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:
Thanks Bart
Having studied calculas in my engineering studies, I see what you are referring to.
calculus not calculas
Bart, thanks for the equations dealing with the mass balance nonsense.
I saw the principle you set out intuitively but have long been at a loss how to express it mathematically.
I set the issue out in simple conceptual terms using words but made no progress.
Bart,
I copied and pasted your reply on the sKs blog (I hope you don’t mind) and here is the response.
“Calling arguments that have appeared in journal papers written by top carbon cycle experts, as well as the IPCC report “ridiculous” suggests hubris, which is not a good thing in science.
The mass balance argument, at least stated in its usual form, is not a calculus problem, as the quantites involved represent the actual amounts of carbon that have been moved between reservoirs within a particular timeframe – a year is a common choice. No calculus is involved.
Answer me this:
If during a particular year, net natural emissions are say 2 units and anthropogenic emissions are 2 units and the rise in atmospheric carbon is only 1 unit, where did the missing three units of carbon go?
Edit: By the way, your initial error is to double count natural fluxes,
dC/dt= -a*C + N + A
The net natural response of the carbon cycle is (to a first approximation) proportional to atmospheric CO2 levels, so the natural response is being represented by both -a*C and by N. If you want differential equation based models, you can find the in my journal paper, and give a reasonable reproduction of a variety of known observations, for instance a constant airborne fraction, and they do they also show that the natural environment is a net carbon sink.”
Bart says:
June 12, 2013 at 12:45 pm
DCA says:
June 12, 2013 at 11:24 am
It is painful to see so many smug morons gathered in one place. These guys are applying algebra to a calculus problem. It makes me wonder if they teach calculus in the schools anymore.
I don’t believe they do. I went to school in the UK and we touched on calculus mainly differentiation and in the final year but that was 55 yrs ago. I don’t think they even touch on it now until degree level or perhaps GCSE A special..
This mirrors a research note by Dr. Robert Essenhigh of Ohio State in 2001.
See http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
in which he proposes that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. Dr. Essenhigh is an engineer, and a professor of energy conservation.
DCA says:
June 13, 2013 at 5:31 am
‘“Calling arguments that have appeared in journal papers written by top carbon cycle experts, as well as the IPCC report “ridiculous” suggests hubris, which is not a good thing in science.’
So lame. I used to take similar umbrage when I got carded ordering alcohol underage. How dare you think I’m not 21! It doesn’t fool anyone.
‘The net natural response of the carbon cycle is (to a first approximation) proportional to atmospheric CO2 levels, so the natural response is being represented by both -a*C and by N.’
This guy really has no clue. -a*C is clearly negative representing sink action, and the model dC/dt = -a*C without any A input goes to zero exponentially. Is he really claiming that CO2 would go to zero without any anthropogenic input? Good thing we’re pumping it in, then!
What a maroon.
DCA says:
June 13, 2013 at 5:31 am
Please feel free to post what I have said anywhere. I’d be interested to know if your input gets “disappeared” from SkS at some point.
Bart
Your contribution is welcome and entirely accurate from what I’ve read. Please don’t spoil it with your anger.
Thanks Bart.
The guy claims to be http://heartland.org/robert-essenhigh, who Earl Rood refers to.
Here is the “journal paper” he refers to . http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
It hasn’t disappeared yet.
Stephen Richards says:
June 13, 2013 at 11:45 am
Thanks for the soothing words. It’s bad enough that these guys are doing lousy analysis without an understanding of the role of feedback, but what really chaps my hide is how smug they are about it. It’s like trying to explain the germ theory of disease to primitives who don’t even have any idea what a microscope is.
This silliness has been going on far too long, and it frustrates me no end. But, I will try to dial it back a notch. After the next response 😉
DCA says:
June 13, 2013 at 12:23 pm
I’m glad you tried to get the word out, but I doubt it will do any good. Just look at that ridiculous response – it’s like the guy never heard of a differential equation. But, he has made his pronouncement, and can now feel confident he has beaten back the attack. Just chant a few voodoo charms, and the illness has been vanquished. Ay yi yi.
Just to give a little more insight, consider the case where “a” approaches infinity (infinitely short sequestration time). The solution of the differential equation now approaches
C := (N + A)/a
We know A, and it is finite, hence A/a approaches zero. We don’t know N, so it can be arbitrarily large. We can choose a parameter M such that N = a*M, and now
C := M
wholly natural. Hence, the “mass-balance” argument is bunk. It does not in any way uniquely determine the culprit for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.
