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.
Anything is possible says:
April 19, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Posted this yesterday at TB’s site :
Some figures pertaining to mass, which may (or may not) prove helpful……
Total mass (Ta) of atmosphere = 5.14×10^18 kg.
Mass of CO2 (Tc) in atmosphere = 2.3 x 10^15 kg.
Is your figure for CO2 calculated? A calculation I used gave me 2887.4 giga tonnes or
2.89 x 10^15 kg which I subsequently used with Henry’s Law to compare the equilibrium figure with a quoted figure for CO2 in seawater.
Bart wrote: “That is not a feedback. That is a feed-forward of a constant value, i.e., it is merely a bias input which does not partake in or influence the loop dynamics.
A dynamic feedback would be of the form where the withdrawals change as a function of deposits,”
Nonsense, the wifes withdrawals do change as a function of deposits, it is just that I made (anthropogenic) deposits constant for the sake of simplicity. The analogy would work just as well if my deposits were variable instead of constant, as indeed I pointed out at the time.
“There are three players involved: 1) natural emissions (you) 2) anthropogenic emissions (your wife) 3) sinks (your kid). Period. “
Nonsense, if you want to know whether the rise is natural or anthropogenic then the natural environment consists of both the natural sources and the natural sinks, and it makes no sense to consider them separately. As Prof. Salby correctly says it is the difference betweens emissions and uptake that affects atmospheric concentrations.
Of course it hasn’t escaped my attention that you have quitely changed your argument from separating natural uptake into uptake of anthropogenic CO2 [Una(t)] and natural CO2 [Unn(t)] and after I explained why that wasn’t valid you are now trying to divide up the natural environment in a different but equally invalid method.
Sinks do not discriminate on the basis of “natural” or “anthropogenic,” any more than the kid in this analogy cares whether the money in the account came from his mother or his step-father. ”
It was you that tried to argue that we should consider them separately [Una(t) and Unn(t)], not me. I was just pointing out that such arguments were ridiculous, but it was your argument not mine.
Bart wrote “This is where you made your error. You assumed the sinks were constant. “
Nonsense. The natural sinks in my analogy were represented by my wifes withdrawals from the jar which were equaly to my deposits plus 88 euros. They were only constant becuase I chose for the sake of simplicity to make my deposits constant, but the analogy would work just as well if I had made them variable. The reason I didn’t make them variable is that it would have made the analogy more complicated without there being any benefit. However, just to keep you happy, I will do so anyway.
Assume we have a savings jar as before. Each month I put in 1 euro more than in the previous month, starting with four euro in month 1 [representing anthropogenic emissions, such that Ea(t) = t+3] all in Belgian minted coins. My wife puts in 90 Euros a month [representing natural emissions, such that Ea(t) = 90], all in French minted coins (so we can tell who put them in the jar). My wife however decides that the jar would look neater if it only contained French minted coins, so each month she takes out all of the Belgian minted coins [representing natural uptake of anthropogenic CO2, such that Una(t) = Ea(t) = t + 3] and an additional 88 French minted coins (representing natural uptake of natural CO2, such that Unn(t) = 88]. After 12 months, I will have put into the jar 4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15 = 114 euros, my wife has put in 12*90 = 1080 euro, but she has also taken out 92+93+94+95+96+97+98+99+100+101+102+103 = 1170 euro. So at the end of the year there are 114+1080-1170 = 24 additional euros in the jar and all of the euros in the jar are French minted and deposited by my wife as she always takes out any Belgian minted coins she finds in the jar.
Now you said “Ea(t) – Una(t) is the net anthropogenic input, and En(t) – Unn(t) is the net natural input.” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/what-you-mean-we-arent-controlling-the-climate/#comment-962189). Following that logic, then my net input Ea(t) – Una(t) = 0 euros and my wifes net input is En(t) – Unn(t) = 12*90 – 12*88 = 24 euros, so you would conclude that my wife is 100% responsible for the rise of 24 euros in our savings. However, as I pointed out this is absurd as she has actually taken 1170-1080 = 90 euro OUT of the jar more that she has put in!
