The Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 ?

ms
Professor Murry Salby

There is quite a bit of buzz surrounding a talk and pending paper from Prof. Murry Salby  the Chair of Climate, of Macquarie University. Aussie Jo Nova has excellent commentary, as has Andrew Bolt in his blog. I’m sure others will weigh in soon.

In a nutshell, the issue is rather simple, yet powerful. Salby is arguing that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of natural variation. This goes back to the 800 year lead/lag issue related to the paleo temperature and CO2 graphs Al Gore presented in his movie an An Inconvenient Truth, Jo Nova writes:

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

Salby is no climatic lightweight, which makes this all the more powerful. He has a strong list of publications here. The abstract for his talk is here and also reprinted below.

PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY

Chair of Climate, Macquarie University

Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts

Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a  lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.

Salby’s  talk was given in June at the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysic meeting in Melbourne Australia.   He indicates that a  journal paper is in press, with an expectation of publication a few months out.  He also hints that some of the results will be in his book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate which is supposed to be available Sept 30th.

The podcast for his talk“Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources” is here (MP3 audio format). The podcast length is an hour, split between his formal presentation ~ 30 minutes, and Q&A  for the remaining time.

Andrew Bolt says in his  Herald Sun blog:

Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.

Dr. Judith Curry has some strong words of support, and of caution:

I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon.  Wow.

If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.  Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics.  He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast.  He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher.  While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues.  I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:

He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”

Dr Roy Spencer has suspected something similar, See  Atmospheric CO2 Increases: Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason? plus part 2 Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio both guest posts at WUWT in 2008. Both of these are well worth your time to re-read as a primer for what will surely be a (ahem) hotly contested issue.

I’m pretty sure Australian bloggers John Cook at Skeptical Science and Tim Lambert at Deltoid are having conniption fits right about now. And, I’m betting that soon, the usual smears of “denier” will be applied to Dr. Salby by those two clowns, followed by the other usual suspects.

Smears of denial and catcalls aside,  if it holds up, it may be the Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 – “Never mind…”

0 0 vote
Article Rating
499 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DEEBEE
August 5, 2011 3:35 am

About time this field of climatology gets a dose of real science — theory, counter-theory, rather than consensus. We have wasted 30 years doing climatology.

AlanG
August 5, 2011 3:35 am

OT but, A British tourist has been mauled to death and four other people have been injured in a polar bear attack in Norway. The attack happened today in the Norwegian Arctic Archipelago of Svalbard.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8683416/British-tourist-mauled-to-death-by-polar-bear-in-Norway.html

wayne Job
August 5, 2011 3:36 am

As an Australian I can only hope that some of our best can put paid to this alarmism non sense.

richard verney
August 5, 2011 3:37 am

It will be interesting to see how this research pans out, since it is essentially a game player.
On a related point, we need to know why natural sinks today are absorbing more CO2 than they were 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years ago etc.
For example, if say back in 1980, natural sinks had the same capacaity as they do today to absorb CO2 then there would not have been an increase in CO2 levels in 1980/1, ditto If say back in 1981, natural sinks had the same capacaity as they do today to absorb CO2 then there would not have been an increase in CO2 levels in 1981/2.
We need to better understand the natural processes involved both in the release of CO2 and in its absorpttion.

August 5, 2011 3:41 am

[snip – Bzzzt penalty box. Not enough time has elapsed between the posting of this comment and the posting of the story. Listen to the audio THEN comment and whine about what was or what was not said. – Anthony]

John Marshall
August 5, 2011 3:45 am

Part of his research has shown that temperature drives CO2 levels which confirm other research on ice cores.
The main parts on C12/C13 ratios is very good and shows past estimates to be in wild error.

August 5, 2011 3:46 am

Won’t make any difference. What he’s saying has been obvious to anyone who can read graphs for 20 years.
The Gaian High Priests won’t give up until their money, power and glory are gone. When all hope of making money from “carbon offsets” is gone, when nobody outside their own ranks will listen, that’s when they will quietly slink away and find some other fraudulent and criminal way to get money, power and glory.
Unfortunately the government agencies will not give up, because government agencies exist and expand forever, no matter what happens to their original goal.

lemiere jacques
August 5, 2011 3:47 am

yes science is settle, i used to think of medieval warm period which is about 800 years ago…what we learnt from ice is there should be an increase of co2 now causes by this period of warming …how much?

Tomas
August 5, 2011 3:51 am

to Nick Stokes:
but those are just CO2 proxies, not measurements. I suggest you listen to the lecture, Professor Salby explains why they are inaccurate. His theory is based on the factual measurements since 1960s.

Luis Dias
August 5, 2011 3:55 am

Anthony, Nick did listen to the audio, since this story broke out on Climate Etc yesterday, and he did comment on it.
Also, many comments were made wrt this story. Despite all the noise (it’s a scam I knew it! or, there the denialists go again!) some arguments were made on Judith Curry blog.
The most pertinent criticism I think was quoted on Cetc but it was made by Gavin Schmidt. It is basically this point: if CO2 was so sensitive to temperatures (we are talking about 100ppm per 1 degree celcius), then the ice age data stops making sense. In the ice ages, CO2 was 180ppm, while in the warmer gaps between ice ages, CO2 was 280ppm. But the temperature was 6 degrees celcius higher. If the CO2 was as sensitive as Selby says, the difference ought to be 600ppm+- (or more), not 100.
So something’s very off right there.
REPLY: By his own admission below, Nick did not listen to the podcast – Anthony

C Porter
August 5, 2011 4:03 am

It is a pity that we are not able to see what an obdurate warmist like Nick Stokes has to say about this extremely important subject, the logic of which has been so obvious to me for a long time. It would have been interesting for me and others here to see him tying himself up in knots.

KenB
August 5, 2011 4:04 am

Initial response so far, warmists don’t want to listen, don’t want to discuss or acknowledge any point he makes. So its avoidance, fingers in ears, and attempts to divert attention away in the hope that the usual suspects at RC will either play the man, or diss the substance of his talk and then the puppies can be let out to troll the chosen line. The longer that goes on it looks downright encouraging!!

August 5, 2011 4:05 am

Anthony, my comment at 3:41 am was far from being the first. My comments were based on the abstract. Is the rule that everyone has to have listened to the podcast in full before commenting?
REPLY: It has nothing to do with being first or not, it has everything to do with the content of your comment. You made no claims of listening to the podcast, but then commented on the lack of anything substantial, saying “we have nothing written” while taking the entire issue to task complaining you have nothing to go on. Now you say you were commenting on the abstract. Clearly then you didn’t listen.
Sorry Nick, given you past behavior here with thread hijacks, I simply don’t believe you. Listen to the podcast, then diss it all you want. – Anthony

John Tofflemire
August 5, 2011 4:06 am

Wow. Food for thought. Have heard the presentation once and will listen over again to understand what he is getting at. This is either someone who has gone off the deep end or this guy is the Einstein of climatology.

richard verney
August 5, 2011 4:08 am

I seem to recall reading a few years back a paper discussing C12/C13 isotope rations on Mars and concluding that these were not as expected and that they cast doubt on whether one can use that relationship on Earth to determine whether increased CO2 levels on Earth were truly manmade. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the paper but someone might remember it.
A similar theme is discussed at:
http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/06/lack-of-c13-isotope-proves-nothing.html

Shaun Dunne
August 5, 2011 4:14 am

The same thing happens every month.
WOW!” AGW TURNED ON ITS HEAD!!!1!
But then nothing.

Shaun Dunne
August 5, 2011 4:16 am

I want a T-Shirt that says…
I GET MY SCIENCE FROM RON CRAM

Scott
August 5, 2011 4:23 am

Sort of a bad news/good news sort of day when you think about it. Markets are really bad, but I expect this news to be cause for optimism for the future of mankind. We ain’t that bad after all. Nice.

AndyG55
August 5, 2011 4:28 am

@ wayne Job
Unfortunately, the government under B.Brown and his lackey J.Gillard will not take any notice of any REAL science that is produced. Its not about the science any more, if it ever was (which I doubt).
From BB’s point of view it is a power/control trip, and from JG’s pov it is proving how tough she is in not backing down. To the great detriment of Australia. 🙁

P Wilson
August 5, 2011 4:29 am

I was arguing 10 years ago that today’s c02 was outgassing from warmer oceans – as it takes 800 years for a complete circulation of oceans. Even if we cease anthropogenic c02, it will rise and rise for several hundred years yet

August 5, 2011 4:33 am

Gavin has already dismissed it completelely in the “unforced variations” thread over on nasas unofficial propoganda blog. Amazing as the paper is not out for six weeks.

August 5, 2011 4:37 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:41 am
[snip – Bzzzt penalty box. Not enough time has elapsed between the posting of this comment and the posting of the story. Listen to the audio THEN comment and whine about what was or what was not said. – Anthony]

Point of order, Anthony; Nick might already have listened to the podcast – I listened to it a couple of days ago, and even blogged about it yesterday.
http://dereksorensen.com/?p=112
REPLY: See Nick’s comment and my reply upstream. – Anthony

Richard A.
August 5, 2011 4:38 am

I wouldn’t worry. Someone from Green Peace will go through his trash and find he once bought a tank of gas from Exxon or BP. This will obviously mean he is on the payroll of Big Oil, and his views can be summarily dismissed.

LazyTeenager
August 5, 2011 4:43 am

If the extra CO2 in the air is coming from the oceans due to warming oceans, then the amount in the oceans should be going down.
As far as I know ocean CO2 is going up not down.

huishi
August 5, 2011 4:45 am

If this means that the rise in CO2 comes from natural causes; will the USA government arrest mother nature?

Beesaman
August 5, 2011 4:48 am

I want a t-shirt that says “I want my Carbon Taxes back!”

Scott
August 5, 2011 4:49 am

“Shaun Dunne says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:14 am
The same thing happens every month.
WOW!” AGW TURNED ON ITS HEAD!!!1!
But then nothing.”
Everything has been changing Shaun. You needn’t worry so much. This announcement seems to bring it all together.

John Finn
August 5, 2011 4:50 am

Aussie Jo Nova has excellent commentary
Perhaps, I’m jumping the gun here but, reading Jo Nova’s summary, it looks as though Professor Salby is simply repeating many of the same arguments we see on numerous blogs.
We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.
There was an increase of ~100 ppm (180ppm -> 280 ppm) following the last ice age but this was in response to 5-6 deg increase in global temperature . The temperature increase since ~1850 has only been about 0.7 deg yet there has been another 100+ ppm increase in CO2 concentrations.
According to many posters on this blog, we’ve had no warming since 1998. In 1998 CO2 concentrations were ~366 ppm. In 2010 CO2 concentrations were ~390 ppm. According to UAH, 2010 and 1998 pretty much tied for warmest year, Why was there ~24 ppm more CO2 in 2010 than in 1998?
Human emissions are causing the increase in CO2. Temperature simply determines the rate of that increase.
Oh dear I’ve just noticed from another post that I’m agreeing with Gavin Schmidt. Unfortunately, in this case, Gavin is right.

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 4:51 am

Anthony:
Thankyou for linking to a contribution from Roy Spencer at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
As you say, both his ‘CO2 papers’ on WUWT are pertinent and worthy of a revisit by all considering the work of Salby.
In the thread at the link I post above, I posted a brief outline of some of our findings which directly contradict the Team mantra that “We know human activities are increasing the CO2 in the air.” To save people the trouble of finding that comment, I copy it here.
Richard S Courtney says:
January 25, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Dr Spencer’s article reaches similar conclusions to those in
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
I expanded on that paper in a presentation at a climate conference held in Stockholm on 11 & 12 September 2006. I could provide Dr Spencer with a copy of it were he to contact me.
There are some surprising similarities between Dr Spencer’s article and my presentation. For example, his Figure 3 presents the same data in the same way as my Figure 1, and he draws the same conclusion from it as we do in our paper.
Importantly, our paper provides six models that each match the empirical data.
We provide three basic models that each assumes a different mechanism dominates the carbon cycle. The first basic model uses a postulated linear relationship of the sink flow and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The second used uses a power equation that assumes several different processes determine the flow into the sinks. And the third model assumes that the carbon cycle is dominated by biological effects.
For each basic model we assume the anthropogenic emission
(a) is having insignificant effect on the carbon cycle,
and
(b) is affecting the carbon cycle to induce the observed rise in the Mauna Loa data.
Thus, the total of six models is presented.
The six models do not use the ‘5-year-averaging’ to smooth the data that the IPCC model requires for it to match the data. But all of the six models match the empirical data. However, they provide very different ‘projections’ of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the same assumed future anthropogenic emission. And other models are probably also possible.
The ability to model the carbon cycle in such a variety of ways means that according to the available data
(1) the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not known,
(2) the future development of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration cannot be known, and
(3) any effect of future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration cannot be known.
All the best
Richard

klem
August 5, 2011 4:53 am

Guaranteed he will be brushed off and accused of being paid by Koch or Exxon, guaranteed.

August 5, 2011 4:56 am

Derek,
No I hadn’t listened to the podcast then (I have now). My comment explicitly referred to the abstract.

August 5, 2011 5:02 am

This will be very, very interesting. I have been looking at the ice-core records more closely in recent months. Not only is there a regular 1000 year delay from the temperature peaking during deglaciation to the CO2 peaking, but on occasions, temperature is falling while CO2 is still rising. The overall correlation of CO2 to temperature is clearly a consequence of temperature change driving CO2 rise and with a time lag that almost certainly is related to oceans degassing. The argument that the higher CO2 then drives the temperature higher is related entirely to the issue of assumed but unproven feedbacks and there is no evidence for it in the actual rate or sign of the change of temperature and rate or sign of the change in CO2.
Thus, one would expect an enhanced release of CO2 parallel to the current temperature rise…with a time delay. And given the post LIA rise began in 1800, then 1950 would be plenty of time for the ocean response to contribute. What is odd, however, is that research has shown the proportion of emissions that is sequestered by the global ecosystem has stayed constant despite the rise from 2GtC/year to 7 GtC/year in annual emissions.
I have simply assumed that the specialists dealing with isotopic ratios knew what they were doing!

August 5, 2011 5:09 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:56 am
Derek,
No I hadn’t listened to the podcast then (I have now). My comment explicitly referred to the abstract.

Fair enough, I’ll wind my neck in. Anthony: apologies.

Up Wing
August 5, 2011 5:13 am

Salby is saying that The CO2 rise is a natural response to the global termperature rise. So you can accept his explanaion but this also requires accepting that glbal temperatures are increasing.
Is everyone here accepting that then?

Julian Braggins
August 5, 2011 5:13 am

richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:37 am
It will be interesting to see how this research pans out, since it is essentially a game player.
On a related point, we need to know why natural sinks today are absorbing more CO2 than they
were 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years ago etc.
————————————————————————————————————————
The planet has greened since then (added CO2), shown in satellite photos.
A further point Murry Shelby seems to show pretty well that warming is causing most if not all of the increase in CO2. If we do get cooling, and CO2 does not decrease then we still won’t know if he is right or wrong as we are due for the ~800yr boost from the MWP ?

RL
August 5, 2011 5:15 am

I consider that,above all other research, this paper has checkmated AGW theory

Alex the skeptic
August 5, 2011 5:17 am

So finally we have it that CO2 increases are due to warming and not the other way round. That is, when the oceans (liquids) warm up, the more gassing occurs. That is the higher the temperature of the oceans the more CO2 bubbles out.
But this is known by any Aussi beer drinker.

Richard M
August 5, 2011 5:18 am

John Finn and Gavin claim that the ice age changes negate this theory. However, they quote air temperatures. What is the change in ocean temperatures? Isn’t this more important?

Blade
August 5, 2011 5:20 am

John Finn [August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am] says:
“We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.”

But what was the overall temperature doing ~800 years ago?
This is clearly not settled science at all. And if the theories of a multi-century lag (from temperature changes to resultant CO2 changes) are correct, you would not expect to see CO2 going up or down because of current temp delta.
Humans are really stuck in a realtime narcissistic limbo, where everything must happen within a life timescale or else they mentally self-destruct.

Blade
August 5, 2011 5:22 am

John Finn [August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am] says:
“We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.”

But what was the overall temperature doing ~800 years ago?
This is clearly not settled science at all. And if the theories of a multi-century lag (from temperature changes to resultant CO2 changes) are correct, you would not expect to see CO2 going up or down because of current temp delta.
Humans are really stuck in a realtime narcissistic limbo, where everything must happen within a life timescale or else they mentally self-destruct.

J.Hansford
August 5, 2011 5:30 am

“The Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 ?”
What moment? That the science is Seattle?….. Well of course there’s science in Seattle. There’s probably even Scientists there…. Nevermind…….;-)

nofreewind
August 5, 2011 5:30 am

A good paper by D’Aleo and Seddons is
CO2 – The Houdini of Gases
The paper discusses why the CO2 levels are not what they should be if the carbon sink data and models are accurate.

Wijnand
August 5, 2011 5:33 am

Oooooh YEAH!!!!!

John W.
August 5, 2011 5:36 am

“Shaun Dunne says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:14 am
The same thing happens every month.
WOW!” AGW TURNED ON ITS HEAD!!!1!
But then nothing.”
Fair observation. We had years of hysteria over AGW. It won’t be undone by a single paper or study. It will be overcome as solid research, such as the subject study, causes solid scientists, such as Dr. Curry, to rethink the issue. Good science is the result of an evolved consensus that a particular hypothesis (or set of them) provides the best explanation for all available data.
Which is why the claim that “the science is settled” led me to doubt AGW from the start.

commieBob
August 5, 2011 5:38 am

klem says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:53 am
Guaranteed he will be brushed off and accused of being paid by Koch or Exxon, guaranteed.

We haven’t seen the book or the paper yet but I expect they will show that the work was done with full academic rigor. It will be hard to brush off. It will have to be refuted with the same rigor with which it was produced.

Luis Dias
August 5, 2011 5:40 am

However, they quote air temperatures. What is the change in ocean temperatures? Isn’t this more important?
I have no idea, but if you are saying that the ocean temperatures weren’t colder in an ice age, I can’t really follow you. If not, what’s really your point Richard?

Chilli
August 5, 2011 5:40 am

It would be very helpful if we could see the slides he’s referring to in the talk..

Luis Dias
August 5, 2011 5:45 am

REPLY: By his own admission below, Nick did not listen to the podcast – Anthony
Yeah, you’re right. Sorry.

August 5, 2011 5:49 am

REPLY: By his own admission below, Nick did not listen to the podcast – Anthony
Anthony, it is not an admission. I at no stage claimed to have listened to the audio. In fact, my comment made it clear that I had not, as I said in my initial comment: ” The problem is, we don’t have a written account of what he said, and I gather that the audio references slides that one can’t see. In the abstract is that he is talking about perturbations…”
Have you listened to the podcast?

August 5, 2011 5:50 am

I am a little nonplussed here.
I mean, all those explanations “Wow!” and “Revolutionary!” while this is something most reasonable people regarded as obvious from the beginning.
I’ve been saying the same things for more than 10 years now.
But no, those like Judith Curry must pretend that they never knew this.
Fine heroes of science, true warriors of truth, those “lukewarmers,” peeking out of their hiding places when the battle is over.

August 5, 2011 5:52 am

It’s a bit ingenuous to believe, assume, or even think that the AGW bedwetters are going to admit that this paper has any meaning or weight regarding their junk science card castle. They dismissed the 800-year lag, the shorter lag in the 1938 warm peak in E. Beck’s CO2 data study, and pretty much ignore Henry’s Law, focusing only on the idea that CO2 will increase in the oceans, regardless of Henry’s Law.
They will ward off any wind that comes close to their card castle and the character assassination, spurious, wrong criticisms, and name-calling will begin once the paper is published, or even before.

