NZCLIMATE Truth Newsletter No. 313

By Dr. Vincent Gray

1. Roy Spencer and Murry Salby

The greatest difficulty facing the promoters of the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause dangerous global warming is the inconvenient truth that it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology. Without this information it is not possible to claim global warming.

In order to make this claim the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR) was fabricated from temperature measurements made at meteorological weather stations.

It did not matter that 

· There is no standardized method for making these observations,

· They are unrepresentative of the earth’s surface, and worse the further back you go.

· Their locations are mainly close to cities,

· Only maximum and minimum temperatures are measured,,

· The number and location of stations changes daily

Despite these disabilities, which would have killed the idea in the days when genuine scientists controlled the scientific journals, the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change. They even seem to accept that a change in it over a century of a few decimals of a degree is cause for alarm

John Christy and Roy Spencer in 1979 at the University of Huntsville, Alabama established an alternative procedure for plotting global temperature anomalies in the lower troposphere by using the changes in the microwave spectrum of oxygen recorded by satellites on Microwave Sounder Units (MSUs). This overcame several of the disadvantages of the MGSTAR method.

It is almost truly global , not confined to cities. Although it misses the Arctic, this is also true of the MGSTAR. There have been some problems of calibration and reliability but they are far less than the problems of the MSGTAR record. They are therefore more reliable.

From the beginning the two records have disagreed with one another. This created such panic that the supporters of the IPCC set up an alternative facility to monitor the results at Remote Sensing Systems under the aegis of NASA and in the capable hands of Frank Wentz, an IPCC supporter. It was confidently believed that the “errors” of Christy and Spencer would soon be removed. To their profound disappointment this has not happened, The RSS version of the Lower Troposphere global temperature anomaly record is essentially the same as that still provided by the University of Huntsville. It is also almost the same as the measurements made by radiosonde balloons over the same period

The MSU record has now been going for 34 years. Spencer has recently published a comparison between temperature predictions made by a large number of IPCC climate models and their projected future and the temperature record as shown by the MSUs and the balloons.

at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

It is surely obvious that all the models are wrong and that their projections are nonsensical.

I might also add that the central line is also meaningless.

2. MURRY SALBY

Murry Salby is Professor of Climate Science at McQuarrie Univerity where he has an impressive research programme to be seen at

http://envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/research.html

He has published a book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate”.

He has recently expounded his views on the climate in two Youtube presentations. I have found that it was necessary to see both of them several times before I got a clear idea of what he is claiming. The first one, at

was a presentation at the Sydney Institute on 2nd August 2011.

He begins by showing the paleo record based on ice cores and shows that there is a close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, with temperature coming first. The same applies to methane.

He then attaches it to the more recent CO2 record and plots the Carbon13 figures, which declined over the whole period. Since plant material prefers C12 this means that the additional CO2 comes from plant material. The IPCC claims that the additional plant material must come from combustion of fossil fuels, so this is their “Smoking Gun” that the increase in CO2 is caused by human-derived emissions.

But the extra plant-derived CO2 could be natural. Salby sets out to show that this is true. He shows a satellite map of natural sources of CO2 which come more from the tropics than from temperate regions (but only 6% more)

He then provides data and graphs which show that the additional CO2 results from what happens during a temperature fluctuation, using the satellite (MSU) temperature record since 1978. He shows that the CO2 which is released by a temperature increase is always greater than the CO2 absorbed when the temperature falls, providing a net increase in the atmosphere

The CO2 increase is from natural sources. It is not related to temperature, but to the behaviour of temperature fluctuations.

The second Youtube presentation at

took place at Hamburg 18th April 2013.

It starts with an attempt to clear up the discrepancy of the first presentation, where , carbon dioxide was related to temperature for the ice core proxies and where carbon dioxide was related to a difference between emissions and absorption during a temperature fluctuation for the recent measurements.

He does this by questioning the reliability of the ice core measurements, something that my late friend Zbigniew Jaborowski questioned in 1997.

He points out that the snow that traps air from the atmosphere and then solidifies irons out the fluctuations in temperature which are the real source of CO2 increase, and that some diffusion of the gases must happen when they are buried. By a rather elaborate set of mathematical calculations he restores the fluctuation effect from the ice cores and shows that it is compatible with his other calculations from recent measurements

He then extends his calculations of CO2 from temperature fluctuations by using the instrumental record. When he allows for its low reliability as you go back in the record (only 8% of the earth in 1860) he derives an impressive agreement between carbon dioxide increases and the calculated natural additions derived from temperature fluctuations over his entire range.

He shows that for the MSU record, carbon dioxide is completely unrelated to temperature,

We already know from the first part of this newsletter that climate models based on the assumption that carbon dioxide increases influence global temperature are fundamentally wrong so it does not matter much whether it comes from human-related emissions or from natural sources.

I vociferously object to science by Youtube. In the old days any new theory from a recognised academic would be welcomed by the journals, but nowadays any disagreement with the IPCC orthodoxy would have difficulty finding a place in a scientific journal.

All the same, this material from Salby needs to be properly documented before it could be considered seriously

Cheers

Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand

Advertisements

152 thoughts on “NZCLIMATE Truth Newsletter No. 313

  1. This isn’t the first place I’ve said this, but temperature is a piss poor proxy for energy balance. What we need to know is that for every joule that arrives on Earth at least one joule leaves. That is balance. It won’t show up in the temperature record – quit looking.

  2. Like Sandy on the east coast of the US, I wonder if the recent, record breaking, storm that struck Wellington the other day has been attributed to AGW?

  3. dp says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    ….a flawed record at that, too short in duration to be meaningful as well. We are talking about “THE climate”, there is only one. Earth’s. And it is as old as the earth. So what the hell are we doing pretending we can conclude anything from 0.00000003333333 of all time? The debate is basically a niggling over the hubris of a few druid-like “scientists” who presume to represent climate behaviour with guesses.

  4. Well when I was back at the U of A doing some experiments, my supervisor had this idea, that if I was going to figure out what was going on in a circuit, using know physics to calculate currents flowing between nodes, it was highly desirable to measure the Voltage at EVERY node all at the same time. No good measuring some today, and some others tomorrow, and expecting the intermodal Voltage differences to remain where they were.

    So why do climatists think it doesn’t matter when you measure each of your weather station Temperatures. If by chance, all of them were exactly the same Temperature, you might assume there was no heat energy flowing in any direction anywhere Well unless those Temperatures are all taken at the same instant, you can’t be sure of where heat energy is flowing. And as for averaging; on average, a hurricane doesn’t do much damage. Only if you cherry pick the data, and only look at structures, during the minutes or hours, when the storm center is passing over them, then you might mistakenly assume that the storm is wreaking havoc everywhere. Coming across from Africa it was a mere pussycat.

    Nobody, ever observed the average value of something real, anywhere at any time. It’s a fictitious made up number.

  5. It has already been established many times on this website that temperatures are measured in the most inappropriate places such as near the Tarmac at airports where there is a strong heat island effect and on the roofs of public buildings, where as well as a heat island effect, central heating in the building will produce warming. This is of course what the majority of climatologists want!

  6. Meteorological weather stations based at airports are designed to give advice on the conditions AT THE AIRPORT and in the immediate area for air movements. In turn airports can be very untypical of the wider area , with there wide amounts of open flat tarmac areas .
    There misuse to cover wider areas is because there available , not that the information then give is typical of that wider area .

  7. The great heresy of alarmists is that there are natural climate cycles operating today. Hence, the frantic efforts of Mann et alia to refute the existence of the MWP and other warm periods during the Holocene Era of the past ~10,000 years.

    So by denying/ignoring natural climate cycles, this allows alarmists to argue the modest warming we have experienced over the past 150 years is all man made.

    Climate models – always beautiful to the eye of the modeller – are meaningless if we have no clue what the temperature record would have been like if man had not been here.

    Add to that, the knowledge: i) weather is essentially ‘chaotic’, and ii) it is clear the amount we know about what factors control weather is dwarfed by what we do not know about them.

    On top of that, you then have to consider the principal motivations of the modeller. In climate science, there are severe employment/grant considerations if you do not come up with the Establishment approved result. Also, the modeller knows his results will be subject to severe censorship by the Establishment controlled media, including scientific journals, if his/her results are anything other than “Thermageddon is coming”.

    Historical data banks of the Earth’s surface temperature are under the control of the alarmists. Hence, the regular corrections to always make the recent past cooler. If anything proves that Establishment climate science is rotten to the core, it is this.

  8. Your first point about temperatures makes no mention of the problems with the satellite datasets, which Christy and Spencer have recorded and attempted to correct, but satellite decay and failure of instruments have continued up to the most recent months.

    Also, the apparent difference between the satellite datasets and the ground-based thermometers is partially due to the different base periods adopted by all of them. When put on the same 30-year period of 1981-2010 as recommended by the WMO, the main datasets appear to agree fairly well. One thing that is immediately apparent is the wider swings in more recent years shown by the two satellite datasets (RSS and UAH).

    <img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Temperatures%206%20datasets%20normalized%20to%201981-2010.jpg&quot;

  9. Thank you Vincent Gray, again, having followed you for years at the NZCPR. Your first paragraph says it all, they can’t even measure it! I sleep better knowing you are out there speaking common sense and more.

  10. Sorry for the failed attempt to insert an image directly, but the first link seems to work OK. I need to learn html.

  11. From the written historical record, going back two thousand years and more, it easy to see that significant changes in climate, as warm as, or warmer than recent times and several periods colder, without carbon dioxide levels being a possible cause have occurred. In theory the recent rise in CO2 levels should contribute to a small rise in temperatures, but less than the natural cyclical changes, which are probably due to solar-planetary interactions.
    Until the climate models can map the past, one cannot believe any of the multiple projections about which the alarmists are so worried.

  12. I love this site. :)

    All the climate scare BS is calmly, politely & surgically exposed & removed. :)

    I’m going to do my best to ensure it gets well known in our local schools. :)

    Keep up the good work chaps.

    JD.
    :)

  13. “I might also add that the central line is also meaningless.”

    Sorry, but I beg to differ. The central line has significant meaning, because it show just how BADLY the models, in general, perform compared to reality.

  14. Excellent post. Vincent Gray is undervalued by NZ.
    The Murray Salby presentations should be simplified for general popular consumption. Outstanding.

  15. “Patrick says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:35 pm
    Like Sandy on the east coast of the US, I wonder if the recent, record breaking, storm that struck Wellington the other day has been attributed to AGW?”

    Our own near equivelent of the UK Met Office, NIWA. Might have to revise part of this June-August 2013 Climate Outlook. Since Winter isn’t over yet and we’ve all ready have had the most flooding in 20yrs in parts of the South Island and near record snowfalls. :-)

    Overall, temperatures for winter 2013 (June – August) are very likely to be above average across the entire country. However, occurrences of cold snaps, frost and snow conditions should, of course, still be expected in many areas from time to time, as is typical of winter. Sea surface temperatures around New Zealand’s coasts are also forecast to be above the climatological average for the coming three months.

    Winter rainfall is likely to be in the normal or above normal ranges in the north and east of the North Island, and in the near normal range for the remainder of the country. Soil moisture levels and river flows are likely to be above normal in the north of the North Island, normal or above normal in the east of the South Island, normal or below normal in the west and south of the South Island, and near normal in other regions.

    Overall picture
    Rainfall, soil moisture and river flows
    Rainfall for the June–August period as a whole is likely to be in the normal or above normal ranges in the north and east of the North Island, and near normal for the southwest of the North Island and for all the South Island. Soil moisture levels and river flows are likely to be above normal in the north of the North Island, and normal or above normal in the east of the South Island. Elsewhere, soil moisture levels and river flows are likely to be near normal, except in the west and south of the South Island where normal or below normal conditions are likely.

    Temperature
    June to August temperatures are very likely to be above average across the entire country. Sea surface temperatures around New Zealand are also forecast to remain above normal over the coming three months.

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/sco/seasonal-climate-outlook-june-august-2013

  16. “Marian says:

    June 22, 2013 at 1:44 am”

    I really need to use the /sarc tags more. I lived in Wellington for 9 years, so very familiar with the winter southerlies that blow through, along with the bitter cold. Only a mad Englishman would drive an open top Land Rover in Wellington in winter. In fact before I arrived in NZ in 1995, the south was experiencing a severe winter. Also did some contract work for NIWA later on too. I was unimpressed with NIWA’s science with regards to weather and climate then, my opinion has not changed since. I used to work with the son of Augie Auer, a popular weatherman and a non-supporter of the AGW hypothesis, too.

  17. Patrick says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:35 pm
    Like Sandy on the east coast of the US, I wonder if the recent, record breaking, storm that struck Wellington the other day has been attributed to AGW?
    ==================================================
    Record breaking? Que?
    What was record breaking about it?

    According to NIWA (NZ Herald June 22nd, 2013) this storm was
    NOT as strong as the storm in 1968 which sank the inter-island
    ferry TEV Wahine.

    Having directly experienced both, it also did not feel (subjectively,
    to me) to be as bad or as destructive as Cyclone Bola in 1988.
    Cyclone Bola hammered the whole of the North Island for several
    days. This storm did its damage over the night of the 20th mostly
    around the Wellington and Nelson areas. (The lightning and hail in
    Auckland was spectacular!)

