Let me state this again, differently, and with as much clarity as is possible. All of the ice-core data, each and every piece, without regard to where the analysis might fall within the spatial extent of the physical ice core sample, supports the relative timing of temperature vs. CO2. And CO2 lags temperature without doubt. However, when it comes to the highest frequency components (the CO2 peaks) we can say with certainty that they are under-represented in the analysis. The true reality of the peaks of CO2 is that they are higher than we have determined, but by an amount higher that we cannot determine. And I would dare to add that prior peaks were very likely >>600 ppm.

  118. Myrrh says:

    johnmarshall says:
    June 11, 2013 at 7:20 am
    Alex.
    I know what he did I know this is wrong. It does NOT follow reality.
    TOA insolation is 1370W/m2. his model has a sunny night side which he divided by 4. This is obviously WRONG since the sun, providing that insolation, only shines on half the planet at a time since we do have a day/night divide. The day side receives radiation and radiates but the night side only radiates heat away so is cooling all night. Sunrise starts the warming cycle again with the average 500W/m2 and a zenith flux of 1000W/ms. this can be MEASURED AS EMPIRICAL DATA.
    The flat earth model is wrong because it does not model reality which is a sphere rotating once every 24 hours with sunrise, sunset a daily occurrence and 12 hours of zero energy arriving at the surface.

    So what is going on here? Is it or isn’t isn’t divided by 4?

    And there’s more that confuses me with the figures that get presented, but let me first of all say that the AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget of “shortwave in longwave out” is fake fisics.

    They’ve taken out the direct heat radiation from the Sun, longwave infrared, and claim ludicrously that shortwaves heat the Earth (mainly visible with shortwave uv and ir either side, the shortwave ir being 1% of the total and mostly ignored, uv usually ignored too). But perhaps this has a bearing on the figures they use.

    What you are giving giving is the solar constant which includes all wavelengths so includes the longwave thermal infrared, which AGW’s GHE energy budget has excluded – its 100% “Solar”, (KT97 and ilk) is shortwaves only and that mostly visible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

    “The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) at solar minimum and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar maximum.”

    It goes on to say:

    “The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m²). At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth’s surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location’s latitude, and the time of day.”

    But, as visible light and uv together at less than half that of the combined visible, uv and all of infrared including thermal longwave, they are using the number for longwave infrared from the Sun, but calling it shortwave. .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation

    “Direct sunlight has a luminous efficacy of about 93 lumens per watt of radiant flux. Bright sunlight provides illuminance of approximately 100,000 lux or lumens per square meter at the Earth’s surface. The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”

    Reality thinking means reality answers and a debunking of the GHE because that is unnecessary for the heating that reality proves we have.

    The fraud here of course is that they have taken out the name of thermal infrared direct from the Sun, but attributed its power to visible.

    (And give two versions of why their GHE world doesn’t get any direct heat from the Sun.)

    They have done this in order to claim that any downwelling infrared is “from backradiation from greenhouse gases”.

    That alone proves the GHE is a fraud.

    Which double counting shows up for their strangely large figure for their “downwelling from the atmosphere backradiation” of 333 as in the Trenberth comic cartoon:

    http://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg?w=588&h=375&h=375

    Taken from the discussion here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%e2%80%9cearth%e2%80%99s-energy-budget-diagram%e2%80%9d-contain-a-paradox/

    So, back to my question, what exactly is happening here?

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_2.html
    This gives shortwave (July 83-90) as

    “0 to 350 W/m2. Global mean = 158 W/m2, Minimum = 0 W/m2, Maximum = 323 W/m2. (Source: NASA Surface Radiation Budget Project).

    Is this including or excluding the missing heat longwave infrared direct from the Sun of the GHE energy budget?

    Or is that mean what shortwave alone would be in the solar constant divided by four?

    Here’s another: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_5.html

    This is shortwave and longwave combined, and I don’t understand it either:

    “Figure 7i-7: Average net radiation at the Earth’s surface: January 1984-1991. Total net radiation is the sum of shortwave and longwave net radiation. It is dominated by the shortwave portion. Highest values occur along the subtropical oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. Lowest values occur over areas of low solar input such as the North Pole, and areas of high surface reflection such as the South Pole. Color range: blue – red – white, light green = 0 W/m2, Values: -50 to 250 W/m2. Global mean = 114 W/m2, Minimum = -60 W/m2, Maximum = 261 W/m2. (Source: NASA Surface Radiation Budget Project).”

    “It is dominated by the shortwave portion” – how is it showing this?

    What difference does “Lowest values occur over areas … and areas of high surface reflection ..”

    Is this or isn’t this measuring what is reaching the surface? What does what happens next matter?

    Here’s another: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_6.html

    This again is for the same period as the shortwave only:

    “Figure 7i-8: Average net radiation at the Earth’s surface: July 1983-1990. Total net radiation is the sum of shortwave and longwave net radiation. It is dominated by the shortwave portion. Highest values occur along the subtropical oceans of the Northern Hemisphere. Lowest values occur over areas of low solar input such as the South Pole, and areas of high surface reflection such as the North Pole. Color range: blue – red – white, light green = 0 W/m2, Values: -50 to 250 W/m2. Global mean = 111 W/m2, Minimum = -65 W/m2, Maximum = 249 W/m2. ”

    Again, how are they showing that shortwave dominates, and, why are the figures for combined less than shortwave alone?