J.Hansford
August 5, 2011 5:52 am

Up Wing says:
August 5, 2011 at 5:13 am
Salby is saying that The CO2 rise is a natural response to the global termperature rise. So you can accept his explanaion but this also requires accepting that glbal temperatures are increasing.
Is everyone here accepting that then?
————————————————————————————————————-
Everyone was always accepting that temperature has risen since about 1850…. Skeptics say that mostly it is Natural and the anthropogenic signal that should be present because of the accepted physical properties of CO2 is barely detectable above the noise of natural climate variation and is not significant…… So I think you have been missing the skeptical view point if you thought skeptics didn’t accept higher temperatures….. However, it is interesting to note that there has been a hiatus in the warming for 12 to 15 years despite rising CO2 levels…..

Stephen Wilde
August 5, 2011 5:54 am

John Finn said:
“We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall. ”
But it is the ocean temperature that counts and not the air temperature and we’ve seen that the oceans vary internally over time as regards the rate at which energy is released at the surface via warmer or cooler surface temperatures. If the current CO2 increase is driven by MWP warmth returning through the ocean system at a time of more active sun then it would be most unlikely that we would see decreases just from changes in air temperatures.
Luis Dias said:
“The most pertinent criticism I think was quoted on Cetc but it was made by Gavin Schmidt. It is basically this point: if CO2 was so sensitive to temperatures (we are talking about 100ppm per 1 degree celcius), then the ice age data stops making sense. In the ice ages, CO2 was 180ppm, while in the warmer gaps between ice ages, CO2 was 280ppm. But the temperature was 6 degrees celcius higher. If the CO2 was as sensitive as Selby says, the difference ought to be 600ppm+- (or more), not 100.”
But that only goes to the sensitivity issue which is not the important finding. So what if the sensitivity is less than first thought ? That does not affect the basic contention that the isotope ratios have been wrongly interpreted.
LazyTeenager said:
“If the extra CO2 in the air is coming from the oceans due to warming oceans, then the amount in the oceans should be going down.
As far as I know ocean CO2 is going up not down.”
I’m not convinced by that. Water will only hold so much CO2 at a given temperature. Thus if ocean heat content rises the water must hold less CO2 and more will be released to the air. Please indicate how warmer water can become less alkaline (not more acidic) if it can hold less CO2. The PH of the oceans may well be more complex than simply the amount of CO2 they can hold.Furthermore ocean PH is not that evenly distributed vertically and horizontally. Remember that if there are horizontal temperature discontinuities along the track of the Thermohaline Circulation that would have an impact on surface PH levels as those discontinuities feed back to the surface some 800 or more years later. Some say the THC could be up to 1500 years long and climate cycles of that length have been noted.
We are clearly only at the very beginning of the process of understanding all the relevant inter relationships. The confident assertions of warmists are utterly bogus.

richard verney
August 5, 2011 6:03 am

Julian Braggins says: August 5, 2011 at 5:13 am, commenting upon a point raised by me (see
richard verney says: August 5, 2011 at 3:37 am)
“…The planet has greened since then (added CO2), shown in satellite photos…”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Julian, I accept that it would appear that planet has greened since the 1950s, (and whilst I accept that a greener planet is likely to increase one source of natural CO” sink), this fact alone does not answer the detail of the pointthat I raised.
The fact is that each year, the increase in CO2 levels is less than the corresponding increase in manmade CO2 emissions. This means that in 2010, the sinks absorbed more than they did in 2009. Ditto in 2009, the sinks absorbed more than they did in 2008. ditto, in 2008, the sinks absorbed more than they did in 2007. This trend is seen each year since the 1950s.
It is implausible, that the planet has similarly greened (in like linear fashion) each year. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that there must have been years when de-forestation more than offset any natural greening in other areas, yet one still sees that the sink capacity has increased. The reasons behind this need detailed consideration and understanding.
In summary, what was the natural sink in each and every year since 1950, and what was the corresponding biomass each year? Increase in biomass is very probably only part of the explanation.

kramer
August 5, 2011 6:05 am

If this is true, then is the ~800 year lag wrong? Or, are we ~800 years behind a previous temperature increase that occurred 800 years ago?
The other issue I see here is, if you look at the graphs of ice core temp and co2, the CO2 only changed about 100 ppm, from roughly 190 ppm to 290 ppm. The CO2 ppm today is almost 400.

Steve Keohane
August 5, 2011 6:05 am

This is excellent, leaving little but the conundrum of the relativistic levels of CO2 in ice cores as opposed to absolute values.
John Finn says: August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am
[…]
We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.

It is the ocean temperatures that are being discussed wrt CO2 not the atmosphere, and with a several hundred year hysteresis.

Owen
August 5, 2011 6:07 am

John Finn is in good company. There are many people who do not notice the inertia in the system. The climate does not instantaneously respond to stimulus. All the arguments about year on year changes tacitly assumes the system is in a state of equilibrium. We know that is not the case, as the climate is always chasing stimulus. No article I have read indicates that we have a thorough understanding of the various time constants involved in this dynamic system. If the sun were to stop tomorrow, it would take time for the Earth to cool, likely months before it was totally frozen due to all the inertia in the system. Heat does not leave complex systems as quickly as it does a black body. A black body by definition has no resistance to the photon emissions associated with its temperature. Heat also does not enter into a complex system as quickly as it does a black body absorber for the same reason. All the complex equilibrium reactions in the Earth system means some heat is reradiated before it can bring the system to an equilibrium temperature.
Does this mean there is no “Global Warming” or whatever they want to call it today? No. It just means the models are very much oversimplified and don’t represent the real climate system to even first order approximations of the observed phenomena. The jury is still out on the rest of their case and they aren’t doing much of a job presenting the evidence. Hand waving and political machinations do not prove a scientific case – though it does seem to attract funding.

Wolfman
August 5, 2011 6:07 am

Lazy Teenager,
The partitioning of CO2 between the oceans and atmosphere is extremely complex; and the volume of gas that is dissolved in water is immense. The thermal and circulation lags are enormous, which may be why we see an 800 year time lag between temperature changes and CO2 levels. There is also the issue of sediments and the effects of thermal and circulation changes on CO2 in sediments.
The measured surface C02 levels posited for changes in pH (“acidification”) can be greatly affected by transient thermal conditions in the near-surface layer, but the quality of the measurements and scarcity of reliable, widely distributed measurements are reasons to be uncertain about the acidification issue. So, the system is much more complex than the very short term response you are suggesting.
This presentation is quite interesting and should provide a basis for vigorous debate. Just another reason that the science isn’t settled.

Chris Ibbo
August 5, 2011 6:11 am

Hi Anthony, I would really like to see a graph of a smaller time scale showing the relation between CO2 and temperatures over say the last ice age and this interglacial period. This would give a better view of the lag between them. Do you have a site I could visit or one yourself? Thanks

August 5, 2011 6:12 am

Great! Their analysis and conclusions agree with mine. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. Try this simple analysis. Divide the C12/C13 index by the standard index for graphite to get an estimate of the fraction in the atmosphere that is from organics. Multiply that fraction by the atmospheric concentration and plot both the organic and inorganic concentrations as a function of time. You will find that the organic fraction is about 1/3 of the total and both have been increasing at about the same rate. That is strong evidence that the increase is natural rather than man made.

Nuke
August 5, 2011 6:15 am

RL says:
August 5, 2011 at 5:15 am
I consider that,above all other research, this paper has checkmated AGW theory

I consider the missing tropospheric hotspots to have invalidated AGW theory long ago.

Stephen Wilde
August 5, 2011 6:17 am

I said this in April 2010:
“It is likely that the current powerful run of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillations is the pulse of warmth from the Mediaeval Warm Period returning to the surface with the consequent inevitable increase in atmospheric CO2 as that warmer water fails to take up as much CO2 by absorption.”
In my guest post on this site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/

Pete H
August 5, 2011 6:17 am

John Finn says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am
“We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall. ”
Pay attention John and look at the graphs! There is an 800 year lag! Want to try again?

sleeper
August 5, 2011 6:18 am

He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

Nice to know I have the same response as one of the world’s leading researchers in atmospheric sciences.

ferd berple
August 5, 2011 6:24 am

John Finn says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am
We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.
You didn’t allow for the 800 year time lag. We know from the ice cores that temperatures drive CO2 levels 800 years later. You will see the results of current warming/cooling around 2900 AD. Mark it on your calendar and get back to us.
Gore was aware of, but failed to mention in his movie. Instead he carefully worded his talk to make it appear the other way round, in what looks to me like an attempt to cash in on CO2 trading via his stake in CCX. Destroy the economy and get filthy rich in the process. For this you get a nobel prize.
We have a similar problem with government employees living high on the taxpayer dollar, with the money the should have been used to explore the moon and solar system diverted within NASA to feeding the climate hype machine. It wasn’t an accident that the last 3 moon missions were canceled, the program shut down and NASA re-tasked to studying the earth. All NASA manned missions have been low earth orbit since then, and even that capability has now been lost. Why? It is a lot easier to get money from congress when the mission is saving the earth rather than exploring space, so if budgets are a problem, re-task the mission.

Robert E
August 5, 2011 6:24 am

I’ve just listened to the podcast and I find this VERY interesting. If he is right about this then it should be a serious blow to the AGW community. If the nature is responsible for most of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then what difference does it make if we try to curb the emmisions?! In fact what difference does it make if the computer models are right or wrong? They can all be scrapped. They’ve got the “wrong guy” and the “culprit” is still out there waiting to be discovered. We’ve wasted 30 years on the AGW theory and millions of dollars on super computers and the IPCC organisation.
Interestingly in the end he also mentions that even methane concentrations seems to follow the same rules as CO2 (temperature and surface moisture). So even the second greenhouse gas (third if you count H2O) is influenced largely by nature. Glad someone finally did some checking!
By the way, Anthony, I think you’ve spelled his name wrong. It should be Murry not Murray.

Jeff L
August 5, 2011 6:28 am

Of course, if temp is driving CO2 & not the other way around, the 1st question you have ask then is what drives temps, specifically, what has driven them up over the last 100 + yrs – could it be ……. the sun ???? Combine this idea with the cosmic ray – clouds hypothesis & you might have a relatively complete model to explain both temps & CO2.
This will be very interesting to see how this story develops & if the hypothesis stands up to scrutiny.

August 5, 2011 6:29 am

heh, heh, heh…….. to borrow another SNL saying…….. Well, “isn’t that special.” But, given a recent conversation had here, I think a borrowing from Randy Travis and Carrie Underwood would be more apt……..
James

Editor
August 5, 2011 6:30 am

J.Hansford says:
August 5, 2011 at 5:30 am

“The Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 ?”
What moment? That the science is Seattle?….. Well of course there’s science in Seattle. There’s probably even Scientists there…. Nevermind…….;-)

Seattle? Oh – very good!

DirkH
August 5, 2011 6:37 am

Prof. Salby : “Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
He is being very polite there. Clearly, all the “science is settled” proponents are pure demagogues. I do see a high correlation between being a demagogue and getting a Nobel peace prize, by the way – maybe they should fix that and rename it to Nobel Prize For Demagogy.

Dave
August 5, 2011 6:39 am

Will Dr. Salby publish or will the team attempt to block the publication of this work?

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 6:41 am

Friends:
Several here have pointed out that global temperature has been approximately static for about a decade but CO2 continues to increase in the air. They seem to think that this indicates temperature change is not the cause of the CO2 rise. However, that does not follow as is explained in the one of our papers which I referenced in my above post (at August 5, 2011 at 4:51 am ).
The continuing rise for decades after the temperature has risen is because a temperature increase causes the system of the carbon cycle to obtain a new equilibrium state, and the system takes decades to achieve that new equilibrium.
The short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic and the natural emissions of any year. But some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium (whatever caused the change to the equilibrium) and, therefore, atmospheric CO2 concentration changes for decades after a change to the system (e.g. a change to global temperature).
I think it is important to note that Salby says very little that is new in his presentation. Only his soil moisture argument is novel. Everything else he says is covered by our paper which I referenced in my above post (at August 5, 2011 at 4:51 am ) and the WUWT articles of Roy Spencer (that Anthony links above). Indeed, Salby uses some of the same words as we use in our paper (please note that this is NOT an accusation of plagiarism: clear statements of the same facts are likely to use the same words).
Richard

Frank K.
August 5, 2011 6:43 am

Interesting talk by Prof. Salby. I’m sure the conclusions are controversial and will be debated endlessly, but I think they are sufficiently compelling to recommend NOT implementing a ruinous and completely unnecessary climate tax. Can someone (especially someone from Australia) tell me why a carbon tax is needed and what it will accomplish? The same thing can be said for declaring CO2 a “pollutant”. Why are we doing this to ourselves??

DirkH
August 5, 2011 6:47 am

John Finn says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am
“According to many posters on this blog, we’ve had no warming since 1998. In 1998 CO2 concentrations were ~366 ppm. In 2010 CO2 concentrations were ~390 ppm. According to UAH, 2010 and 1998 pretty much tied for warmest year, Why was there ~24 ppm more CO2 in 2010 than in 1998?
Human emissions are causing the increase in CO2. Temperature simply determines the rate of that increase. ”
There is a short term correlation between the temperature and the rate of increase, but this does not exclude the possibility of other, long term correlations between a very long term temperature average and the temperature trend – I’m thinking of the thermohaline circulation. In other words, very long lag times from another, very large reservoir – the waters in the deep that must come up somewhere.
When i’m looking at the thermohaline circulation, it looks too me like the longest delay line i’ve ever seen. And surely any information that once went into this delay line (a CO2 impulse, caused by increased CO2 absorption during a cold phase, for instance, or the opposite during a warm time) will come out a long time later and very, very blurred and low-passed…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

DirkH
August 5, 2011 6:49 am

DirkH says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:47 am
“long term correlations between a very long term temperature average and the temperature trend ”
Sorry, i meant to say between a very long CO2 emissions average and the temperature trend.

stephen richards
August 5, 2011 6:52 am

Luis Dias says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:55 am
Those are proxy co² measurements with a huge range of uncertainty. Try again.

Dave Springer
August 5, 2011 6:52 am

The thing of it is, no matter how you slice it or dice it, anthropogenic CO2 emission is a matter of fact. One might argue on the exact quantity but the bottom line remains is that we pretty much know how much oil, natural gas, and coal is taken out of the ground every year and burned. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is also a matter of fact.
Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are close to 3% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been very consistently rising by 1.5% every year. These are not speculations or numbers obtained through proxies. They are facts which any hypothesis must explain. This ratio of annual atmospheric CO2 rise being half of anthropogenic CO2 emission is quite consistent over the past 50 years.
The null hypothesis based on empirical observation is that annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are twice what natural sinks can absorb in that same year.
It does not appear to me that Salby has falsified the null hypothesis. All he has done is cast doubt upon C12/C13 being proof of the null hypothesis. I never took C12/C13 ratios as being credible confirmation of the null hypothesis due to a number of factors including difficulty in accurate measurement of these ratios and inadequate understanding of how natural CO2 sources and sinks operate. But that does nothing to falsify the null hypothesis.

stephen richards
August 5, 2011 6:53 am

kramer says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:05 am
No. What we see in the 800 year lag is the smoothed rate of change over a long period. The fact that this is shorter periodic change does not change the result.

Ryan
August 5, 2011 6:55 am

Well it has been obvious to me for some time that the CO2 record from Mauna Loa has no relation to human produced CO2 output since the Mauna Loa record has no change points/points of inflexion in it whilst human produced CO2 has not followed the same curve, having a pronounced dip round about the 70’s when the OPEC oil embarge cut off supplies of oil to the developed world and caused a major global recession.
Here is the total human output of CO2 with a nice dip in the late 70s (another one in the early 90s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg
And here is the Mauna Loa CO2 record proudly forging upward regardless of what humans are doing:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

DirkH
August 5, 2011 6:55 am

richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:03 am
“It is implausible, that the planet has similarly greened (in like linear fashion) each year. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that there must have been years when de-forestation more than offset any natural greening in other areas, yet one still sees that the sink capacity has increased. ”
Deforestation does not mean that all the carbon contained in the trees turns into CO2 at once; wood is used for construction and the paper industry. Deforested areas don’t turn into deserts but are re-used for agriculture, or for industrial forestry, or for grasslands, all of which will consume CO2 as well. Björn Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist has a section about this (not CO2 related, but just a discussion of the typical “deforestation scare”).

Luis Dias
August 5, 2011 6:58 am

But that only goes to the sensitivity issue which is not the important finding. So what if the sensitivity is less than first thought ? That does not affect the basic contention that the isotope ratios have been wrongly interpreted.
That may be true and I’m waiting for the actual evidence to come out of this finding. However, the claim that CO2 rises due mostly to the temperature simply falls down flat with this simple reasoning. At most, the temperature would have only affected 10% of the CO2 rise. Where did the other 90% come from? “Natural variability”? I can eat that, the problem is how on earth will you show such a thing to be true.
And given the “hockey stick nature” of the CO2 rise in this century, there’s little evidence to support it.
So I guess the next step for the skeptics is to undermine the hockey stick of the CO2 record.

Beth Cooper
August 5, 2011 6:59 am

I listened to the podcast on Judith Curry’s blog. Wow! Judith Curry said ‘Wow’ too.:-) It woud be great to see the graphs discussed.

KnR
August 5, 2011 7:05 am

Having failed to block the publication , anyone want to take a bet on how long before the ‘Team’ starts attacking the author ?

Roger Knights
August 5, 2011 7:08 am

Shaun Dunne says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:14 am
The same thing happens every month.
WOW!” AGW TURNED ON ITS HEAD!!!1!
But then nothing.

It takes a lot of arrows to kill an elephant.
But they’re accumulating. Jumbo is becoming a pincushion.
One “last-straw” arrow will put him on his knees. Then it’s all over but the dining.

gary gulrud
August 5, 2011 7:16 am

“atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase”
Well, duh.

JT
August 5, 2011 7:17 am

See Dr. Jeff Glassman’s paper “The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide”,
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more
also successfully defended against Gavin Schmidt
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html

mac
August 5, 2011 7:18 am

Luis Dias
In reply to [] Gavin Schmidt’s point about the ice age data not making sense – that is exactly the point that Murray Salby was making. You cannot point to ice core data and say that atmospheric levels of CO2 were-such-and-such so many years back. All you can say about ice core data is that changes is CO2 lagged changes in temperature, and also that there must be large natural feedbacks present that prevents this planet from having runaway temperatures and ever increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.
We, Schmidt, Salby do not know what the atmospheric levels of CO2 were in the past …. but what we can directly infer from Salby’s research using satellite data is they must have been a lot higher during warm phases than indicated in the ice core data.
The game changer in all this is that science has not changed – man is not interfering with the global climate – as ever it is natural changes in temperature that is driving changes in atmospheric CO2.

Luis Dias
August 5, 2011 7:18 am

Having failed to block the publication , anyone want to take a bet on how long before the ‘Team’ starts attacking the author ?

I didn’t catch what is the journal where it will be published.
Does anyone know?

Dave Springer
August 5, 2011 7:20 am

richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:37 am

On a related point, we need to know why natural sinks today are absorbing more CO2 than they were 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years ago etc.

I attribute it to there being a natural equilibrium point of 280ppm during interglacial periods. The more a system is thrown out of equilibrium the harder it tries to get back to equilibrium. A good example is when you put two objects in contact where one is hotter the than the other. The equilibrium point is when both objects are the same temperature. When the temperature disparity is greater the race towards equilibrium is faster and when the disparity is less the slower the race. In fact the two objects will never reach absolute equilibrium because the energy exchange gets smaller and smaller as they approach equilibrium. The classic example of never quite reaching equilbrium is taught as two objects approaching each other in stepwise fashion where each step halves the distance between them. They will never actually meet and the speed of approach diminishes with each step.