There you go, uptake is not constant in this analogy, although all that has been achieved is to make the analogy unecessarily complicated, it still shows your argument to be absurd equally clearly.
Now I know you have quietly abandoned this line of argument and are now trying to make an argument based on artificially treating natural sources and natural sinks as separate entities (they aren’t the oceans for example are both a source and a sink of CO2), but this is the argument you were making, which my analogy shows to be absurd.
dikranmarsupial says:
April 22, 2012 at 2:38 am
———————-
If you stopped feeding the jar it would not be long before your wife would have emptied it.
Before CAGW existed, at what point did CO2 go to zero?
Chuck Nolan: Natural uptake is only in excess of natural emissions because anthropogenic emissions have disturbed atmospheric CO2 levels from their pre-industrial approximate equilibrium level (abou 280ppmv). If we stopped anthropogenic emissions then atmospheric levels would fall, but the rate at which this happened would become smaller and smaller as we approached the new equilibrium, at which point natural emissions and natural uptake would be approximately balance. The jar analogy was only intended to point out why Barts argument was absurd. If you want something more realistic then you would need a differential equation based model, such as the one presented in my paper that I mentioned earlier in the thread.
dikran,
You should really stop digging. Bart has been running circles around your arguments.
Here, lighten up by reading some funny comments from your countrymen/women.
Myrrh says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:31 am
We had a discussion about Relativity some months ago, if you remember, where you kept insisting it was a bunch of hooey no matter how thoroughly I countered your arguments. You, and this “dikranmarsupial” fellow do not pursue logical, complete, and consistent arguments, and they always devolve into ad nauseam repetition. Come to think of it, I should have just stayed out of the discussion and let you two have at it until you wore each other down.
dikranmarsupial says:
April 22, 2012 at 2:09 am
To tell the truth DM, I never did anything but glance at your scenario. You said: “I deliberately made the analogy with a feedback loop as the wife’s withdrawals are whatever my deposits were plus 88 euros.” I took you at your word. That is most assuredly NOT a dynamic feedback.
I have no intention of wading further into the morass of your fevered imagination. You are the one trying to prove something. It is not proof to offer up a specific scenario which you think supports your point of view, even if it were correct in all its irrelevant details.
But, I can formally disprove your assertion with a single counterexample, as I did at April 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm. Ergo, we are done. You were wrong.
@Bart
Thanks for the reply and links man. This science stuff is interesting indeed 🙂
Heggs.
“If you want something more realistic then you would need a differential equation based model, such as the one presented in my paper that I mentioned earlier in the thread.”
If you want a more rigorous differential equation based model, you can find it here, with notable updates here and here, and here.
Bart wrote: “To tell the truth DM, I never did anything but glance at your scenario. ”
Sadly that has been pretty much the story the whole time. While I am willing to engage with your arguments, you have not been willing to engage with mine, and everytime I have pointed out a flaw in your logic you have just evaded discussion of it and tried some other line of argument. The insults an ad-hominems just conform that you are only interested in rhetorical debate rather than seeking the truth of the matter.
If skeptics seriously want to have an effect on the debate in the real world, like Fred Singer says you need to drop the canards and adopt some self-skepticism.
REPLY: And if you want to be known as anything other than an oversized “rodent” like mammal (per your name/avatar) with a fake name who trashes and insults me regularly on other blogs, have the courage and integrity to put your name to your arguments like I do, or even your hero John Cook does. I find it hilarious that you want to be taken seriously while displaying not one iota of personal integrity yourself. – Anthony Watts
Anthony, If you read my earlier posts, you will find that in fact I have identified my real name on this thread and the previous one (Gavin Cawley).
dikranmarsupial:
Would you be so kind as to send a complete copy of your paper to me?
Thank you.
Bart says:
April 22, 2012 at 10:49 am
Myrrh says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:31 am
We had a discussion about Relativity some months ago, if you remember, where you kept insisting it was a bunch of hooey no matter how thoroughly I countered your arguments. You, and this “dikranmarsupial” fellow do not pursue logical, complete, and consistent arguments, and they always devolve into ad nauseam repetition. Come to think of it, I should have just stayed out of the discussion and let you two have at it until you wore each other down.