  119. Bob says:

    How can I get a copy of the paper? Anyone?

  120. Myrrh says:

    And, p.s., isn’t the solar constant calculated on how much the Sun heats the Earth? So, since shortwaves don’t heat the Earth’s land and water then they were never historically included in that 1.36 figure, that is all thermal infrared, i.e. longwave infrared direct from the Sun.

    In other words, it doesn’t break up into the 53% infrared, 47% visible and uv at the surface – it’s all infrared minus non-thermal longwave.

  121. Myrrh says:

    Here a way to measure solar constant: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Curric_7-12/Activity_3.pdf

    Thermal infrared, longwave, does of course travel through glass, or there wouldn’t be manufacturers of glass and film for windows minimising its entry and maximising the entry of visible light.., and of course, water is transparent to visible light so not absorbed but transmitted through unchanged. So all that’s being measured is thermal infrared direct from the Sun, longwave.

  122. William Astley says:

    In reply to Gavin Schmidt’s comment:
    To a large degree being a scientist is all about correctly judging (most of the time) what is and what is not a fruitful line of research. Statistical reworkings of data has been available for years and which are well explained by our standard understanding, do not fall into the category of something that is going radically going to change our understanding. It is far more likely that someone a little out of their field, who isn’t up to date, and has made the (very common) mistake of over-interpreting their statistics. The question to be asked in such circumstances is what would be implied if the conclusion was correct? In this case, it would imply radically bigger changes of co2 during the ice ages, some completely unknown source of carbon that dominates all others. This would be extraordinary, and would require far more than a few correlations to demonstrate to anyone else’s satisfaction. I very much doubt you will see this ‘play out’ in the literature over the next few years. – gavin].

    Schmidt said:
    “The question to be asked in such circumstances is what would be implied if the conclusion was correct? In this case, it would imply radically bigger changes of co2 during the ice ages, some completely unknown source of carbon that dominates all others.”

    William: It appears Gavin Schmidt has not read the recent papers on the deep carbon source and is not aware of the massive deposits of C12 in the paleo record. A good review of the scientific issues related to the source of carbon on the planet’s surface is Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels

    As most are aware a Mars size object struck the early earth a few 100 of millions of years after the formation of the early earth. The ejected matter from the impact formed the moon. As a result of the impact the earth’s mantel has been stripped of the lighter volatile elements such as carbon and hydrogen. There are two hypotheses that have been developed to explain the source of light elements on the surface of the planet, the late veneer hypothesis and the deep core hydrocarbon hypothesis.

    The late veneer hypothesis assumes comets from a source that is different than comets that formed the sun struck the early earth after the Mars impact creating an atmosphere similar to Venus (i.e. Very high pressures as all of the water and carbon that is now on the surface of the planet had to be delivered via the late comet impacts.) The comets must be from a different source than the sun as the earth’s elemental composition is significant depleted in the noble gases radon and xenon as compared to comets and as compared to the sun.

    The second hypothesis is that earth’s core contains a significant fraction of hydrogen and carbon which is consistent with theory calculations. As the core solidifies the hydrogen and carbon is ejected as CH4 under very high pressure. The CH4 is pushed through the mantel to rise to the surface due the very high pressure in the core. This hypothesis explains why diamonds formed at 150 km below the surface of the planet and provides a mechanism to very, very quickly move high pressure carbon to the surface of the planet and to form the kiberlite pipes . At very high pressures CH4 forms the hydrocarbon chains which is called light petroleum. The heavy petroleum products such as the massive Alberta oils sands formation is caused by sulfur based bacteria in the mantel that eat the light carbon leaving sulfur residues in the oil and converting the light crude to heavy crude. The deep carbon source explains why there are massive oil formations located along plate boundaries such as the Middle East.

    http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_deep_hot_biosphere.html?id=PEyYSUO6hgYC&redir_esc=y

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    https://itunes.apple.com/ca/itunes-u/sloan-deep-carbon-cycle-workshop/id438928309
    Sloan Deep Carbon Cycle Workshop – Sessions by Carnegie Institution for Science

    I believe I can explain Salby’s findings based on the deep earth CH4 hypothesis. As others have noted the ocean is saturated with CH4 which means there is some source of CH4 in the ocean. The carbon in CH4 is primarily C12 as the source of CH4 is from the core.

  123. My view:

    Comments on Dr. Murry Salby’s Critique of the Climate Consensus.

    And all who depend upon paleoclimatology arguments should consider the implications of my

    Challenge to Earth Scientists

  124. feet2thefire says:

    I was smiling bigtime at the Feynman bit at the end. I’ve quoted from that a few times here myself, and glad to see someone else presenting it.

    Enjoy!

    Steve Garcia

  125. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, Mr. Garcia, I DID enjoy that Feynman video — immensely. Thank you, so much.

    I tell you, until I started hanging out with and reading the thinking of real scientists as I have on WUWT these past 2 months, I never realized what a pleasure that could be. I thought science and scientists were mostly pretty boring. I was wrong. With few exceptions, you men and women are wonderfully informative and delightful people. What a privilege to be here.

  126. Myrrh says:

    Apologies, it was late..,

    “Myrrh says:
    June 11, 2013 at 6:54 pm
    And, p.s., isn’t the solar constant calculated on how much the Sun heats the Earth? So, since shortwaves don’t heat the Earth’s land and water then they were never historically included in that 1.36 figure, that is all thermal infrared, i.e. longwave infrared direct from the Sun.