Ryan
August 5, 2011 7:21 am

Some here have suggested that this paper, when it is released, will be shot down by Team AGW in the usual manner, i.e. employing the usual ad hominems. I suspect that will be the case, but I don’t buy that it will therefore have no impact. For one thing the likes of Gavin Schmitt, Michael Mann et al are coming across more and more like ranting maniacs. Their attempts to defend their own science by making personal attacks on their critics are calling their own motivations into question. Open minded people will start to question what is really going on. Open minded scientists will start to question whether they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. They will start to look at the data for themselves to see if they have chosen to be on the wrong side. Once this starts to happen the game is up for Team AGW, and it has already started to happen. More and more papers are questioning the basic foundations of AGW theory and the extent of the danger.
We will not change the mind of people like Michael Mann and others like him. They are zealots. But we don’t need to change their minds. They will simply become irrelevant as the truth unfolds. And that is what they are most scared of.

ClimateWatcher
August 5, 2011 7:24 am

Don’t like the premise.
Yes there is natural variation.
But less than half of annual anthro CO2 remains, so the remaining half
satisfies Occam’s razor.
And CO2 increase mirrors that of CH4 and N2O, amongst others.
Global warming is -not- a hoax of principle, but is rather a hoax of exaggeration.

Chilli
August 5, 2011 7:26 am

Some supporting info to look at while you listen to the talk here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Note the cyan CO2 growth rate chart which shows the 92 dip coinciding with Pinatubo cooling and 1998 El Nino warming. By contrast human CO2 emissions increase smoothly throughout.

Dave Springer
August 5, 2011 7:27 am

KnR says:
August 5, 2011 at 7:05 am

Having failed to block the publication , anyone want to take a bet on how long before the ‘Team’ starts attacking the author ?

Is Salby is known to believe in God? If he does that seems to be a fashionably acceptable way for climate boffins to attack scientific research – discredit the author’s science for totally unrelated philosophical beliefs.

August 5, 2011 7:28 am

Dave Springer says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:52 am
“The null hypothesis based on empirical observation is that annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are twice what natural sinks can absorb in that same year. ”
================================================================
Yeh, this is a tricky subject. I often find myself on the other side of people whose opinions I respect…… but, that’s the process, no?
So if we were to cut our emissions in half, atmospheric CO2 would be come quasi static?
Nope, not even close. As shown earlier, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg ) , we can see that our emissions were half no[t] so long ago, yet, the rate of rise hasn’t changed much. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/to:1990/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/trend
So, what were the sinks doing in the 70s? Just hanging out waiting for the millennium?

Theo Goodwin
August 5, 2011 7:33 am

jason says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:33 am
“Gavin has already dismissed it completelely in the “unforced variations” thread over on nasas unofficial propoganda blog. Amazing as the paper is not out for six weeks.”
The Warmista are everywhere. Their reflex is to quash anything that might conflict with their dogma. At Curry’s site, some are begging her to come back from the Dark Side while others are demanding that she post disclaimers whenever she posts material like Salby’s.

G. Karst
August 5, 2011 7:38 am

Dr. Judith Curry says:
If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.

It certainly doesn’t revolutionize AGW. It does revolutionize GW theory, but it removes the “A” from AGW. This would be falsification not “revolution”. Judith is being much too kind and diplomatic. Of course, the paper must stand, or we are all whistling dixie.
Refusing proper debate, is going to cost a lot of scientists plenty. I try to maintain some compassion for their predicament, but it may be beyond my capabilities. The most, I can muster, is amusement, as one by one, these scientists, realize they have been standing, in full view, as naked as a jaybird. GK

commieBob
August 5, 2011 7:39 am

re. the 800 year lag between temperature and CO2 concentration.
Prof. Salby commented on ice cores. With time, CO2 diffuses across layers. It is seen by the fact that recent short term fluctuations can be seen in the cores but as you go back in time, they get averaged out.
My comment is that, if the CO2 preferentially diffuses up through the ice column, then the 800 year lag would be overstated. That seems reasonable because the pressure in the ice column increases with depth and CO2, a gas, would diffuse toward a lower pressure region (ie. upward).

August 5, 2011 7:42 am

Roger Knights says:
August 5, 2011 at 7:08 am
It takes a lot of arrows to kill an elephant.
But they’re accumulating. Jumbo is becoming a pincushion.
One “last-straw” arrow will put him on his knees. Then it’s all over but the dining.

====================================
Paging David Appell … another “Death Threat” for your collection.
/sarc

Tim Ball
August 5, 2011 7:43 am

People should go back and listen to what I said at the Heartland in Washington recently. There is no record for any period of any duration in which CO2 increase precedes temperature increase. It is what I have researched and written about for several years. Apart from my presentation all the presentations were built around the idea that CO2 and especially human CO2 were causing warming. It is difficult to be a sceptic among sceptics. Fortunately, away from the podium I was involved in several discussions with an increasing number of people who are recently to the climate and CO2 issue who are questioning the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Ryan
August 5, 2011 7:43 am

@Dave Springer: “One might argue on the exact quantity but the bottom line remains is that we pretty much know how much oil, natural gas, and coal is taken out of the ground every year and burned.”
So what? If it all gets absorbed what difference does that make? What if the natural emissions of CO2 were 1,000,000 times greater than the anthropogenic emissions, and the Earth then absorbed 99.9999% of what was emitted? This is what is being suggested here – that the Earth is emitting massive amounts of CO2 and absorbing massive amounts of CO2 and mankinds fiddling around the edges is making precious little difference. Thus the “signature” of mankinds accumulated involvement simply isn’t present as it should be, and the Mauna Loa record only indicates not the increase in CO2 caused by your local power station, but a small temporary imbalance in the Earth’s natural CO2 recycling system.

DirkH
August 5, 2011 7:46 am

Shaun Dunne says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:16 am
“I want a T-Shirt that says…
I GET MY SCIENCE FROM RON CRAM”
Oh sorry, we ran out of those, but we still have a hundred million “I GET MY SCIENCE FROM WILLIAM M. CONNOLLEY” in stock. They don’t sell as good as they used to.

Pamela Gray
August 5, 2011 7:52 am

The atmosphere is not very sensitive to changes in anthropogenic CO2 output (it has been up and down). It seems very sensitive to regular changes in natural seasonal output, and very sensitive to some kind of CO2 pump that out performs seasonal changes. This constant uptick , this constant relationship is rare in nature. I have two thoughts.
1. Something that outputs CO2 is growing at a steady pace and exponentially, like a population explosion, and CO2 sinks aren’t expanding to match it. The growth isn’t just adding one more unit per year, it is adding multiple units per year that expands each year.
or
2. The mathematical model that converts CO2 measurements into part per million has a calculations/methods flaw.

ed
August 5, 2011 7:56 am

Richard Verney, you state:
“It is implausible, that the planet has similarly greened (in like linear fashion) each year.”
The above statement is an assumption by you. I don’t see any reason why the planet could not have been[] greening each year. Satellite photos even show greening of the Sahara desert. Stating an assertion does not make it so.

John Whitman
August 5, 2011 8:03 am

Salby’s talk via podcast is sufficient motivation for me to look more into the earth’s carbon dynamics prior to his book and paper coming out.
For me that is reason enough to praise Salby’s efforts and reason for me to thank him.
John

Editor
August 5, 2011 8:07 am

Luis Dias says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:58 am
But that only goes to the sensitivity issue which is not the important finding. So what if the sensitivity is less than first thought ? That does not affect the basic contention that the isotope ratios have been wrongly interpreted.
That may be true and I’m waiting for the actual evidence to come out of this finding. However, the claim that CO2 rises due mostly to the temperature simply falls down flat with this simple reasoning. At most, the temperature would have only affected 10% of the CO2 rise. Where did the other 90% come from? “Natural variability”? I can eat that, the problem is how on earth will you show such a thing to be true.
And given the “hockey stick nature” of the CO2 rise in this century, there’s little evidence to support it.
So I guess the next step for the skeptics is to undermine the hockey stick of the CO2 record.

CO2 “hockey stick” and ice cores undermined here and here

J.Hansford
August 5, 2011 8:09 am

Some here keep saying that the natural content in the atmosphere is a known quantity, because the anthropogenic content is a known quantity, thus what is left must be, by default, all natural……. Of course if the residence time of Anthropogenic CO2 is very short lived, ….. Then, as Professor Salby said…. All bets are off. Because then, if his view of the C12/13 ration is correct, then the natural CO2’s sinks, emissions and natural variation is unknown, meaning human influences are very minimal…… One just cannot say what portion of anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere, or for how long, because it is impossible to tell….. and considering that the warming started before major industrialization and the rate is not increasing. The AGW hypothesis becomes increasingly stressed.
The lack of a lag of CO2’s effects on global temps between the mainly industrialized northern hemisphere and the less industrialized south, should have been a good warning of problems with CO2 sinks and anthropogenic CO2 residence times…… To my mind anyway.

Jay
August 5, 2011 8:10 am

I produced a graph from the inter year changes derived from the Mona Loa data. It
is interesting that over a short time span the year to year rate of increase can vary from 0.4 to almost 3 ppm/year (1992 and 1998 for example). Since the fossil fuel burning of humans is increasing consistently the last 40 years, this wide variation shows that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to more than just man’s combustion.
The almost 8X variation in yearly increase shows that is is not just a simple “humans are adding CO2 to the air” based increase. The big trend over 50 years may be due to warming, and out gassing of the oceans.
I look forward to the experts understanding the subtleties of isotope rations etc.
-Jay

Latitude
August 5, 2011 8:10 am

Is there a witness protection program for climate scientists?………………………………

August 5, 2011 8:14 am

Funnily enough I was just reading this paper from PNAS
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/11/4249.full.pdf+html
Its about the changing carbon cycle monitored at Mauna Loa and discusses the fact that the annual increment of CO2 is strongly correlated with temperature and dependent upon respiration and photosynthesis complicated by the fact that the MLO signal is derived from different air masses at different times of year.
Perhaps we will now begin to see some attention paid to the nitrogen cycle which is completley dominated by anthropogenic inputs unlike the carbon cycle which is not – and unlikely ever to be and about which it might just be possible to do something without the cure being worse than the disease.
But then that would be old fashioned “ecology” wouldn’t it?
jh

Latitude
August 5, 2011 8:17 am

LazyTeenager says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:43 am
If the extra CO2 in the air is coming from the oceans due to warming oceans, then the amount in the oceans should be going down.
As far as I know ocean CO2 is going up not down.
=======================================================
Lazy, I’ve not been able to find one single record of pH change.
Do you have a link to an actual measured – not computer modeled – pH change?
As you can see from this, places like Monterey Bay would be the most vulnerable and would show the most change. Yet, there has been no change at all in either sea level or pH.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/monterey-bay-shows-no-change-in-sea-level-or-ph/

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 8:19 am

Dave Springer:
Your post at August 5, 2011 at 6:52 am is either naïve or disingenuous.
Yes, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (i.e. CO2 in the air) is less than the tiny anthropogenic emission of CO2.
But it is also true that the natural emissions of CO2 dwarf the anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
And, importantly, the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is directly causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year. In some years all of the anthropogenic emission seems to be sequestered from the air, and in other years almost none of it.
Furthermore, the annual increase of the anthropogenic emissions is about 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 12 GtC in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the rapid natural sequestration processes can easily cope with the human production of CO2.
Whatever you try to assert, the fact is that the null hypothesis is that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural, and there is no evidence – none, not any, zilch – which suggests other than that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural.
Richard

August 5, 2011 8:20 am

Prof. Salby’s analysis, and comments, suggest ice-core CO2 most likely reflects muted fluctuations about a mean of atmospheric concentration. Well, so much for 400 ppmv being unprecedented over the previous million years.

richard verney
August 5, 2011 8:21 am

@Richard S Courtney says: August 5, 2011 at 6:41 am
///////////////////////////////////////////
The system is never in equilibrium and cannot achieve equilibrium. the chaotic nature of clouds alone leads instrinsically to that result. The area and volume of clouds constantly changes and add to this the place where clouds are formed and the time when they are formed also changes. Obviously, cloud forming either side of midday, have more impact on the amount of solar energy received than do the same clouds say formed late afternoon, early evenning. Ditto, clouds formed over the euatorial/tropical regions have more impact on the amount of solar energy received than say similarly sized clouds forming over the Artic. The sheer variability of clouds, the changes in biomass and your point regarding changes in the concentration of CO2, means that the system can never achieve equalibrium, although it may ‘hunt’ around a stable equalibrium point moving one way or the other.
I agree with much of what Dave Springer says (see Dave Springer says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:52 am) and in particular with the comment “…empirical observation is that annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are twice what natural sinks can absorb in that same year.” This ties into an earlier post of mine, namely, we need to investigate why natural sinks vary like this on an annual basis. For example, if the natural sink in 2008 had the same capacity as the natural sink had in 2010 there would in fact have been (or perhaps more correctly ‘there should in fact have been’) no increase in CO2 levels between the period 2008/9. In short, what was so different between the natural sinks in 2008 and 2010?,

Kelvin Vaughan
August 5, 2011 8:22 am

AlanG says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:35 am
OT but, A British tourist has been mauled to death and four other people have been injured in a polar bear attack in Norway. The attack happened today in the Norwegian Arctic Archipelago of Svalbard.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8683416/British-tourist-mauled-to-death-by-polar-bear-in-Norway.htm
Does this have any bearing on the matter in hand?

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 8:37 am

Luis Dias:
At August 5, 2011 at 6:58 am you assert:
“At most, the temperature would have only affected 10% of the CO2 rise. Where did the other 90% come from?”
Really, only 10%? You know that? I am boggled at your hubris.
To now that then you would be able to quantify the entire carbon cycle system.
Nobody can do that.
Let me give you some insight into the nature of what you claim you can do.
The following are the major known processes of the carbon cycle and some of their interactions.
SHORT-TERM PROCESSES
1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).
2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.
3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.
4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.
5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.
LONGER-TERM PROCESSES
6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).
7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.
8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.
NATURAL PROCESSES THAT ADD CO2 TO THE SYSTEM
9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).
10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.
ANTHROPOGENIC PROCESSES THAT ADD CO2 TO THE SYSTEM
11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).
12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).
Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.
At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.
The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.
The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.
Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper (4) assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.
Modeling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations.
However, some things can be stated from the empirical data.
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year . The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.
The above qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2. However, the system could be quite sensitive to temperature. So, our paper considered how the carbon cycle would be disturbed if – for some reason – the temperature of the atmosphere were to rise, as it almost certainly did between 1880 and 1940 (there was an estimated average rise of 0.5 °C in average surface temperature.
As temperature rises the rate of the main CO2 production processes 2 (decomposition of organic matter) and 4 (desorption from the oceans) would rise, as would the rate of the consumption process 1 (photosynthesis). However, the rate of absorption in the ocean (process 3) will not be increased. The rates of processes 1a and 2a will rise more quickly than the rates of processes 1b and 2b, but it is not obvious which would rise most. Obviously, the net result would be an increase of CO2 production by desorption from the oceans. This is a relatively slow process, because the mass transfer coefficient between the sea water and its surface is relatively low (the rates of both absorption and desorption in the oceans have time constants that are probably of the order of decades). This would mean that a disruption by a temperature rise would result in a relatively slow increase of CO2 production. Gradually, the consumption processes 1 (photosynthesis) and 3 (absorption in cold ocean waters) will increase and slow down the excess CO2 formation.
As long as the anthropogenic production of CO2 is less than, say, 10% of the average natural production (2.5 times the present level), the CO2 level in the atmosphere might become 2.5 times higher than it was originally. However, it will eventually become much lower again, due to the delayed action of process 8 (the “true sink”).
The above considerations of available data strongly suggest that the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will have no significant long term effect on climate. The main reason is that the rate of increase of the anthropogenic production of CO2 is very much smaller that the observed maximum rate of increase of the natural consumption of CO2.
And you say you know “At most, the temperature would have only affected 10% of the CO2 rise”.
I DON’T BELIEVE YOU. PROVE IT.
Richard

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 8:40 am

Moderators:
I have just posted a message in reply to Louis Dias comment at August 5, 2011 at 6:58 am.
It seems to have vanished. Do you have it or should I post it again, please?
Richard
[We’re working through a long queue. 8<) Robt]

DesertYote
August 5, 2011 8:40 am

Hmm, imagine that. When I use to play with CO2 injection in my extreme Aquaria, I had to crank to bubble rate way down during the hot days ( tank temp ~ 30 C). CO2 is created by kariote metabolism. The rate of Kariote metabolism is directly related to temperature. Its I dynamic system.

DesertYote
August 5, 2011 8:45 am

The keyboard and monitor of the system I used to post my last comment are at the back of my workbench. I have to reach over two other keyboards and squint at the monitor to post. I guess it shows 🙁

Ken Hall
August 5, 2011 8:45 am

“Up Wing says:
August 5, 2011 at 5:13 am
Salby is saying that The CO2 rise is a natural response to the global termperature rise. So you can accept his explanaion but this also requires accepting that glbal temperatures are increasing.
Is everyone here accepting that then?”

I do not know of many people who do not accept that there has been some moderate warming. The re-analysis of the HADCRUT3 data shows that there has been some moderate warming, although not globally. Some regions have cooled.
There has not been, neither is there any remote actual sign of, the extreme and catastrophic warming that the extremist end of the alarmist’s have been getting so hysterical about.
Even allowing for the warming that has been measured, there is no proof that it is mostly caused by mankind. The amount of warming which has been measured still fits within the boundaries of observable natural variability.

August 5, 2011 8:48 am

@Luis Dias…
There are several natural source of carbon dioxide. I’m not only referring to the well-known sources, like biosystems, volcanoes, and oceans, but to a vast source of carbon dioxide: sand and subsurface materials like rocks, water, etc. It has been observed that warming of the surface triggers the releasing of carbon dioxide towards the atmosphere. The higher the increase, the higher load of carbon dioxide released. This release of carbon dioxide from sand and subsurface materials fluctuates according to surface temperature and the latter fluctuates according with the load of radiation it receives from the Sun:
http://www.casnw.net/desertlabweb/members/Dongzhibao.files/%D2%D1%B7%A2%B1%ED%C2%DB%D6%F8/Estimate%20of%20total%20CO2%20output%20from%20desertified%20sandy%20land%20in%20China.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1409.full.pdf
So, China desert sands, as well as Saharian, Gobi, Atacama, Arabia, Arizona and Texas sands, are sinks of carbon dioxide that overwhelms any emissions from human activities.
The question is: why to bother by carbon dioxide? It is not a pollutant neither a warmer of the Earth; it is an essential part of life, same as water. Saying the carbon dioxide is a pollutant is the same madness as saying that water is a pollutant, and some AGW proponents have gone even to this extreme.
The results of an experiment only can be rebutted by another experiment. No other ways in science.

Cardin Drake
August 5, 2011 8:50 am

I’m pretty firmly in the skeptic camp, but if this article is true, I’m not completely sure it is good news. It could also be interpreted that a small increase in CO2 leads to warming, which leads to a much greater release of CO2. A classic positive feedback loop.