It all depends on the residence time (1/a is e-folding time), and the estimates for that are all over the map. But, Salby’s analysis shows that Nature is dominant, hence residence time is relatively short, and A has only a marginal impact.
Bart,
Thanks again for your reply.
When I questioned him about Salby’s study and addressed him as Dr Essenhigh, he replied,
41.Dikran Marsupial at 05:51 AM on 14 June, 2013
civil engineer, just to clarify, my name is Gavin Cawley (I post pseudonymously, but not anonymously), Prof. Essenhigh wrote the original paper on which mine was a comment. Mea culpa, the link in the earlier post was to Prof. Essenhigh’s original paper, rather than my comment paper, which you can find here.
Apparently he’s really Dikran Marcupial a sKs regular. http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
Oh, that guy. I’ve had run-ins with him before on these pages. Impervious to logic. No point in pursuing.
Bart,
I got a reply from the mod for calling him Essenhigh. It won’t be long now before I’m banned. lol
DCA says:
June 13, 2013 at 3:39 pm
See no evil, hear no evil. Those guys are a case study in pathological science.
Anyone following this thread, please note what I stated above. My example is not precisely how the actual climate-CO2 system works. The real world system has multiple time scales relating to diffusion processes moderating source and sink activity. It would require a multidimensional system of differential equations to model it to high fidelity, if such a model were of any practical interest, which it really isn’t given Salby’s results.
Nevertheless, qualitatively, the simple example is good enough to demonstrate the fundamental flaw in the so-called “mass balance” argument. It is a counterexample which contradicts its basic logic, or rather lack thereof.
The bottom line is that when the natural sinks expand from both natural and anthropogenic forcing, then they are no longer wholly natural, and one cannot input them for accounting purposes solely in the “natural” column.
I feel a need to point this out because I am sure that, if you bring this up with those who have convinced themselves otherwise, the first response you will get is “that’s not how the actual system works.” Well, it does not precisely, but that is entirely beside the point.
And, for any who are interested, the actual real world CO2 system works, on average, analogously to the coupled differential equations below over particular operating conditions which may change, either slowly or in abrupt shifts, over time. These changes in operating conditions would be reflected in the parameters. It can be stated confidently that the parameters have not changed appreciably in the past 55 years.
dC/dt = (P – C)/tau + A
dP/dt = k*(T – Teq)
C = atmospheric CO2 content
A = anthropogenic inputs
tau = time “constant” parameter, which may vary over long stretches of time
P = CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by ocean currents and possibly other processes
T = atmospheric temperature in a global sense
Teq = an equilibrium temperature parameter
k = a temperature coupling parameter
When tau is “short”, sinks are very active, A is attenuated to insignificance, and C tracks P. The equation for P is my own nomenclature which I have been using for some time, but Salby has an identical equation in his presentation, only “k” is “gamma” and “Teq” is… I don’t recall, but it is the same equation, just with different letters.
The actual real world system is undoubtedly more complicated than the above, but since the sink feedback is attenuating A to insignificance, and P is the only really important process going on, it does not really matter on a practical level. This system maps to the simple example system posted previously with a = 1/tau, N = P/tau. According to the “mass balance” argument, “Nature” is still a net sink, but the natural temperature dependent process is nevertheless driving the output.
Just to add a bit of information to this topic. As far as I can tell the volcanic emissions are estimated using Gerlach (1991) which examined 10 sources of CO2. Since that time it has been estimated there are over 3 million sources of volcanic emissions. That would require close to 1800 samples to be statistically sound. The bottom line is no one really knows the all the sources of CO2 to any degree of accuracy.
I late for discussion with F. Engelbeen, 3 June.
But it concerns of the same what writes and says M. Salby.
The discussion on the origin of unbalanced atmospheric carbon of F. Engelbeen and the EG Beck I carried out active here (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/).
I propose a very simple mathematical model to solve Your:
If, with growth rate a natural source (the sum for the 195? – to today , eg. =1000 Pg), global sinks: eg. photosynthesis, removes 75%, this will be 250 Pg “unbalanced carbon” in atmosphere. If, to this natural source (1000 Pg), we add the 500 Pg (such as: our anthropogenic CO2) and global sinks: especially photosynthesis, increases by slightly more than 8% (only!); how it will change “unbalanced carbon”?