    In other words, it doesn’t break up into the 53% infrared, 47% visible and uv at the surface – it’s all infrared minus non-thermal longwaveshortwave infrared.”

    As NASA’s real scientists used to teach from up to date traditional science building on the brilliant discovery by Herschel that the great powerful heat energy from the Sun was invisible, as he measured it through a solid glass prism…:

    NASA:
    “Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

    Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    Thermal in traditional science from the Greek meaning ‘of heat’ is a description of the wavelength, not as the fake fisics meme of the AGW Greenhouse Effect’s has it, “the source”…

    Neither is visible light a thermal wavelength/photon which is a packet of particles from the Sun, these shortwaves are classed Light not Heat. Heat is the thermal energy of the millions of degree hot Sun in transfer by radiation.

    Herschel’s measurements were of course crude compared with later ability to measure electromagnetic wavelengths, and our brilliant scientists went on to discover even more differences, compare gamma with radiowaves. Herschel moved the solid glass prism by hand at the edge of a table, through a window if I recall..

    What he was measuring as temperature from the visible wavelengths we can now see was the overlapping bigger wavelengths of thermal longwave infrared, which is why we call these thermal and the shortwaves of infrared non-thermal, and so classed in with Light not Heat, and Reflective not Thermal.

    This quote comes from a page which used to be on an internal link, but was replaced by AGW pc fake fisics, but someone with integrity managed to keep it from disappearing altogether: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    The AGW GHE fake fisics has two reasons why the direct radiant heat which is longwave infrared aka thermal infrared from the Sun doesn’t reach us – an unknown to science “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA prevents its entry” and the actually millions of degree°C burning hot Star which is our Sun radiates “insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaching us”.

    The last calculated from the “planckian” on the narrow 300 miles wide atmosphere of thin visible light around the Sun, and they’ve come up with 6000°C as the temperature of the Sun..

    By giving the property of the thermal energy of longwave infrared to shortwave light the GHE distracts from their absurdity that the Sun is only 6000&degC and what they’re actually saying is that the millions of degree hot Sun doesn’t radiate any heat, so they can use the real measurements of the direct powerful travelling in straight lines radiant heat from the Sun to pretend that this comes from their fake “backradiation from the atmosphere by greenhouse gases”.

    The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect world has no direct heat from the Sun, so no weather so no climate in their cold world.

  127. Peter Wilson says:

    Thanks to Bill and William for the replies re Gavin’s comments. Dr Salby certainly seems aware of the issue with the ice age fluctuations, I think to see whether he has answered this issue will have to await publication of his papers.

    I further note that Lubos Motl has weighed in at The Reference Frame, with some of the same reservations I have. I must admit that, regardless of the huge natural flux of CO2, it seems very likely to me that human emissions are at least part of the reason for the recent increase – the numbers fit so well in terms of quantities of CO2 emitted. If the increase was just caused by accumulated heat, it would be a total fluke that it is of the same order of magnitude (about .5) as our accumulated combustion. That doesn’t make it impossible, of course…

  128. Tony Rogers says:

    Unfortunately, this is all rubbish!

    The mass balance equation:
    Change in At CO2 = Natural Sources + Human Sources – Natural Sinks

    Rearranged:
    Change in At CO2 – Human Sources = Natural Sources – Natural Sinks

    We know Human Sources is greater than Change in At CO2 because we can calculate them.
    Therefore LHS of equation is negative. Therefore RHS is negative.
    Therefore Natural Sinks is greater than Natural Sources.
    Therefore growth in atmospheric CO2 must be man made.

    The rest of the hypothesis is irrelevant.

  129. Stephen Wilde says:

    “regardless of the huge natural flux of CO2, it seems very likely to me that human emissions are at least part of the reason for the recent increase ”

    The longer we go without a temperature rise and whilst our emissions keep accelerating the smaller the human contribution.

    Whatever our contribution it is at least partly and possibly entirely offset by global circulation changes which are dwarfed by natural solar and ocean induced circulation changes.

    So even if there is still some net warming (or cooling) effect from our emissions after accounting for the negative system response it is not going to be significant relative to natural variability.

    The idea of a positive system response as proposed by AGW theory must surely now be abandoned given the lack of supporting evidence and the continuing cessation of warming despite still rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

  130. Stephen Wilde says:

    Tony Rogers.

    You assume that natural sinks are static. They aren’t.

    There are two factors involving the sinks that potentially complement each other in overwhelming our contribution despite being of opposite sign:

    I) Our emissions appear to energise the local biosphere such that the power of the local and regional sinks on land increases to reduce or eliminate our emissions.

    ii) The reduced global albedo of the late 20th century seems to have warmed the oceans which became less effective as global sinks.

    The consequence is that our land based emissions had little or no effect as against the simultaneous natural increase in atmospheric CO2 from the warmer oceans.

    There is data to support that here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508

    “Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions “

  131. Tony Rogers says:

    Stephen Wilde.

    If natural sinks are larger than natural sources, nature did not produce the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

  132. William Astley says:

    In reply to JM VanWinkle’s questions.