QuickieBurialAtSea
August 5, 2011 8:51 am

“The most pertinent criticism I think was quoted on Cetc but it was made by Gavin Schmidt. It is basically this point: if CO2 was so sensitive to temperatures”
Luis, I would like it better if there was a degree of firmness by Gavin, in instances where he seems to synonymize “temperature” and “temperature change”

richard verney
August 5, 2011 8:53 am

Friends
It is an instrinsic part of the AGW theory that if man was not emitting CO2, CO2 levels measured in the atmosphere would not be increasing.
There is no doubt that man is causing CO2 to be emitted in to the atmosphere, however, it does not necessarily follow from this that these emissions are the cause of the increased levels of CO2 as measured in the atmosphere.
One cannot rule out the possibilty that if man was to stop all manmade CO2 emissions, the level of CO2 in the atmoshphere would still continue to rise. For example, it could be the position that for short periods (and in this I include periods of 100s may be 1000s of years), there is a relationship between total atmospheric CO2 levels and available natural sinks. This relationship may be such that available natural sinks will always increase in line with increased CO2 emissions (whatever be the reason for this emission, ie., natural and/or manmade) such that they will always be able to absorp approximately 50% of the increase in CO2 levels.
Thus it may the case that if man was to stop emitting CO2, the natural sinks would become less efficient/have less capacity so that they would be unable to absorp a greater proportion of CO2 which is being naturally outgassed with the result that one would still see a rising CO2 trend, may be a trend having exactly the same rate of increase as that being measured today, even though in this scenario, man was not emitting any CO2 at all.. Not only is a proper understanding of natural CO2 emissions required and what these may be a response to, but in addition, a proper understanding of nautural sinks and how they respond to increase in CO2 concentrations is required. I do not consider that presently, we have a proper grasp of this and without this, one cannot begin to evaluate to what extent mamade emiisions are playinng a significant role in the carbon cycle/increased levels of CO2 measured in the atmosphere these past 60 or so years.

R. Gates
August 5, 2011 8:55 am

Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make. Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?
Answer: With all due respect Mr. Salby is incorrect. Current CO2 levels, far beyond the levels we seen for the past 800,000 years and probably longer are due to human industrial activities. The oceans have been net sinks of human carbon dioxide…this much is quite clear. Humans have taken the carbon from the fossil fuels and placed it in the atmosphere and oceans…end of story.

August 5, 2011 8:58 am

Here is something hair-raising I found:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I’m not competent to comment – but who can?

Jeremy
August 5, 2011 9:00 am

It never made any sense to me to attribute changes in C12/C13 ratios to humanity, considering that C13 is created naturally in the atmosphere by incoming radiation from space which is a variable, and not constant. I never heard anyone speak on how they eliminated the variability of naturally produced C13 wrt human emissions.

Steve from Rockwood
August 5, 2011 9:02 am

John Finn says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am
“We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.”
===================================================
A whole 50 years John Finn? You are willing to believe that humans are responsible for CO2 increases because of a whole 50 years of increases?
The average lag between CO2 and temperature is 800 years. When CO2 was increasing in the 1940s through to the 1970s (for over 30 years) why did temperature go down?
Probably because the short term fluctuations in global temperature are not related to the long term increase in CO2, which is obvious when you compare the two graphs. Over a period of several thousand years – yes there is a correlation, CO2 follows temperature. But over 50 years? No correlation. I don’t understand why people don’t understand this.

Edim
August 5, 2011 9:04 am

When the cooling really gets going, the CO2 will start decreasing. I think there is already evidence of deceleration.
~800 years lag is an artifact. CO2 was higher than today during the Holocene optimum for example, simply because the temperatures were higher.

Molon Labe
August 5, 2011 9:06 am

Re Luis Dias @ August 5, 2011 at 3:55 am:
There must be a very large effect on the carbin sink if CO2 concentration goes from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. You’re crossing over the threshold value of CO2 (~200 ppm) at which plant photosynthesis can occur.

Duster
August 5, 2011 9:09 am

richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:37 am

On a related point, we need to know why natural sinks today are absorbing more CO2 than they were 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years ago etc.

We do not know that they are, though I tend to think so. CO2 is, as often repeated, “plant food.” Increased productivity would lead to higher sequestering rates. Again, the oceans may be a more or less undiscussed key sink. Algal blooms, for example, would take up tons of CO2, but how broadly researched is this. There are also natural chemical sinks – carbonate pan formation in soil,. lime precipitation in marine environments, and presumably others as well.
For example, if say back in 1980, natural sinks had the same capacaity as they do today to absorb CO2 then there would not have been an increase in CO2 levels in 1980/1, ditto If say back in 1981, natural sinks had the same capacaity as they do today to absorb CO2 then there would not have been an increase in CO2 levels in 1981/2.
Natural biological sinks would be capable of increasing capacity in response to increased available CO2 if other critical nutrients aren’t acting as limits. Increased agriculture could also act as a non-natural sink.
We need to better understand the natural processes involved both in the release of CO2 and in its absorpttion.
Hear, hear!

August 5, 2011 9:17 am

“professor” Salby should get some basic courses on diffusion physics before he writes this tripe.
Google Ferdinand Engelbeen CO2 for some real skeptic science.

August 5, 2011 9:20 am

Anthony,
Nothing new here just another rehash of what appeared in our ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ book written by Miso Alkalaj. Also, it’s amazing to read “Dr Roy Spencer has suspected something similar,” because in emails with the ‘Slayers’ he argued against our conclusion that increasing CO2 wasn’t principally traceable to human emissions.
Week by week, month by month lukewarmers are wising up to fact there is no ‘greenhouse effect.’

August 5, 2011 9:39 am

Mike Hohmann says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:58 am
Here is something hair-raising I found:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I’m not competent to comment – but who can?
============================================
Hmm, Mike some blogs are a bit behind WUWT……
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/ (There’s a link to Lubos Motl’s thoughts at the end of the post)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Goddard has continued espousing that the ideal gas law should be applied on his own blog…..
Here is an excellent articulation of the current theory as to why the ideal gas law doesn’t apply in this particular case. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/ivy-league-alarmist-proves-my-point/#comment-50172 🙂
But, the post itself demonstrates Goddard’s POV.

Robert M
August 5, 2011 9:41 am

Hello folks, I am not Jeff Dunham, nor do I play him in TV, but today our skit will not have Jeff Dunham not playing himself and Achmed the dead terrorist who will be playing to part of Kevin Trenberth, and Walter, who Gavin Schmidt plays when he is not posting on The Blog that will not be Named. Are you with me so far?
Jeff: So, you guys have a real problem today with whole out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans problem making your AGW theory look like so much hot air…
Gavin: I out-gas all the time! But that is not a problem because clearly if warming oceans were causing CO2 levels to rise, the fact that the warming has halted for a decade or so would have caused CO2 levels to level off, and we have not seen that.
Kevin: Infidel!!! Fool who is bought and paid for by big oil! What you are saying is not possible. Everyone knows that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans where we can not find it. This is a position I have staked my career on, and AGW theory requires that this be true, therefor the oceans have been warming!! Wait… Gavin is that you?
Gavin: (Emitting a gas he claims is killing us with every breath…) Ahhh, hmmm What I meant to say was that the missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans in a place where it will not cause warming, in fact the extra heat is causing cooling. Therefor this proves double true that human activity causes the heating which causes the cooling that creates the CO2 that causes my funding, that proves that everyone who disagrees with our position is funded by big oil and therefor must be wrong.
Jeff: What?
Kevin and Gavin: Silence!!!

Ben of Houston
August 5, 2011 9:45 am

I still don’t understand this point: there is a high turnover rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. The entire turnover period is less than 10 years. Furthermore, the majority of CO2 emissions are natural. Therefore, the live CO2 in the atmosphere is going to always be coming predominantly from natural sources, and the CO2 being taken in is predominantly natural with a bit of man-made in there. Either way, the man-made sources are only part of the mix, and this is a well-mixed system. Just going by this description, I don’t think that we can determine these things on this level using a C12-C13 analysis.
The question is: if man had not been outputting CO2 to the atmosphere, would the CO2 levels have increased? More generally, what is the equilibrium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and has this been significantly affected by the actions of Man?

Richard
August 5, 2011 9:50 am

this is by far the top story of the whole AGW even greater than climategate ect should be left top post for a very very long time AW you decide its your site lol

Jeremy
August 5, 2011 9:56 am

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make. Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?
Answer: With all due respect Mr. Salby is incorrect. Current CO2 levels, far beyond the levels we seen for the past 800,000 years and probably longer are due to human industrial activities. The oceans have been net sinks of human carbon dioxide…this much is quite clear. Humans have taken the carbon from the fossil fuels and placed it in the atmosphere and oceans…end of story.

That’s pretty weak, Gates. Your comment amounts to, “It is this way because I say it is so!”
As far as the MWP is concerned, I presume you’re basing your argument on ice-core data. You’re saying the ice-cores do not show a CO2 increase during the MWP. This indicates you did not listen to the podcast.

August 5, 2011 9:58 am

Tim Ball says:
August 5, 2011 at 7:43 am
“It is difficult to be a sceptic among sceptics.”
=========================================================
Sometimes, it is.

Steve Keohane
August 5, 2011 10:00 am

R. Gates says: August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make. Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?

It doesn’t matter what the CO2 level is…it is not driving the climate bus. I’d say it is not only at the back of the bus, it’s coming out the tailpipe. That is to say, it is barely connected to climate.

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 10:07 am

richard verney:
I welcome disagreement with what I write and I especially appreciate it when I am shown to be wrong because then I learn. But I object to misrepresentation of what I write.
Your post at August 5, 2011 at 8:21 am purports to be replying to my post at August 5, 2011 at 6:41 am.
You begin that reply by saying;
”The system is never in equilibrium and cannot achieve equilibrium. the chaotic nature of clouds alone leads instrinsically to that result.”
Then you attack what I said as being wrong because the system is never in equilibrium. That attack is the logical error commonly known as a ‘straw man’.
I wrote,
“The continuing rise for decades after the temperature has risen is because a temperature increase causes the system of the carbon cycle to obtain a new equilibrium state, and the system takes decades to achieve that new equilibrium.
The short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic and the natural emissions of any year. But some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium (whatever caused the change to the equilibrium) and, therefore, atmospheric CO2 concentration changes for decades after a change to the system (e.g. a change to global temperature). “
So, I said the system is changing because it is seeking equilbrium equilibrium.
I did not say it is in equilibrium.
My argument must be very good if you feel the need to answer it with a ‘straw man’.
Richard

John Whitman
August 5, 2011 10:08 am

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make. Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?
——————–
R. Gates,
I think R Taylor’s following comment suggests an insight. The Salby paper will be interesting.

R Taylor says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:20 am
Prof. Salby’s analysis, and comments, suggest ice-core CO2 most likely reflects muted fluctuations about a mean of atmospheric concentration. Well, so much for 400 ppmv being unprecedented over the previous million years.

Thanks R Taylor.
John

August 5, 2011 10:08 am

Fred H. Haynie – Complements on your fascinating analysis: The Future of Global Climate Change especially on polar ice caps as CO2 drivers. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
I encourage you to formally publish your findings. I took the liberty to crosspost your material at Climate Etc.
Richard Courtney – I also cross posted some of your post – (before seeing your post.)

August 5, 2011 10:15 am

Its new, its old. Its exciting, its a boring rehash. Its accurate, its inaccurate. He is a good scientist, he is a bad scientist.
This one could run a while….

Richard
August 5, 2011 10:17 am

There onto a change of tactics now
http://www.tothecenter.com/index.php?readmore=16987e

Ben Hern
August 5, 2011 10:17 am

@ John Finn: One presumes you’ve understood that the time lag between temperature trend rise and [CO2] trend rise is 800years? so why would you expect [CO2] to be trending downward on account of 15years of cooling or no change?
If your soup is boiling and you turn off the stove element, does the soup immediately stop boiling? Now consider the volume of the earth’s oceans and consider it’s thermal inertia and then explain why you expect that a trivial 15years cooling should already be paying dividends WRT atmospheric [CO2].
As another Skippy, I hope this paper proves sufficiently game changing to put the brakes on this gullible warming gravy train; though I am far too pessimistic to actually believe the nomenclatura will relinquish their grand vision when faced with yet more contractory science.
Concensus my arse!
Sad thing is, all my Geology, Meteorology, Climatology and Oceanography professors knew the hot-air affect was pure fiction back in 1991, so why have we all wasted so much time and beer vouchers on such improbable bovine faeces in the meantime?
(My Meteorology Professor was cut off while answering a local radio station’s DJs questions on gullible warming back in 1993, a sudden technical failure after he’d pointed out that atmospheric [CO2] increases were as trivial as those due to opening a can of coke in one’s lounge room).
Off topic maybe, but I see another oil company is proudly gloating about an offshore wind farm selling watermelon electricity to the UK national grid (off the Norfolk coast) this week.
So much for the vested interest of ‘big oil’.
Bring on the 21st century minimum so that science proof eco-worriers have something real to fuss about.

Bruce
August 5, 2011 10:25 am

R Gates: “Current CO2 levels, far beyond the levels we seen for the past 800,000 years”
During the Eemian, CO2 rose 100ppm from a 190ppm base line. So far, CO2 has risen about 100ppm from a higher base line.
What natural process decided the base line would be 100ppm higher in the Holocene than the Eemian?
Why did CO2 follow temperature changes in the Eemian?
Why does CO2 rise 2.9ppm during an El Nino and less than 1ppm in some years? I thought human produced CO2 was quite consistent?

Mark Hladik
August 5, 2011 10:27 am

Mr./Ms. Gates:
The last 800,000 years is less than a blink of an eye. As can easily be found, there was a period of time when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was close to what it is today.
This was the Carboniferous Period, called the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Periods on the side of the pond wherein polar bears are drowning due to thin/absent arctic ice.
This was also a significant glacial event, coexistant with luxuriant coal-forming swamps.
A bit earlier, near the transition between the Ordovician and Silurian Periods, we saw another significant glacial event take place. Funny thing is, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was more than ten times what it is today.
What is the big deal about the last 800,000 years? Why not look at the complete record, and explain tells us why the last 800,000 years is so special? While you are at it, explain the lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature changes. There’s lots of data; surely you can come up with a model to make CO2 concentration and temperatures match each other perfectly, right?
Mark H.

Wil
August 5, 2011 10:30 am

Wow! This was a talk by Prof. Murray Salby that had to blow the collective minds of every eco-fanatic on the planet. CO2 increased in the 80s while temperature began to drop and c13 is also made naturally. This is devastating to the AGW community – millions of dollars will have to be spend to discredit this man and his work or the AGW community is DOA.
BTW, thanks Anthony for this article – your research is second to none highlighting this man.

August 5, 2011 10:36 am

The edifice is crumbling!
This fits in nicely with this:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8119
and this:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8168
Please see my paper at the weblink.

Wil
August 5, 2011 10:37 am

Prof. Murray Salby in his question and answer section give a brilliant answer to ice related so called atmospheric CO2 trapped in millions of year old ice. Anyone who actually listened to this section would have gotten their answer.

August 5, 2011 10:42 am

Robert M says:
August 5, 2011 at 9:41 am
That was a riot….. thanks!

August 5, 2011 10:43 am

Gotta love Emily! This is refreshing! To see some actual work in the field of climate science!

pat
August 5, 2011 10:47 am

I note that Spencer’s observations on satellite measured heat radiation and Salby’s conjecture reflect very accurately the real world as opposed to the modeled. And both go hand in hand. No wonder Dr. Curry is very interested. I suspect others will react with anger.

Luis Dias
August 5, 2011 10:51 am

Richard,

Really, only 10%? You know that? I am boggled at your hubris.
To now that then you would be able to quantify the entire carbon cycle system.
Nobody can do that.

I’m not saying I’m able to do so. It’s not my thesis, it’s professor’s Salby’s thesis which states the CO2 sensitivity to temperature, not me.
I’m merely stating a counter example that falsifies his proposition. If you now say something like “it’s complicated”, ok sure. I never said otherwise, dr. Salby is the one stating he can recognize this causality and its sensitivity. Please go tell him that he can’t do what he did.

Charlie Z
August 5, 2011 11:01 am

I really don’t get his point. That there is variability in CO2 levels due to natural changes in balance? Why is that news? And, how does that say that human added CO2 does not alter the CO2 balance?
Say, for example, that with no human contributions, CO2 levels fluctuated -1.5 PPM/year to 1.5 PPM/year. Add a human contribution and then they fluctuate from 0 PPM/year to +3 PPM/year. You still have natural variability and still have a human component that is causing increased CO2. This seems to be completely consistent with his presentation.
The only thing interesting and potentially new was that the isotopic concentrations don’t necessarily mean that the extra CO2 in the air is from humans, which doesn’t say it isn’t either.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a skeptic. But, given the larger temperature swings of the past and the smaller CO2 variations that went along with them, I don’t really think that an argument that says that the extra 100 PPM of CO2 is “not from us” holds much weight. In fact, it probably draws away from the truth which is, ‘yes, it is us, but it is no big deal’.
Then again, maybe I was missing something in the presentation because I didn’t have the graphics.

R.S.Brown
August 5, 2011 11:02 am

In an e-mail from beyond the grave, Emily Littela admitted to an associate
that she had originally begun to write up her commentary, thinking the topic
was “gerbil worming”.
BTW, if you’ve ever carefully opened a bottle of beer (warm as
traditionalists perfer, or cold as the less refined demand) you might notice
the level of the beverage in the container doesn’t go down as the CO2 slowly
outgasses.

August 5, 2011 11:05 am

Luis Dias,
Your ‘falsification’ is itself refuted in David Middleton’s links @8:02 am.

Puckster
August 5, 2011 11:09 am

My only problem is that…….and correct me if I’m wrong, but, this may be a new study but I thought that knowledge of this was already known. I believe I’ve seen studies on this CO2 lag before.
It may be just me.

Editor
August 5, 2011 11:11 am

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make. Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?
Answer: With all due respect Mr. Salby is incorrect. Current CO2 levels, far beyond the levels we seen for the past 800,000 years and probably longer are due to human industrial activities. The oceans have been net sinks of human carbon dioxide…this much is quite clear. Humans have taken the carbon from the fossil fuels and placed it in the atmosphere and oceans…end of story.

Plant stomata clearly indicate high levels of CO2 associated with the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warming and Medieval Warm Period…
Roman Warming and Medieval Warm Period
The CO2 chart is from Kouwenberg, 2004. It is a reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 from plant stomata. It clearly shows that pre-industrial CO2 levels routinely fluctuated from ~280 to 310-360ppmv. The post-800 AD data were also published in Kouwneberg et al., 2005. Dr. Kouwenberg attributed the 400-600 AD CO2 maximum to unspecified local environmental stresses because the high CO2 level could not be matched up with climate warming… She was relying on Mann & Jones, 2003 reconstruction. I used the temperature reconstructions from Moberg et al., 2005 and Ljungqvist 2010; neither of which was available at the time Dr. Kouwneberg published these CO2 reconstructions.
CO2 levels peaked ~230 years after the Medieval Warm Period peaked and the Little Ice Age cooling began and CO2 bottomed out ~230 years after the trough of the Little Ice Age. In a fashion similar to the glacial/interglacial lags in the ice cores, the plant stomata data indicate that CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes by about 230 years over the last millennium. The rise in CO2 that began in 1860 is most likely the result of warming oceans degassing.
While we don’t have a continuous stomata record over the Holocene, it does appear that a lag time was also present in the early Holocene…
<a href =http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Preboreal.pngPreboreal Oscillation
8200-yr Cooling and Holocene Thermal Maximum
McElwain et al., 2002 also found that a “~77 ppm decrease in atmospheric CO2 at the onset of the Younger Dryas stadial… lagged climatic cooling by ~130 yr.”
The stomata data clearly support a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
The ice cores cannot resolve century-scale or shorter duration CO2 fluctuations. It’s basic Nyquist… “CO2 fluctuation with duration of less than twice the bubble enclosure time cannot be detected in the ice or reconstructed by deconvolution.” (McElwaine et al., 2002 JQS).
The highest resolution Antarctic ice cores have a bubble enclosure time of ~60 years. the Mauna Loa Observatory record is only ~50 years long. It cannot be resolved in ice cores. The century-scale and shorter duration CO2 fluctuations documented in dozens of papers by van Hoof, Wagner, Kouwenberg, McElwaine, etc. from plant stomata do not show up in the ice cores because the ice cores are incapable of recording such short-duration fluctuations.