    The violence in this storm was caused by the extreme cold air sucked
    up from the edge of the Antarctic ice pack. (Src: NIWA)

    According to American statistics, the only record Sandy broke was
    the area it covered. It’s impact was significantly less than other extreme
    weather events to hit New York in previous decades as you will see if you
    search this blog for discussion and articles on Sandy.

    (Wahine. pronounced Waa-HEEN-ee)

  18. Patrick says:
    I really need to use the /sarc tags more.
    ======================================
    :-) no further comment :-)

  19. Most of the heat in the biosphere is trapped, and moves about, in the 1,300,000,000 cu km of ocean water. The tiny amount in the atmosphere is never going to properly reflect what is happening in the oceans.

    I cannot imagine how mankind could ever really influence the heat in the oceans, we are too tiny compared to this vol of water

  20. @Patrick, a friend today did try to attribute the latest winter storm in NZ to “global warming” I was able to direct him to WUWT and
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
    If the Great storm of 1936 were to happen today the damage would be massive.
    http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/memwebsite.NSF/Files/Tephra2003-Storms-from-tropic/$file/Tephra2003-Storms-from-tropic.pdf

    I have very sound memories of the 1966 Wahine storm.

  21. I have seen the second Salby video. He starts well but his final claim goes back to the same old flat earth AR4 model that spawned the GHE theory in the first place, ie., ignoring the reality of a rotating spherical earth with day and night. So 4/10.

  22. Ceetee says:
    Augie Auer, a voice of sanity, may he rest in peace.

    I would like to second that.
    Somebody who knew his trade, a true professional unlike Jim Salinger.
    Sorely missed here in NZ.

  23. From post: “Despite these disabilities, which would have killed the idea in the days when genuine scientists controlled the scientific journals, the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change. They even seem to accept that a change in it over a century of a few decimals of a degree is cause for alarm.”

    This statement is one I agree with and one that makes me wonder how it got this way. Is this a small group of faux scientists that have taken over the journals and the associations or is it that the vast majority of working “scientists” have become slaves to the grant money? I guess I am asking if there are many real scientists left working today.

  24. @marstoval
    There obviously are, otherwise there would be no debate. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those brave men and women who have stood up for truth.

  25. The Salby’s comment that changes in atmospheric CO2 is not the main driver of planetary temperature is supported by current observations and recent analysis.

    The fact that observed temperature change (no warming for 16 years) does not agree with the general circulation models indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the general circulation models (GCM). (See Roy Spencer’s summary of the data and comparison of the GCM model predictions.)

    The reason for the difference is the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics to reflect more or less radiation in to space. (See Lindzen and Choi’s recent paper and the Idso’s 1998 classic paper on the planet’s response to forcing changes which both provide data and analysis to support that assertion.) If the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) forcing changes the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. Based on Idso and Gray’s analysis the estimated equilibrium warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is around 0.3C.

    The general circulation models that have been used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions assume the planet amplifies rather resist forcing changes. As the GCM have been proven to be incorrect, the IPCC alarmist predictions are also incorrect. William M. Gray’s monogram provides a good explanation of the technical issues.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … …We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (William: for the zero feedback case, warming will be less than 1C if the feedback response is negative) (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. …

    http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

    The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver
    Increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not be able to bring about significant climate disruption in the next 75-100 years. The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood by any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptions within the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block too much infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo) energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic. A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the climate simulations.

    Idso Skeptics View of Global Warming
    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf

  26. I look forward to Professor Salby’s work being published so that it can be studied in detail.

    If correct, his work is a game-changer for the “CO2 controls everything/humans control atmospheric CO2” belief.

    I have not spotted any fallacies in what he says and so far I have had no difficulty reproducing the graphical results he presents by doing my own processing of downloaded CO2 and temperature data.

  27. Tango,

    After I read that Mr Cook said 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures I knew his opinion was garbage.

    It amazes me that the alarmists still aren’t embarrassed by that thoroughly discredited claim that, “97 per cent of scientists” claim rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. How do they still get away with it? How?

  28. “Antonia says:

    June 22, 2013 at 4:15 am”

    Australia was the lucky country, and then the smart country. Now its not so smart nor lucky with a “proice ohn cahbon” of AU23$/tonne CO2, soon to rise from 1st July. ganGreen rot is rife here!

  29. ” the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change”

    Sure, there will be error bars, but over longer periods the trends will be evident and useful. No need to hyperventilate over it. The real difference of interest is the differences in trends between the models and our measures of reality. That is a clear FAIL.

  30. BTW , John Cooks only qualifications are :University of Queensland, Bachelor of Science Honours, 1989

  31. Thank you, Dr Gray.

    I had run the Salby video several times, taken notes, copied and cleaned up the charts (available), and was still unclear as to the bottom line. Your post helps, especially about the carbon13 record.

    What I gathered about the ice core record is that non-conservative processes are at work on the CO2 fraction, which I didn’t quite get, but that in any event, fluctuations in CO2 are greatly damped out. Which leads to the question, if ice bubbles from today’s era are measured a couple thousand years in the future, will the present uptick still show?

    The current popular CO2 graph shows a hockey stick, with the flat ice core record glued to the rising Mauna Loa curve. The ice core is not the only record of CO2, however. Direct chemical measurements (as opposed to Keeling optical ones) have been taken since 1812, and they don’t come close to the ice record except between 1870 and 1930. After an understandable big rise during WW2, the chemical record drops back down close to the tacked on Mauna Loa curve. The ice core record homogenizes and under-reports all this bouncing around, much as Dr Salby asserts.

  32. Tango – I’ve followed up your link to the report on Australia’s Climate Action Summit, currently being held in Sydney.

    The opening featured the following speakers.

    1. Professor Lesley Hughes
    An ecologist in the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University and an expert on the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems. She is the co-convenor of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Adaptation Research Network, Chair of the Tasmanian Climate Action Council and a member of Climate Scientists Australia and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Lead author, IPCC working group II that assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change.
    (I could not find any reference to her qualifications)

    2. Assoc/Prof Erica Bell
    Associate professor – Deputy Director
    University of Tasmania.
    University Department of Rural Health
    Ph.D, M.A (Qual), B.A. (Psych)

    3. John Cook
    University of Queensland, Bachelor of Science Honours, 1989
    Research Areas
    Psychology And Cognitive Sciences

    4. BUTLER, PROF COLIN
    ARC Future Fellow, Public Health
    Faculty of Health
    BMedSci(Hons) (Newcastle, 1984)
    BMed (Newcastle, 1987)
    DTM&H (Royal College of Physicians, 1990)

    speaks for itself really!!

  33. The precautionary principle is often invoked to imply we should reduce carbon emissions rather than do nothing ‘just in case’. Surely some combination of predicted temperature increase, errors associated with modelling, errors in temperature analysis and costs of CO2 reduction should result in the precautionary principle being – ‘do nothing until we have more data’.

  34. I’ll never understand how so many people were convinced to panic….

    …over a fraction of a degree

  35. So it all boils down to pretty much what I’ve been saying all along:

    1. Global Average Temperature is a mythical number, improperly measured and of dubious quality. Even the satellite measurements, which are significantly better than thermometers on the ground, aren’t really a completely valid measure of atmospheric energy content.

    2. Even so, the temperature record, inaccurate and faulty as it may be, in fact shows the opposite of what we’re told. It does NOT show a wild, out of control warming, or cooling, or anything… in fact, it would be more accurate to say that the record shows an astoundingly stable average temperature.

    3. Temperature rises and CO2 are not correlated. They don’t match. There may have been a stretch there where it looked like they did, but that was a coincidence.

    4. Even though atmospheric CO2 appears to be increasing, and this is the one that even a lot of people on WUWT disagree with me on, it would be incorrect to attribute that rise to human activity, specifically the use of so-called fossil fuels. This one is important. Human activity just isn’t all that important compared to the gigantic natural CO2 flux of this planet.

    5. Ice core CO2 records are not nearly as accurate or even representative as we are led to believe.

    Seems to me that together these points pretty much demonstrate that the entire “AGW” theory has to fall flat on its face, because NOT ONE of the main foundations of that theory even match real-world data.

    So go ahead, watch the Mauna Loa CO2 levels, and follow the monthly temperature anomalies, whether from ground or satellite measurements, and examine the ice cores. In fact, even follow the Arctic sea ice extent, and place bets on it.These are all interesting, no question. But what do they mean? Not really as much as we want them to, if anything at all.

    Sadly, the majority of the people on this planet believe the narrative, not the reality.

  36. Latitude says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am

    Because the claim of dangerous global warming was repeated over and over, by so many public figures in the major media, for so many years.
    The same could be said for why did so many Americans believe Iraq had a link to 9/11: because the claim was repeated so many times in the months leading up to the invasion.
    Not everyone has an inherent skeptical nature, so if so many ‘important’ people make a claim then it must have some merit. The major media tends to be non-confrontational so just about anything from a public figure gets published with little question, because their advertisers just want more sales, not a riled audience.

  37. Dear Dr. Gray,

    Thank you for posting those two videos by Dr. Salby. I have never seen a more incontrovertible and concise disconfirmation of the theory of anthropocentric climate change than those videos. I would encourage you – and everyone else here – to do all in your power to spread them as widely as possible – the second video especially.

    While I agree with your distaste for “youtube science,” given the known corruption of the funding and peer review processes in the climate world I feel it is necessary to publicize findings such as these by any means available.

    Best regards,
    Jason

  38. “Latitude says:

    June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am”

    It’s for the children. (Like its so much harder for kids these days as apposed to those at the start of the industrial revolution?).

  39. @ Latitude; June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am
    “I’ll never understand how so many people were convinced to panic….”

    Panic rules when facts don’t. This “science” project was about control – an opportunity to force ones social philosophy and life style on everyone else. Didn’t work. Bunch of (Snip) (Snip).

    Can’t wait to see what Joel D. Shore and that new kid Jai something or other has to say.
    Ron Richey

  40. The Indonesian Bulge, where the Trade Winds drive Pacific Ocean warm waters into a heap, is one of the Ocean hot spots. Why not just throw a couple of thermometers at different depths, measure every second, for several years to create an Ocean temperature proxy? Why do we need to measure the entire Ocean or Atmosphere if we are just looking for relative temperature change?

    Let us create a accurate, simple measurement model instead of being overwhelmed by so much data that we need massive supercomputers.

    Dr. Spencer’s does that for the atmosphere. Why not do the same for the Oceans?

    We all know that the Gulf Stream warms Europe. Why isn’t there extensive monitoring for both speed and temperature just off the coast of Florida? This simple “pinch point” should be a great proxy for Ocean temperature and heat movement!

    By monitoring the extreme points in both heat and cold, one will be easily able to see the differences of both heating and cooling. Note: Attempting to monitor the entire Arctic while leaving out the entire Antarctic is NOT what I am proposing.

  41. I too understand variable control. In brainwave research (back in the old days before MRI’s) we used surface electrodes on skin. For deep brain activity we had to abrade the skin to increase conductivity. But before we did any of that, I had to check the impedance of each and every electrode I used. Any differences would result in meaningless data. Why? Brainwaves are noisy and I was looking for an evoked signal at the brainstem level. If one of the electrodes was or began to show a difference I had to go through new ones to find one that matched the impedance of the current set. And then after I had collected data from someone’s brain, I had to check the impedance again.

    So here we are spending $billions$ of OUR money, the PEOPLES’S money, on mitigation factors based on “electrodes” that have not been checked, calibrated, or even removed because they stank! If I was looking for a brain tumor along the auditory pathway, do you think my patient would want me to use anything like the surface temperature devices? Yet we are by majority vote, willing to have our pockets picked of ALL our hard-earned dollars based on just such a device.

  42. As I have said before this is the elephant in the room. Climate sciences continuing inability to cross calibrate the main sources of Global temperature data to arrive at a commonly agreed figure (and its trend if any).

    I have proposed that they should be forced into agreement by aligning them over the entire 34 year overlap period by adjusting their scale and offset. The same as you would do with any other instrument that was supposed to be reporting the same source object. The same as would be done with (other?) proxy records.

    I propose the brute force method to start with.

    Proposal
    Forced Cross Calibration of Global temperature data series
    It should be possible to force the various Global temperature data sources into alignment simply by adjusting their offsets and scales to determine a best fit over their whole overlap period, 1979 to today. They are supposed to be reporting the same thing after all, average global temperature as measured/estimated by them over that whole period of time. Using the corrective parameters derived from the above step, we can then back project/cross calibrate the thermometer data to create a satellite referenced temperature data series backwards in time, beyond the overlap period and out to the end of the thermometer record. An overlap period of 34 years for the records so far should be sufficient for reasonable accuracy in the parameter choices.
    Methodology
    Align OLS trends in the sources by using offset and scale factors (currently by trial and error). Using OLS trends over the whole period to determine parameter choice allows for the likely best fit, given the relatively short overlap time period. Also OLS trends have no implicit reference points so are ‘floating’ in this regard thus making them more amenable to cross calibration of this type.

    Processing Steps
    1. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/uah/plot/rss
    2. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/best/from:1979/trend
    3. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/trend/from:1979/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/offset:0.1/trend/plot/best/from:1979/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/trend
    4. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/plot/rss/plot/uah/offset:0.1

    This throws a wholy different light on a ‘more likely to be right’ view of historic temperature I believe.