    JM VanWinkle says:
    June 10, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    So, CO2 is the dependent variable (not cause) in both instrument and proxy records and the dependence of CO2 is on the integral of temperature. Then based on his analysis, which looked good to me, CO2 as a driver is unimportant. The inference then is that the temperature and CO2 variations in modern times are both natural and not anthropogenic. (if CO2 tracks the integral of temperature, the reverse of causation would be that CO2 was the independent variable and then temperature would have to depend on the derivative of CO2, which implies some unknown physical mechanism).
    What then is driving temperature, and, moreover, driving it in such a way of producing a nice monotonic CO2 rise?

    William:
    The warmists have ignored multiple observational anomalies that disprove their theory. It is helpful to understand and intelligently discuss the problem situation: to summarize the anomalies, to summarize the standard hypothesis and logical issues, and then to present alternative hypotheses/hypothesis to explain what is observed. This problem is particularly interesting it appears there are multiple fundamental errors in our understanding of the earth, of the earth-sun climate relationship, and of the sun

    As Salby notes global temperature does not track, does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels in the instrumented period. We are all aware of the current 16 year period when atmospheric CO2 increased and the planetary temperature remained roughly constant.
    Something else is driving the planetary temperature changes. The following is additional observational details and logic to support that assertion.

    There is a second temperature anomaly: The latitudinal variance in the global temperature anomaly does not support the assertion that CO2 forcing is causing the observed warming.
    As this paper by Douglass and Christy notes, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere varies less than 4% with latitude. Therefore the CO2 potential to force (the term potential to force is used as the amount forcing at latitude of the planet in question is due to both the concentration of CO2 and the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question) by the greenhouse mechanism (assuming that mechanism works per the warmist hypothesis) with latitude should be almost constant.

    Furthermore, in the tropics the CO2 forcing should be proportional greater as the largest amount of long wave radiation that is emitted off to space is in the tropics and as there is amply water to amplify the CO2 forcing based on the warmist theory.

    An analysis of the latitudinal variance of the planetary temperature anomaly does not support the assertion that warming in the last 70 years was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2.
    The temperature anomaly in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics (not including the tropical region) is 4 times greater than the temperature anomaly of the tropics and twice the temperature anomaly of the planet as whole. This same temperature pattern of warming (that we are now observing) occurs during a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles were not caused by changes to atmospheric CO2 levels. The same forcing function (modulation of planetary cloud cover by solar magnetic cycle changes) caused the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and caused the warming in the last 70 years.
    The modulation of planetary cloud cover (both low level clouds and high level cirrus clouds) by solar magnetic cycle changes explains the pattern of warming of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and warming in the last 70 years.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    As the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted (the same pattern of solar magnetic cycle changes occurs to create the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and the more sever Heinrich event.)
    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels 2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

    Additional comment on the Deep earth CH4 hypothesis (See my comment above for additional details).
    Another logical point for the deep earth CH4 hypothesis is the solar wind gradually strips hydrogen (disassociated water) from the atmosphere. If there was not a continual new source of hydrogen (CH4) the earth would have no water on its surface. The deep earth CH4 contains primordial carbon which is principally C12 which explains why the C13/C12 ratio in sedimentary rock does not normally change with time and explains the few rare very large deposits of high C12 in the sedimentary rock. Galactic cosmic rays strike the C12 in the atmosphere forming C14 which decays to form C13. Planets preferentially use C12 for photosynthesis, so over time the atmospheric ratio of C13/C12 should increase. That is not observed. The C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere remains remarkable constant. The reason is plants remove carbon from the atmosphere and deposit it in sedimentary rock. The new CH4 from the deep earth is continually added to the atmosphere which keeps the C13/C12 relatively constant. The variance of C13 is then caused by changes in GCR levels which varies the amount of C14 that is formed.

    The deep earth CH4 also explains the existent of the continents, of mountains, and very high plateau such as the Tibet plateau. The continents must float on the mantel. The CH4 that rise from the deep earth lifts the continents and creates the mountains. The Tibet plateau is a 1000 miles from the collision of the India sub continental plate and the Asia continental plate. It is the CH4 that is concentrated an plate collisions that creates the mountains in bands and the Tibet plateau. The CH4 remains in under the continental plate which explains why there is a band of mountains at the collision of continental plates.

  133. Konrad says:

    Tony Rogers says:
    June 12, 2013 at 2:13 am
    ———————————————————–
    Co2 sinks include biomass. This varies with temperature and CO2 concentration.

    I struggle to imagine any way your fail could have been more epic.

  134. Tony Rogers says:

    You’re missing the point.

    The equation shows that natural sinks are larger than natural sources. For nature to produce the extra CO2 each year, it would have to be the other way around.

  135. Edim says:

    “If natural sinks are larger than natural sources, nature did not produce the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    I agree, but that’s not the point and it’s a strawman. The point is that the change in atmosheric CO2 is determined by temperature (not change in temperature). That’s what the data since ~1960 show.

  136. philincalifornia says:

    Tony Rogers says:
    June 12, 2013 at 2:13 am
    Unfortunately, this is all rubbish!
    ===========================
    These are not linear systems Tony. Stop embarrassing yourself in public,

  137. Tony Rogers says:

    Edim. Are you suggesting that CO2 in the atmosphere would be 400ppm today if man had not generated any CO2 by burning fossil fuels and land use changes?

  138. Edim says:

    Tony, yes close to 400 ppm. Man is puny and vain.