===========
? You think because you think you countered my arguments that you won? Prove Einstein’s relativity. Prove that motion affects time so the faster one travels the slower time gets. Prove that someone running down the corridor of a train will get to the next station slower than someone sitting still in a carriage who will get there faster. Because, sunshine, that is what relativity claims is science fact.
Anthony, this is the post where I revealed my identity http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/what-you-mean-we-arent-controlling-the-climate/#comment-962689 so while I was posting under a pseudonym, I wasn’t posting anonymously (unlike Bart). It is ironic that you take exception to what I wrote given that WUWT republished Fred Singers recent article and I was essentially saying exactly the same thing he did (except that I didn’t use the term denier). The fact that you had publised Fred Singers article established that you do have self-skepticim, hence the comment was not directed at you personally.
REPLY: OK I didn’t see that post, as I don’t see every post approved on WUWT – welcome to the light Mr. Cawley.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u
– Anthony
camburn, contact me via email and I’ll send a pre-print (the email address is given on the publishers website). However, given Anthony’s rather unfair characterisation of me, I don’t think I will discuss the science here any longer.
dikranmarsupial says:
April 22, 2012 at 11:24 am
“While I am willing to engage with your arguments…”
You have not. Not even once on a substantive level. There is a reason for that, of course: you do not understand feedback theory.
“I have pointed out a flaw in your logic you have just evaded discussion of it and tried some other line of argument.”
I have no flaws in my argument. You, however, do. And, when I have pointed them out to you, you have evaded them. So, this is merely projection on your part.
“… and tried some other line of argument.”
I have tried different ways of explaining concepts you do not understand, sure. Anything else is repetition ad nauseam, which has been your MO:
Since we’ve reached the point where there is nothing more to say, it’s time to end this particular shooting match. I will finish with this statement:
Myrrh says:
April 22, 2012 at 11:40 am
“Prove that motion affects time so the faster one travels the slower time gets.”
Define “time”. Once you come to grips with what the quantity actually is, you will have an easier, er, time with the concepts.
But, thanks anyway for illustrating my point re DM.
Let me make one last attempt to communicate the point that appears to have sailed over your head, DM. You are claiming a general property, and trying to prove it with a specific example. That is a formal logical fallacy of “hasty generalization”.
I, on the other hand, can disprove your general assertion with a single specific counter-example. This, I have done.
Bart, as I said, given Anthony’s unfair characterisation of me, I am disinclined to discuss science here. I am also disinclined to discuss science with someone who openly admits they are not paying any real attention to my replies, it seems rather pointless.
Now I have set out the mass balance argument in small steps earlier in the thread. If you really wanted to refute the mass balance argument, then you would need to show which step in the chain of reasoning is incorrect. However instead of doing this you keep going back to models of the carbon cycle, which are a different issue altogether (the mass balance argument is not a model of the carbon cycle and makes no assumptions about the operation of any part of it). If you can find a flaw in one of the steps, then feel free to to discuss it at SkS (I posted an article about my paper there, so that would be the natural place to discuss it), but Anthony has made it abundently clear I am not welcome here, so this will be my last post.
Tinkerty-tonk!
[REPLY: Anthony did not say you were not welcome here. He takes exception to anonymity. -REP]
[REPLY: I’ll point out that you have made some unfair characterizations of me too. Your self outing is noted and appreciated upthread – Anthony
And, finally, I want to repost something from another site where I was trying to explain the concept. I think it is fairly straightforward, and may help people who are unsure understand:
Bart, you have made no attempt to fix the husband/wife coin jar analogy in such a way as to make clearer your theory, which would surely have been simpler and certainly more illuminating than blustering and handwaving it away.
By introducing a third person you make a completely different analogy and one that does not reflect the problem at hand. As we are interested in whether the observed increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is natural or anthropogenic, we only need two people in the analogy, one to represent the anthropogenic emissions and the other to represent the natural elements of the carbon cycle be they net sources or sinks.