  43. He shows that for the MSU record, carbon dioxide is completely unrelated to temperature,

    This is not really correct. Salby shows that carbon dioxide can be predicted extremely nicely from the temperature record: it’s linearly related to the integral over time of the temperature anomaly.

  44. Psychologists have also been climbing on to the warmist bandwaggon in the UK. And you know about badwaggons: they have lots of momentum, but bad steering, they are unstoppable and have no brakes. Sheer uninformed stupidity.

  45. dave says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:45 am
    Latitude says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am

    “Because the claim of dangerous global warming was repeated over and over, by so many public figures in the major media, for so many years.
    The same could be said for why did so many Americans believe Iraq had a link to 9/11: because the claim was repeated so many times in the months leading up to the invasion.”

    We must have watched different news channels. It was all about WMD’s. The justification was provided under UN Resolutions requiring inspections that were stopped by Saddam Hussein, who had demonstrated use of WMD’s on the Kurds. As for the Global Warming stuff, concur completely.

  46. AndyG55 says:
    June 22, 2013 at 12:40 am
    Sorry, but I beg to differ. The central line has significant meaning, because it show just how BADLY the models, in general, perform compared to reality.
    =============
    agreed. the significance of the ensemble mean demonstrates how poor a job the models do of describing reality. the consistent high projection of the models in relation to observation demonstrates the model are biased warm.

  47. You mention C12 and C13 trapped in ice core samples. Is it possible to “tag” atmospheric Carbon to determine it’s origin?

  48. “””””…..sophocles says:

    June 22, 2013 at 2:29 am

    Patrick says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:35 pm
    ……………

    According to NIWA (NZ Herald June 22nd, 2013) this storm was
    NOT as strong as the storm in 1968 which sank the inter-island
    ferry TEV Wahine.

    …………………………

    ………………………….

    (Wahine. pronounced Waa-HEEN-ee)…………..”””””

    No way !!

    It’s an ordinary probably originally Hawaiian, Polynesian word. In most, if not all Polynesian languages, EVERY syllable ends in a vowel. At least in Maori, the vowel sounds are virtually identical to Spanish.

    So Wahine (woman) is more likely to be : Waa-hee-nay

    Seems like Hawaiians sometimes sound (w) like (v) so you hear Haa-vy-ee quite often, but I’ve never ever heard a real Hawaiian say the word; only hauli / pakeha / gringos / whatever.

    Don’t know the history of that, but as far as I know, there is NO v sound in Maori, either as in :
    Vanadium or love .

  49. Although I consider myself a climate skeptic, I don’t agree with a lot in this article. Especially the first 8 paragraphs are IMO completely wrong. At least initial concerns about relation between climate and CO2 concentrations were right and it was right that they were brought to attention and under study. Methods devised at the beginning definitely were not wrong and they were the best what was available at the moment. What went wrong was that it became a new kind of worldwide religion instead of being object of objective and meticulous scientific study.

    Another thing I would like to point out is continuing misenterpretation of Spencer and Christy’s graph. First of all – it is nothing new. Read the fine print: it compares middle troposphere temperature in tropics. What’s the thing climate models predict there is the well known hotspot and this is just not happening, or at least at way smaller scale than models are forecasting. The lack of hotspot formation is discussed for several years already and Spencer’s graph shows just that and nothing more. It is not an ultimate proof that models are wrong. It is one of many and we will probably still need more because there are still many parameters in which models are not that significantly different from reality.

    Regarding Dr. Salby, I have great respect to his work. I have seen both videos and what I see as the greatest conclusion from them is that they provide very good evidence that CO2 is not driving temperatures but temperatures are driving CO2 concentrations. What is however NOT his conclusion is that “The CO2 increase is from natural sources.”. He does not prove anything like that. He does not even open that question and does not even try to show what CO2 concentrations would be doing if there would be no human emissions. But the conclusion from his talk applying elementary math is that in that case, temperature would be now rising despite CO2 concentrations dropping.

  50. I have tried to send Dr Murry Salby an email using the email address murry.salby@mq.edu.au as supplied by the Macquarie University web site but it gets bounced with an address unknown message. I contacted the university and they tell me he no longer works there but have never sent me a current email address. Can anyone help me?

  51. Dr Lurtz…… because they are claiming that they found 30% of a fraction of a degree…..

    “about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend.”

  52. “””””…..Mike jarosz says:

    June 22, 2013 at 6:58 am

    dave says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:45 am
    Latitude says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:24 am

    “Because the claim of dangerous global warming was repeated over and over, by so many public figures in the major media, for so many years.
    The same could be said for why did so many Americans believe Iraq had a link to 9/11: because the claim was repeated so many times in the months leading up to the invasion.”

    We must have watched different news channels. It was all about WMD’s. The justification was provided under UN Resolutions requiring inspections that were stopped by Saddam Hussein, who had demonstrated use of WMD’s on the Kurds. As for the Global Warming stuff, concur completely……””””””

    You couldn’t possibly be referring to the chemical WMD that was trucked into Syria, while the UN hummed and hahed; and that Assad has recently been using on his people; could you. I seem to recall that SH even bragged about his WMD capabilities.
    Then there was that poor sap Joe Wilson; hubbie of Valerie Plame, top secret master spy clerk; who was sent to Niger to investigate rumors of attempts by SH to get yellowcake from Niger; or maybe it was a deal to try and sell some to SH, that he (SH) thought was a CIA scam. Poor Joe, diplomat extraordinaire, couldn’t even get the name of a good French restaurant in Niger. They made sure he never got to talk to anybody, who actually knew anything.

    Well my memory fades Quick(ly), but my copy of the 911 official enquiry, has a whole chapter about the origins from splinter groups, that became the founders of El Qaida in Irag

    Well these stories like global warming too, do seem to have legs, and take on a life of their own.

  53. I have 2 comments here. One is on the UAH index supposedly missing the Arctic, and the 2nd is on increase of atmospheric CO2 supposedly being caused by nature in response to temperature.

    As for latitudes covered by the UAH lower troposphere index: It covers from 85 degrees south to 85 degrees north.
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    BTW, in the history of the UAH index, it shows .14 degree/decade of warming trend, at least 75% of even that of the GISS index.

    As for source of the increase of atmospheric CO2: Although there is a large flux of CO2 among the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere, the hydrosphere and biosphere are *net removing* CO2 from the atmosphere despite warmer global temperatures. The carbon budget:
    http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010

    I see honest debate as more a matter of what and how much effect the CO2 increase is causing and will cause.

  54. The second Salby lecture is the better one, IMO.

    When I read around the IPCC view of the carbon cycle, and specifically the role of the isotope data, it reminds me of the joke:

    Q. What goes “Clip”?
    A. A horse with one leg.

  55. Latitude says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:54 am
    “this looks scary, right?”

    If you add on the recent warming to the end (Your graph stops about 100 years ago), it probably will be scary.

  56. Seb says: it probably will be scary.
    ======================

    are you putting me on…
    …add a fraction of a degree to this

  57. Astley commented:
    William M. Gray’s monogram provides a good explanation of the technical issues.

    Make that “monograph.”

  58. While I respect much of what Prof. Salby says, he is quite wrong about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Since plant material prefers C12 this means that the additional CO2 comes from plant material.

    That is right, but there are two main differences between fossil and recent plant materials: the fossil plant materials are completely depleted of 14C, as much too old, and how much recent plant material is burned or formed can be calculated from the oxygen use and fossil fuel use.

    The 14C level declined in lockstep with fossil fuel use, so that since about 1870 the tables for carbon dating needed to be corrected. Until 1950, when the atomic bomb tests disturbed the 14C record completely.
    The oxygen use shows a small deficit, if one calculates its use from fossil fuel burning efficiency. Thus the whole biosphere (land and seaplants, animals, insects and microbes) is a net sink for CO2 of currently some 1 GtC/year. Not a source. Thus the current increase of CO2 is NOT from recent plant material.

    About the ice core CO2, sorry, but let the late Jaworowski rest in peace, together with his ideas about ice cores. Ice core CO2 measurements are reliable, as long as the necessary measures are taken, which was not always the case in Jaworowski’s time. But since then the technique did get better, but Jaworowski’s ideas didn’t change. Even if much of his objections were answered by Etheridge e.a., already in 1996, with three drillings at Law Dome, two of them with a resolution of less than a decade and an overlap of ~20 years with direct measurements at the South Pole.

    So on the point of the origin of the extra CO2, Prof. Salby is completely wrong. About the influence of CO2 on temperature, we do agree to a large extent…

    BTW, as I am travelling in beautiful Greece, looking for the roots of most of our Western Civilisation, with very limited Internet access and not the normal access to my documentation, it will take more time to respond…

  59. No warming and yet the Arctic ice is melting rapidly. Please explain.

    I am also mystified why this site has not blasted the 97% for their complete failure to predict this rapid ice melt.

    Remember: In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) figured we wouldn’t see ice-free summers in the Arctic until the end of the century or so – like 2100. Subsequently some scientists looked at newer data and predicted it would come several decades sooner, like 2070.

    Now, plots on this site for minimum Arctic ice extent show that a value of 0 in 2015 appears reasonable – in line with PIOMAS ice volume plots clearly extrapolating to 0 in 2015, plus/minus one year.

    I would love to see a post on these two subjects.

  60. It would seem to me that a simple empirical test could be set up to replicate Ice Field layering under differing CO2 concentrations. All that is needed is
    A large freezer kept at -30 with a reasonably high relative humidity to prevent sublimation.
    A 10 x 10 foot square form that is 10 feet tall
    A pressure inducer that can fully but slowly compress the 10 x 10 form to create the Firn layering
    Snow
    CO2 control source
    Slowly compress layers of snow at varying levels of ambient CO2 until your stack reaches the top of the form. Core the ice and compare the CO2 at the varying layers and compare the findings to the ambient levels at the time the layer was created. If they differ from the source levels, then the difference could be used to determine the amount of Bleed Through of CO2 from earlier layers to later layers and help to clarify the quality of the CO2 layering in the Paleo Ice Core data

  61. Yes, indeed, GREAT post. This needs to be repeated over and over until it sinks in for the general public, as well as the rent seekers and politicos.

  62. Bryan A says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:54 am

    It would seem to me that a simple empirical test could be set up to replicate Ice Field layering under differing CO2 concentrations.

    No need to do that test: nature did it already. The migration of CO2 in firn (not completely closed ice) was measured at Law Dome, top down for each layer. That shows that at 72 meter depth the composition of the CO2 is about 7 years older than in the atmosphere. There is an overlap of about 20 years between the fully closed bubbles in the ice core below 80 meters and direct measurements of the atmosphere at the South Pole, all within the 1.2 ppmv (one sigma) of the ice core measurements.

    Migration over time was calculated from the Siple Dome ice core, where remelt layers were found. That shows a migration which broadens the resolution of the ice core from 20 to 22 years at medium depth and from 20 to 40 years for full depth (some 70 kyears old). No such broadening is seen in the 420 and 800 kyears, far colder, ice cores of Vostok and Dome C…

  63. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am

    BTW, as I am travelling in beautiful Greece, looking for the roots of most of our Western Civilisation

    You’re more likely to find the roots of the future failure of the EU.

  64. Salby’s 2nd presentation is a real eye opener if you can get past the mathematics of signal processing. What he has shown is why the climate models have gone off track.

    The climate models all assume that temperature varies as CO2. What Salby shows is that the underlying math indicates otherwise, that it is the integral (sum) of temperature that varies as CO2. In other words, that temperature varies as the rate of change in CO2.

    This is the very same finding as given by econometric analysis, that temperature varies as the 2nd difference of CO2. see for example: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/

    The implications are clear. Either CO2 acumulates as a result of temperature, or the system has strong negative feedbacks in response to increasing CO2. Either way, the assumption of positive feedback is wrong. Positive feedback is inconsistent with temperature varying as the rate of change in CO2.

    What is significant is that two unrelated methods have delivered the same result, and both show that the models are not correctly describing reality. This implies that the models will only track temperature when temperature and CO2 are increasing in phase. When they are out of phase, as predicted by Salby’s work due to a 90 degree phase lag, then the models will diverge from reality.

    Which is what is being observed. The models have the mathematics wrong. This is causing them to diverge from reality at times when CO2 and temperature are out of phase.

  65. Brooks Bridges – it was predicted Arctic sea ice would be zero by NOW! here’s the latest sea ice extent for the Arctic, it is above average for the past decade. It’s not declining rapidly.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Yes – arctic sea ice extent has been decreasing yet antarctic sea ice extent is expanding, last year being a record.

    Obviously something is occurring in the arctic but there is NO evidence it’s CO2 or man’s actions..

  66. Brooks Bridges says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:50 am
    No warming and yet the Arctic ice is melting rapidly. Please explain.
    ===========
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw

    The polar “see-saw” causes one pole to melt while the other freezes. What it means is that it is misleading to study only the melting at one pole without considering the freezing at the other.

    Climate scientists that wish to study the facts about climate know this. Climate scientists that wish to alarm and mislead politicians and the public ignore this and only talk about the melting at the north pole.