  139. johnmarshall says:

    Graham W.
    Surface insolation at the zenith position, indeed any position, can be measured and calculated and the figures will agree at the same clear conditions. Climb a mountain gets you more energy due to there being less atmosphere for the light to pass through.

  140. Bart says:

    Tony Rogers says:
    June 12, 2013 at 2:13 am

    “Unfortunately, this is all rubbish!”

    Your argument is absolute, pathetic rubbish, and I am tired of confronting the idiots who espouse it.

    “Natural” sinks are not entirely natural. This is a dynamic system. The sinks expand due to forcing.

    Hence,

    Natural Sinks = Natural sink action due to natural forcing + Natural sink action due to anthropogenic forcing = NSNF + NSAF

    Now, your equation reads

    Change in At CO2 – Human Sources + NSAF = Natural Sources – NSNF

    You have two unknowns, and one equation, and this does not allow a unique solution,

    This is how feedback systems work. Your pseudo-mass balance argument is stupid beyond compare on an extremely elementary level. I am so sick of it.

  141. DCA says:

    New study by Sks author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is manmade.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

  142. DCA says:

    Mark T Richardson author of the Sks study is another postgrad trying to make a name for himselt.

    http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1596

  143. DCA says:

    Here’s the sks post in which MarkR claims to refute “Humlum and others 2013.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/richardson-2013-man-made-carbon.html

  144. Bart says:

    DCA says:
    June 12, 2013 at 11:24 am

    It is painful to see so many smug morons gathered in one place. These guys are applying algebra to a calculus problem. It makes me wonder if they teach calculus in the schools anymore.

  145. Bart says:

    Let me give a very simple example. This is not precisely how the real-world system works, but it will do to show how dynamic feedback works, and how it invalidates their static-analysis, pseudo-mass balance argument.

    Suppose atmospheric CO2 labelled “C” progresses according to the differential equation

    dC/dt= -a*C + N + A

    where a is an inverse time constant. The first term is the action of “natural” sinks, which respond to the total level of C in the atmosphere. The second term is natural forcing. The third term is anthropogenic forcing.

    The rate of change of C is less than A. Thus,

    -a*C+ N .LT. zero

    The ridiculous pseudo-mass balance argument then says, voila! Nature is a net sink.

    But, the solution of the above equation is the convolution integral of N + A with the exponential term exp(-a*t). In Laplace operator form

    C(s) = (1/(s+a)) * (N(s) + A(s))

    The left side of the above inequality then becomes

    -a*C+ N = (s*N(s) – a*A(s)) / (s + a)

    Thus,

    [dN/dt - a*A] .LT. zero

    where the square brackets indicate the quantity is evaluated over an exponentially weighted integration window. I.e., the derivative of N is, in an exponentially weighted sense, less than the scaled value of A. This says nothing about the relative magnitudes of N and A.

    Again for emphasis, this says NOTHING about the relative magnitudes of N and A. It only constrains the rate of change of N with respect to A, in an exponentially weighted, average sense, and that constraint is not particularly harsh. “A” can be tiny, and “a” huge, and thus N can be very large and rapidly increasing, and still the “mass-balance” “says” that “nature” is a net sink. But, in this case, it is N which is overwhelmingly driving the output.

    The “mass-balance” argument is dumb as rocks. Just laugh at them when they try to peddle it to you.

  146. Stephen Richards says:

    The most significant statement of the whole presentation ” CO² = the integration of temperature.

  147. DCA says:

    Thanks Bart

    Having studied calculas in my engineering studies, I see what you are referring to.

  148. DCA says:

    calculus not calculas

  149. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bart, thanks for the equations dealing with the mass balance nonsense.

    I saw the principle you set out intuitively but have long been at a loss how to express it mathematically.

    I set the issue out in simple conceptual terms using words but made no progress.

  150. DCA says:

    Bart,

    I copied and pasted your reply on the sKs blog (I hope you don’t mind) and here is the response.

    “Calling arguments that have appeared in journal papers written by top carbon cycle experts, as well as the IPCC report “ridiculous” suggests hubris, which is not a good thing in science.

    The mass balance argument, at least stated in its usual form, is not a calculus problem, as the quantites involved represent the actual amounts of carbon that have been moved between reservoirs within a particular timeframe – a year is a common choice. No calculus is involved.

    Answer me this:

    If during a particular year, net natural emissions are say 2 units and anthropogenic emissions are 2 units and the rise in atmospheric carbon is only 1 unit, where did the missing three units of carbon go?

    Edit: By the way, your initial error is to double count natural fluxes,

    dC/dt= -a*C + N + A

    The net natural response of the carbon cycle is (to a first approximation) proportional to atmospheric CO2 levels, so the natural response is being represented by both -a*C and by N. If you want differential equation based models, you can find the in my journal paper, and give a reasonable reproduction of a variety of known observations, for instance a constant airborne fraction, and they do they also show that the natural environment is a net carbon sink.”

  151. Stephen Richards says:

    Bart says:

    June 12, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    DCA says:
    June 12, 2013 at 11:24 am

    It is painful to see so many smug morons gathered in one place. These guys are applying algebra to a calculus problem. It makes me wonder if they teach calculus in the schools anymore.

    I don’t believe they do. I went to school in the UK and we touched on calculus mainly differentiation and in the final year but that was 55 yrs ago. I don’t think they even touch on it now until degree level or perhaps GCSE A special..