[correct answer: they just do not change …]
Conclusion: in this case the “zero” unbalanced volume of CO2 added to the atmosphere will be the same – both without our CO2, as well as from our CO2 emissions.
That is: although “… nature was a continuous sink for CO2 over the past 50+ years …” and “… we emit about 9 GtC as CO2 per year and we measure an increase of about 4 GtC/year in the atmosphere …, … it is theoretically possible that „…the increase is NOT human made …”
If you are our source – added is very small compared to the total volume of natural sources of CO2 and particularly the growth in the twentieth century, the effect of this small source will always be little or even completely insignificant (so says M. Salby but his proof is still very incomplete).
Because, of course, it must be shown that:
– global sinks: especially photosynthesis, indeed increase compared to growth: temperature and the emergence of a new source of CO2.
– really there was a significant increase in natural sources of CO2.
GPP continues to grow although premature reports of its decrease in recent years, and the contrary to such III IPCC report that with global warming, GPP will go down. Speaks of this eg that work: Comment on “Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009”, Samanta (2011. – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868655S cience):
“Zhao and Running (Reports, 20 August 2010, p. 940) reported a reduction in global terrestrial net primary production (NPP) from 2000 through 2009. We argue that the small trends, regional patterns, and interannual variations that they describe are artifacts of their NPP model. Satellite observations of vegetation activity show no statistically significant changes in more than 85% of the vegetated lands south of 70°N during the same 2000 to 2009 period.”
Full analysis (and critique) is here: Net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems from 2000 to 2009, Potter (2012 – http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/casa/Potter_2012_ClimCh.pdf )
Secondly, the efficiency of „global sinks: especially photosynthesis”, always – at a certain point – on the rise: ie, when the rate of increase in the number of “food” (CO2) exceeds a “demarcation point.” About this tells us oscillating model – Lotka–Volterra equation (used in climate models). Growth density of “food” makes it easy finding. Therefore: “Remarkably, just such a pattern is found in natural systems.” (www.scribd.com/doc/73423257/114/Predator-prey-cycles-the-Lotka-Volterra-equations) NPP has its limitations (drought, rainfall, the balance of NPK, Fe, etc..) But we know that even in the recent past (although these limits) the mass of the biosphere was several times greater than today.
Of course, I’m not saying that now we have to deal with a “zero case”, but I say that the growth of natural resources is responsible for most unbalanced surplus.
Why should a the majority?
This explains the “case of the Mt. Pinatubo “.
The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo – a significant decrease added to the atmosphere of carbon unbalanced. Now we know that this is not a result of increased GPP. GPP – NPP, a few years after the eruption, probably slightly decreased. First of all, decreased heterotrophic respiration (that is – as of today – a majority of scientists). In very simple terms: low latitudes – NPP increased – the effect of dispersion and high latitudes – decreased strongly – resulting from the fall temperature (related are: drought and shorten the growing season).
Whether “heterotrophic respiration”: this is the first “great” source, which we observed an increase from 195? year?
We are now “threatened” that the permafrost in the future will be a major source of net (currently a net sink) unbalanced carbon. However, permafrost already in the twentieth century were happening “interesting things.” In this figure, (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Fig.2loss-of-permafrost.png) Here you can see a very rapid melting of permafrost in the 191? – 192?, violent to 195?, followed by the reconstruction circa of 1 million km2, and the the 195? “Medium” fast, rather constant, the rate of melting (up to now). Generally melted in the twentieth century 4.5 – 5 million km2 (…) permafrost.
Zimov (2005 – http://forms.mbl.edu/sjp/pdf/readings/zimov_permafrost2005.pdf): “About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed …” “… it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon at the beginning of the Holocene.“
“The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C).”
Nowinski (2010, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886135/): “Radiocarbon ages of heterotrophically respired C ranged from <50 to 235 years BP in July mineral soil samples and from 1,525 to 8,300 years BP [!] in August samples, suggesting that old soil C in permafrost soils may be metabolized upon thawing.”
So it is a source of isotopically identical with our!
Although the twentieth century – in the second half, permafrost – as a sink has increased more than as a source of CO2, however, increase – this source, was very high throughout the twentieth century (including in the second half) – probably much greater than ours source.