Bart says:
April 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Myrrh says:
April 22, 2012 at 11:40 am
“Prove that motion affects time so the faster one travels the slower time gets.”
Define “time”. Once you come to grips with what the quantity actually is, you will have an easier, er, time with the concepts.
So all you can come up with is bs attempting to sound oh so clever and belittling me by pretending it is some superior physics which I’m not capable of understanding? And you’ve given this as proof of your superior understanding about, well, everything you disagree with me about since you always make a big show of it in discussions where you think you can con people into believing you’re brilliant with your ad hom attacks against me. Put up or stfu.
Prove time actually slows, as Einstein says it does, the faster one goes. That is Einstein’s relativity, you claim it is fact. Prove it. Prove that someone running down the corridor of a train will take longer to reach the next station than someone sitting still in a carriage who will get there faster.
Ed says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:08 pm
“…you have made no attempt to fix the husband/wife coin jar analogy in such a way as to make clearer your theory…”
A) It is not my theory. It is mathematics. I stand on the shoulders of giants.
B) I did fix it. I added a true dynamic feedback in the form of a sink (the kid) who takes out an amount proportional to what is in the account.
“…more illuminating than blustering…”
There is no bluster. The “analogy” was flawed, and had to be fixed.
“By introducing a third person you make a completely different analogy and one that does not reflect the problem at hand.”
No, introducing the third person is what made it applicable to the problem at hand.
“…the other to represent the natural elements of the carbon cycle be they net sources or sinks.”
So, what you are saying is that the sinks know if it is natural or anthropogenic CO2, and only absorb the former?
Wrong-o.
Myrrh says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Thanks again. But, you have demonstrated what I wanted you to demonstrate, and there is no need for any more effort on your part.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
April 21, 2012 at 9:42 pm
“I don’t see how your hypothesis is testable, as we do not have a control planet available…”
Nonsense. It is easily falsifiable. Simply identify global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2, and the hypothesis is falsified. Conversely, no harm = harmless.
We already know from satellite data that the planet is greening due to the rise in CO2. And farmers would not waste their money on CO2 injection in greenhouses unless it produced results.
So once again, please try to falsify my testable hypothesis:
At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
All you have to do is point to conclusive evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused verifiable global harm. But so far, that hypothesis has withstood every challenge. Because there has been no global harm due to the rise in CO2. A rise, I might add, that is caused by warming.
Rising CO2 isn’t causing the warming; warming is causing CO2 to rise, just like a warming Coke outgases CO2. It is a proven fact that oceans outgas CO2 as they warm. CO2 may add a small amount of warming, but not nearly as much as the oceans, which predominate. Ocean outgasing is evidence, while CO2=AGW is a conjecture. It may be true. Or not.
Ed – Let me lay this out for you. One. More. Time.
The sinks are variable. They expand their uptake of CO2 in response to an increase or decrease in atmospheric concentration from any source.
This is not my theory. This is common knowledge. This is how feedback systems work.
As such, there is a part of the “natural” uptake which has expanded to counter the anthropogenic input. Thus, there is a part of what is going into the sinks which is from anthropogenic emissions, and there is a part which is from natural emissions, and the total is greater than what it would be if there were only natural CO2 emissions.
Read that very, very carefully.
Again, I am making no assertion. This is common knowledge.
For a mass balance, you can only assign in the natural column the amounts which are coming in from natural emissions, and the outgoing flux into the sinks which would exist without the anthropogenic input having caused their expansion. We DO NOT KNOW what that particular mass balance is. We only know what the balance is if you include the portion going into the sinks which came about due to their expansion as a response to the anthropogenic inputs.
Again, this is not my theory. This is how feedback systems work.
And, note: I am not saying that the observed rise is not due to anthropogenic inputs. At least a small part of it indubitably is. I AM saying that the mass balance argument, the one which includes the portion of mass going into the expanded sinks, is inconclusive in this regard.
“They expand their uptake of CO2 in response to an increase or decrease in atmospheric concentration from any source.”
Should have said:
“They expand their uptake of CO2 in response to an increase (or contract it in response to a decrease) in atmospheric concentration from any source.”