Correlation of Net CO2 emissions with climate properties shows that the growth in CO2 may be natural
Story submitted by WUWT reader Steve Brown
The narrative of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been challenged at many levels but this presentation by Professor Murry Salby, Chair of Climate at Macquarie University rips up the very foundations of the story.
The talk (in the video below) was given at the Sydney Institute 2nd Aug 2011
He elegantly shows that there is a solid correlation between natural climate factors (global temperature and soil moisture content) and the net gain (or loss) in global atmospheric content when the latter is averaged over a two year period. The hanging question remains, if natural factors drive more than 90% of the growth in CO2 how significant is the contribution of human generated emissions. The answer is simple… not very.
The talk has been covered in the past on Judith Curry’s blog, and an abstract of the talk is here . But this is the first time I have encountered a video of the talk or been able to see the slides which he referenced.
Fascinating.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have been away…
Andrew McRae says:
April 23, 2012 at 7:29 am
“We must recognise there are two competing forces operating on the ocean’s carbon content.”
There are other forces operating on the ocean’s carbon content. Organisms use it to build shells and otherwise convert it to sediments which get deposited on the sea floor effectively permanently. Other organisms simply take it up in their bodies, which also get deposited to the sea floor when they die. These are the effectively permanent sinks which control the entire ballgame. We do not know how powerful they are. We do not know how rapidly they expand their efforts in response to increased CO2 flux. THAT is what I have been trying to explain.
Phil. says:
April 24, 2012 at 7:53 am
“The Mass Balance equation shows that the addition of CO2 of anthropogenic origin is the source of the growth in atmospheric CO2…”
It shows nothing of the kind.
“… and that the sinks are unable to expand fast enough to counter that addition in its entirety.”
We have no way of knowing that.
“In another post you also sought to remove half of the anthropogenic CO2 from the system entirely.”
No, from the atmosphere. The “system” includes oceans, atmosphere, and land. Roughly half of the CO2 from the atmosphere is believed to go directly into the oceans within a relatively short time frame. This is the “fast” part of the CO2 feedback dynamics. The relatively slower part, which governs asymptotic concentration, depends upon the permanent sequestration processes such as I discussed above.
“You also keep trying to portray the differential balance equation as a static analysis by claiming that the flux terms are constant which is a figment of your imagination, which you have been repeatedly told is not the case, but you continue to trot out the same canard.”
It is a static analysis because it does not involve dynamic feedback. You can tell me anything you like. But, when I know it is false, I will call you down on it.
It is difficult to me to imagine that others have such a hard time with feedback concepts which, to me and those I interact with daily, are so basic as to pass with no comment. In a discussion with my peers, the points I have laid out would be met with an “of course”, and brook no denial. It really is a trivial feedback loop problem, which is why I am so nonplussed to see such strenuous resistance to what I have explained in rather excruciating detail.
sirosser says:
April 23, 2012 at 6:37 am
“It is a know scientific fact that higher levels of greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is a component cause a warming of Earth’s atmosphere.”
Holding all other variables constant, and assuming no dynamic feedback. Again, a jejune static analysis which has little relevance to a dynamic system.
Friends:
At April 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm above I wrote:
“I remind people that this matter was previously discussed on WUWT at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/
There is much interesting discussion there.”
Sadly, it seems that few bothered to read that link because most of the arguments presented above were addressed there.
The important issues are
(a)
The mass balance argument proves nothing (it is an example of the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’,
(b)
The mass balance argument is refuted by the facts that 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.
(c)
The anthropogenic emission is one of several factors which may have induced the carbon cycle to adjust to provide the observed recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration
but
one of our 2005 papers shows the cause of that recent rise is probably natural.
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 (and others are also possible) 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.
Nothing in the above discussion alters any of that. Indeed, Salby’s analysis supports it.
All the best
Richard
Bart says:
April 28, 2012 at 11:24 am
I have been away…
Let’s be thankful for small mercies.
Phil. says:
April 24, 2012 at 7:53 am
“The Mass Balance equation shows that the addition of CO2 of anthropogenic origin is the source of the growth in atmospheric CO2…”
It shows nothing of the kind.
“… and that the sinks are unable to expand fast enough to counter that addition in its entirety.”
We have no way of knowing that.
Just that the net increase in the sinks on an annual basis has never been enough to counteract the annual increase in anthropogenic output!
“In another post you also sought to remove half of the anthropogenic CO2 from the system entirely.”
No, from the atmosphere. The “system” includes oceans, atmosphere, and land. Roughly half of the CO2 from the atmosphere is believed to go directly into the oceans within a relatively short time frame. This is the “fast” part of the CO2 feedback dynamics. The relatively slower part, which governs asymptotic concentration, depends upon the permanent sequestration processes such as I discussed above.
However, in that earlier post you failed to show that, you just removed it completely.
“You also keep trying to portray the differential balance equation as a static analysis by claiming that the flux terms are constant which is a figment of your imagination, which you have been repeatedly told is not the case, but you continue to trot out the same canard.”
It is a static analysis because it does not involve dynamic feedback. You can tell me anything you like. But, when I know it is false, I will call you down on it.
The differential equation I posted is a dynamic analysis which does involve dynamic feedback, I’m sure you can see that so I have to conclude that you’re just obfuscating for some agenda. As to what you ‘know is false’ you have consistently failed to answer questions I’ve addressed to you on your analysis, sometimes not answering, sometimes changing the topic, so I conclude that either you don’t know the answers or don’t want to admit you’re wrong.
It is difficult to me to imagine that others have such a hard time with feedback concepts which, to me and those I interact with daily, are so basic as to pass with no comment. In a discussion with my peers, the points I have laid out would be met with an “of course”, and brook no denial. It really is a trivial feedback loop problem, which is why I am so nonplussed to see such strenuous resistance to what I have explained in rather excruciating detail.
That is what you have not done, you have never explained what is wrong with the mass balance equation I posted, your losing your temper and abusing other posters doesn’t help, do you do that when discussing matters with your peers too? We know you ‘brook no denial’, of course that doesn’t mean you’re right.