Luis Dias
August 5, 2011 11:22 am

Smokey,
No, I don’t need ice cores for my analysis. It’s pretty simpler than that.
CO2 was 280 ppm a century ago (more or less). If the sensitivity is, as dr Salby says, of ~100ppm per degree celcius, and if temperature is the main driver of CO2, then how come the CO2 was *only* 280 ppm a century ago, if the temperature is at least 6 degrees higher than the ice ages?
Why, for instance, is the temperature not increasing for the last ten years, and still we see CO2 rising? (wasn’t that fact used against CO2 ->temperature causation here and elsewhere?)

temp
August 5, 2011 11:41 am

Anyone else scared by this comment
“Dr. Judith Curry has some strong words of support, and of caution:
If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.”
Note the lack of “debunk” but instead the implied “it will live on as a new form from which we will still demand everything we currently are but for new reasons”…. aka this event will be much like the change from global cooling to global warming… same ppl, demands just a define excuse.

gnomish
August 5, 2011 11:52 am

lol – somebody is ready to forsake delusion as a lifestyle? just when they thought the asylum was settled…
a cause ALWAYS precedes the effect. that’s THE fundamental axiom of epistemology.
you can’t even know anything if you get the most basic part of ‘how things are known’ quite backwards.
and yah- what’s with the surprised comments from the liberal arts labcoats? every such instance amounts to a declaration of prior symptoms, eh? confessions, if you will, of gross ineptitude.
it had not been anything scientific – the science was scuttled.

P Wilson
August 5, 2011 11:53 am

Reply to John Finn August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am
Oceans contain about 93% of all c02, some 50 times more than in the atmosphere
http://tinyurl.com/7uhsuo
Oceans are heating, NOT the atmosphere, though in fact, no-one measures exactly the exchanges in c02 between oceans, air and land.
IE> They are not measured

R. Gates
August 5, 2011 12:08 pm

David Middleton says:
“The stomata data clearly support a temperature-driven carbon cycle.”
___
And no doubt, prior to the onset of human industrialization, the carbon cycle was clearly driven by temperatures (and you could argue, that human industrial activity also is a consequence of the Holocene warmth, so in a round-about way, our release of CO2 continues the relationship between warmth and CO2 levels.)

commieBob
August 5, 2011 12:12 pm

Hans Erren says:
August 5, 2011 at 9:17 am
“professor” Salby should get some basic courses on diffusion physics before he writes this tripe.
Google Ferdinand Engelbeen CO2 for some real skeptic science.

You seem to be seriously lowering the tone of the discussion here.
1 – You put the word professor in quotes. That means you are emphasizing that word and suggests that you don’t feel that Prof. Salby deserves the title. He has a long list of publications and is clearly respected within his community. Do you have some specific reason to doubt his qualifications?
2 – You have suggested that Prof. Salby should take some classes on diffusion. I listened to the whole podcast and didn’t hear him say anything remotely controversial about diffusion. Did you have anything specific in mind? There have been a number of studies of gas diffusion in an ice column. As far as I can tell, none of them contradicts anything said by Prof. Salby.

R. Gates
August 5, 2011 12:17 pm

Wil says:
August 5, 2011 at 10:37 am
Prof. Murray Salby in his question and answer section give a brilliant answer to ice related so called atmospheric CO2 trapped in millions of year old ice.
____
Since we don’t have any ice core samples of “millions of year old ice” on the planet, it would be interesting to hear his “brilliant” answer.

Conradg
August 5, 2011 12:18 pm

Not sure if this has been mentioned in later comments, but people in early comments seem not to understand that the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans depends on ocean temperatures, not atmospheric temperature. It doesn’t much matter what the atmospheric temperatures are, except to the degree that they warm the entire ocean, which takes a very long time. So yearly air temperature variations will have very little effect on CO2 outgassing, which proceeds at a slow and steady rate as the oceans warm up, and decline as they cool. Nor will it occur in proportion to changes in atmospheric temperature change.

Jeremy
August 5, 2011 12:26 pm

Luis Dias says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:55 am
Anthony, Nick did listen to the audio, since this story broke out on Climate Etc yesterday, and he did comment on it.
Also, many comments were made wrt this story. Despite all the noise (it’s a scam I knew it! or, there the denialists go again!) some arguments were made on Judith Curry blog.
The most pertinent criticism I think was quoted on Cetc but it was made by Gavin Schmidt. It is basically this point: if CO2 was so sensitive to temperatures (we are talking about 100ppm per 1 degree celcius), then the ice age data stops making sense. In the ice ages, CO2 was 180ppm, while in the warmer gaps between ice ages, CO2 was 280ppm. But the temperature was 6 degrees celcius higher. If the CO2 was as sensitive as Selby says, the difference ought to be 600ppm+- (or more), not 100.
So something’s very off right there.

I’m very amused at how sure you are with the numbers you are using. A six degree C difference with what amount of error? 180ppmv with what amount of error? What were the methods used to come up with these numbers? Your comment seeks to create contradiction where none perhaps exist by demonstrating naught but hubris in supposedly *knowing* exactly what past climate was like. This kind of bold claim of knowledge is not at all surprising from those who believe in CAGW.

Tom Gray
August 5, 2011 12:30 pm

Suppose AGW theory is correct and a rise in atmosheric CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature and that this could verry bad effects.
Then why is it a good thing that this is natural?
If it were to anthropgenic CO2 then we would have a chance of of controlling the process. However if this is a natural process and the effects are a natural calamity for us then this would appear to me to be very bad. We would be facing a calamity with no way to ameliorate it.
The souce of CO2 and possible warming due to CO2 increase are separate problems. A natural increase in CO2 would seem to me to be possibly very bad news for us

Wil
August 5, 2011 12:38 pm

R. Gates
Since we don’t have any ice core samples of “millions of year old ice” on the planet, it would be interesting to hear his “brilliant” answer.
—————-
Lol! Thanks for pointing out a mere spelling mistake – and might I ask are you reduced to this level of comment? Perhaps you might want to stick the information contained in both the article and those contained in the Q&A section. To do otherwise reduces your level of discourse.

Editor
August 5, 2011 12:43 pm

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm
David Middleton says:
“The stomata data clearly support a temperature-driven carbon cycle.”
___
And no doubt, prior to the onset of human industrialization, the carbon cycle was clearly driven by temperatures (and you could argue, that human industrial activity also is a consequence of the Holocene warmth, so in a round-about way, our release of CO2 continues the relationship between warmth and CO2 levels.)

You could also argue that fossil fuels are concentrated solar power… But that’s not relevant either.
The stomata data indicate that atmospheric CO2 would have risen to at least 330-360 ppmv due to the warm up from the Little Ice Age without any anthropogenic assistance. Many, if not most, stomata reconstructions employ quercus (oak) leaves. Quercus stomata are unresponsive to CO2 levels above ~345 ppmv. CO2 levels higher than 345 ppmv will yield the same stomatal index as 345 ppmv.

Wil
August 5, 2011 12:43 pm

R Gates
By Physics Today on April 29, 2011 1:08 PM
New Scientist: Four science teams—from Europe, Australia, China, and the US—are racing to retrieve the first million-year-old sample from Antarctica’s ice. Ancient ice could hold clues to past changes in Earth’s climate. Using such ice samples, scientists could study the concentration of carbon dioxide in the ancient atmosphere by analyzing the air trapped in tiny bubbles within the ice. A decline in carbon dioxide concentration could explain the advent of an ice age, for example. One researcher, Robin Bell of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, and her colleagues have come across a potential problem with the hunt, however. They have found that ice sheets in Dome A, one of the drilling sites, is growing from the bottom up. This could mean that any ancient ice that was once there has melted and been replaced.
———
Here is one example of Prof. Murry Salby “problem” with ice core samples among others he outlines.

Jeremy
August 5, 2011 12:44 pm

Hans Erren says:
August 5, 2011 at 9:17 am
“professor” Salby should get some basic courses on diffusion physics before he writes this tripe.
Google Ferdinand Engelbeen CO2 for some real skeptic science.

Having been through most of a CSU’s physics catalog, I don’t recall any classes devoted to “diffusion physics”. You generally take good core classes, like Mechanics / EM / Thermo / Quantum, and perhaps some blends like Solid State / Particle Physics. I don’t recall any classes that even had sections devoted to this “diffusion physics” topic. I think you’re just making stuff up there.
Also, what “tripe” are you referring to? Most of the information thus far is in an audio-only webcast with no slides, and a single abstract. Do you have access to the paper already? Perhaps you’re part of team defense?

August 5, 2011 12:47 pm

Excellent article, Anthony. Thanks!
I have linked to it from “Climate Change (“Global Warming”?) – The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 1:12 pm

Luis Dias:
You people must be really desperate to avoid reality if you keep feeling the need to present ‘straw man’ arguments as in your post at August 5, 2011 at 10:51 am.
You are the second person to respond to my words on this thread with a ‘straw man’.
At August 5, 2011 at 6:58 am you asserted;
“At most, the temperature would have only affected 10% of the CO2 rise.”
I replied at August 5, 2011 at 8:37 am where I explained that nobody could know that because the carbon system is complex and I outlined that complexity. I concluded with;
“And you say you know “At most, the temperature would have only affected 10% of the CO2 rise”.
I DON’T BELIEVE YOU. PROVE IT.”
Your post at August 5, 2011 at 10:51 am responds to that challenge with a falsehood and a ‘straw man’ argument.
It says;
“I’m not saying I’m able to do so. It’s not my thesis, it’s professor’s Salby’s thesis which states the CO2 sensitivity to temperature, not me.”
But Salby did NOT say, “At most, the temperature would have only affected 10% of the CO2 rise”.
YOU SAID IT, NOT HIM.
Your assertion is a falsehood. And the argument that Salby said any such thing is misrepresentation of his argument; i.e. it is a ‘straw man’.
Salby says the rise is completely consistent with it being natural. It is. Please see my post at August 5, 2011 at 4:51 am if you want to know what the data does show.
And you are attempting the same reversal of the null hypothesis that Dave Springer tried to foist on us at August 5, 2011 at 6:52 am and I refuted at August 5, 2011 at 8:19 am.:
Richard

Editor
August 5, 2011 1:18 pm

Hans Erren says:
August 5, 2011 at 9:17 am
“professor” Salby should get some basic courses on diffusion physics before he writes this tripe.
Google Ferdinand Engelbeen CO2 for some real skeptic science.

Google Nyquist sampling theorem. Then read these two papers…
McElwain, J.C., Mayle, F.E. and Beerling, D.J. 2002. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. Journal of Quaternary Science 17: 21-29.
Van Hoof, T.B., Kaspers, K.A., Wagner,F., Van de Wal, R.S.W., Kürschner, W.M. and Visscher, H. (2005) Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core
measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus B, 57/4, 351-355.

Jeremy
August 5, 2011 1:21 pm

I have always felt that Salby’s hypothesis seemed to be highly likely. There is so little evidence for CO2 causing warming in the historical records – everything suggests that atmospheric CO2 is affected by temperatures in some ways.
No doubt many other things influence CO2 levels such as volcanoes, plants, land mass, how much ice covers the poles, animal & bacterial life forms including, of course, Man etc.
Only a narrow minded imbecile could possibly believe that there is a simple relationship between any of these factors.
Any intelligent person would necessarily conclude that there are a whole host of interrelated factors.
Only a simpleton would single out just CO2 and temperature and suggest that there is some kind of direct constant relationship between the two that is independent of everything else.
Is it just me that sees the discussions exclusively around CO2 and temperature as being pointless and idiotic? Doesn’t anyone else see that it is a totally futile approach to understanding a chaotic complex system?

son of mulder
August 5, 2011 1:52 pm

So the AGW crowd urge us to keep temperatures down, so in the light of Prof Salby’s findings, we need to keep burning fossil fuels to keep the cooling sulphates high……oh the irony.

August 5, 2011 1:54 pm

Tom Gray says:
August 5, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Suppose AGW theory is correct and a rise in atmosheric CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature and that this could verry bad effects.
Then why is it a good thing that this is natural?
=========================================================
Because acceptance is necessary for advancement. And certitude is only derived from acceptance. It is how we persevere over adversity. ——– “Fear comes from uncertainty. When we are absolutely certain, whether of our worth or worthlessness, we are almost impervious to fear.”—————William Congreve
We could then quit wasting our time, energies and money on this useless CO2 blame game and move on to something worthwhile. You see, it doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t a natural process vs. human caused. If this is a natural occurrence, obviously, there’s nothing to be done about it. If this is man caused……… well, there’s nothing to be done about it either. China has aptly proven that developing nations don’t and won’t care about a degree or two of warming. They will develop first and worry about the rest later. The developed world can’t change to a non-carbon emitting society, either. If it is man caused, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise at least until the end of the next century and likely beyond that. If its a natural variation, it could stop anytime then.

Ed Waage
August 5, 2011 1:59 pm

This could be a trillion dollar blunder for the warmists if it holds up and it seems solid. Prof. Murry Salby’s talk was very persuasive.

Daniel M
August 5, 2011 2:04 pm

John Finn says:
Human emissions are causing the increase in CO2. Temperature simply determines the rate of that increase.
ummm…
So, you’re saying that temperature determines the rate at which humans emit CO2?
Yeah, right.

Daniel M
August 5, 2011 2:22 pm

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make. Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?
Seriously? What part of “lag” do you fail to understand? Current levels of CO2 are only partially affected by current temperatures. You can’t simply take a given “global temperature” (as if such a thing actually existed or were pertinent to global energy content) and expect to correlate that with a specific level of CO2. Your argument is typical of warmists who gladly accept the science when it fits their argument, but conveniently forget it when they try to shoot down someone else’s argument.

John Finn
August 5, 2011 2:26 pm

Steve from Rockwood says:
August 5, 2011 at 9:02 am

John Finn says:
August 5, 2011 at 4:50 am
“We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.”


===================================================
A whole 50 years John Finn? You are willing to believe that humans are responsible for CO2 increases because of a whole 50 years of increases?
The average lag between CO2 and temperature is 800 years.

With all due respect, Steve, I don’t think you nor a large number of posters understand the 800 year lag and the time scales involved.
As the earth emerged from the ice age, temperatures began to rise very gradually following which the oceans warmed and more CO2 was released into the atmosphere. The whole complete process took thousands of years. The ~800 year lag was due to ocean circulation ‘digging’ out higher concentrations of CO2 from the deep. Throughout this, the earth was continuing to warm so a new CO2 ocean/atmosphere equilibrium (Henry’s Law) would be established as more ‘free’ CO2 at the ocean surface became available.
To repeat: This was a long continuous process of rising temperatures and slow CO2 feedback.
After about 5000 years the earth had warmed 5-6 degrees and in response to that atmospheric CO2 concentrations had risen from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, i.e. about 100 ppm.
Over the past 150 years the earth has warmed ~0.7 degrees while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen by more than 100 ppm – i.e. more than the increase over the 5000 years following the LGM (when temps increased more than 5 degrees) .
In a nutshell: The 800 year lag is completely and utterly irrelevant in the context of the rises over the past 150 years. There are small short term fluctuations such as during ENSO events. That is, during the warm El Nino phase there is more emission and less absorption than during the cool La Nina phase. But the steady underlying upward trend since the late 19th century is almost entirely due to human emissions.
A Question to all those who still believe the current CO2 rise is due to higher temperatures:
How come a temperature rise of less than 1 deg C produces the same increase in CO2 as a 6 deg C rise – and in just a tiny fraction of the time?

DirkH
August 5, 2011 2:30 pm

Luis Dias says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:55 am
“basically this point: if CO2 was so sensitive to temperatures (we are talking about 100ppm per 1 degree celcius), then the ice age data stops making sense. In the ice ages, CO2 was 180ppm, while in the warmer gaps between ice ages, CO2 was 280ppm. But the temperature was 6 degrees celcius higher. If the CO2 was as sensitive as Selby says, the difference ought to be 600ppm+- (or more), not 100.”
Jeremy says:
August 5, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“I’m very amused at how sure you are with the numbers you are using. A six degree C difference with what amount of error? 180ppmv with what amount of error?”
As the argument comes from Gavin, it must be numbers he found out using his computer models. So his argument is a tautology: If the models are right, Salby must be wrong, and as we have shown that Salby is wrong, our models must be right.

P Wilson
August 5, 2011 2:36 pm

Oceans overwhelm all other influences on climate, being 70% of the earth’s surface, and regulate the climate concerning air temperature, water vapour which overwhelms all other ghgs, humidity and precipitation., Oceans also regulate how much c02 is in the atmosphere. NASA et al have no theory for all this, or data, as they can’t really handle that much complexity.
However, The air does not heat the oceans; the oceans heat the air; since oceans have a thousand times more heat capacity than the air.(Thus water retains heat, the air does not – the fallacy of green house gases trapping heat, which it doesn’t)

DirkH
August 5, 2011 2:39 pm

Charlie Z says:
August 5, 2011 at 11:01 am
“The only thing interesting and potentially new was that the isotopic concentrations don’t necessarily mean that the extra CO2 in the air is from humans, which doesn’t say it isn’t either. ”
Well, that’s the bombshell because it undermines the ability of AGW science to determine the impact that antropogenic CO2 emissions have at all on the CO2 concentrations in the air. They would no longer be able to “fingerprint” human impact. As the natural carbon cycle exchanges are 2 orders of magnitude above human emissions, this would render CO2 control technology or taxation irrelevant.

John Finn
August 5, 2011 2:39 pm

Daniel M says:
August 5, 2011 at 2:04 pm
John Finn says:
Human emissions are causing the increase in CO2. Temperature simply determines the rate of that increase.
ummm…
So, you’re saying that temperature determines the rate at which humans emit CO2?

No I’m not saying that. I’m saying that humans are causing the regular average annual increase of roughly 2 ppm but temperature determines whether the actual rise for any given year is, say, 1.5 ppm or 2.5 ppm. In an El Nino (warm) year the annual rise will be more than in a La Nina (cool) year.
Yeah right.

P Wilson
August 5, 2011 2:43 pm

In other words, John Finn, c02 simply can’t add any more heat to the atmospheric temperature than comes from other sources, such as the sun and oceans.
Much of what you write seems to indirectly refer to the gimmick notion of the back radiation effect, which is contrived to explain why c02 doesn’t heat where there is supposed to be the hotspot 10km above the tropics, so the 0.6 degree is a tiny fraction of heat to be added to anything to do with the climate, regardless of the temperature measurement frauds of the last 40 years.
then there’s the question of decay/respiration etc that there is little data on, as nature puts 26 times more c02 into the atmosphere than does humans, per annum.
There is also the question of the decay of biology due to too little c02 in the atmosphere. Fortunately, since c02 is rising, there is every indication that biology will flourish for the forseeable future.

August 5, 2011 2:57 pm

John Finn,
“How come a temperature rise of less than 1 deg C produces the same increase in CO2 as a 6 deg C rise – and in just a tiny fraction of the time?”
Because the ice core data does not have the resolution to accurately reflect actual atmospheric concentrations of CO2. I believe that 10,000 years ago the atmospheric level of CO2 exceeded 400ppm not 280ppm. Click on my name for a more complete explanation.