  152. Earl Rodd says:

    This mirrors a research note by Dr. Robert Essenhigh of Ohio State in 2001.
    See http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
    in which he proposes that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. Dr. Essenhigh is an engineer, and a professor of energy conservation.

  153. Bart says:

    DCA says:
    June 13, 2013 at 5:31 am

    ‘“Calling arguments that have appeared in journal papers written by top carbon cycle experts, as well as the IPCC report “ridiculous” suggests hubris, which is not a good thing in science.’

    So lame. I used to take similar umbrage when I got carded ordering alcohol underage. How dare you think I’m not 21! It doesn’t fool anyone.

    ‘The net natural response of the carbon cycle is (to a first approximation) proportional to atmospheric CO2 levels, so the natural response is being represented by both -a*C and by N.’

    This guy really has no clue. -a*C is clearly negative representing sink action, and the model dC/dt = -a*C without any A input goes to zero exponentially. Is he really claiming that CO2 would go to zero without any anthropogenic input? Good thing we’re pumping it in, then!

    What a maroon.

  154. Bart says:

    DCA says:
    June 13, 2013 at 5:31 am

    Please feel free to post what I have said anywhere. I’d be interested to know if your input gets “disappeared” from SkS at some point.

  155. Stephen Richards says:

    Bart

    Your contribution is welcome and entirely accurate from what I’ve read. Please don’t spoil it with your anger.

  156. DCA says:

    Thanks Bart.

    The guy claims to be http://heartland.org/robert-essenhigh, who Earl Rood refers to.

    Here is the “journal paper” he refers to . http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

    It hasn’t disappeared yet.

  157. Bart says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    June 13, 2013 at 11:45 am

    Thanks for the soothing words. It’s bad enough that these guys are doing lousy analysis without an understanding of the role of feedback, but what really chaps my hide is how smug they are about it. It’s like trying to explain the germ theory of disease to primitives who don’t even have any idea what a microscope is.

    This silliness has been going on far too long, and it frustrates me no end. But, I will try to dial it back a notch. After the next response ;-)

    DCA says:
    June 13, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    I’m glad you tried to get the word out, but I doubt it will do any good. Just look at that ridiculous response – it’s like the guy never heard of a differential equation. But, he has made his pronouncement, and can now feel confident he has beaten back the attack. Just chant a few voodoo charms, and the illness has been vanquished. Ay yi yi.

  158. Bart says:

    Just to give a little more insight, consider the case where “a” approaches infinity (infinitely short sequestration time). The solution of the differential equation now approaches

    C := (N + A)/a

    We know A, and it is finite, hence A/a approaches zero. We don’t know N, so it can be arbitrarily large. We can choose a parameter M such that N = a*M, and now

    C := M

    wholly natural. Hence, the “mass-balance” argument is bunk. It does not in any way uniquely determine the culprit for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

    It all depends on the residence time (1/a is e-folding time), and the estimates for that are all over the map. But, Salby’s analysis shows that Nature is dominant, hence residence time is relatively short, and A has only a marginal impact.

  159. DCA says:

    Bart,
    Thanks again for your reply.

    When I questioned him about Salby’s study and addressed him as Dr Essenhigh, he replied,

    41.Dikran Marsupial at 05:51 AM on 14 June, 2013

    civil engineer, just to clarify, my name is Gavin Cawley (I post pseudonymously, but not anonymously), Prof. Essenhigh wrote the original paper on which mine was a comment. Mea culpa, the link in the earlier post was to Prof. Essenhigh’s original paper, rather than my comment paper, which you can find here.

    Apparently he’s really Dikran Marcupial a sKs regular. http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

  160. Bart says:

    Oh, that guy. I’ve had run-ins with him before on these pages. Impervious to logic. No point in pursuing.

  161. DCA says:

    Bart,

    I got a reply from the mod for calling him Essenhigh. It won’t be long now before I’m banned. lol

  162. Bart says:

    DCA says:
    June 13, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    See no evil, hear no evil. Those guys are a case study in pathological science.

  163. Bart says:

    Anyone following this thread, please note what I stated above. My example is not precisely how the actual climate-CO2 system works. The real world system has multiple time scales relating to diffusion processes moderating source and sink activity. It would require a multidimensional system of differential equations to model it to high fidelity, if such a model were of any practical interest, which it really isn’t given Salby’s results.

    Nevertheless, qualitatively, the simple example is good enough to demonstrate the fundamental flaw in the so-called “mass balance” argument. It is a counterexample which contradicts its basic logic, or rather lack thereof.

    The bottom line is that when the natural sinks expand from both natural and anthropogenic forcing, then they are no longer wholly natural, and one cannot input them for accounting purposes solely in the “natural” column.

    I feel a need to point this out because I am sure that, if you bring this up with those who have convinced themselves otherwise, the first response you will get is “that’s not how the actual system works.” Well, it does not precisely, but that is entirely beside the point.

  164. Bart says:

    And, for any who are interested, the actual real world CO2 system works, on average, analogously to the coupled differential equations below over particular operating conditions which may change, either slowly or in abrupt shifts, over time. These changes in operating conditions would be reflected in the parameters. It can be stated confidently that the parameters have not changed appreciably in the past 55 years.

    dC/dt = (P – C)/tau + A
    dP/dt = k*(T – Teq)

    C = atmospheric CO2 content
    A = anthropogenic inputs
    tau = time “constant” parameter, which may vary over long stretches of time
    P = CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by ocean currents and possibly other processes
    T = atmospheric temperature in a global sense
    Teq = an equilibrium temperature parameter
    k = a temperature coupling parameter

    When tau is “short”, sinks are very active, A is attenuated to insignificance, and C tracks P. The equation for P is my own nomenclature which I have been using for some time, but Salby has an identical equation in his presentation, only “k” is “gamma” and “Teq” is… I don’t recall, but it is the same equation, just with different letters.