    One can thus separate factual climate scientist from misleading and alarmist climate scientists, by how well they represent polar melting in the context of the polar see-saw.

  67. @peter miller –
    The alarmists don’t and can’t control the historical records that unequivocally demonstrate the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum and the Hittiite-Minoan-Mycenean Warm Period. There is no way they can get around those records, and that makes their efforts to make these earlier warm periods go away the more ridiculous.

  68. In reply to:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am

    The 14C level declined in lockstep with fossil fuel use, so that since about 1870 the tables for carbon dating needed to be corrected. Until 1950, when the atomic bomb tests disturbed the 14C record completely.
    William:
    C14 is created by GCR and is hence inversely related to solar magnetic cycle activity. Higher solar activity, stronger heliosphere which blocks GCR, less GCR lower C14 production rates.
    The solar magnetic activity has the highest in 8000 years during the last 70 years.
    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
    There are multiple anomalies associated with changes in atmospheric CO2 both current and at geology time scales. For example there is currently no explanation for the drop in atmospheric CO2 during the glacial periods. The increased CO2 that dissolved in the oceans is more than offset by the reduction in CO2 that is used by the biosphere due to the increase in the ice sheets (which reduces the amount of plant life) and the reduction in productive of the biosphere. (For example, roughly 40% of the Amazon rainforest changes to a savanna for example due to less precipitation. The biosphere contracts when the planet gets colder and expands when it get warmer, opposite to what the warmists tell us.)

    Why is there a doubling of CO2 absorbed in the earth’s sinks? Is what we are observing an increase in sinks or a reduction in a source of high C12, CO2? What is the source of CO2 on geological time scales? How does one explain the long term and short term changes of CO2 in the geological record?
    There are layers of anomalies if one digs into this subject. An example of an anomaly is the ratio of C12/C13 remains almost constant (except for unexplained periods where there are massive very high C12 deposits). As plants preferential remove C12 from the atmosphere and GCR creates C14 that decays into C13, if the carbon on the planet’s surface is recycled the geological deposits should gradually become higher and higher in C13. That is not observed.
    As I have stated before, there is overwhelming evidence that the source of carbon and water on the earth’s surface is the release of CH4 from the earth’s core as it solidifies. (The competing theory to deep carbon source theory is the late veneer theory that has the source of water and CO2 as late bombardment of the earth’s surface by comets. The big splat removed the majority of the light volatile elements from the earth’s mantle so a mechanism is required to explain why 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water which is particularly anomalous as the solar wind removes dissociated water, hydrogen from the earth’s atmosphere.) The excreted CH4 at the core is under very high pressure so it is pressed through the mantel. The deposits of less dense CH4 explains how the continents float on the mantel and the geological anomalies such as the Tibet plateau and the reason why there are bands of mountains at regions where the ocean crust is pushed below the continental plate. The CH4 from the ocean crust is deposited below the continental crust at these locations.
    The deep source CH4 is very low in C13 as it is not exposed to GCR. A continual new source of high C12 CH4 which dissociates in the atmosphere and then forms CO2 and H2O explains why the ratio of C12/C13 does not gradually increase with time in the geological record.

    The above hypothesis also explains why the ocean is saturated with CH4. Saturated means there is some source of CH4 in the ocean that releases CH4.
    Now if was bacteria in the ocean that converted CH4 to H2O and CO2, using the released energy to live, there would be a source of low C12 CO2.
    So finishing off the strawman hypothesis, it is not temperature changes that are causing the increased or decreased CO2 in the atmosphere it is some other mechanism that affects how much CH4 is released in the deep ocean.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/earths-co2-sinks-increasing-their-uptake/
    Earth absorbing more carbon, even as CO2 emissions rise, says CU-Boulder-led study
    Planet’s carbon uptake doubles in past 50 years, researchers ponder how long trend can continue
    Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them, according to a surprising new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.
    But the new Nature study showed global CO2 uptake by Earth’s sinks essentially doubled from 1960 to 2010, although increased variations from year-to-year and decade-to-decade suggests some instability in the global carbon cycle, he said.
    William: The other possibility is a significant portion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural emissions. As noted above observations and analysis indicated that 0.45C of the warming in the last 70 years by solar magnetic cycle changes which modulate planetary cloud cover as opposed to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/revgeo/rog.pdf
    Abstract. Fifteen years after the discovery of major glacial/interglacial cycles in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, it seems that all of the simple mechanisms for lowering pCO2 have been eliminated. We use a model of ocean and sediment geochemistry, which includes new developments of iron limitation of biological production at the sea surface and anoxic diagenesis and its effect on CaCO3 preservation in the sediments, to evaluate the current proposals for explaining the glacial/ interglacial pCO2 cycles within the context of the ocean carbon cycle. After equilibration with CaCO3 the model is unable to generate glacial pCO2 by increasing ocean NO3 2 but predicts that a doubling of ocean H4SiO4 might suffice. However, the model is unable to generate a doubling of ocean H4SiO4 by any reasonable changes in SiO2 weathering or production.
    http://faculty.washington.edu/battisti/589paleo2005/Papers/SigmanBoyle2000.pdf

    Glacial/interglacial variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide by Daniel M. Sigman & Edward A. Boyle

    The exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the surface ocean would reach completion over the course of six to twelve months if there were no other processes redistributing inorganic carbon in the ocean. However, the pCO2 of surface waters is continuously being reset by its interaction with the deep ocean reservoir of inorganic carbon, which is more than 25 times that of the atmosphere and surface ocean combined (Fig. 2).

    As ocean temperature was lower during ice ages, it is an obvious first step to consider its effect on atmospheric CO2. The lower temperatures of the glacial ocean would have reduced the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by drawing more of it into the ocean. The deep ocean, which is the dominant volume of ocean water, has a mean temperature of 2 C. Sea water begins to freeze at about -2C, producing buoyant ice. As a result, deep ocean water could not have been more than 4C colder during the last ice age, placing an upper bound on how much additional CO2 this water could have sequestered simply by cooling. The potential cooling of surface waters in polar regions such as the Antarctic is also constrained by the freezing point of sea water.
    See Carnegie Institute of Sciences Deep Carbon Workshop presentations if you interested in this subject.

    https://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008
    and…
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo591.html

    P.S. Thanks for the correction monograph vs monogram.

  69. “…it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology.”

    Exactly! It is just an estimate extrapolated from a few data points. The error bars are so large, it becomes basically an educated guess. If methods and locations were consistent, you might be able to determine some rough regional trends from the data. However, with all the adding and dropping of weather stations, inconsistent methods used over the years, UHI, and continual manipulation of the numbers, surface temperature data is almost useless. And as a measurement of world-wide average temperature, it is pretty much meaningless.

  70. << I have very sound memories of the 1966 Wahine storm.

    1968

    Curiously, my PO Box number in Wellington is 5368.

    When anyone asks me what my PO Box number is, I initially
    reply, with a wink, "two disasters" … and even when I tell them the
    actual number, there is usually incomprehension. Not however
    among the readers here one hopes.

  71. Marian says:
    June 22, 2013 at 1:44 am
    ….Overall, temperatures for winter 2013 (June – August) are very likely to be above average across the entire country…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Do you believe them? Or do they have the same reputation as the UK’s MET.

  72. Ceetee says: @ June 22, 2013 at 3:28 am

    We owe a great debt of gratitude to those brave men and women who have stood up for truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I will second that.
    “We are like dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants, and thus we are able to see more and farther than the latter. And this is not at all because of the acuteness of our sight or the stature of our body, but because we are carried aloft and elevated by the magnitude of the giants.” ~ Bernard of Chartres

    Climastrologists are nasty little narrow minded dwarves with chainsaws and axes and chisels and hammers chopping away at the legs of the giants they fear and despise.

  73. Re warming oceans below 700 m. Far more likely that cloud free SW infrared warmed those deeper layers via mixing. CO2 related warming would be buried in the noise of natural mixed warming at deeper layers.

  74. Antonia says: @ June 22, 2013 at 4:15 am

    …It amazes me that the alarmists still aren’t embarrassed by that thoroughly discredited claim that, “97 per cent of scientists” claim rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. How do they still get away with it? How?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Because the bankers and large corporations with a vested interest in the CAGW scam (link 1 and link 2) OWN the media and he who OWNS the presses controls what is printed. link 3 (see my comment)

  75. Didn’t Dr Salby claim that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was proportional to the integral of the temperature anomaly?

    This was in contrast to the models assumptions that temperature behaved in almost direct proportion to the CO2 concentration.

    So what did you mean by “He shows that for the MSU record, carbon dioxide is completely unrelated to temperature”

    Thanks
    Steve

  76. Mike McMillan says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:53 am
    ….What I gathered about the ice core record is that non-conservative processes are at work on the CO2 fraction, which I didn’t quite get….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I would suggest Lucy Skywalker’s information:
    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm

    And these two by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

    Also Dr Segalstad’s site: http://www.co2web.info/
    ESPECIALLY: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

    And some info on/by Dr. Jaworowski
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6 (Story of Dr. Jaworowski being denied funding and then fired for not toeing the CAGW line)

    Last there is tons of information at on CO2 at http://www.co2science.org/

  77. “…it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology. Without this information it is not possible to claim global warming.”

    And if we could, then that darn relationship of LW radiation emission with T^4 would mean LW emissions from Toronto in February would be about half that emitted from Timbuktu. Oh well we can just approximate it as linear and extrapolate into areas a thousand km away with no temperature records…

  78. Billy Liar says:
    June 22, 2013 at 9:34 am

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am

    BTW, as I am travelling in beautiful Greece, looking for the roots of most of our Western Civilisation …

    “You’re more likely to find the roots of the future failure of the EU.”

    This is the favorite of the day!! It should be Quote of the Week.

  79. Brooks Bridges says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:50 am

    “No warming and yet the Arctic ice is melting rapidly. Please explain.”

    The short answer is it’s summertime! Note however that the ice is melting a lot slower than any year of the past decade, indeed its more or less following the melt from the 1990s, which is in keeping with the 17 years of no warming.

  80. CodeTech says: @ June 22, 2013 at 5:32 am…..
    I think this says it all:
    Raw CO2 data (graphed)

    CO2 data after ‘Adjusting’ (graphed)

    And the reasoning as outlined by Mauna Loa Obs.

    4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.
    How we measure background CO2 levels on Mauna Loa.

    One of the critical ASSumptions is that CO2 is uniform in the atmosphere. Without that assumption CAGW falls flat on its face because of the early historical CO2 measurements.

    The actual data from chemical testing for CO2 GRAPH 1 Note the tendency to select low values for the CO2 concentration in the 19th century atmosphere despite values as high as 550 ppm and above.

    A closer look at the cherry picked results used by warmists from above graph. GRAPH 2

    World data/maps from Japanese satellite:
    September 2009

    July 2009 and January 2010 side by side comparison

    August 2012

  81. Re William Astley says: June 22, 2013 at 11:49 am
    In reply to: Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am
    “…and GCR creates C14 that decays into C13…”

    Carbon-14 decays by beta(-) emission, to produce Nitrogen-14.
    Reference: “Chart of the Nuclides”, 12th ed., 1977

  82. Brooks Bridges says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:50 am

    No warming and yet the Arctic ice is melting rapidly. Please explain….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is called the Bipolar Seesaw. While the Arctic is melting the Antarctic is increasing in ice.
    Antarctic Sea Ice Anomaly (mean) graph 1979 to 2008

    A discussion of a new peer-reviewed paper (September 2012) about what the reactivation of the Bipolar Seesaw means. (links to the entire paper at the end of the WUWT discussion) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/

  83. Bryan A says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:54 am

    It would seem to me that a simple empirical test could be set up to replicate Ice Field layering…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Dr Jaworowski wanted to do further research on CO2 in ice cores but those with a vested interest in the CAGW scam and lots of political clout were not about to let him…

    …Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.

    “This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout,” he explained. “This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.”

    Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

    The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.…..
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

  84. Ram says:
    June 22, 2013 at 9:23 am

    Can anyone tell me how much dishonest scientific activities is there ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I can give you lots of links.
    peer reviewed paper: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

    Scientific fraud and the power structure of science

    US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    Retraction Watch

    Top Science Scandals of 2011

    Scientific American – Dr. No Money: The Broken Science Funding System

    Science Fraud: Highlighting Misconduct in Life Sciences Research

    Faked data that makes the headlines:
    NY Times: A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

    Guardian UK: False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research, High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope

    10 Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World.

    Fox News: Oops! 5 retracted science studies from 2012

    Fox News: One in Seven Scientists Say Colleagues Fake Data

    Telegraph UK: Scientist jailed for faking medicine test results

    http://medcitynews.com/2011/07/fda-says-cro-cetero-faked-trial-data-pharmas-may-need-to-redo-tests/

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57357036/red-wine-researcher-flagged-for-fake-data/

    http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20111103193525126

    WUWT discussion of Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers that made the AP news service.