Dale
August 5, 2011 3:08 pm

Frank K. says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:43 am
“Can someone (especially someone from Australia) tell me why a carbon tax is needed and what it will accomplish? The same thing can be said for declaring CO2 a “pollutant”. Why are we doing this to ourselves??”
I thought that was obvious. Wealth redistribution, socialist dependent State, Green-minority pandering, and vote buying to try and win a clear majority at the next election!

1DandyTroll
August 5, 2011 3:13 pm

OMG? The balls on that guy! Quickly protect him long enough so he can speak his piece in peace before the climate zombie hippie drones start with the whole big oil stuff that owns them. :p

Jeremy
August 5, 2011 3:17 pm

P Wilson states “Oceans overwhelm all other influences on climate, being 70% of the earth’s surface”
Your comments echo EXACTLY what my college Atmospheric Physics Professor said more than 25 years ago!!!
We knew about CO2 as a greenhouse gas at that time and even discussed it in class.
But nobody back then dared dismiss the Oceans and suggest that it is actually “the tail which wags the dog”.
I guess a truth never changes – it remains valid no matter the political winds.
Unlike Global Cooling….err Global Warming err Climate Change err Climate Disruption….blah di blah…what nonsense will they invent next?

Dale
August 5, 2011 3:26 pm

We just played the ultimate joke on our 2800AD selves. Man are they going to be annoyed with us when all our emissions come back out. Hehehehehe.

August 5, 2011 3:34 pm

This may have been covered by other comments, but I would like to point to the beer I am drinking right now. If I warm it up, the CO2 will be driven off right smartly. If I then cool it at atmospheric CO2 levels, it will absorb much less CO2. This is a concept well known in most science as hysteresis. That is to say, the path in one direction does not always indicate the path in the other direction. Dr. Schmidt et. al. who argue that CO2 should immediately drop with cooling may be unaware of this concept. Perhaps they don’t like beer.
Cheers.
JE

dmmcmah
August 5, 2011 3:36 pm

John Finn,
One of the things Salby talked about was the huge increase in CO2 from the 1998 El Nino event. Looking at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ there were several El Nino’s the past decade. While none of the El Nino’s since 1998 were as large, El Nino was dominant in the first half of the decade and that could explain the increase in CO2 concentration.

mike g
August 5, 2011 3:48 pm

@
J.Hansford:
Good job setting Up Wing straight. Except, I’d qualify it by saying most people, in my view, on here accept that warming has occurred; but, that it’s been exagerated by improper accounting of urban heat island effect and poor station siting and other issues. Also, too much leeway has been taken replacing historical data with adjusted data, which always goes in favor of biasing modern temperatures upwards–Mosh’s protestations not withstanding.

john a
August 5, 2011 4:07 pm

Does plant/plankton life in the ocean consume CO2 like terrestrial plants do? If you add CO2 to a plant’s environment, it grows faster, automatically. Could oceans be adding more plant life too, if our atmosphere contains more CO2?

August 5, 2011 4:09 pm

I am thoroughly enjoying the tutorial by Dr. Richard S. Courtney (and others-thank you Tim Ball).
However, a NOAA illustration of the Annual Mean Growth of CO2. Note the group by decade-and no relation to human emissions.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png

Myrrh
August 5, 2011 4:40 pm

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make. Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?
Answer: With all due respect Mr. Salby is incorrect. Current CO2 levels, far beyond the levels we seen for the past 800,000 years and probably longer are due to human industrial activities. The oceans have been net sinks of human carbon dioxide…this much is quite clear. Humans have taken the carbon from the fossil fuels and placed it in the atmosphere and oceans…end of story

So you’re saying that for 800,000 years we’ve had some ten 100,000 year long periods of ice age interspersed by periods of rapid and dramatic warming with huge rises in sea levels during some ten c15,000 year long interglacials, and Carbon Dioxide had nothing to it. End of story.

Robert Hoffman
August 5, 2011 5:04 pm

I was at the talk given by Prof Salby – and thus had the benefit of the slides. It was tightly argued and logically compelling. I am waiting for the publication so I can review it all in detail at at my pace. I will be more interested in the informed debate among climate scientists that will undoubtably occur.
I went to the talk thinking this would be a chance to hear a prominent climate scientist explain the AGW science. After all, he has a Chair in a major Australian university and is a former IPCC reviewer. To say I was surprised is an understatement.
I appreciated his comment that he has a gag reflex when he hears about “settled science”. His statement that science should proceed interativly by discourse was obvious – but unfortunately needs to be stated sometimes.
His statement that CO2 is not the driver of the bus, was music to this scientifically trained but skeptical citizen of a country that is hell bent on imposing the most punitive carbon tax regime in the world.

August 5, 2011 5:11 pm

This is interesting. I did an analysis of the acceleration of global temperature and CO2 earlier this year but was unsure how to interpret the results so I sat on it.
After listening to the podcast it was clear that the results I found using an acceleration analysis is in line with his results on temperature driving the rate of change in the CO2 level.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/08/curious-about-the-latest-co2-paper/

Richard S Courtney
August 5, 2011 5:34 pm

john a and Orson Olson:
John a,
the answer to your question is, yes. This is mentioned as items 3 and 4 in my post in this thread at August 5, 2011 at 8:37 am.
Orson Olson,
thankyou for your overly generous kind words.
You say,
“However, a NOAA illustration of the Annual Mean Growth of CO2. Note the group by decade-and no relation to human emissions.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
Yes, and
compare those decadal averages shifted back in time ~30 years
to
mean global temperature (e.g. HadCRUT, see
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ )
Does that suggest anything to you?
Richard

1DandyTroll
August 5, 2011 5:55 pm

@R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
“Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make.”
Well the build up of all them studies ought to be anthropogenic since there seem to be a lack of aliens conducting them studies.
“Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?”
Because there were more trees back then, christ the spaghetti monster, but don’t you know anything of import?

Robert of Ottawa
August 5, 2011 6:00 pm

Hi Anthony, I listened to the podcast of his presentation and was impressesed how he conveyed his message, without even seeing the displays. Frankly, he only states what I have come to think, but his credentials are much larger than mine … also he has balls to make these remarks … I guess he doesn’t need the funding. I was a bit surprised by Curry’s reaction .. I guess she has been in the tank so long that she didn’t question the basics .. but good for her for having an open ear.
The AGW argument relies upon three sequential arguments, anyone of which being wrong brings down the whole edifice. They are:
1) The Earth is warming
2) The warming is caused by CO2
3) The increased CO2 is due to man.
4) We are all going to die!!
OK number 4 I don’t disagree with, unfortunately 🙁

Robert of Ottawa
August 5, 2011 6:05 pm

Just as a note to those readers who do not know Australia – there is an intense and viceral “debate” going on in that glorious country about a soi-disant “carbon tax” that the current government is now committed to, that, to win the election, insisted there would not be a carbon tax. The government did not win the election and made a pact with the devil greens to get a ONE SEAT majority to form the government.
Most Australians are disgusted with such blatant lying. Google Juliar. or Andrew Bolt. or Tim Blair

commieBob
August 5, 2011 6:12 pm

John Finn says:
August 5, 2011 at 2:26 pm
… A Question to all those who still believe the current CO2 rise is due to higher temperatures:
How come a temperature rise of less than 1 deg C produces the same increase in CO2 as a 6 deg C rise – and in just a tiny fraction of the time?

When you do comparisons, you have to have ‘all other factors being equal’, or the comparison doesn’t mean much. The world was quite a different place during the LGM. For one thing, it had a lot less liquid water. So, all other factors were really not equal and you have to do a detailed calculation before you can reach any kind of conclusion (or even ask an intelligent question for that matter).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

Robert of Ottawa
August 5, 2011 6:31 pm

Frank K. asks @ August 5, 2011 at 6:43 am
Can someone (especially someone from Australia) tell me why a carbon tax is needed and what it will accomplish?
It is up to you, as an Australian, to do that. What will it accomplish? Nothing, zero, nada, zilch. Ask the supporters of Juliar how much it will decrease the temperature. Here in Canada, that question is very telling … like, you know, we want a colder Canada.

August 5, 2011 6:47 pm

Orson Olson,
thankyou for your overly generous kind words.
You say,
“However, a NOAA illustration of the Annual Mean Growth of CO2. Note the group by decade-and no relation to human emissions.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
Yes, and
compare those decadal averages shifted back in time ~30 years
to
mean global temperature (e.g. HadCRUT, see
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ )
Does that suggest anything to you?
Richard

Yes. It suggests delta-T is causing rising atmospheric CO2.
And beyond the ‘rock throwing’ of the blogosphere, with the arrival of a dissenter like Salby – author of, I think, one of the three graduate-level atmospheric physics textbooks, it suggests that there is a New Kid on the Block. To wit, the fundamental assumptions of AGW and the EGE need to be re-argued, and scientists sent to settle some fundamental facts, instead of prevailing with ‘arm waving.’
Someone mentioned how Salby hasn’t really added anything new that AGW-skeptics haven’t. I hope his paper goes beyong re-arguing analysis and has new evidence. It not, the new window for climate science may be shut again. But, post-Climategate, other dissenters might stand up and be counted.
As for your welcome presence here, Richard, you are like Steve McIntyre: a disciplined voice among the noise, and thus all the more instructive through both words and manner.
Now, will someone kindly plot up the NOAA and CRU graphic? (I gottat revisit your E&E paper, too: “The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle,” E & E, 2005
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/d81267523838p173/?p=82f895ea658a479c962d8a5f38778a01&pi=44)

Doug Badgero
August 5, 2011 7:17 pm

Others have adequately pointed out the problems with relying on the mass balance defense…..the natural fluxes are not adequately constrained; and the arguments about today’s levels being unprecedented……..we can’t know that because the proxies do not have adequate resolution. All of this is plausible and I hope this paper starts a long overdue discussion. It will certainly be hard for scientists with no stake in the debate to dismiss out of hand.
The most important thing we should learn from this is to stop assigning new observations to anthropogenic causes without adequate investigation and debate. The first time we began monitoring atmospheric CO2 concentrations we observed an approx 2ppmv annual rise and arrogantly assigned this rising level of CO2 to anthropogenic causes. We did the same thing with the ozone “hole” over Antarctica. “Oh look, a hole in the ozone layer, it must be us.”

Mooloo
August 5, 2011 7:28 pm

Tom Gray says:
Suppose AGW theory is correct and a rise in atmosheric CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature and that this could verry bad effects.
Then why is it a good thing that this is natural?

If the rise is natural, then at least we can save our money and fight what we can fight: poverty especially (but also human rights, improving education, etc). At the moment we have the worst of both worlds, as we are wasting money fighting something that cannot be beaten. We are building expensive wind stations when we would get more power from coal for the same money.
If the warming is natural then we can use the money better in mitigation, rather than prevention.
There is also a philisophical postion at stake. Some people think that economic growth and development is the root of much evil in the world. Others think it is the answer to most of the evil in the world. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming plays into the hands of the first group. (Note I do not hold with fake left/right division on this — there are conservative greenies, such as Prince Charles, and there are leftist sceptics, such as Vaclav Havel. The division is at least as strong on the authoritarian vs libertarian axis.)

R. Gates
August 5, 2011 7:32 pm

David Middleton says:
August 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm
R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm
David Middleton says:
“The stomata data clearly support a temperature-driven carbon cycle.”
___
And no doubt, prior to the onset of human industrialization, the carbon cycle was clearly driven by temperatures (and you could argue, that human industrial activity also is a consequence of the Holocene warmth, so in a round-about way, our release of CO2 continues the relationship between warmth and CO2 levels.)
You could also argue that fossil fuels are concentrated solar power… But that’s not relevant either.
—-
Why is the fact that fossil fuels are stored sunlight not important? It’s absolutely important as our entire modern lifestyle and the industrialization that brought it could not have come about if we were not able to tap into this stored sunlight from eons ago. The burning of this stored sunlight allowed us to in essence break away from the long term pattern whereby CO2 levels were entrained to the Milankovitch cycles of glaciation and interglacials. Now we will find out the consequences of breaking that pattern.

Jimmy Haigh
August 5, 2011 8:04 pm

Before I found WUWT I suggested on a thread on unReal Climate that perhaps the rise in CO2 in recent history was due to a delayed response to the MWP 800 years ago. The response was – how shall I say? – robust…
REPLY: Best LOL of the week! – Anthony

philincalifornia
August 5, 2011 8:26 pm

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 7:32 pm
The burning of this stored sunlight allowed us to in essence break away from the long term pattern whereby CO2 levels were entrained to the Milankovitch cycles of glaciation and interglacials.
========================================
WOW, are you saying that we may have inadvertently avoided the next Ice Age ?? Not all bad, in my opinion. This could be huge for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. I think I, amazingly, must have missed the peer-reviewed literature on this. Could you please oblige with a few references ?

August 5, 2011 8:53 pm

Blaming CO2 for the phony GLOBAL warming; but now blaming CO2 for going into another sink; for not producing GLOBAL warming (by the Warmist and the active Skeptics) is the new low in the Warmist sewer. What about admitting that: CO2 doesn’t produce GLOBAL warming; stop misleading yourself! Yes, this is not going to be your ‘’backdoor exit’’ CO2 is not a ‘’Greenhouse gas’’ CO2 is a ‘’shade-cloth affect gas’’ Oxygen + nitrogen are Greenhouse gases – one of the reasons the earth is warmer than the moon. Start using the ‘’laws of physics, or those laws soon will get you on the witness stand, under oath. CO2 intercepts extra heat during the day – at night CO2 intercepts more coldness than oxygen and nitrogen = those two factors cancel each other = zero warming effect.
1] Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to sunlight, same as glass roof on a normal greenhouse. Then, as perfect insulators, they slow down cooling = same as normal greenhouse does. CO2 is not transparent to sunlight as glass on a normal greenhouse. You don’t want to know the difference? Isn’t it why is the search of ‘’backdoors exits’’ suddenly?!
2] another reference of ‘’Greenhouse’’ is misrepresented: when the air in a ‘’normal greenhouse’’ warms up = 20% of the air out the door. Volume of the greenhouse stays the same, but quantity of air decreases. In the Shonky’s ‘’Greenhouse’’ (in nature); when air warms up = volume increases, quantity doesn’t decrease even by one atom. So much about referring to CO2 as a Greenhouse gas. If one knows anything about physics; shouldn’t call CO2 a Greenhouse gas! Please note: no need to wait 100years, to know all things in this text + more.
3] experiment was done and can be replicated now: cover a roof on a greenhouse with thick coat of CO2 = the temperature inside decreases. Everything is documented. Therefore, stop searching for some imaginary sinks, why GLOBAL warming is not happening. The moderator my not approve this text – but cannot silence it. If the shonky science keep molesting the CO2… blaming the Chinese increase of CO2 for preventing the phony GLOBAL warming and other ‘’backdoors exits’’… Have in mind that: all the proofs exist that CO2 is not a global warming gas; and everything associated with the Warmist industry. http://www.stefanmitich.com.au Disregarding the real proofs will be as proof that you folk in the Warmist club did know that you are wrong, reason for disregarding the real proofs. If one was genuinely worrying about GLOBAL warming, the proofs that never was a treat of global warming would have brought joy. Instead of going into carbon 14, or any other isotope. Trees don’t discriminate, they use any carbon available to them. Those gimmicks can only put you in deeper water that you are trying to muddy now with different isotopic forms, or searching for elusive carbon sinks. All those carbon sinks were available when carbon extortion started.

Katherine
August 5, 2011 9:06 pm

Mooloo says:
If the warming is natural then we can use the money better in mitigation, rather than prevention.
Mitigation is precisely what the powers that be are aiming for. The money ought to go to adaptation, which includes poverty alleviation. Harder to adapt if you have less resources, right?

MikeinAppalachia
August 5, 2011 9:14 pm

richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:03 am
“It is implausible, that the planet has similarly greened (in like linear fashion) each year. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that there must have been years when de-forestation more than offset any natural greening in other areas, yet one still sees that the sink capacity has increased. ”
merely postulate that CO2 uptake is non-linear with increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 while plant footprint is linear?

Darren Parker
August 5, 2011 9:14 pm

It is the destiny of mankind as the masters of fire to break the cycle and defeat the Wirrun (the aboriginal term for the Ice Giants – i.e. Glaciers). This is a traditional aboriginal folk tale from australia.

Dale
August 5, 2011 9:25 pm

Robert of Ottawa says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Just as a note to those readers who do not know Australia – there is an intense and viceral “debate” going on in that glorious country about a soi-disant “carbon tax” that the current government is now committed to, that, to win the election, insisted there would not be a carbon tax. The government did not win the election and made a pact with the devil greens to get a ONE SEAT majority to form the government.
Most Australians are disgusted with such blatant lying. Google Juliar. or Andrew Bolt. or Tim Blair
—————————————————————————
Okay, from an Australian, here in brief is what’s happened:
2007 federal election, both Labor (left) and Liberal (right) went to the poll with an ETS package. For other reasons Libs lost the election and Labor took over Govt with a majority (Kevin Rudd). Over the next few years Rudd made some big blunders and a couple months out from the 2010 federal election was knifed in the back by Julia Gillard, who took over. Before the election Libs found out she was planning a carbon tax, and Greens went to the election with both a carbon tax and 40% mining tax. Gillard flatly denied a carbon tax with her famous words two days before the election, “There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”. Quite simply, if she’d said yes they were planning a carbon tax, Libs would have won with a majority. The election was the tightest in federal election history and resulted in Libs having one more seat than Labor, but there were also 1 Green, 3 Independents and 1 Country Liberal Party members. The CLP member signed with Libs (both right wing) and the Green signed with Labor (both left wing). Then both sides bartered with the 3 independents who eventually signed with Labor due to the National Broadband Network proposal of Labor’s. No one knew at that point that to get the Green to sign up, Labor had agreed to implement the Green’s carbon tax policy.
Thus here we are, a year on from the 2010 election. The carbon tax has been announced, and vicious debate is occurring. In Australia, most people (~70%) agree that global warming is occurring, but most disagree (~60%) that a carbon tax is the right way to tackle it. The carbon tax package will tax the 500 worst carbon “polluters” (another point of debate whether it’s “pollution” or not) at $23 per tonne. The money from that is split 50% back to people in increased Govt payments and tax cuts. The Govt claims that 9 in 10 households will receive benefit from payments or tax cuts, but the reality is that due to passed on costs, 60% of households will be worse off. Basically, the tax is structured to benefit low income earners (Labor’s heartland voters), at the cost of medium-high income earners (Libs heartland voters). The other 50% of the tax is split between a “climate fund” which will be headed by Labor Govt and AGW stooge Tim Flannery, who is an environmental extremist whom even Greenpeace distances from as too extreme. Flannery is famous for proclaiming an 8 story sea level rise, yet still lives in his million dollar mansion on beachfront property. The rest of the money goes to subsidise the coal industry (so why even tax carbon if the money goes straight back) and of course to Australia’s commitment to give 25% of the tax to the UN.
However, an interesting sideline has come up in the last couple of weeks which could spell the downfall of the entire thing (and the Govt). A Labor backbencher is suspected of defrauding a union (before he got elected in 2010). Criminal investigations have started and if he’s charged he’ll have to resign his seat. This will cause a by-election in one of Australia’s most marginal seats facing a national swing against labor of ~10%. If the by-election occurs he will lose his seat. One of the 3 independents has ripped up his agreement with Labor, so Labor only holds Parliament by one vote. If a Lib replaces this Labor back bencher the Libs will immediately call a “vote of confidence” which Labor will not win (the Independent is furious at Gillard for her deceipt about the carbon tax, he’s in a heavy mining seat which will be hit hard by the tax). Labor will lose the “vote of confidence” and the Governor General will be forced to disband both Houses of Parliament and call a full General Federal Election, which Libs will win.
So fun times in the next couple of months coming up, and hopefully a change of Govt. 😀

KevinK
August 5, 2011 9:27 pm

Owen wrote;
“The climate does not instantaneously respond to stimulus. All the arguments about year on year changes tacitly assume the system is in a state of equilibrium.”
IMHO, this is exactly correct, the natural system is NEVER in a state of equilibrium, rather it is CONSTANTLY chasing the most recent perturbation. The only question is how fast can it respond to the perturbations?
One of the wonders of engineering is the ability to overcome the limits of any natural system to respond to perturbations and force the system to respond in accord with our wishes.
For example a simple mass suspended by springs will swing back and forth at a “natural frequency” determined by the masses/inertias involved. But with real “feedback” an engineer can force the mass to remain in place (within the limits of our ability to; resolve its position; apply power to move it; and the bandwidth at which we can calculate updates).
The alleged “feedbacks” referred to by the climate scientists are actually a combination of parallel and serial responses to the perturbations. Some of which just happen to correlate (some or most of the time) with the perturbation. Other “feedbacks” just happen to be random effects that over some random time interval might appear to be a feedback.
“NEVERMIND” INDEED, who is going to replace all those golden and bald eagles minced by the wind mills ? Funny that their populations were going UP after we stopped shooting them for FUN several decades before the DDT ban.
Cheers, Kevin.

