Pierre Gosselin (and commenter Bill_W) tips us to this:
Die kalte Sonne website here has just posted the video presentation of Murry Salby in Hamburg in April. If anyone ever demolished the dubious CO2 AGW science, it’s Salby!
Most of the presentation is very mathematical and technical. But the last 10 minutes sums everything up very nicely for the laypersons.
Watch the divergence:
In reply to Gavin Schmidt’s comment:
To a large degree being a scientist is all about correctly judging (most of the time) what is and what is not a fruitful line of research. Statistical reworkings of data has been available for years and which are well explained by our standard understanding, do not fall into the category of something that is going radically going to change our understanding. It is far more likely that someone a little out of their field, who isn’t up to date, and has made the (very common) mistake of over-interpreting their statistics. The question to be asked in such circumstances is what would be implied if the conclusion was correct? In this case, it would imply radically bigger changes of co2 during the ice ages, some completely unknown source of carbon that dominates all others. This would be extraordinary, and would require far more than a few correlations to demonstrate to anyone else’s satisfaction. I very much doubt you will see this ‘play out’ in the literature over the next few years. – gavin].
Schmidt said:
“The question to be asked in such circumstances is what would be implied if the conclusion was correct? In this case, it would imply radically bigger changes of co2 during the ice ages, some completely unknown source of carbon that dominates all others.”
William: It appears Gavin Schmidt has not read the recent papers on the deep carbon source and is not aware of the massive deposits of C12 in the paleo record. A good review of the scientific issues related to the source of carbon on the planet’s surface is Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels
As most are aware a Mars size object struck the early earth a few 100 of millions of years after the formation of the early earth. The ejected matter from the impact formed the moon. As a result of the impact the earth’s mantel has been stripped of the lighter volatile elements such as carbon and hydrogen. There are two hypotheses that have been developed to explain the source of light elements on the surface of the planet, the late veneer hypothesis and the deep core hydrocarbon hypothesis.
The late veneer hypothesis assumes comets from a source that is different than comets that formed the sun struck the early earth after the Mars impact creating an atmosphere similar to Venus (i.e. Very high pressures as all of the water and carbon that is now on the surface of the planet had to be delivered via the late comet impacts.) The comets must be from a different source than the sun as the earth’s elemental composition is significant depleted in the noble gases radon and xenon as compared to comets and as compared to the sun.
The second hypothesis is that earth’s core contains a significant fraction of hydrogen and carbon which is consistent with theory calculations. As the core solidifies the hydrogen and carbon is ejected as CH4 under very high pressure. The CH4 is pushed through the mantel to rise to the surface due the very high pressure in the core. This hypothesis explains why diamonds formed at 150 km below the surface of the planet and provides a mechanism to very, very quickly move high pressure carbon to the surface of the planet and to form the kiberlite pipes . At very high pressures CH4 forms the hydrocarbon chains which is called light petroleum. The heavy petroleum products such as the massive Alberta oils sands formation is caused by sulfur based bacteria in the mantel that eat the light carbon leaving sulfur residues in the oil and converting the light crude to heavy crude. The deep carbon source explains why there are massive oil formations located along plate boundaries such as the Middle East.
http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_deep_hot_biosphere.html?id=PEyYSUO6hgYC&redir_esc=y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
https://itunes.apple.com/ca/itunes-u/sloan-deep-carbon-cycle-workshop/id438928309
Sloan Deep Carbon Cycle Workshop – Sessions by Carnegie Institution for Science
I believe I can explain Salby’s findings based on the deep earth CH4 hypothesis. As others have noted the ocean is saturated with CH4 which means there is some source of CH4 in the ocean. The carbon in CH4 is primarily C12 as the source of CH4 is from the core.
My view:
Comments on Dr. Murry Salby’s Critique of the Climate Consensus.
And all who depend upon paleoclimatology arguments should consider the implications of my
Challenge to Earth Scientists
I was smiling bigtime at the Feynman bit at the end. I’ve quoted from that a few times here myself, and glad to see someone else presenting it.
Enjoy!
Steve Garcia
Oh, Mr. Garcia, I DID enjoy that Feynman video — immensely. Thank you, so much.
I tell you, until I started hanging out with and reading the thinking of real scientists as I have on WUWT these past 2 months, I never realized what a pleasure that could be. I thought science and scientists were mostly pretty boring. I was wrong. With few exceptions, you men and women are wonderfully informative and delightful people. What a privilege to be here.