  85. In reply to:
    Steve says:
    June 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Didn’t Dr Salby claim that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was proportional to the integral of the temperature anomaly?
    This was in contrast to the models assumptions that temperature behaved in almost direct proportion to the CO2 concentration.
    William:
    Let’s summarize and clarify the warmists’ assumptions and clarify how Salby’s observation and Spencer/Christy/Lindzen/Choi’s observations and analysis challenge or disprove the warmists’ assumptions.
    The warmists scientists have two assumptions:
    Warmist Assumption 1 – The increase in atmospheric CO2 caused almost 100% of the observed planetary warming in the last 70 years. As noted in my comment above, observations and skeptic analysis supports the assertion that the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be 0.3C rather than IPCC predicted 1.5C to 6C warming. If the skeptics analysis is correct then roughly 0.45C of the warming in the last 70 years due to something other than the rise in atmospheric CO2.

    It appears, the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by the increase in solar magnetic cycle activity. A prediction to validate that assertion would be planetary cooling. Planetary cooling is possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was physically caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds as the solar magnetic cycle has abruptly slowed down.
    Planetary cooling is not possible if the warming in the last 70 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, as the CO2 forcing remains 24/7, it is not reversible.

    Warmist Assumption 2 – The observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans burning hydrocarbons and carbon to provide energy for human activity and to increase the standard of life for humans. Salby presents observation evidence, concerning the rise in atmospheric CO2 that does not have a physical explanation. Salby notes an observation fact not a theory. It is unlike the measurement of CO2 change year by year is incorrect. What does not make sense is why atmospheric CO2 increases linearly when human emission of CO2 has quadrupled.
    Assumption 2 and Salby’s observation is a different problem than the increase in atmospheric CO2 did not cause the warming in the last 70 years. Salby is asking what caused the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Salby notes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 (until equilibrium is reached) tracks the integral of temperature; looking at the current data and past data. Salby does not provide a physical explanation as to why that observation is correct; what is the mechanism that is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2, to correlate with the integral of temperature. What he state is the increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the integral of temperature.
    Now if planetary temperature suddenly drops due the solar magnetic cycle change, then the level of atmospheric CO2 should also drop. Perhaps something related to the solar magnetic cycle change is causing both the change in planetary temperature and the change in CH4 that released from deep sources in the planet.
    Observational evidence the planet has started to cool.
    There is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for all months of the year. That is a step change which would indicate the polar see-saw was flipped. There will be significant cooling in both Northern and Southern hemisphere (revising the warming of the last 100 years) and there will be record sea ice in the Arctic and record cold temperatures in the Greenland Ice Sheet.
    The Antarctic continent will warm slightly.


    The reason for the sudden and abrupt change to the planet’s climate is of course the sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle.
    If the planet starts to cool, the media will suddenly become very interested in the climate of the Little Ice age.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

  86. Kasuha says:
    June 22, 2013 at 7:33 am

    Those were nice and evenhanded thoughts. However, you go astray when you say: ‘…they provide very good evidence that CO2 is not driving temperatures but temperatures are driving CO2 concentrations. What is however NOT his conclusion is that “The CO2 increase is from natural sources.”’

    If temperatures are driving CO2 concentrations, then anything other than temperature is not a major contributor. When a piece of fruit is an apple, then it is not an orange.

    Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 22, 2013 at 7:59 am

    “Although there is a large flux of CO2 among the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere, the hydrosphere and biosphere are *net removing* CO2 from the atmosphere despite warmer global temperatures. The carbon budget:”

    The “carbon budget” is not something measured. It is something drawn up based on a particular paradigm – basically, how the authors think the bins should be filled. It is not evidentiary.

    You first sentence smacks of the fallacious “mass balance” argument, which so may people ignorant of feedback systems have latched onto. Here is a discussion which explains why it is in error.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Please see above. You are completely wrong.

  87. Village Idiot says: @ June 22, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Let’s all just remember that IT IS OK to use the (manipulated) data when it suits:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That just shows that DESPITE all the manipulation they STILL can not show warming. It also means the earth has probably been cooling.

    Alternate info:
    Record snowfall in HP revives 2,000 glaciers

    Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year

    Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year
    Peer reviewed paper discussed above.
    A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier

    Dr. Alley (NOAA) Holocene snow accumulation graph

    Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Graphs
    Oct 2012

    Nov. 2012

    Dec 2012

    Jan 2013

    Köppen climate classification

    Köppen Map US mid west

  88. In reply to:
    Neil Jordan says:
    June 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    Re William Astley says: June 22, 2013 at 11:49 am
    In reply to: Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am
    “…and GCR creates C14 that decays into C13…”
    Carbon-14 decays by beta(-) emission, to produce Nitrogen-14.
    Reference: “Chart of the Nuclides”, 12th ed., 1977
    William: Your comment is correct. My belief has incorrect. Thanks Neil, I assumed that C14 decayed to form C13. C14 is created by GCR from Nitrogen. C14 decays to form N14. I could not find the source of C13. I believe essence of my comment is correct, that intensity and the magnitude of GCR determines the level of C14 in the atmosphere. As GCR is modulated by the strength and the extent of the solar heliosphere when there is a very active solar magnetic solar cycle, GCR is reduced, inhibited by the strong helisosphere which results in less C14 production. As the solar magnetic cycle activity was the highest in 8000 years C14 production is reduced.
    The second mechanism question is what cause the variance of atmospheric CO2 current observations and on geological times.
    As noted there is increased evidence the source of planetary carbon, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and water is deep source CH4.
    The following is a summary of some of evidence to support that assertion.
    http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Are%20Coal,%20Natural%20Gas,%20and%20Crude%20Oil%20Really%20Fossil%20Fuels%20and%20Is%20There%20Really%20Any%20Oil%20Shortage%20of%20Oil.htm

    The “conventional wisdom” today is still that our vast petroleum reserves in the world are fossil fuels. How this came about is interesting. Dr. J. F. Kenney is a Western geophysicist who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin oil and gas fields. [5] Kenney, in 1996, wrote the paper, Considerations About Recent Predictions Of Impending Shortages Of Petroleum Evaluated From The Perspective Of Modern Petroleum Science. [6] In it he explains that the fossil fuel idea originated from a 1757 paper by the Russian, Mikhailo V. Lomonosov. To this day there has been no real proof of the theory, but it was cited and repeated over the years, until it was considered actual fact. [Such things have been a most unfortunate occurrence in various branches of science on a number of subjects over the years.] The biotic theory of oil was actually discarded by the Russians in 1956, when another Russian, Professor Vladimir B. Porfir’yev, senior petroleum exploration geologist for the U.S.S.R, published a paper concluding: The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.
    Kenny’s article states that in 1968, another Russian petroleum expert wrote a paper presenting further evidence:

    Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration. [Emphasis added]

    Also, by 1994, the Russian and Ukrainian scientists were responsible for the discovery and development of “eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields … in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned [based on the fossil fuel theory] as possessing no potential for petroleum production” using the new science on origination of oil, and where it might be located. Because of this new abiotic source technology, fields are being developed at depths much deeper in the earth than fossils could be expected to have ever existed. The actual evidence today is all contrary to the fossil fuel theory. Kenney states:

    That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.

    Using its technology on abiotic oil, and where it might be found, Russia has developed huge reserves of the three main hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. It is now the largest oil producer in the world.[8] And America, crippled by radical environmentalists, and the resulting restrictions on developing and using our natural resources, lags far behind and complains about the shortages, and cries about high gasoline prices. The only shortages that we are faced with are solely caused by these radicals and the influences they have on the Democrats and our President Obama, who is one of them.

  89. I guess it’s not that important that the global temperature can’t really be measured. Whatever is being measured is communicated to the world as being 0.7C higher than it was. Okay, take it down to 0.4C or 0.5C after re-correcting the distortions produced by the NCDC and GISS but it is what it is.

    The Oceans are warming but the numbers are so small. It is just a tiny absorption of heat even though when charted, it looks a big scary rising line. It is, in fact, small enough to call it unimportant in my book.

    Then there is the flatlining temperatures. CO2 is having such a big impact that there is no recent warming to be concerned about.

    The issue is, there are so many people that believe in this theory. No matter how broken it is and no matter how tiny or flat the actual climate is, they don’t want to see anything other than global warming and the disaster created by CO2.

    We make statements containing facts. We plot data and crunch numbers and show how wrong it is. For doing that, we are called deniers. They publish papers about how we are psychologically damaged.

    It’s about philosophy and psychology and the human desire to believe in something and be part of a movement and be on a team and defend what they believe in. To be on what they think of as the politicall-correct side.

    How do you fix a movement when it has gone off the rails and is acting irrationally. In the past, time eventually corrects it but, at other times, war and violence has been required. How can we change it from a movement and a belief system is the question. When that part is gone, we talk real observations again but we have to have to make it a non-politically correct movement first.

  90. “””””…..Dr Burns says:

    June 22, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    Vincent, You have misspelt your late friend’s name. It’s Jaworowski not Jaborowski……..”””””

    Well I happen to know a real Jaworowski; as in a Polish one. He just happens to be the best damn technical fly caster I know of; he’s a fly casting genius.

    And he absolutely insists that his name is pronounced Jaborowski. I suspect that the spelling is not original Polish anyway. I have no problem with spelling Jaborowski in a manner that will get it pronounced correctly. We Anglicize everything for our ease of communication.

    So there !

  91. Kudos to

    Lance Wallace says: Your first point about temperatures makes no mention of the problems with the satellite datasets, which Christy and Spencer have recorded and attempted to correct, but satellite decay and failure of instruments have continued up to the most recent months.

    and

    Gail Combs says:That just shows that DESPITE all the manipulation they STILL can not show warming. It also means the earth has probably been cooling.

    I am still saying the same thing–something must be wrong from Cristy’s data (its been so cold in so many places, I want to know how cold it has to get before we get a neutral or cooling anomaly from Spencer and Cristy?) and Gail, we have to keep pointing out that they MANIPULATE the data constantly–so it does mean there has has probably been cooling. I want to know why the satellite datasets don’t reflect what we see on the surface? Is it overcompensation by Cristy and Spencer because they don’t want to appear biased when they have to correct things and make up for decay of instruments?

    Great post, thinks all for a great post and for the informative comments.

  92. ·They are unrepresentative of the earth’s surface, and worse the further back you go.
    Their locations are mainly close to cities,
    Only maximum and minimum temperatures are measured,,

    It is unlikely to be true that they are worse the further back you go. The quality of the thermometers themselves is not that different from a calibration of a few historic ones I have seen comparisons for. The locations were in those days very much in the gardens of big houses an in towns that were by current standards scarcely villages.
    Current measurement are often as you say in cities where the USCRN shows clearly there is a temperature differential greater than the supposed global warming. that this is ignored is a measurement of the lobby power of the renewable energy industry which has the big name political families behind it much as big oil did in its heyday cowboy industry era.
    As you say merely max and min are recorded but equally importantly there is a very significant effect of the clean air acts which raised max temperatures by nearly half a degree according to tests by the same people who gave you the data that resulted in the clean air and SO2 information. That was before they were dumped by the climate scientists and told to “go back to fixing washing machines or whatever engineers did these days as a response to rejecting the idea that any positive feedback was possible.” Of course these test used boxes with light transmission sensors to measure particle levels and not fancy computer models because the scientists were getting the big budgets and engineering the hand me downs as is even more true now.

  93. William Astley says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:49 am

    C14 is created by GCR and is hence inversely related to solar magnetic cycle activity.

    Yes, that is what the wiggle matching tables of carbon dating with calendar dating are based on. But since about 1870, the solar activity based carbon dating didn’t match reality (older appearance), because of the “thinning” of the 14C levels by 14C-free CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

    The other possibility is a significant portion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural emissions.

    Not possible: the human emissions alone in average are already twice the measured increase over the past 50 years, so any extra release from a natural source must be compensated by an equal extra absorption by a natural sink. Further, the only low 12C source on earth (besides minor CH4 and oil releases) are from the biosphere, which is currently a net sink for CO2…

  94. Gail Combs says:
    June 22, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Most of what you linked at about ice cores is based on the misinterpretations of the late Jaworowski. I had some personal correspondence with him about the “artificial” match of the ice cores with the Mauna Loa data. According to him, there is no difference between the average age of the CO2 in the bubbles and the surrounding ice at bubble closing depth. Even if there are years of open connection of the pores with the atmosphere. Quite remarkable for an ice core specialist.
    But what closed the door for me is that he insisted that CO2 levels would migrate from lower levels to higher levels. Sorry, that is impossible (and there is no reverse osmosis at work between the ice pressure at 2000 m depth or 1999 m depth…).
    See my comment on Jaworowski at:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

  95. Gail Combs says:
    June 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    I think this says it all:

    Gail, you are dishonest. As I have said already in the past, you are comparing the data of two stations where one is in the middle of a forest, completely unsuitable for “background” CO2 measurements and the other a current “background” measuring station.

    If you want to compare the raw data and the “cleaned” data, then do that for Mauna Loa or any of the other “baseline” stations. They show no difference in average or trend outside 0.1 ppmv over a year.

    The actual data from chemical testing for CO2 GRAPH 1

    As said before, many of the historical data are completely unreliable, as they were taken in the middle of towns, forests, between leaves of growing crops, etc. The data that were taken over the oceans or at the seaside are all around the ice core data for the same period.