    The actual real world system is undoubtedly more complicated than the above, but since the sink feedback is attenuating A to insignificance, and P is the only really important process going on, it does not really matter on a practical level. This system maps to the simple example system posted previously with a = 1/tau, N = P/tau. According to the “mass balance” argument, “Nature” is still a net sink, but the natural temperature dependent process is nevertheless driving the output.

  165. Richard M says:

    Just to add a bit of information to this topic. As far as I can tell the volcanic emissions are estimated using Gerlach (1991) which examined 10 sources of CO2. Since that time it has been estimated there are over 3 million sources of volcanic emissions. That would require close to 1800 samples to be statistically sound. The bottom line is no one really knows the all the sources of CO2 to any degree of accuracy.

  166. I late for discussion with F. Engelbeen, 3 June.

    But it concerns of the same what writes and says M. Salby.

    The discussion on the origin of unbalanced atmospheric carbon of F. Engelbeen and the EG Beck I carried out active here (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/).

    I propose a very simple mathematical model to solve Your:

    If, with growth rate a natural source (the sum for the 195? – to today , eg. =1000 Pg), global sinks: eg. photosynthesis, removes 75%, this will be 250 Pg “unbalanced carbon” in atmosphere. If, to this natural source (1000 Pg), we add the 500 Pg (such as: our anthropogenic CO2) and global sinks: especially photosynthesis, increases by slightly more than 8% (only!); how it will change “unbalanced carbon”?
    [correct answer: they just do not change ...]

    Conclusion: in this case the “zero” unbalanced volume of CO2 added to the atmosphere will be the same – both without our CO2, as well as from our CO2 emissions.
    That is: although “… nature was a continuous sink for CO2 over the past 50+ years …” and “… we emit about 9 GtC as CO2 per year and we measure an increase of about 4 GtC/year in the atmosphere …, … it is theoretically possible that „…the increase is NOT human made …”

    If you are our source – added is very small compared to the total volume of natural sources of CO2 and particularly the growth in the twentieth century, the effect of this small source will always be little or even completely insignificant (so says M. Salby but his proof is still very incomplete).

    Because, of course, it must be shown that:
    - global sinks: especially photosynthesis, indeed increase compared to growth: temperature and the emergence of a new source of CO2.
    - really there was a significant increase in natural sources of CO2.

  167. GPP continues to grow although premature reports of its decrease in recent years, and the contrary to such III IPCC report that with global warming, GPP will go down. Speaks of this eg that work: Comment on “Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009″, Samanta (2011. – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868655S cience):
    “Zhao and Running (Reports, 20 August 2010, p. 940) reported a reduction in global terrestrial net primary production (NPP) from 2000 through 2009. We argue that the small trends, regional patterns, and interannual variations that they describe are artifacts of their NPP model. Satellite observations of vegetation activity show no statistically significant changes in more than 85% of the vegetated lands south of 70°N during the same 2000 to 2009 period.”
    Full analysis (and critique) is here: Net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems from 2000 to 2009, Potter (2012 – http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/casa/Potter_2012_ClimCh.pdf )

    Secondly, the efficiency of „global sinks: especially photosynthesis”, always – at a certain point – on the rise: ie, when the rate of increase in the number of “food” (CO2) exceeds a “demarcation point.” About this tells us oscillating model – Lotka–Volterra equation (used in climate models). Growth density of “food” makes it easy finding. Therefore: “Remarkably, just such a pattern is found in natural systems.” (www.scribd.com/doc/73423257/114/Predator-prey-cycles-the-Lotka-Volterra-equations) NPP has its limitations (drought, rainfall, the balance of NPK, Fe, etc..) But we know that even in the recent past (although these limits) the mass of the biosphere was several times greater than today.

    Of course, I’m not saying that now we have to deal with a “zero case”, but I say that the growth of natural resources is responsible for most unbalanced surplus.

    Why should a the majority?

    This explains the “case of the Mt. Pinatubo “.
    The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo – a significant decrease added to the atmosphere of carbon unbalanced. Now we know that this is not a result of increased GPP. GPP – NPP, a few years after the eruption, probably slightly decreased. First of all, decreased heterotrophic respiration (that is – as of today – a majority of scientists). In very simple terms: low latitudes – NPP increased – the effect of dispersion and high latitudes – decreased strongly – resulting from the fall temperature (related are: drought and shorten the growing season).

  168. Whether “heterotrophic respiration”: this is the first “great” source, which we observed an increase from 195? year?

    We are now “threatened” that the permafrost in the future will be a major source of net (currently a net sink) unbalanced carbon. However, permafrost already in the twentieth century were happening “interesting things.” In this figure, (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Fig.2loss-of-permafrost.png) Here you can see a very rapid melting of permafrost in the 191? – 192?, violent to 195?, followed by the reconstruction circa of 1 million km2, and the the 195? “Medium” fast, rather constant, the rate of melting (up to now). Generally melted in the twentieth century 4.5 – 5 million km2 (…) permafrost.
    Zimov (2005 – http://forms.mbl.edu/sjp/pdf/readings/zimov_permafrost2005.pdf): “About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed …” “… it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon at the beginning of the Holocene.“
    “The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C).”