Apologies, it was late..,
“Myrrh says:
June 11, 2013 at 6:54 pm
And, p.s., isn’t the solar constant calculated on how much the Sun heats the Earth? So, since shortwaves don’t heat the Earth’s land and water then they were never historically included in that 1.36 figure, that is all thermal infrared, i.e. longwave infrared direct from the Sun.
In other words, it doesn’t break up into the 53% infrared, 47% visible and uv at the surface – it’s all infrared minus non-thermal
longwaveshortwave infrared.”As NASA’s real scientists used to teach from up to date traditional science building on the brilliant discovery by Herschel that the great powerful heat energy from the Sun was invisible, as he measured it through a solid glass prism…:
NASA:
“Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature
Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
Thermal in traditional science from the Greek meaning ‘of heat’ is a description of the wavelength, not as the fake fisics meme of the AGW Greenhouse Effect’s has it, “the source”…
Neither is visible light a thermal wavelength/photon which is a packet of particles from the Sun, these shortwaves are classed Light not Heat. Heat is the thermal energy of the millions of degree hot Sun in transfer by radiation.
Herschel’s measurements were of course crude compared with later ability to measure electromagnetic wavelengths, and our brilliant scientists went on to discover even more differences, compare gamma with radiowaves. Herschel moved the solid glass prism by hand at the edge of a table, through a window if I recall..
What he was measuring as temperature from the visible wavelengths we can now see was the overlapping bigger wavelengths of thermal longwave infrared, which is why we call these thermal and the shortwaves of infrared non-thermal, and so classed in with Light not Heat, and Reflective not Thermal.
This quote comes from a page which used to be on an internal link, but was replaced by AGW pc fake fisics, but someone with integrity managed to keep it from disappearing altogether: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
The AGW GHE fake fisics has two reasons why the direct radiant heat which is longwave infrared aka thermal infrared from the Sun doesn’t reach us – an unknown to science “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA prevents its entry” and the actually millions of degree°C burning hot Star which is our Sun radiates “insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaching us”.
The last calculated from the “planckian” on the narrow 300 miles wide atmosphere of thin visible light around the Sun, and they’ve come up with 6000°C as the temperature of the Sun..
By giving the property of the thermal energy of longwave infrared to shortwave light the GHE distracts from their absurdity that the Sun is only 6000°C and what they’re actually saying is that the millions of degree hot Sun doesn’t radiate any heat, so they can use the real measurements of the direct powerful travelling in straight lines radiant heat from the Sun to pretend that this comes from their fake “backradiation from the atmosphere by greenhouse gases”.
The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect world has no direct heat from the Sun, so no weather so no climate in their cold world.
Thanks to Bill and William for the replies re Gavin’s comments. Dr Salby certainly seems aware of the issue with the ice age fluctuations, I think to see whether he has answered this issue will have to await publication of his papers.
I further note that Lubos Motl has weighed in at The Reference Frame, with some of the same reservations I have. I must admit that, regardless of the huge natural flux of CO2, it seems very likely to me that human emissions are at least part of the reason for the recent increase – the numbers fit so well in terms of quantities of CO2 emitted. If the increase was just caused by accumulated heat, it would be a total fluke that it is of the same order of magnitude (about .5) as our accumulated combustion. That doesn’t make it impossible, of course…
Unfortunately, this is all rubbish!
The mass balance equation:
Change in At CO2 = Natural Sources + Human Sources – Natural Sinks
Rearranged:
Change in At CO2 – Human Sources = Natural Sources – Natural Sinks
We know Human Sources is greater than Change in At CO2 because we can calculate them.
Therefore LHS of equation is negative. Therefore RHS is negative.
Therefore Natural Sinks is greater than Natural Sources.
Therefore growth in atmospheric CO2 must be man made.
The rest of the hypothesis is irrelevant.
“regardless of the huge natural flux of CO2, it seems very likely to me that human emissions are at least part of the reason for the recent increase ”
The longer we go without a temperature rise and whilst our emissions keep accelerating the smaller the human contribution.
Whatever our contribution it is at least partly and possibly entirely offset by global circulation changes which are dwarfed by natural solar and ocean induced circulation changes.
So even if there is still some net warming (or cooling) effect from our emissions after accounting for the negative system response it is not going to be significant relative to natural variability.
The idea of a positive system response as proposed by AGW theory must surely now be abandoned given the lack of supporting evidence and the continuing cessation of warming despite still rising CO2 in the atmosphere.
Tony Rogers.
You assume that natural sinks are static. They aren’t.