    World data/maps from Japanese satellite:

    So what? What you see is seasonal differences which locally can go to +/- 10 ppmv. That doesn’t matter on damn for the effect of 100+ ppmv CO2 increase over a period of 160 years, as far as there is an effect…

  96. Gail Combs says:
    June 22, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    You might try reading http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

    You may try to explain why at the very moment that humans start to emit larger amounts of fossil fuel CO2, the natural sources start in lockstep with human emissions and influencing the 13C/12C ratio’s in complete fixed ratio with human emissions. Not seen for 800,000 years in ice cores or over the past 600 years in the ocean surface by coralline sponges or any other proxy…

  97. Bart says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    You first sentence smacks of the fallacious “mass balance” argument, which so may people ignorant of feedback systems have latched onto. Here is a discussion which explains why it is in error.

    As no matter can be destroyed or created from nothing, the “mass balance” argument still stands strong, no matter what the real fluxes are.

    All what you – and Salby – have done is curve fitting with an arbitrary baseline. That is not based on any real physical process. To the contrary, it violates near every observation done.

    If some natural process increased CO2 releases over time, that must be compensated with an equal or larger natural process that absorbs the extra input + half the human input in total CO2 mass, or the increase in the atmosphere would be larger than from the human input alone. All what is done in such a case is that the throughput increased, for which there is no proof.

  98. If GHGs truly trap heat, and if there truly has been little variation in the levels of CO2 during the Holocene but for the recent rise from about the 1800s onwards, which I understand to be the warmists’ contention, why and how has planet Earth cooled from the Holocene optimum? We need to begin to understand this cooling before we can begin to understand the present day warming.

    In fact, I would say the same about the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. Where and how has the heat been lost from the system?

    The only temperature data of any real and scientific importance is that of the oceans, and there is no quality data on ocean temps pre ARGO. ARGO is too short a duration to know what is happening still less to extrapolate trends.

    Globally, there are only two climate states, namely glacial and inter glacial. We do not have high resolute data of previous inter-glacial eras, we have no idea whether what we are seeing at this stage of the Holocene is not normal still less unusual and something to be concerned about. We really need high resolution data from many glacial/inter-glacial cycles before we can draw any relaible conclusions.

    All we know is that based upon observational data and proxy evidenced there is no first order correlation and temperature and CO2 has not driven the past changes into or out of glacial and inter glacial eras. We can be reasonably certain that, even if CO2 is a driver (and there appears no observational evidence supporting that it is a temperature driver), CO2 is not a strong a driver as natural variation.

  99. The first sentence of the final para of my above comment was missing a couple of words. It should have read:

    All we know is that based upon observational data and proxy evidenced there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature, and CO2 has not driven the past changes into or out of glacial and inter glacial eras.

  100. William Astley says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    Salby notes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 (until equilibrium is reached) tracks the integral of temperature; looking at the current data and past data. Salby does not provide a physical explanation as to why that observation is correct;

    Salby and Bart both use an arbitrary zero baseline for the temperature integration. That is curve fitting, indeed not based on any physical process.

    The point is that a natural cause of the increase violates near all observations that have been known from past and present:
    – the mass balance:
    As humans emit about 9 GtC/year as CO2 and we see an increase of only 4 GtC/year, some 5 GtC/year is absorbed somewhere. The amounts did double over the past 50 years of accurate measurements, but in every year of the past 50 years, the increase in the atmosphere was less than the emissions. Thus if e.g. an increase in temperature of the oceans was the main cause, then the estimate of the ocean emissions would have increased from ~90 GtC/season to ~180 GtC/season over a year. But at the same time some of the sinks (oceans or vegetation) should have increased from 92 GtC/season to 184 GtC/season over a year. All what happened is that the throughput doubled in the past 50 years and that the total increase still is due to the human input.
    But there is not the slightest observation that the throughput doubled in the past 50 years.
    – the oceans have a too high 13C/12C ratio.
    Any substantial increase of ocean emissions would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, but we see a steady decline in ratio with fossil fuel burning.
    – vegetation is a net CO2 sink.
    As can be calculated from the oxygen balance.
    – vegetation is an increasing sink with higher temperatures (and higher CO2 levels).
    – the oceans show a limited CO2 response to temperature changes.
    According to Henry’s Law, the response is some 16 ppmv/K. As vegetation reacts the other way out, the short term response (seasons to years) is 4-5 ppmv/K. On (very) long term (decades to multi-millennia) the response is about 8 ppmv/K. That is all.
    There is no way that the oceans can provide a continuous increase of CO2 for a sustained difference of a few tenths of a K over time. That violates Le Chatelier’s Principle, that any system in equilibrium tries to counteract a disturbance of the equilibrium. In this case: any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce the outflows from the oceans near the equator and increase the inflows into the oceans near the poles. Thus if the temperature of the oceans increases with 1 K, a new equilibrium will be met with maximum 16 ppmv increase, reinstalling the previous CO2 fluxes.

  101. Bart says in part, on June 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm:

    “Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 22, 2013 at 7:59 am

    ‘Although there is a large flux of CO2 among the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere, the hydrosphere and biosphere are *net removing* CO2 from the atmosphere despite warmer global temperatures. The carbon budget: (link)’

    The “carbon budget” is not something measured. It is something drawn up based on a particular paradigm – basically, how the authors think the bins should be filled. It is not evidentiary.

    You first sentence smacks of the fallacious “mass balance” argument, which so may people ignorant of feedback systems have latched onto. Here is a discussion which explains why it is in error.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says: June 22, 2013 at 8:36 am (link)

    Please see above. You are completely wrong.”

    Sorry, this does not negate the fact that fossil fuel usage is fairly well known, and growth of atmospheric CO2 is well known. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding to it, despite warmer temperatures. And atmospheric CO2 is a lot higher than it was the last couple times the world was this warm, so natural regulation does not explain why we have about 395 PPMV rather than around 280-300 typically resulting in the past few hundred thousand years from temperatures like we have now.

  102. FerdiEgb says:
    June 23, 2013 at 3:27 am

    “As no matter can be destroyed or created from nothing, the “mass balance” argument still stands strong, no matter what the real fluxes are… If some natural process increased CO2 releases over time, that must be compensated with an equal or larger natural process that absorbs the extra input + half the human input in total CO2 mass, or the increase in the atmosphere would be larger than from the human input alone.”

    No, no, no, no, no. This is not how a feedback system works. Read the link I provided. Please. I really do hate seeing such a nice guy make such a fundamental error, and keep making it time and time again without giving it proper thought.

    Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 23, 2013 at 9:53 am

    Same error. Read the link. Feedback systems do not work according to simple accounting.

  103. Allow me to simply paste the contents of the link again here. The fundamental problem with the “mass-balance” argument is that, though “natural sinks” are natural processes, they accept inputs from both anthropogenic and natural sources. The sinks are a dynamic feedback element. They expand in response to both anthropogenic and natural forcing.

    Those portions with respond to anthropogenic forcing, indeed, which exist wholly in response to anthropogenic forcing, are in reality artificial sinks. They are created and maintained by anthropogenic inputs, and they would shrink away if anthropogenic inputs ceased.

    Thus, the “mass balance” equation has two unknowns: the natural sinks, and the anthropogenic sinks. Two unknowns, one equation. It is elementary that there is not a unique solution.

    So, without further ado, here is a mathematical explanation of how the feedback works, and why it renders this “mass balance” argument null and void.
    ——————————————————————

    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.

  104. I am surprised that very little discussion takes place on the influence of water through the good old ‘Rankine Cycle’. I reckon that for every kilogram of water that evaporates off the earth’s surface and later returns as rain, sleet, ice or snow some 680 wattHrs of energy are dissipated into space via the atmosphere.
    The reason for this lies in the large Latent Heat of Evaporation of water; where huge transfers of energy take place AT CONSTANT Temperature.
    The second reason is the non-intuitive fact that moist air is lighter than dry air and therefore rises. This is evident when one observes the Cirrus clouds up there some 40000 ft above, nudging the Troposphere, way way above any CO2 and as very cold ice crystals. How did all that water get there and where has all that energy gone? One may well ask.
    The Rankine analogy may appear simplistic but I suspect has some validity within the highly complex process going as all this water cuts through the CO2 envelope.
    The evaporation phase is the Boiler operating at the prevailing partial pressure of water.
    The rising phase is the work done against gravity [as on a piston] whereby energy is converted to potential energy and also dissipated to the surroundings.
    The condensation phase is the dissipation aspect, as above, together with radiation to space.
    Finally we have the feed heater and pump phases where gravity takes control and increases the pressure using the potential energy lost during descent whist absorbing energy from the surrounding atmosphere.
    The simple calculation being that 1 Kg of evaporated water has at least circa 700 WattHrs of energy in it. However when it returns to earth it only has about 10 WattHrs.

    So Where has all that energy gone?

  105. Alasdair the question arises as to how does that energy get to space? The only available path is through radiation because convection and conduction require mass transfer, and space is a vacuum. Your argument simply transfers the level at which the Earth radiates from the surface to cloud level at least for cloud covered areas. No one will argue with you about that step.

  106. Somewhat minor point, but Eli always thought that Spencer and Christy figured out how to use the MSU data considerably after the launch and were not the instrument scientists on the NOAA satellites that carried the MSUs.

  107. Eli Rabett says:

    “June 23, 2013 at 9:23 pm
    Somewhat minor point, but Eli always thought that Spencer and Christy figured out how to use the MSU data considerably after the launch and were not the instrument scientists on the NOAA satellites that carried the MSUs.”

    And the climate science world (you included?) first decided that it did not like the figures so produced, created another team to look at the same figures, and when they failed to come up with significantly different values, decided not to address why the two set of figures are different and continue to be different.

    Bunnys obviously look at things differently.

  108. Sorrry .Clarity required.

    decided not to address why the two sets of land and satelliet figures are different and continue to be different.

  109. After Wentz and Schnabel had shown that orbital decay was not properly handled by UAH, the climate scientists got the NAS to form an expert committee to look at the problem of why the surface records and UAH disagreed. Prabhakara did a nadir view analysis which indicated that there were problems with the UAH algoithms (nadir views being less subject to orbital decay problems). Go read the report from 2000 for details. Science as she is done. Live with it. However, to avoid boorishism, Eli will leave it there

  110. So UAH and RRS are bad data and do not align with the nice thermometer record so they must by wrong. Still.

    Need another carrot.

  111. Bart says:
    June 23, 2013 at 11:37 am

    Bart, we have been there several times, but for the readers here again the arguments from my side (besides that there is no known natural physical or chemical process that can be the cause of the current increase).

    Those portions with respond to anthropogenic forcing, indeed, which exist wholly in response to anthropogenic forcing, are in reality artificial sinks. They are created and maintained by anthropogenic inputs, and they would shrink away if anthropogenic inputs ceased.

    This is a complete artificial separation: All sinks are natural, there are hardly any human sinks. These don’t respond to human inputs alone, they respond to every change in input, whatever its source. They don’t make a differentiation between human or volcanic or ocean or vegetation induced CO2. Thus there is nothing “artificial” to the increase in output from the atmosphere into the different reservoirs if the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, whatever its source. A 10% increase of CO2 due to humans or due to more ocean outgassing will have the same effect on the outputs.

    Again for emphasis, this says NOTHING about the relative magnitudes of N and A.

    The relative magnitudes of N and A are of not the slightest interest, as good as the relative magnitudes of turnover and gain of a factory are not of the utmost interest (they are, but the gain – or loss – is far more important than the turnover of capital).

    As said several times before: if you bring 50 euro per day to you local bank branch without withdrawing any money and the net gain of that bank after a year is less than what you did bring in as capital, better look for another bank. No matter how big the investments and withdrawals of other clients were…
    I still wonder how intelligent people don’t understand what every housewive with a minimum of budget control knows…

    But let us look at the formula:

    dC/dt= -a*C + N + A

    First a real world problem: most of the sinks that absorb CO2 don’t respond to the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, but to a difference in concentration with an equilibrium concentration. That is the case for plant growth which ceases completely below 180 ppmv for C3 plants and that is the case for the oceans, where no CO2 is absorbed or released when the temperature dependent pCO2 of the oceans is equal to the pCO2 in the atmosphere. That is less the case for rock weathering.

    S0, the formula needs a zero carbon concentration where N and -a*C are in equilibrium and dC/dt = 0, without A. In the case of the oceans, even N(oceans) is dependent of the pCO2 difference between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. A fundamental point, as that is what happens if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases: several of the sink fluxes increase and the main CO2 source flux from the oceans decreases.

    Another problem is that both the oceans and vegetation are composed of fast en slow responses to changes of CO2 in the atmosphere: the ocean surface responds in 1-3 years, but only can react with some 10% of the change in the atmosphere (the Revelle factor) before a new equilibrium with the atmosphere is reached. The deep oceans have far more capacity, but their exchange with the atmosphere is far more limited and shows reponse times of around 50 years (and a turnover of many thousands of years…). The same applies to vegetation.

    Thus the formula need some enhancement to reflect reality…

    But let us show where the real world problem of any natural cause lies:

    At least the basic formula needs to be changed to:

    dC/dt= -a*(C – C0) + N + A

    where C0 is temperature dependent and largely responsible for the small wiggles over the seasons (4-5 ppmv/°C) to the larger ones over the ice ages (8 ppmv/°C).