    Nowinski (2010, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886135/): “Radiocarbon ages of heterotrophically respired C ranged from <50 to 235 years BP in July mineral soil samples and from 1,525 to 8,300 years BP [!] in August samples, suggesting that old soil C in permafrost soils may be metabolized upon thawing.

    So it is a source of isotopically identical with our!

    Although the twentieth century – in the second half, permafrost – as a sink has increased more than as a source of CO2, however, increase – this source, was very high throughout the twentieth century (including in the second half) – probably much greater than ours source.
    Now (compared to 2005) it is considered that the permafrost stored is much more C than we expected in 2005 (not c. 500 GtC but 1672 Pg or 2167 PgC C http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/thawing-permafrost-increase-co2-emissions-climate-change/1286/ – is possible, however, that up to 1.5-2 times as much!). In addition, permafrost, which melted in the twentieth century was in the lower latitudes – most probably contain more carbon.

    Zech (2011, http://www.clim-past.net/7/501/2011/cp-7-501-2011.pdf):
    “Recent findings show that the amount of organic carbon stored in high-latitude permafrost regions has been greatly underestimated.
    Zech (version before the process censored, so sorry: the process of reviewing, 2010) considers that the source of the “old coal” (permafrost) in the past always took major contribution in the global changes in atmospheric CO2.
    “In light of these inconsistencies, we should stay open minded to the possibility of changes in the terrestrial carbon cycle as an alternative.”
    “Changes in sizes of these carbon pools could thus have major impacts on atmospheric CO2 levels. The enormous carbon storage at high-latitudes reflects that apart from biomass productivity, the rate of decomposition is crucial for terrestrial carbon storage.”
    We must remember that in the past ALWAYS with global warming were associated decreases in 14C and 13C – the release of old carbon.

  169. Where else may come naturally “old carbon”?

    Another powerful source (perhaps even – potentially – several times larger than the permafrost) is a deep upwelling.
    Yu (2010, http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/yu2010/yu2010.html):
    “… results indicate that deep-sea-released CO2 during the early deglacial period (17.5 to 14.5 thousand years ago) was preferentially stored in the atmosphere, whereas during the late deglacial period (14 to 10 thousand years ago), besides contributing to the contemporary atmospheric CO2 rise, a substantial portion of CO2 released from oceans was absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere.”, that is, once again, it is worth repeating: “Remarkably, just such a pattern is found in natural systems.”
    The increase in force westerlies, closely related to the cycle of solar Suess – de Vries – will deepen the water in the mixing zone of upwelling. Most likely it is intensified by other cycles related to the sun, such as Hallstatt cycle and the six thousand. year cycle. This effect is indirect, second order to the changes in the Sun, may be here for a few decades delayed.
    In addition, other sources of “old carbon, ” could be, for example, coastal areas – the shelf, shallow water areas (“degassing” of sedimentary rock), carbon, is poor in 13C – ENSO variability oscillating type, soil temperate zone – and the tropical, etc.. Not to mention a few ppm of CO2 from the warmer ocean.

    I, Professor Z. Jaworowski, E. G. Beck, we exchanged – via e-mail, its views on this subject. We wanted to design a common paper.

    Is worth knowing that E. G. Beck developed a graph (http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2back1826-1960eorevk.jpg) takes into account the majority objections to his earlier papers (daily and the regional variability of CO2 over the land).

    If we compared this his last graph of the diagrams : http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/romanovsky_fig3.gif, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/land-permafrost-siberia-sml.jpg, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/rate-of-change-of-global-average-temperature-1850-2007-in-oc-per-decade-2/image_preview
    (I have them a few) we see a remarkable resemblance … In particular, graphs of temperatures in deep permafrost, they give us a lot to think about …
    [Hicks Pries (2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12058/abstract): “Old soil heterotrophic respiration ranged from 6 to 18% of Reco and was greatest where permafrost thaw was deepest. Overall, growing season fluxes of autotrophic and old soil heterotrophic respiration increased as permafrost thaw deepened.”]

    But the graph changes in the pH of the SH – Arlington Reef, is almost identical to the last graph Beck + Keeling curve (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/Wei-et-al-2009-small.gif)
    Yes it is cherry picking, but the “cherry” here are very shapely and … the global …

  170. Ice cores.
    Is worth knowing that there are other widely accepted in the world of science, methods of determination the former CO2 concentrations: boron isotopes, alkenones.
    Collected them Seki (2010, http://environ.lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp/saishin.pdf/Seki2010EarthPlanetarySci.Lett.Alkenone%20and%20boran-based%20Plicene%20pCO2%20records.pdf).
    Especially alkenones (Fig. 9 a – not subjected to revisions) give astonishing results – much higher concentrations than the ice cores show.
    Corrections are mainly include pollution from the Jurassic and Cretaceous and the evolution of physiological processes.
    Of course, these corrections are necessary, but their range is very, very controversial, required for recognition by creation of strong evolutionary changes in a very basic physiological processes.

    P. S. I think it is worth from this my comment (after correcting my English) make separate publication.

Comments are closed.