August 5, 2011 9:30 pm

Katherine, money colected for carbon rip-of should be used for building new big jails for the members of the Warmist club. They are extortion money; they are hot money, billions. Urban Seep needs to be compensated / money rethurned. Then, if they want to contribute, to make you look generous, they should be given an option; it’s their money. The members of the warmist club should start thinking how to repair the real damages done to the environment /climate / humanity; under the banner of preventing the phony GLOBAL warming – which was converted into Climate Change. IT’s clear cut; there is no such a thing as GLOBAL warming. Climate NEVER stopped changing for one day for the last 4 billion years. Now they intend to mislead that they will stop the climate; probaly the winds allso… with carbon rip-of. Crime shouldn’t pay !!!

KevinK
August 5, 2011 9:59 pm

Seems that there is a surge in posting today, I believe I posted this before,but I’ll send it in again in case it got lost. If it is duplicate please delete one copy.(thanks, K Klees)
Owen wrote;
“The climate does not instantaneously respond to stimulus. All the arguments about year on year changes tacitly assume the system is in a state of equilibrium.”
IMHO, this is exactly correct, the natural system is NEVER in a state of equilibrium, rather it is CONSTANTLY chasing the most recent perturbation. The only question is how fast can it respond to the perturbations?
One of the wonders of engineering is the ability to overcome the limits of any natural system to respond to perturbations and force the system to respond in accord with our wishes.
For example a simple mass suspended by springs will swing back and forth at a “natural frequency” determined by the masses/inertias involved. But with real “feedback” an engineer can force the mass to remain in place (within the limits of our ability to; resolve its position; apply power to move it; and the bandwidth at which we can calculate updates).
The alleged “feedbacks” referred to by the climate scientists are actually a combination of parallel and serial responses to the perturbations. Some of which just happen to correlate (some or most of the time) with the perturbation. Other “feedbacks” just happen to be random effects that over some random time interval might appear to be a feedback.
“NEVERMIND” INDEED, who is going to replace all those golden and bald eagles minced by the wind mills ? Funny that their populations were going UP after we stopped shooting them for FUN several decades before the DDT ban.
Cheers, Kevin.

tallbloke
August 6, 2011 1:41 am
tallbloke
August 6, 2011 1:56 am

What, no comment from Ferdinand Englebeen yet???

Larry in Texas
August 6, 2011 2:07 am

R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Heh, heh, heh. You are toast, buddy. You are toast. You’d best listen to the Selby podcast, instead of making a bunch of nonsensical comments that you are having your hand called on. It destroys your arguments, along with those of your fellow warmists. Don’t be so arrogant to presume that you are more of an authority on the subject than this fellow Selby.

Larry in Texas
August 6, 2011 2:27 am

Tim Ball says:
August 5, 2011 at 7:43 am
God bless you, Tim. You were among the first to really, seriously question the nonsense that was coming out of the warmist camp, and you lead us to the river to drink in the truth. That kind of courage will someday be rewarded.

John Finn
August 6, 2011 2:29 am

1. dmmcmah says:
August 5, 2011 at 3:36 pm
John Finn,
One of the things Salby talked about was the huge increase in CO2 from the 1998 El Nino event. Looking at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ there were several El Nino’s the past decade. While none of the El Nino’s since 1998 were as large, El Nino was dominant in the first half of the decade and that could explain the increase in CO2 concentration.

For crying out loud. I know that atmospheric CO2 increases faster during El Nino. I said as much at least twice on this blog. During warm El Nino years atmospheric CO2 increases more than during La Nina years – but the point is it continues to go UP – it NEVER comes down.
You say Salby talks “about was the huge increase in CO2 from the 1998 El Nino event.” This implies Salby thinks the ~3 ppm increase was due to the warm ocean surface during that year. Ok so –
Why didn’t atmospheric CO2 levels drop back to 1997 levels in 1999 and 2000?
1999 and 2000 were La Nina years when sea surface temperatures were well down n 1997. CO2 concentrations went up in both 1999 (~1 ppm) and 2000 (~1.8 ppm).
According to UAH, the temperatures during 1998 and 2010 were pretty similar.
Why was atmospheric CO2 concentration ~24 ppm higher in 2010 than in 1998?
What’s caused the increase? Both years were warm and there were no warmer years in between. Salby can’t simply attribute the 1998 CO2 increase to the El Nino of that year. If atmospheric CO2 was ‘equilibriating’ with the higher sea surface temperatures in 1998 then why didn’t it ‘equilibriate’ at a lower level in 1999, 2000 etc. Why was it 24 ppm higher in 2010 than in 1998?
If we get CO2 rises during El Nino years – when do we get falls? You (and Salby) seem to be arguing that it’s a one-way process, i.e. it goes up but doesn’t come down.
In 1958 CO2 concentrations were ~315 ppm; In 1975 they were ~331 ppm. Why? If it takes an anomalously warm El Nino (1998) to raise CO2 levels by 3 ppm, what caused the 16 ppm rise when the world wasn’t warming.
Even in a generally warming world there will be temperature falls. We’ve seen this over the past 30-odd years. But his neven happens with CO2. Between 1958 and 1975 global temperatures were essentially flat. Given these conditins you woulsd expect CO2 levels to remain more or less flat. There would, of course, be some fluctuation due to ENSO (up one year; down the next). But that never happened. Every year, without fail, CO2 concentrations were higher than they were in the previous year.
Given the flat cooling temperatures, What do you think the probability of that happening 17 years in a row is?
ZERO. The year-on -year increase is clearly due to the fact that there is now an additional source of atmospheric CO2.
I’m getting seriously concerned for the credibility of CAGW scepticism. Thank gooodness for the likes of Willis, Hans Erren, Jack Barrett , Ferdinand Engelbeen et al.

John Finn
August 6, 2011 2:50 am

Stephen Wilde says:
August 5, 2011 at 5:54 am
John Finn said:
“We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall. ”
But it is the ocean temperature that counts and not the air temperature and we’ve seen that the oceans vary internally over time as regards the rate at which energy is released at the surface via warmer or cooler surface temperatures.

Quite – but it still doesn’t fit. Annual CO2 levels have risen regarldless of any change in SST.
As for your 800 year lag argument I’ve already explained why this is irrelevant in the context of the last 150 years. The 800 year lag is seen in the ice core records following (and prior to) each glacial maximum. This is when the earth is going through a warming process lasting several thousand years. As ocean circulation ‘digs’ out more CO2 from the deep, more CO2 can be released due to the warmer SST.
The key point here is that atmospheric and sea surface temperatures are warmer than they were 800 years earlier. This is a continuing process. Each 800 year period is warmer than the previous one. Eventually temperatures increased by about 6 degrees C and atmospheric CO2 by ~100ppm

August 6, 2011 3:16 am

225 responses in a few days, of which only a few with some scepticism. I thought that this was a blog for sceptics, but it seems that most here are only one-way sceptics… Thus please, even if Prof. Salby says something that you like to hear, use some dose of scepticism, and check if what he says is plausible. Unfortunately several of his points are not.
That humans are the cause is quite sure:
– The mass balance: It is impossible that nature was a net contibutor to the increase, because the measured increase is less than the emissions. Thus nature was a net sink for CO2 over the past at least 50 years. As long as the Law of conservation of mass holds. Have a good look at following graph:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
In every year, the emissions were larger than what remains in the atmosphere, the difference must go somewhere (and it’s not escaping to space!), it is absorbed by oceans and vegetation. Thus there were (near) always more natural sinks than sources. Thus all natural emissions were completely absorbed (in mass, not in origin of the molecules) by natural sinks and the natural emissions were just part of a turnover of CO2, not contributing to the total mass in the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter if human emissions were 3% or 0.3% or 0.03% of the turnover, because the human emissions were additional, the natural emissions were not.
– The 13C/12C ratio: Indeed there are two main sources of low 13C: fossil fuels and the decay of vegetation. But the earth is greening, thus there is more CO2 absorbed by vegetation than that organic matter decays. That is confirmed by the oxygen balance: less oxygen is used than calculated from fossil fuel burning, thus the biosphere was a net source of oxygen, thus a net absorber of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. But we see a decline of 13CO2 in the atmosphere…
– The process charasteristics: The increase in the atmosphere follows the emissions with an incredible fixed ratio. There is no natural process which is able to follow human emissions in such a way, Natural processes are far more variable. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
A few other problems:
– While there is an extremely good correlation between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere, the correlation is less when one looks at the year by year increase, simply because temperature changes have a short term influence (about 4 ppmv/degr.C) on the increase rate, but hardly visible in the trend itself! Here Salby, as good as Dr. Spencer and others make the error to draw conclusions about the cause of a trend, based on the year by year changes (thus the derivative), where the trend is completely removed!
The long term influence of temperature on CO2 levels, as seen in ice cores, is about 8 ppmv/degr.C. Even an increase of 1 degr.C since the depth of the LIA would not give more than 8 ppmv increase, not the 100+ ppmv as measured. BTW the pCO2 of seawater increases with not more than 16 ppmv/degr.C. And while a temperature increase should decrease the total amount of carbon in the upper layer of the oceans, we measure an increase in carbon (and a decrease in 13C/12C ratio).
– Ice cores, tree carbon and coralline sponges all give small 13C/12C variations over the Holocene, but all show a steady and ever faster decline since about 1850. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg

John Finn
August 6, 2011 3:22 am

Fred H. Haynie says:
August 5, 2011 at 2:57 pm
John Finn,
“How come a temperature rise of less than 1 deg C produces the same increase in CO2 as a 6 deg C rise – and in just a tiny fraction of the time?”

Because the ice core data does not have the resolution to accurately reflect actual atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
There are 8 or 9 major ice core records – each with a considerable sample size. The consistency between each record is pretty impressive considering they are taken form such diverse regions. Your argument appears to raly on the fact that the sampling has, with incredible bad luck, failed to pick up the high CO2 level signal.
I believe that 10,000 years ago the atmospheric level of CO2 exceeded 400ppm not 280ppm.
I don’t believe that.

Richard S Courtney
August 6, 2011 3:33 am

John Finn:
All your supposed questions have been answered by previous posts in this thread. For example you ask this:
“Why was atmospheric CO2 concentration ~24 ppm higher in 2010 than in 1998?
What’s caused the increase? Both years were warm and there were no warmer years in between.”
Please read e.g. my posts above. The rise was induced by the temperature rise that preceded it, and the delay is a function of the rate constants.
I know trolls often repeat nonsense late in threads in hope that late-comers will only read the later posts. But this is a technical thread and your tactic is wasting space.
Richard

tango
August 6, 2011 4:32 am

Dale I hope your right for australia sake god help us because we don,t want the far left fabien party running us

August 6, 2011 5:37 am

Richard S Courtney says:
August 6, 2011 at 3:33 am
Please read e.g. my posts above. The rise was induced by the temperature rise that preceded it, and the delay is a function of the rate constants.
That doesn’t fit anymore: the late Ernst Beck predicted a drop of CO2, 5 years after a temperature drop, but we didn’t see any CO2 drop 5 years after the 1998 El Nino. Neither a leveling of CO2 now that there is little or no temperature increase over the past decade. Further back in time, the 1945-1975 temperature drop had no influence on steady increasing CO2 levels in any following period, no matter what lag is used.

August 6, 2011 6:25 am

John Finn,
“I don’t believe it”
I have analyzed the proxie CO2 and temperature data from around two dozen ice cores from Greenland to Antarctica. Click on my name and study the presentation objectively and not as a “true believer” in IPPC “scripture”. If you really have questions, you can find my e-mail address at http://www.kidswincom.net.

Richard S Courtney
August 6, 2011 6:30 am

Ferdinand:
You have ‘come late to the party’. So, I will cross-post what I wrote in response to your similar late entry on the blog of Judith Curry.
Richard
Ferdinand,
as you know – but others here may not – I respect your work but disagree with it.
As you say, we have disagreed about this for years (much more than 3 years on the record). And we each think the failure to resolve the matter is the other’s intransigence.
So, before stating our disagreement, I point out that I commend those who are interested in the subject to use your blog as a good, collated information source.
Our disagreement stems from fundamentally different views of the carbon cycle.
You model the system as a set of fixed reservoirs with flows in and out. Importantly, you assume the natural system does not vary and then calculate where the anthropogenic emission ‘goes’. I say your model is a circular argument based on a false assumption. If you assume nature does not change then it follows that any observed change is the anthropogenic emission. I do not “throw out” anything. I point out that an assumption cannot prove itself.
I model the system as being a complex mixture of interconnected parts with a myriad of different time constants affecting their interactions. All the observations which you cite can be explained as merely being effects of the time constants. And I observe facts that my model explains and yours cannot.
Such facts include, for example, the following.
There is no direct correlation between the anthropogenic emission and the increase of CO2 in the air. The best that can be said is that both have increased in recent decades.
But the global temperature is followed with a ~30 year lag by a smoothed version of the CO2 in the air: cf.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
and
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human emission, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the short-term (i.e. operative in months) natural sequestration processes can cope easily with the human emission of CO2.
The available data strongly suggest that the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will have no significant long term effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration. The main reason is that the rate of increase of the anthropogenic production of CO2 is very much smaller that the observed maximum rate of increase of the natural consumption of CO2.
As you know, there is more, but I think this is sufficient to explain to others how our views differ.
Richard

August 6, 2011 7:07 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says: August 6, 2011 at 3:16 am
Ferdinand, if you agree that the long-term sensitivity of CO2 to polar-temperature is 8 ppmv/degree-C, you can’t make a model that back-casts the temperature-CO2 record if that model has any significant sensitivity of temperature to CO2..

Editor
August 6, 2011 7:08 am

John Finn says:
August 6, 2011 at 3:22 am
Fred H. Haynie says:
August 5, 2011 at 2:57 pm
John Finn,
“How come a temperature rise of less than 1 deg C produces the same increase in CO2 as a 6 deg C rise – and in just a tiny fraction of the time?”
Because the ice core data does not have the resolution to accurately reflect actual atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
There are 8 or 9 major ice core records – each with a considerable sample size. The consistency between each record is pretty impressive considering they are taken form such diverse regions.
[…]

“Sample size” has no impact on resolution.
Resolution is dictated by sample rate; which, in ice cores, is equivalent to accumulation rate. The
Sample Rate vs CO2
The amplitude of the CO2 signal is being attenuated in proportion to the accumulation rate of the ice. This relationship is consistent with the findings of van Hoof et al., 2005, which demonstrated that the ice core CO2 data essentially represent a low-frequency, century to multi-century moving average of past atmospheric CO2 levels.
van Hoof

August 6, 2011 7:09 am

Ferdinand: Sorry, that last phrase should have been “any significant sensitivity of temperature to CO2.”

John Whitman
August 6, 2011 7:28 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 6, 2011 at 3:16 am
225 responses in a few days, of which only a few with some scepticism. I thought that this was a blog for sceptics, but it seems that most here are only one-way sceptics… Thus please, even if Prof. Salby says something that you like to hear, use some dose of scepticism, and check if what he says is plausible. Unfortunately several of his points are not.
That humans are the cause is quite sure:
[ and you go on to present your usual well presented and thorough views]

—————-
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
We have had an appetizer of Salby’s forthcoming paper.
You say be skeptical of Salby. You must understand that some are also somewhat skeptical of someone like you whose past views will apparently be directly contradicted by Salby . . . Salby being the person you push us to be skeptical about.
I have always found your posts to be sincere. Please continue to be sincere by not suggesting you have a scientifically defensive attitude.
John

Jose Suro
August 6, 2011 7:44 am

John Finn says:
August 6, 2011 at 2:29 am
“Even in a generally warming world there will be temperature falls. We’ve seen this over the past 30-odd years. But his neven happens with CO2. Between 1958 and 1975 global temperatures were essentially flat. Given these conditins you woulsd expect CO2 levels to remain more or less flat. There would, of course, be some fluctuation due to ENSO (up one year; down the next). But that never happened. Every year, without fail, CO2 concentrations were higher than they were in the previous year.
Given the flat cooling temperatures, What do you think the probability of that happening 17 years in a row is?
ZERO. The year-on -year increase is clearly due to the fact that there is now an additional source of atmospheric CO2……”
————————————————————————————————————————-
“But his neven happens [sic], “Given these conditins you woulsd expect [sic]”, “Zero probability”, “Clearly due”…..
Now really….. Surely, you would think that a person who considers himself somewhat intelligent would not be as myopic and close minded? No need to answer that, you already have…….
And get a spell checker – they’re free you know :).
Best,
J.

Dave Springer
August 6, 2011 8:02 am

@Sexton
“So if we were to cut our emissions in half, atmospheric CO2 would be come quasi static?”
That is a prediction of my hypothesis. That wikipedia graph you posted shows atmospheric CO2 smoothed to what appears to be a 5 year average. A graph without the smoothing such as this one from a paper published in Geophysical Research is apt:
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
The dips in anthropogenic CO2 align pretty well but as one can see there are natural factors in play which cause greater short term variation than anthropogenic variations. That is to be expected given 97% of emissions are natural. The trend however is pretty clear and my hypothetical natural interglacial equilibrium point of 280ppm is not at all contradicted by the record. It is supported by the record.

Ex-Wx Forecaster
August 6, 2011 8:03 am

There isn’t anything technical I can say here that hasn’t already been said. So….
Somewhere, between the leaked CRU emails, the continuing failure of the models to predict…pretty much anything, the insistence by IPCC that “observation is overrated”, and wonderful gems like this fascinating paper by Professor Salby, the news media and the rest of the world will finally wake up and realize the emperor has no clothes.
What will happen then?

Dave Springer
August 6, 2011 8:13 am

J.Hansford says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:09 am
“Because then, if his view of the C12/13 ration is correct, then the natural CO2′s sinks, emissions and natural variation is unknown, meaning human influences are very minimal…… One just cannot say what portion of anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere, or for how long, because it is impossible to tell…..
That is also my position. It may not be impossible to tell but it has not yet been told. We are then left with the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been consistently increasing for the past 50 years half as much as anthropogenic emissions. Correlation is not causation of course so we are left with a compelling (IMO) correlelation and no credible evidence to either confirm or deny a causative link.