    Some 50 years ago, the formula responded to (all in GtC and taking the current estimates for natural fluxes as base):

    1.5 = a*(660-550) + 150 + 2.5
    or a = 151/110 = 1.37
    the overall net sink in natural fluxes in and out was 1 GtC/year
    The human “contribution” to that sink is 0.66% according to the ratio human/natural carbon sinks.
    The human “contribution” to the increase in the atmosphere was 100% according to the mass balance.

    Assuming that the factor “a” didn’t change over time (the sinks respond linearly to CO2 concentration differences with the temperature dictated equilibrium), the current fluxes should be:

    4.5 = 1.37*(840-550) + x + 9
    or x = 402
    the overall net sink in natural fluxes in and out is 4.5 GtC/year.
    The human “contribution” to that sink is 1.1% according to the ratio human/natural carbon in the carbon sinks.
    The human “contribution” to the increase in the atmosphere still is 100% according to the mass balance.

    Again, it doesn’t matter that the natural fluxes increased a 2.7 fold over time (for which is not the slightest proof), as still the net natural contribution is negative in all cases, only the turnover increased a 2.7 fold…

  112. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    “All sinks are natural, there are hardly any human sinks.”

    Incorrect. Portions of the available sinks expand as a response to human inputs. That growth would not have occurred without human inputs. Therefore, that expansion has created an assortment of, in every sense of the word, artificial sinks.

    “I still wonder how intelligent people don’t understand what every housewive with a minimum of budget control knows…”

    Because housewives are generally not versed in feedback theory. If you are operating on the level of an ordinary housewife, that should be a clue to you that you do not understand the problem.

    “First a real world problem: most of the sinks that absorb CO2 don’t respond to the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, but to a difference in concentration with an equilibrium concentration.”

    Trivial, as this is a linear system. Let Ceq be the equilibrium concentration. Then

    d/dt(C – Ceq) = -a*(C – Ceq) + (N – a*Ceq) + A

    Redefine Cd = C – Ceq, Nd – N-s*Ceq. Get

    dCd/dt = -a*Cd + Nd + A

    Now, you’re right back where you started from.

    “At least the basic formula needs to be changed to:

    dC/dt= -a*(C – C0) + N + A

    where C0 is temperature dependent and largely responsible for the small wiggles over the seasons (4-5 ppmv/°C) to the larger ones over the ice ages (8 ppmv/°C).”

    You’re just shuffling the deck chairs. Again, redifine Cd = C – C0, and you’re right back where we started. These manipulations are trivial, and simply obfuscating the problem.

    “Some 50 years ago, the formula responded to (all in GtC and taking the current estimates for natural fluxes as base):

    1.5 = a*(660-550) + 150 + 2.5”

    What happened to the minus sign on “a”? If “a” is negative, you have positive feedback, and the system will diverge exponentially.

    “Assuming that the factor “a” didn’t change over time (the sinks respond linearly to CO2 concentration differences with the temperature dictated equilibrium), the current fluxes should be:

    4.5 = 1.37*(840-550) + x + 9
    or x = 402
    the overall net sink in natural fluxes in and out is 4.5 GtC/year.
    The human “contribution” to that sink is 1.1% according to the ratio human/natural carbon in the carbon sinks.”

    Even if you did not have the sign wrong, and your numbers were not all flaky, this is where you would have erred. Part of that 840 is due to the anthropogenic input over the years. You have to subtract that portion out before you actually get a measure of uniquely natural activity.

    If you do not understand the elementary example I gave, you cannot hope to understand what is really going on, and you really should not be sticking your neck out so far.

  113. What happened to the minus sign on “a”? If “a” is negative, you have positive feedback, and the system will diverge exponentially.

    Rather, if “a” is positive.

  114. Richard: So UAH and RRS are bad data and do not align with the nice thermometer record so they must by wrong. Still.

    Actually at this point RSS and UAH align with GISS HadCRUT and NOAA very well thank you. Please do try and keep up.

  115. “Rather, if “a” is positive.”

    Which is to say, if “a” is negative in my original equation, you get positive feedback. Or, if you neglect the negative sign, as you appear to have done, and “a” is positive, you get positive feedback. In any case, you’ve got a positive feedback, and your equation diverges exponentially over time. It is basically an equation with all sources, and no sinks.

    We ran through an example some time ago where we discussed putting hot and cold water in a sink, and I asked what temperature the water would eventually reach, given the input flow from one of the sources and the level of water that was reached. You agreed with me at that time that it depended entirely on the efficiency of the drain, i.e., the feedback factor, and I thought we had made a major breakthrough. But, then, with distance from that conversation, you fell back into your old habits, and now you are back to making your preposterous “mass-balance” claim.

    Even explaining a trivial system as the one above, and how feedback negates your claim, I seem to make no headway. I don’t know what more I can do but continue pointing out you are wrong every time you bring it up. It is both very saddening and very frustrating, because it really is a freshman level problem, and there is no doubt about it.

  116. “””””””…….Bart says:

    June 24, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    “All sinks are natural, there are hardly any human sinks.”….”””””

    I disagree. While old growth forests are carbon neutral. tree farming; aka agriculture projects are carbon sinks.

    New Zealand has some of the larges agricultural forests in the world (maybe the largest) making NZ a carbon sink. The largest ( well the only large) land carbon sink on the planet, is North America. Well more specifically the USA. Canada would be part of this, if it were not so cold with a short growing season.

    Agriculture and tree farming make it so.

    If global Temperatures rose lengthening the Canada growing season, North America would be an even bigger carbon sink.

    All other continents are either carbon sources (Australia) or carbon neutral.

    Australia is not to blame; nothing grows there.

  117. george e. smith says:
    June 24, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    “While old growth forests are carbon neutral. tree farming; aka agriculture projects are carbon sinks.”

    Yes, but these are not the category of artificial sinks we are looking for, and they are a small part of the overall budget.

    We are looking for sinks whose growth is fueled by the ready availability of anthropogenically released CO2. We send CO2 up in the air, and most of it settles back down, initiating biological and mineral processes which increase their activity based on the availability of CO2.

    Had we not released that CO2, those processes would not have been initiated. So, in a very real sense, we created those additional sinks. They are artificial sinks.

    This is the problem with the “mass balance” argument. It is not true that all significant sinks are strictly natural. If they would not have come into being without our activity, then they are artificial, as much as an airplane or a truck or a toxic waste dump is artificial, because we engaged in activities which brought them into being.

    An automobile is made of iron, steel, aluminum, leather, glass, etc. It is, in fact, 100% natural content. Yet, surely an automobile is an artificial construct? Surely nobody would claim that automobiles are natural? Yet, this is precisely what Ferdinand et al., are claiming, that something which we created out of natural materials is necessarily “natural”.

  118. An example to attempt further clarification: suppose we pump an excess of CO2 into a greenhouse. What happens? The plants grow more rapidly and to greater size, incorporating that extra carbon into their structure. They have much more carbon in them their normal, scrawny counterparts subjected to normal atmospheric levels of CO2. They sank the carbon we provided them. There is no way anyone could claim that, left to grow naturally, they would have stored that much carbon away. They are artificial carbon sinks. Wholly natural in material, yet artificial sinks nevertheless.

  119. Bart says:
    June 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    What happened to the minus sign on “a”? If “a” is negative, you have positive feedback, and the system will diverge exponentially.

    Sorry, my mistake, of course it must be -a where -a*(C – C0) and N nearly compensate each other, -a*(C-C0) being slightly larger than N. The rest of the calculation still is the same, taking into account the change in sign.
    Anyway, in all cases the “expansion” of the sinks due to human emissions is negligible and near all sink capacity is natural.

  120. george e. smith says:
    June 24, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    I disagree. While old growth forests are carbon neutral. tree farming; aka agriculture projects are carbon sinks.

    Not quite right: most of what is farmed sooner or later is recycled into CO2 back into the atmosphere, directly by burning or indirectly as human and animal, insect or bacterial food. As more land use change is destroying forests in the tropics than is extra planted in other countries, the estimates are some 1 GtC/year extra CO2 releases from human activities in land use.

    I don’t use that in any calculation, as these figures are way to uncertain compared to the fossil fuel budget and only are additional to that.

  121. Eli Rabett says:
    June 24, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    “Richard: So UAH and RRS are bad data and do not align with the nice thermometer record so they must by wrong. Still.

    Actually at this point RSS and UAH align with GISS HadCRUT and NOAA very well thank you. Please do try and keep up.”

    Please. They most cfertainly do not agree that any particular rate of change being the same!

    Try this for a satellite referenced historical data series.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/plot/rss/plot/uah/offset:0.1

    Have another carrot and think first :-)

  122. Bart says:
    June 24, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Trivial, as this is a linear system. Let Ceq be the equilibrium concentration. Then
    d/dt(C – Ceq) = -a*(C – Ceq) + (N – a*Ceq) + A

    Sorry, that is already two steps too far.
    The sinks react on C-Ceq that is on total C, not on individual emissions. In first instance the natural and human increases are additional to the total carbon in the atmosphere:
    d/dt(C’ – Ceq) = -a*(C’ – Ceq) + N + A
    Where C’ = C + N + A
    The sinks don’t make a differentiation between CO2 already in the atmosphere, whatever its source, or the additional CO2 from natural or human origin.

    Further, this is a huge simplification of what happens in nature: There are fast processes at work and slow processes. The bulk of the CO2 movements is over the seasons, reacting very fast on temperature changes.

    Most of the CO2 movement in plants is the growing and decay of leaves and small stems. That budget is nearly in equilibrium for tropical forests, but largely seasonal in growth and decay for the mid and high latitude forests.

    In spring when a lot of leaves are growing, the bulk of the CO2 transfer of about 60 GtC is used. That can be seen in the -4 to -10 ppmv drop for the NH in the Mauna Loa to Barrow CO2 levels:

    Mauna Loa only lags Barrow, because of the time needed to redistribute the CO2 levels to higher altitudes. The SH has less variability due to less vegetation compared to the ocean area.

    The growth and decay of leaves is a fast process: growth in a few months and decay in months to a few years, with a small part remaining for very long times (humus, peat, browncoal, coal). The growth and decay of leaves is responding fast to fast temperature (and moisture) changes, hardly influenced by long term temperature changes, but the slower processes are influenced. That is the carbon budget of what remains in the soils as roots, peat and other slow or near non-degrading carbon. That budget is known from the oxygen balance: from slightly negative to near zero before 1990 to slightly positive since the 1990’s. The world is “greening”. That process is influenced by long-term temperature changes (mostly on very long term, by adding suitable land at the expense of ice fields and permafrost), but far more important by atmospheric CO2 pressure.
    The difference: the 60 GtC in and output from plants is mostly seasonal up to a few years, but the long-term budget is currently an extra storage of carbon of about 1 GtC/year for the whole biosphere, largely atmospheric CO2 pressure related, hardly temperature dependent.

    The same for the carbon budget of the oceans:
    All CO2 releases and uptakes by the oceans are pressure related. Without a partial pressure difference between the atmosphere and the oceans, there is no CO2 transfer. Of course temperature influences the pCO2 of the oceans to some extent, but that is not more than 16 ppmv/°C, according to Henry’s Law.
    Here again, most of the transfer is seasonal: 50 GtC out of the ocean surfaces in summer, 51 GtC into the ocean surfaces in winter, mostly in the mid-latitudes.
    Part of the transfer is continuous: 40 GtC/year out of the ocean upwellings near the warm equator waters, 42 GtC/year into the cold polar waters and going down into the deep ocean layers.
    Any changes in temperature will have a fast response (1-3 years) in the surface layer for 10% of the change in the atmosphere (the Revelle factor), but a slower response on the deep oceans circulation.

    Thus at least you need to split your formula in fast responses and slow responses.
    Further, as the main CO2 fluxes between the biosphere and the atmosphere at one side and of the oceans and the atmosphere at the other side work countercurrent for temperature changes, the real global N in the above formula is only ~10 GtC for a global seasonal change of ~1°C in temperature. Thus of the same magnitude as the yearly human contribution… Makes a lot of difference in the budgets…

  123. Bart says:
    June 24, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    We are looking for sinks whose growth is fueled by the ready availability of anthropogenically released CO2.

    Either the contribution of human releases to the increase is trivial and so is the human contribution to the increase in total sinks, or human releases are responsible for the bulk of the increase in the atmosphere and thus responsible for the bulk of the increase in sink capacity, which for the fast processes still is only 3% of the total fluxes in and out of the atmosphere…

    There are no sink processes that react extra on anthro CO2 releases only. All sink processes react on total CO2 and/or temperature. Pure theoretical, the total CO2 concentration near human sources can be increased near land plants, but that is mostly at night, when land plants are net sources of CO2, especially under inversion and low wind conditions. During the day, there is far more turbulence, effectively mixing the surface air layers with the rest of the atmosphere.

  124. I have tried to follow Murry Salby’s lecture in Hamburg in detail (while travelling, could only pick up a few items).

    Where he goes wrong, is on following points:

    At about 11 minutes, he interpretes the covariability between temperature variations and CO2 variations. While there is a huge covariability between the two, where it goes wrong is that he starts to integrate that over time, assuming a continuous CO2 flow for a sustained temperature difference against an arbitrary baseline. The same error that Bart makes in his interpretation.