There are two factors involving the sinks that potentially complement each other in overwhelming our contribution despite being of opposite sign:
I) Our emissions appear to energise the local biosphere such that the power of the local and regional sinks on land increases to reduce or eliminate our emissions.
ii) The reduced global albedo of the late 20th century seems to have warmed the oceans which became less effective as global sinks.
The consequence is that our land based emissions had little or no effect as against the simultaneous natural increase in atmospheric CO2 from the warmer oceans.
There is data to support that here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
“Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions “
Stephen Wilde.
If natural sinks are larger than natural sources, nature did not produce the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
In reply to JM VanWinkle’s questions.
JM VanWinkle says:
June 10, 2013 at 2:24 pm
So, CO2 is the dependent variable (not cause) in both instrument and proxy records and the dependence of CO2 is on the integral of temperature. Then based on his analysis, which looked good to me, CO2 as a driver is unimportant. The inference then is that the temperature and CO2 variations in modern times are both natural and not anthropogenic. (if CO2 tracks the integral of temperature, the reverse of causation would be that CO2 was the independent variable and then temperature would have to depend on the derivative of CO2, which implies some unknown physical mechanism).
What then is driving temperature, and, moreover, driving it in such a way of producing a nice monotonic CO2 rise?
William:
The warmists have ignored multiple observational anomalies that disprove their theory. It is helpful to understand and intelligently discuss the problem situation: to summarize the anomalies, to summarize the standard hypothesis and logical issues, and then to present alternative hypotheses/hypothesis to explain what is observed. This problem is particularly interesting it appears there are multiple fundamental errors in our understanding of the earth, of the earth-sun climate relationship, and of the sun
As Salby notes global temperature does not track, does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels in the instrumented period. We are all aware of the current 16 year period when atmospheric CO2 increased and the planetary temperature remained roughly constant.
Something else is driving the planetary temperature changes. The following is additional observational details and logic to support that assertion.
There is a second temperature anomaly: The latitudinal variance in the global temperature anomaly does not support the assertion that CO2 forcing is causing the observed warming.
As this paper by Douglass and Christy notes, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere varies less than 4% with latitude. Therefore the CO2 potential to force (the term potential to force is used as the amount forcing at latitude of the planet in question is due to both the concentration of CO2 and the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question) by the greenhouse mechanism (assuming that mechanism works per the warmist hypothesis) with latitude should be almost constant.
Furthermore, in the tropics the CO2 forcing should be proportional greater as the largest amount of long wave radiation that is emitted off to space is in the tropics and as there is amply water to amplify the CO2 forcing based on the warmist theory.
An analysis of the latitudinal variance of the planetary temperature anomaly does not support the assertion that warming in the last 70 years was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2.
The temperature anomaly in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics (not including the tropical region) is 4 times greater than the temperature anomaly of the tropics and twice the temperature anomaly of the planet as whole. This same temperature pattern of warming (that we are now observing) occurs during a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles were not caused by changes to atmospheric CO2 levels. The same forcing function (modulation of planetary cloud cover by solar magnetic cycle changes) caused the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and caused the warming in the last 70 years.
The modulation of planetary cloud cover (both low level clouds and high level cirrus clouds) by solar magnetic cycle changes explains the pattern of warming of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and warming in the last 70 years.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
As the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted (the same pattern of solar magnetic cycle changes occurs to create the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and the more sever Heinrich event.)
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels 2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].
Additional comment on the Deep earth CH4 hypothesis (See my comment above for additional details).
Another logical point for the deep earth CH4 hypothesis is the solar wind gradually strips hydrogen (disassociated water) from the atmosphere. If there was not a continual new source of hydrogen (CH4) the earth would have no water on its surface. The deep earth CH4 contains primordial carbon which is principally C12 which explains why the C13/C12 ratio in sedimentary rock does not normally change with time and explains the few rare very large deposits of high C12 in the sedimentary rock. Galactic cosmic rays strike the C12 in the atmosphere forming C14 which decays to form C13. Planets preferentially use C12 for photosynthesis, so over time the atmospheric ratio of C13/C12 should increase. That is not observed. The C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere remains remarkable constant. The reason is plants remove carbon from the atmosphere and deposit it in sedimentary rock. The new CH4 from the deep earth is continually added to the atmosphere which keeps the C13/C12 relatively constant. The variance of C13 is then caused by changes in GCR levels which varies the amount of C14 that is formed.