Dave Springer
August 6, 2011 8:30 am

richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:53 am
“It is an instrinsic part of the AGW theory that if man was not emitting CO2, CO2 levels measured in the atmosphere would not be increasing.”
No, it is not intrinsic. Atmospheric CO2 increases and decreases considerably more over the short term than anthropogenic emissions can account for. What is intrinsic is that there would be less long term increase if anthropogenic emissions were absent.
Consider you have an open top 55 gallon drum where there’s a leak on the bottom letting out 1 gallon per day and rainfall refills the drum at an average of 1 gallon per day. Over the long term the water level in the barrel will not change. Now say some person comes along and adds an extra ounce per day to the barrel over and above the rainfall. Over a longer period of time the water level in the barrel will rise. Morever as the level rises the water pressure at the bottom rises with it and the leak rate will increase. Thus in order to keep the long term average rise at one ounce per day the person adding the water will have to add more than one ounce.
The above perfectly illustrates my CO2 equilibrium hypothesis.

Dave Springer
August 6, 2011 8:57 am

Richard S Courtney says:
August 5, 2011 at 1:12 pm
“And you are attempting the same reversal of the null hypothesis that Dave Springer tried to foist on us at August 5, 2011 at 6:52 am and I refuted at August 5, 2011 at 8:19 am.: ”
You didn’t refute anything. Unilateral declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

David Falkner
August 6, 2011 9:08 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 6, 2011 at 5:37 am
That doesn’t fit anymore: the late Ernst Beck predicted a drop of CO2, 5 years after a temperature drop, but we didn’t see any CO2 drop 5 years after the 1998 El Nino. Neither a leveling of CO2 now that there is little or no temperature increase over the past decade. Further back in time, the 1945-1975 temperature drop had no influence on steady increasing CO2 levels in any following period, no matter what lag is used.
Alternatively, wouldn’t the rate of rise be expected to be much higher now than in 1975 with a much higher proportion of the world burning fossil fuels? It only seems to follow that burning more fuels would cause a faster increase. That is not what I see on the Mauna Loa graphs. I see a steady, monotonic, rise that appears to be oblivious to how much fossil fuel use has increased in the world below.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
Not that you need the graph, but for others.

August 6, 2011 9:09 am

R Taylor says:
August 6, 2011 at 7:07 am
Ferdinand, if you agree that the long-term sensitivity of CO2 to polar-temperature is 8 ppmv/degree-C, you can’t make a model that back-casts the temperature-CO2 record if that model has any significant sensitivity of temperature to CO2..
The sensitivity of CO2 for temperature includes any feedback the opposite way. I doubt that it is significant, but I don’t see the problem. I have made a plot with an arbitrary temperature and CO2 as one-way dependent, with a lag and a two-way feedback:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/feedback.jpg
If the feedback is not too high (10% if I remember well in this example), there is no problem to back-cast both variables.

Dave Springer
August 6, 2011 9:11 am

John Finn says:
August 6, 2011 at 2:29 am
“Even in a generally warming world there will be temperature falls. We’ve seen this over the past 30-odd years. But his neven happens with CO2.”
Technically so but the annual rate of increase in CO2 varied by a factor of 4 during the 1990s from a minimum of 1ppm to a maximum of 4ppm. Clearly these large swings are related to ocean surface temperature. The biggest spike upward and downward in rate of increase in the past 50 years was centered around the 1998 El Nino. As the El Nino gained steam and ocean temperature rose the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 doubled and when it cooled back down the rate halved again.
See Knorr 2009 figure 2.
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

August 6, 2011 9:13 am

Dave Springer says:
August 6, 2011 at 8:30 am
No, it is not intrinsic. Atmospheric CO2 increases and decreases considerably more over the short term than anthropogenic emissions can account for.
Please have a good look at the emissions and the variablity of the increase in the atmosphere: human emissions are about 200% of the increase in the atmosphere and 200% of the variability around the trend over the past 50 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg

cms
August 6, 2011 9:35 am

There is assumed in most of the discussions that measured co2 and temperature are tightly coupled, which ever is considered causative. Comparing Mauna Loa co2 records and Hadcrut data at WoodforTrees we find that they are well correlated for 25 years starting around 1975. Unfortunately the data starts in 1958 and that would seem to have little or negative correlation. In addition the correlation again fails after 2000. So of the 52 years of co2 data less than half of it tracks the world temperature. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/normalise

August 6, 2011 9:35 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen,
I can’t find any holes in your logic, but you always stop short of the conclusion: anthropogenic CO2 is not the problem claimed by the alarmist crowd. On balance, the added CO2 appears to be beneficial, not harmful.

Richard S Courtney
August 6, 2011 9:43 am

Ferdinand:
You assert that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is accumulation of anthropogenic CO2.
If so, then why in some years does almost all the anthropogenic CO2 seem to be sequestered and in other years almost none?
Also, nothing I have presented here is contradicted by a prediction of the late George Beck (who did excellent work collating historic CO2 measurements) whether or not his prediction is correct. We have had enough ‘straw men’ from trolls and I expect better from you.
Richard

August 6, 2011 10:52 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says August 6, 2011 at 9:09 am
Well fine, if you want to say the net sensitivity between temperature and CO2 is 8 ppmv/degree-C, that means the effective sensitivity of temperature to CO2 is zero. So why are we undergoing economic agony to reduce CO2, other than to construct a new bureaucracy to administer a new stream of tax revenue?
Getting back to geological physics, there is a lag between cause and effect. If you want to have a model with both a temperature-to-CO2 sensitivity as well as the evident CO2-to-temperature sensitivity, you need to use differential equations, rather than the simple “net sensitivity” you suggest. You can’t back-cast the temperature-CO2 record with a significant sensitivity of temperature to CO2, because you can’t overcome the lag of CO2 behind temperature.

August 6, 2011 11:00 am

Smokey says:
I can’t find any holes in your logic, but you always stop short of the conclusion: anthropogenic CO2 is not the problem claimed by the alarmist crowd. On balance, the added CO2 appears to be beneficial, not harmful.
True.
But why is no one looking at the cause for the increase in average temps?
They would have to conclude that rising temps were natural and subsequently most of the rise in CO2 as well
(remember at college when we were tasked to remove the CO2 from water to make up a standard solution? How did we do that?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/04/analysing-the-complete-hadcrut-yields-some-surprising-results/#comment-713409

August 6, 2011 11:14 am

Richard S Courtney says:
August 6, 2011 at 9:43 am
If so, then why in some years does almost all the anthropogenic CO2 seem to be sequestered and in other years almost none?
Because temperature changes have an influence on the CO2 sink speed. That can be seen as a quite good correlation between temperature changes and CO2 increase speed, while the human emissions are quite stable in their increase rate. Temperature changes explain about 2/3rd of the variability in sink rate / increase speed.
But that doesn’t say anything about the cause of the trend itself, as temperature changes largely compensate each other over 2-3 years (with some residual increase/decrease).

Michael D Smith
August 6, 2011 11:14 am

kramer says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:05 am
If this is true, then is the ~800 year lag wrong? Or, are we ~800 years behind a previous temperature increase that occurred 800 years ago?

I have a chart that I get to trot out once in a while that might shed some light on this… The CO2 RATE (dCO2/dt) responds INSTANTLY to temperature. The signal is there, the reason you don’t normally see it or hear it talked about is that it’s not easy to de-seasonalize the monthly CO2 data on an exponentially increasing function. But it can be done:
http://naturalclimate.home.comcast.net/~naturalclimate/CO2_growth_vs_Temp.pdf
There is a HUGE amount of information in that chart.
The reason you see a lag is that this instantaneous response must act over a long period of time to produce a large change in atmospheric CO2, because the rate is small. If you look at the raw CO2 monthly data, you can see small changes related to temperature, but they are dwarfed by the seasonal changes and the exponential increase. The 800 year lag you hear about might be interpreted as what happens after a step change, in other words, 5 or 6 time constants = 800 years (you should see 63% of the reaction to a step change in 800/5 or 160 years). But nature doesn’t do step changes, so you’d have to be careful with that. Estimating time constant based on lag is difficult with the ice data because the effect can’t lead the cause, which the data sometimes does. But with the Mauna Loa data, given that the slope of dCO2 is so reactive to the input, I suspect there has to be more than one process involved in the ice data. A fast one and a slow one.
I have my own opinions of what all this means, but I would be very interested to hear what all of you think of it. From this chart, can we conclude anything about:
* The residence time of CO2 before exchange with the ocean?
* What the rate of increase of CO2 would be if the temperature anomaly was zero?
* What does that answer say about what the temperature used to be, if the rates derived in the chart are true? When was it that temperature? Does this match the historical record? Is this possible without an anthropogenic component?
* What can you say about the fact that dCO2 is in an uptrend? Does this point to a natural occurrence? Why or why not?
* If it is natural, does it mean we are in a runaway condition?
I think there is good information there. What do you see? What would you analyze next? I am very interested in your insights on this. Thanks.

Michael D Smith
August 6, 2011 11:15 am

Moderator: Sorry, I didn’t close my italics… Please fix?
[Reply: It wasn’t your error, it was a WordPress glitch. That’s how I knew where to close the italics. ~dbs]

John Finn
August 6, 2011 11:16 am

Richard S Courtney says:
August 6, 2011 at 9:43 am
Ferdinand:
You assert that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is accumulation of anthropogenic CO2.
If so, then why in some years does almost all the anthropogenic CO2 seem to be sequestered and in other years almost none?

What’s wrong with you, Richard. We’ve gone over this dozens of times. There is a steady rising trend of ~2 ppm per annum (Do you agree with this?) . This would be the annual rise from anthropgenic sources if sea surface temperatures remained constant. However SST does not remain constant. Some years temps are warmer (e.g. during El Nino) and some years temps are cooler (e.g. during La Nina). The transition from La Nina to El Nino, say, can result in an SST increase of 0.5 degrees or more. This can easily explain a 2ppm discrepancy between one year and another. Try de-trending the CO2 data and I’m sure you’d find it matches ENSO pretty closely.
The short term fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels would still exist even if humans were not producing emissions. Actully I’m not sure why you would expect a constant increase.
Regarding your other comment (addressed to me) where you claim that the continuing rise in CO2 levels is due to some earlier temperature rise. Could you tell me which temperature rise that might be? Also could you explain how this actually works. That is, could you explain how the atmospheric and sea surface temperatures from an earlier period affects the CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere decades later?
Answer these question while also bearing in mind that Professor Salby seems to attribute the large ~3 ppm increase in 1998 to the El Nino of that year.

John Finn
August 6, 2011 11:18 am

Re my previous post
Just to satisfy the pedants on this blog: “anthropgenic” should read anthropogenic.

August 6, 2011 11:29 am

David Falkner says:
August 6, 2011 at 9:08 am
Alternatively, wouldn’t the rate of rise be expected to be much higher now than in 1975 with a much higher proportion of the world burning fossil fuels?
The rise in the atmosphere now is higher than in 1975, but because the increase in the atmosphere is only 50-55% of the emissions (but quite steady!), the change in the curve is less impressive than of the emissions…
The airborne fraction of what humans emitted (in mass, not in original molecules) is remarkable stable, one of the reasons to expect that human emissions are at the base of the increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
The 2009 work of Knorr confirms that the rise in the atmosphere still follows the emissions with the same rate as 50 years ago:
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

R. Gates
August 6, 2011 11:43 am

Larry in Texas says:
August 6, 2011 at 2:07 am
R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Heh, heh, heh. You are toast, buddy. You are toast. You’d best listen to the Selby podcast, instead of making a bunch of nonsensical comments that you are having your hand called on. It destroys your arguments, along with those of your fellow warmists. Don’t be so arrogant to presume that you are more of an authority on the subject than this fellow Selby.
____
I listened to his podcast (twice), and understand clearly what he’s saying. The source of the modern rise (since about 1750 or so) in the NET rise in CO2 in both the atmosphere and oceans is the human use of fossil fuels. Based on Dr. Salby’s own analysis, CO2 should have peaked during the Holocene Optimum and have been falling ever since, and even more so, we should have seen CO2 this high (390 ppm and rising) or higher during the last interglacial period 130,000 years ago, yet we didn’t. But of course, he conveniently rejects the accuracy of the ice core data and only seems to interested in data that support his hypothesis. His complete rejection of ice core data is baffling and disturbing.
For those who’d like to get an accurate perspective on the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 and other GH gases to the atmosphere, might I suggest:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=CSIRO_CC_Chapter%202.pdf

August 6, 2011 11:44 am

R Taylor says:
August 6, 2011 at 10:52 am
Well fine, if you want to say the net sensitivity between temperature and CO2 is 8 ppmv/degree-C, that means the effective sensitivity of temperature to CO2 is zero.
That is true, but the 8 ppmv/degr.C is what is observed, thus that is the brut sensitivity, including any feedback from CO2 on temperature…
But this discussion leeds to far from the original one. For the convinience of Smokey, I repeat here that I don’t expect a huge feedback from CO2 on temperature, and that any such feedback would be largely beneficial…

Slioch
August 6, 2011 11:47 am

Question: By how much did the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increase between 1880 and 2000?
Answer: 640 billion tons
Question: How much CO2 did human beings emit to the atmosphere during the same time period?
Answer: 1620 billion tons.
The difference, about 1000 billion tons of CO2, has been absorbed by oceans and terrestrial vegetation and soils.
Conclusions
1: Human emissions are more than able to account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 .
2. The oceans have been and continue to be a sink of CO2 .
Claims that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been caused by release of CO2 from the oceans are 1. unnecessary, 2. wrong.
[ Data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ ]

August 6, 2011 12:03 pm

John Whitman says:
August 6, 2011 at 7:28 am
I have always found your posts to be sincere. Please continue to be sincere by not suggesting you have a scientifically defensive attitude.
Sorry if it can be interpreted that way. I don’t have such an attitude, but of what I have read of Salby is already enough to be careful:
He says that it is impossible to distinguish between emissions from fossil fuel burning and vegetation based on 13C/12C isotope ratios. That is true, but even with a little literature research, he should know that vegetation is a net sink for CO2, not a source at all, thus that problem doesn’t exist.
But if he has good scientific arguments of the opposite, I will change my mind…

August 6, 2011 12:06 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says August 6, 2011 at 11:44 am
Thanks for considering my point; I hope I didn’t sound argumentative. It is just so frustrating to see the scientific establishment give Hansen, et al., a free pass on “positive feedback” when their models ignore the obvious sensitivity of CO2 to temperature.

Richard S Courtney
August 6, 2011 12:11 pm

Ferdinand and John Finn:
Ferdinand, you assert,
“Temperature changes explain about 2/3rd of the variability in sink rate / increase speed.”
What!?
The components of the carbon cycle are all unquantified and their behaviours are not known, but you say you know “Temperature changes explain about 2/3rd of the variability in sink rate / increase speed.”
How can anybody know that when nobody knows the possible responses of any of the myriad interacting components of the carbon cycle?
Simply, your assertion is nonsense! The temperature changes could be the cause of all or none of “the variability in sink rate / increase speed”.
And you also assert, “temperature changes largely compensate each other over 2-3 years”.
Really? You know that? How?
Anyway, your claim that such compensation happens is an assertion of magic. Please read my post at August 5, 2011 at 8:37 am .
Ferdinand, we both know that you are better than this. Please ‘raise your game’.
John Finn, my many disagreements with Ferdinand have given me great respect for him over the years. Sadly, your posts addressed to me are not giving me any respect for you.
You ask me;
“What’s wrong with you, Richard. We’ve gone over this dozens of times.”
Yes, we have (see above) and it is clear that what is “wrong” is your inability to read. Since you seem incapable of understanding my words, I quote those of David Wojick on another blog in hope that they may help you to grasp what you find so difficult to understand.
“lolwot and Ferdinand are both confusing arithmetic with causality. The fact that human emissions a numerically greater than the increase in no way shows that they are causing the increase. As Richard points out, a simple reservoir model is a fallacy. This is similar to the simple minded argument that since CO2 is a GHG it must warm when CO2 increases. I call this sort of fallacious argument speculation based on simplified first principles. If there is one thing we have learned about climate it is that it is a complex nonlinear dynamical system.
In particular, the fact that the top levels of the ocean may be increasing in CO2 concentration does not mean that the ocean cannot be the source of the atmospheric increase. Quite the contrary in fact. Remember that the ocean is a biosphere, not simply a reservoir. There are huge CO2 sinks and sources within it, none of which is being monitored or measured.”
I have answered every question you have asked. For example, these;
“Regarding your other comment (addressed to me) where you claim that the continuing rise in CO2 levels is due to some earlier temperature rise. Could you tell me which temperature rise that might be? Also could you explain how this actually works. That is, could you explain how the atmospheric and sea surface temperatures from an earlier period affects the CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere decades later?”
Time difference:
See my post to Orson Olson at August 5, 2011 at 5:34 pm
and his reply at August 5, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Mechanism:
See my post at August 5, 2011 at 6:41 am
and my post at August 5, 2011 at 10:07 am
I do not intend to type it out for a third time merely because some troll is trying to be disruptive.
Richard

John Whitman
August 6, 2011 12:15 pm

R. Gates says:
August 6, 2011 at 11:43 am
‘’’’I listened to his podcast (twice), and understand clearly what he’s saying. The source of the modern rise (since about 1750 or so) in the NET rise in CO2 in both the atmosphere and oceans is the human use of fossil fuels. Based on Dr. Salby’s own analysis, CO2 should have peaked during the Holocene Optimum and have been falling ever since, and even more so, we should have seen CO2 this high (390 ppm and rising) or higher during the last interglacial period 130,000 years ago, yet we didn’t. But of course, he conveniently rejects the accuracy of the ice core data and only seems to interested in data that support his hypothesis. His complete rejection of ice core data is baffling and disturbing.’’’’’
—————–
R. Gates,
I have bolded three (3) separate segments of your quote above. You claim he has claimed those three (3) things in his podcast.
Please advise me of the three (3) separate time indexes in the Salby podcast where you find he has claimed each of those three (3) things.
Thank you.
John

P Wilson
August 6, 2011 12:23 pm

Oceans contain some 37,400 billion tons (GT) of c02, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 GT of CO2 and humans contribute only 8 GT
The notion, Ferdinand, of changing ratios because of human activity has a difficult logic Fossil fuels put less carbon-13 into the air, but a tag tells nothing of where it goes (like into the oceans). and oceans can put and take as much c02 from, and into the atmosphere as they would, so oceans regulate how much c02 is in the atmosphere. They can take as much c02 from the air as possible.
If 8.6 GT per year are put into the air, half is said to be absorbed by the oceans, which is 4.3 GT. Yet, we put 4.3 GT p.a into the air around 1970. Why then did not the oceans absorb all 4.3GT p.a produced by humans in 1970. Why were not the oceans absorbing vast amounts of CO2 from the air before humans came along? The obvious answer is that oceans could absorb everything humans produce, but increasing ocean temperatures determine the amount absorbed and are releasing more.

P Wilson
August 6, 2011 12:27 pm

and incidentally, there is no data whatsoever about how much c02 the oceans absorb,release, or exchange, nor is there any data about how much landmass and biology absorb, perspire and exchange p.a. There are models and theories that approximate.
given all this, even if we stopped releasing AC02, it is very unlikely that aerial c02 would decrease, but increase at the same rate, hitherto seen until some time into the future when the temperature of oceans undergo a longterm shift

P Wilson
August 6, 2011 12:35 pm

Is there any data about fumaroles, mud volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, etc and generally all volcanoes, and (including underwater) and how much c02 they put into the atmosphere? Underwater volcanoes are quite a source of ocean heating around Antarctic waters..