Now (compared to 2005) it is considered that the permafrost stored is much more C than we expected in 2005 (not c. 500 GtC but 1672 Pg or 2167 PgC C http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/thawing-permafrost-increase-co2-emissions-climate-change/1286/ – is possible, however, that up to 1.5-2 times as much!). In addition, permafrost, which melted in the twentieth century was in the lower latitudes – most probably contain more carbon.
Zech (2011, http://www.clim-past.net/7/501/2011/cp-7-501-2011.pdf):
“Recent findings show that the amount of organic carbon stored in high-latitude permafrost regions has been greatly underestimated.”
Zech (version before the process censored, so sorry: the process of reviewing, 2010) considers that the source of the “old coal” (permafrost) in the past always took major contribution in the global changes in atmospheric CO2.
“In light of these inconsistencies, we should stay open minded to the possibility of changes in the terrestrial carbon cycle as an alternative.”
“Changes in sizes of these carbon pools could thus have major impacts on atmospheric CO2 levels. The enormous carbon storage at high-latitudes reflects that apart from biomass productivity, the rate of decomposition is crucial for terrestrial carbon storage.”
We must remember that in the past ALWAYS with global warming were associated decreases in 14C and 13C – the release of old carbon.
Where else may come naturally “old carbon”?
Another powerful source (perhaps even – potentially – several times larger than the permafrost) is a deep upwelling.
Yu (2010, http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/yu2010/yu2010.html):
“… results indicate that deep-sea-released CO2 during the early deglacial period (17.5 to 14.5 thousand years ago) was preferentially stored in the atmosphere, whereas during the late deglacial period (14 to 10 thousand years ago), besides contributing to the contemporary atmospheric CO2 rise, a substantial portion of CO2 released from oceans was absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere.”, that is, once again, it is worth repeating: “Remarkably, just such a pattern is found in natural systems.”
The increase in force westerlies, closely related to the cycle of solar Suess – de Vries – will deepen the water in the mixing zone of upwelling. Most likely it is intensified by other cycles related to the sun, such as Hallstatt cycle and the six thousand. year cycle. This effect is indirect, second order to the changes in the Sun, may be here for a few decades delayed.
In addition, other sources of “old carbon, ” could be, for example, coastal areas – the shelf, shallow water areas (“degassing” of sedimentary rock), carbon, is poor in 13C – ENSO variability oscillating type, soil temperate zone – and the tropical, etc.. Not to mention a few ppm of CO2 from the warmer ocean.
I, Professor Z. Jaworowski, E. G. Beck, we exchanged – via e-mail, its views on this subject. We wanted to design a common paper.
Is worth knowing that E. G. Beck developed a graph (http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2back1826-1960eorevk.jpg) takes into account the majority objections to his earlier papers (daily and the regional variability of CO2 over the land).
If we compared this his last graph of the diagrams : http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/romanovsky_fig3.gif, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/land-permafrost-siberia-sml.jpg, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/rate-of-change-of-global-average-temperature-1850-2007-in-oc-per-decade-2/image_preview
(I have them a few) we see a remarkable resemblance … In particular, graphs of temperatures in deep permafrost, they give us a lot to think about …
[Hicks Pries (2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12058/abstract): “Old soil heterotrophic respiration ranged from 6 to 18% of Reco and was greatest where permafrost thaw was deepest. Overall, growing season fluxes of autotrophic and old soil heterotrophic respiration increased as permafrost thaw deepened.”]
But the graph changes in the pH of the SH – Arlington Reef, is almost identical to the last graph Beck + Keeling curve (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/Wei-et-al-2009-small.gif)
Yes it is cherry picking, but the “cherry” here are very shapely and … the global …
Ice cores.
Is worth knowing that there are other widely accepted in the world of science, methods of determination the former CO2 concentrations: boron isotopes, alkenones.
Collected them Seki (2010, http://environ.lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp/saishin.pdf/Seki2010EarthPlanetarySci.Lett.Alkenone%20and%20boran-based%20Plicene%20pCO2%20records.pdf).
Especially alkenones (Fig. 9 a – not subjected to revisions) give astonishing results – much higher concentrations than the ice cores show.
Corrections are mainly include pollution from the Jurassic and Cretaceous and the evolution of physiological processes.
Of course, these corrections are necessary, but their range is very, very controversial, required for recognition by creation of strong evolutionary changes in a very basic physiological processes.
P. S. I think it is worth from this my comment (after correcting my English) make separate publication.