The deep earth CH4 also explains the existent of the continents, of mountains, and very high plateau such as the Tibet plateau. The continents must float on the mantel. The CH4 that rise from the deep earth lifts the continents and creates the mountains. The Tibet plateau is a 1000 miles from the collision of the India sub continental plate and the Asia continental plate. It is the CH4 that is concentrated an plate collisions that creates the mountains in bands and the Tibet plateau. The CH4 remains in under the continental plate which explains why there is a band of mountains at the collision of continental plates.
Tony Rogers says:
June 12, 2013 at 2:13 am
———————————————————–
Co2 sinks include biomass. This varies with temperature and CO2 concentration.
I struggle to imagine any way your fail could have been more epic.
You’re missing the point.
The equation shows that natural sinks are larger than natural sources. For nature to produce the extra CO2 each year, it would have to be the other way around.
“If natural sinks are larger than natural sources, nature did not produce the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.”
I agree, but that’s not the point and it’s a strawman. The point is that the change in atmosheric CO2 is determined by temperature (not change in temperature). That’s what the data since ~1960 show.
Tony Rogers says:
June 12, 2013 at 2:13 am
Unfortunately, this is all rubbish!
===========================
These are not linear systems Tony. Stop embarrassing yourself in public,
Edim. Are you suggesting that CO2 in the atmosphere would be 400ppm today if man had not generated any CO2 by burning fossil fuels and land use changes?
Tony, yes close to 400 ppm. Man is puny and vain.
Graham W.
Surface insolation at the zenith position, indeed any position, can be measured and calculated and the figures will agree at the same clear conditions. Climb a mountain gets you more energy due to there being less atmosphere for the light to pass through.
Tony Rogers says:
June 12, 2013 at 2:13 am
“Unfortunately, this is all rubbish!”
Your argument is absolute, pathetic rubbish, and I am tired of confronting the idiots who espouse it.
“Natural” sinks are not entirely natural. This is a dynamic system. The sinks expand due to forcing.
Hence,
Natural Sinks = Natural sink action due to natural forcing + Natural sink action due to anthropogenic forcing = NSNF + NSAF
Now, your equation reads
Change in At CO2 – Human Sources + NSAF = Natural Sources – NSNF
You have two unknowns, and one equation, and this does not allow a unique solution,
This is how feedback systems work. Your pseudo-mass balance argument is stupid beyond compare on an extremely elementary level. I am so sick of it.
New study by Sks author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is manmade.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
Mark T Richardson author of the Sks study is another postgrad trying to make a name for himselt.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1596
Here’s the sks post in which MarkR claims to refute “Humlum and others 2013.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/richardson-2013-man-made-carbon.html
DCA says:
June 12, 2013 at 11:24 am
It is painful to see so many smug morons gathered in one place. These guys are applying algebra to a calculus problem. It makes me wonder if they teach calculus in the schools anymore.
Let me give a very simple example. This is not precisely how the real-world system works, but it will do to show how dynamic feedback works, and how it invalidates their static-analysis, pseudo-mass balance argument.
Suppose atmospheric CO2 labelled “C” progresses according to the differential equation
dC/dt= -a*C + N + A
where a is an inverse time constant. The first term is the action of “natural” sinks, which respond to the total level of C in the atmosphere. The second term is natural forcing. The third term is anthropogenic forcing.
The rate of change of C is less than A. Thus,
-a*C+ N .LT. zero
The ridiculous pseudo-mass balance argument then says, voila! Nature is a net sink.
But, the solution of the above equation is the convolution integral of N + A with the exponential term exp(-a*t). In Laplace operator form
C(s) = (1/(s+a)) * (N(s) + A(s))
The left side of the above inequality then becomes
-a*C+ N = (s*N(s) – a*A(s)) / (s + a)
Thus,
[dN/dt – a*A] .LT. zero
where the square brackets indicate the quantity is evaluated over an exponentially weighted integration window. I.e., the derivative of N is, in an exponentially weighted sense, less than the scaled value of A. This says nothing about the relative magnitudes of N and A.
Again for emphasis, this says NOTHING about the relative magnitudes of N and A. It only constrains the rate of change of N with respect to A, in an exponentially weighted, average sense, and that constraint is not particularly harsh. “A” can be tiny, and “a” huge, and thus N can be very large and rapidly increasing, and still the “mass-balance” “says” that “nature” is a net sink. But, in this case, it is N which is overwhelmingly driving the output.
The “mass-balance” argument is dumb as rocks. Just laugh at them when they try to peddle it to you.
The most significant statement of the whole presentation ” CO² = the integration of temperature.