    There is a real correlation between temperature changes and CO2 changes of between 4-8 ppmv/°C over short to very long time frames. But there is no continuous change of CO2 levels if the temperature remains on a continuous high (or low) level above (or below) an arbitrary baseline.

    That is quite visible in the ice core record: The covariability is quite high at about 8 ppmv/°C, but when the temperature starts to increase from the depth of the glacial period, the total time needed to reach some 12°C increase is some 5000 years and shows an increase of 100 ppmv over that period. That is integrated over the whole period in average 0.02 ppmv/year (all data based on the Vostok ice core for the period 135-130 kyr BP):

    The current increase in CO2 shows a covariation of 4-5 ppmv/°C for time frames of seasons to a few years. But should give over 100 ppmv/°C over a period of 50 years, or average over 2 ppmv/year, 100 times higher than during the glacial-interglacial transition, according to Salby and Bart. Further, the average 2°C higher than today temperatures over the previous interglacial remained higher over thousands of years, without any measureable influence on CO2 levels.

    The main misinterpretation by Salby and Bart is that temperature is seen as the only driving variable, without influence from the CO2 increase/decrease on the CO2 fluxes. In the past, temperature indeed was the only driving variable, but the CO2 changes did bring the CO2 fluxes back to equilibrium after each temperature change, even if that did take 800 years or more. Nowadays, temperature is not the only driving variable and all what the temperature variability does is modulating the sink rate of the increase in CO2 of the atmosphere, with only a small increase in CO2 due to higher temperatures since the LIA…

    —————

    Where Salby again goes wrong is at about 17 minutes where he uses the Conservation Equation:

    dr/dt = gT – ar

    where g(amma) is the change rate in CO2 caused by temperature and a(lpha) the time scale of damping.

    First, damping goes two ways out, so the – ar becomes + ar when temperature (and CO2 levels) go down.

    Second, of course, the time scale of damping is important to know if fast changes would be noticed or not, as damping does flatten the CO2 record, but in no way changes the average CO2 levels over the period that is damped.

    His misinterpretation is confirmed a little further, where he compares the removal of CO2 in ice cores (by damping) to the removal of CO2 by plants, but there is no such mechanism at work in ice cores. To the contrary, the Greenland ice cores suffer from the opposite, due to Icelandic volcanic deposits…

    Even taking into account the different resolutions of different ice cores, a similar as current increase in CO2 levels would be measurable in every ice core, including even in the ~600 year resolution of the Vostok ice core, but certainly over the past 70,000 years, where we have ice cores with a resolution of 40 years and less…

    More later on, when I have listened further…

  125. Further on Salby (quite difficult to follow by times):

    After 17 minutes, he shows the increase of plant growth as result of increased CO2. That indeed happened, but is quite limited. Before 1990, there might have been a net contribution of CO2 from the total biosphere of about 0.5 GtC/year, after 1990 the biosphere is an increasing sink of about 1 GtC/year. Thus a difference of 1.5 GtC/year for an increase of some 140 GtC (70 ppmv) over the past 50 years in the atmosphere. Not negligible, but not the main sink of CO2, as other necessities are the limiting factors for plant growth.
    Further, not applicable to marine biology, where CO2 is not the limiting factor at all.

    After 25 minutes, he compares the amplitude of real variances in the atmosphere with the measured variance in ice cores for different frequencies. If I do understand his interpretation well, the higher the frequency in the atmospheric change, the better the variances in the ice cores reflect the variances in the atmosphere??? As far as I know, it is just the opposite, that even any full cycle with a cycle length less than the resolution would be invisible in the ice record and the longer the cycle length, the better it is conserved in the ice record…
    Further on he has lost all sight on reality, as he says that the CO2 levels at longer times scales may be more underestimated than on shorter time scales. As example he gives that on a timescale of 10 kyr the ice core underestimates the variance of the atmosphere with a factor 2, making that a 20 ppmv peak and drop of CO2 in the atmosphere would only give a 4 ppmv variability in the ice core. Worse on a timescale of 100 kyr: a variance of 1000 ppmv in the atmosphere would only be seen as a 100 ppmv variance in the ice core.
    That is without taking into account all the different resolutions of the different ice cores. Sorry, but that is a serious misinterpretation of what the distribution of CO2 variations in ice cores do.

    Then after 30 minutes he looks at the suppressing of high frequency variations in the ice core. Again, while that is true, that highly depends of the resolution of the ice core in combination with the frequency of the variations, but his interpretation of a 10 fold suppression on time scales of 10 kyrs is completely out of reality for the higher resolution ice cores like Taylor Dome (~40 years over 70 kyears).

    That all is based on some estimate of a huge CO2 migration in ice (shown after 32 minutes) which is not measured in any ice core. If that would be the case, the ice core CO2 record in the far past would get flatter and flatter for every interglacial back in time, which is not measured at all: the CO2/temperature ratio remains the same for all glaciations/deglaciations over 800 kyears.

    I have the impression that Salby simply uses any possible interpretation to fit the equations from past and present, even if that is completely out of reality…

  126. Further on Salby… part 3.

    The interpretation of the 13C reduction over time since about 1850 at about 37 minutes is wrong. There are few sources of low 13C on earth, mostly recent organics and fossil organics. Even releasing some (abiotic or not) methane from the earth’s mantle or from permafrost would be noticed in the CH4 record, which is essentially flat over the past decades (but still a lot higher than in the previous interglacial).
    From the two main sources, we know that the current biosphere is a net absorber of CO2 thus all what is left is the human emissions which are a threefold of what is needed to reduce the observed 13C level of the atmosphere, the other 2/3rd is mixed into the (deep) oceans over time…

    At 43 minutes, his interpretation of the response of the CO2 increase rate to increased temperature is that the natural sources increased. But as the human emissions were always larger than the increase in the atmosphere, the right interpretation is that the net sink rate of the natural cycle decreased…
    The same misinterpretation in the 13C record: when CO2 increases more during a year, d13C levels go more down. His interpretation is that less high 13CO2 is released (by natural sources), while total emissions increased (?), while in fact less human low 13CO2 is absorbed…

    Where it completely goes wrong is at 47 minutes where he starts the integration of the temperature/moisture effect on the rate of change of CO2 levels from 1982-2007 above an completely arbitrary baseline of 0.3 ppmv/yr. That is curve fitting, not based on any physical explanation of what happens in reality. Again, there is no source on earth that delivers a constant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere for a sustained difference in temperature of a few tenths of a degree without being counteracted by some pressure dependent CO2 flows for the change in atmospheric CO2…

    Too many problems with the interpretation from Salby…
    There it ends for me (for the moment).

  127. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 25, 2013 at 12:11 am

    “Anyway, in all cases the “expansion” of the sinks due to human emissions is negligible and near all sink capacity is natural.”

    Mere assertion on your part, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. The temperature-CO2 relationship shows you are wrong.

    FerdiEgb says:
    June 25, 2013 at 1:36 am

    “Further, this is a huge simplification of what happens in nature:”

    I stated this in the first sentence of the example. It does not matter. Feedback acts in the same way regardless. You are not taking account of the influence of the anthropogenic output on the “natural” sinks, and you are including artificially driven components in the “natural” column for your accounting.

    “Most of the CO2 movement in plants is the growing and decay of leaves and small stems. That budget is nearly in equilibrium for tropical forests, but largely seasonal in growth and decay for the mid and high latitude forests.”

    Incorrect. When the forest expands, that carbon is sunk. It is not “unsunk” until the forest returns to its former size.

    “Thus at least you need to split your formula in fast responses and slow responses.”

    No. I have given an explicit counterexample to your “mass-balance” methodlogy. It does not matter how the actual system behaves. The principle is the same. You are not taking account of the influence of the anthropogenic output on the “natural” sinks, and you are including artificially driven components in the “natural” column for your accounting.

    FerdiEgb says:
    June 25, 2013 at 2:08 am

    “There are no sink processes that react extra on anthro CO2 releases only.”

    And, conversely, there are no sink processes which “react extra” on natural releases only. The anthropogenic releases induce sink expansion. Those portions of the sinks which expand due to human production are artificial sinks.

    FerdiEgb says:
    June 25, 2013 at 5:35 am

    “Where he goes wrong, is on following points:”

    You’re a nice guy, Ferdinand, but I must say, it displays a lot of gall for you to take on as accomplished a fellow as Dr. Salby when you apparently cannot even solve a simple, first order, ordinary differential equation and draw the appropriate conclusions.

    “But there is no continuous change of CO2 levels if the temperature remains on a continuous high (or low) level above (or below) an arbitrary baseline.”

    Yes, there is. It is evident in the near perfect correlation between integrated temperatures and CO2. It comes about because there is a continuous flow, and a temperature dependent pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. An imbalance, for instance, in the CO2 concentration of upwelling and downwelling waters is a continuous CO2 pump, into the atmosphere if the former exceeds the latter.

    “That is quite visible in the ice core record:”

    The relationship is evident, and Salby went into much detail about how it comes about, and how it is consistent with the integral relationship. The mathematics are complicated, but straightforward to a control systems engineer, and irrefutable.

    FerdiEgb says:
    June 25, 2013 at 7:15 am

    “Before 1990, there might have been a net contribution of CO2 from the total biosphere of about 0.5 GtC/year, after 1990 the biosphere is an increasing sink of about 1 GtC/year. “

    This is all circular reasoning. Your numbers are based on the very presumption you are trying to establish.

    FerdiEgb says:
    June 25, 2013 at 8:23 am

    More circular reasoning.

    I do not want to be getting into these tortured interpretations with you at this time. I merely want to establish that your “mass-balance” argument is not compelling evidence in favor of human responsibility for the observed increase in CO2 over the last century. Once we have established this, we can move on to other things.

  128. Bart,

    All I have seen from you and Salby, is a pure theoretical solution which is possible, but not probable.

    Not probable, as the theoretical possibility violates several observations. These observations are either ignored or downplayed, both by you and Salby, because they don’t fit the theory.

    Take e.g. what Salby says about ice cores. Both the long term and short term variancies are underestimated in ice cores, compared to what happened in the atmosphere, accoring to him. That the long term variances are underestimated can’t be right in any way and short term variance suppression is merely a matter of resolution, which widely differs between different ice cores. That is completely ignored by Salby.
    Further, the examples he does give are one-sided: any peak of 1000 ppmv over 100 kyrs only shows a 100 ppmv peak in the ice core, according to his theory. But what he forgets to tell is that any drop of 100 ppmv in the ice core then would represent a drop of 1000 ppmv in the atmosphere. That is below zero… Ice cores do filter the fast changes, but they don’t change the average over the resolution period.
    That all was based on his own estimate of huge migration of CO2 in the ice cores, which in reality is so low that it is practically unmeasurable.

    About your examples. Let us assume that the natural sources (your ocean upwelling) really increased in such a way that it is the main cause of the increase in the atmosphere and dwarf the human contribution, thanks to a fast response of the sinks (no matter the relative contribution).

    As there is a huge difference in 13C/12C ratio between ocean CO2 and fossil fuel CO2, it is easy to track the evolution of the changes in fluxes, as d13C levels were regularly measured since about 1978, before that in ice cores.

    Here my own estimate of the deep ocean exchanges, based on a fixed exchange between deep oceans and the atmosphere:

    The main difference between the theoretical drop in d13C from fossil fuel burning and the real drop is from the deep ocean exchange. Low d13C is going into the deep and high d13C is coming out of the deep.
    The ocean surface exchange is two ways and hardly plays a role and vegetation too is largely two ways but permanent storage and/or more decay may give an unbalance, which may be the cause of the mismatch before 1960.

    Now, if we may assume that the deep ocean emissions (and sinks) increased from about 40 GtC in 1960 to 400 GtC in 2010 (all other fluxes remaining constant) that would give following trend of d13C in the atmosphere (assuming no change before 1960):

    Thus any huge increase of the deep ocean circulation (no matter if that is only exchange or additional) would reduce the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, despite the additional low 13CO2 from fossil fuel burning. Which is not observed.
    Conclusion: there is no substantial increase of deep ocean CO2 upwelling.

    That is only one of the several observations that are violated by the theoretical natural increase of CO2 over the past 50 years… Thus in my opinion, the theory is invalidated…

    Incorrect. When the forest expands, that carbon is sunk. It is not “unsunk” until the forest returns to its former size.

    Any extra CO2 sink or release from the total biosphere can be measured as the difference between calculated oxygen use from fossil fuel burning and the measured oxygen use in the atmosphere. Since about 1990, the oxygen use shows a net absorption of ~1 GtC/year by the biosphere. Before 1990 they are estimated based on the deviation of the 13C/12C balance as shown in the d13C trends above. See further:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

  129. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 26, 2013 at 3:46 am

    Now, if we may assume that the deep ocean emissions (and sinks) increased from about 40 GtC in 1960 to 400 GtC in 2010 (all other fluxes remaining constant)

    I made an error, as the fluxes in and out of the atmosphere may have increased from to 400 GtC over a year, but that is for all fluxes together. If the non-deep ocean fluxes remained the same, then the deep ocean fluxes had to grow from 40 GtC/year to 290 GtC/year, not to 400 GtC/year. That gives the following trend in d13C, compared to fixed deep ocean fluxes:

    The only difference with the 40-400 GtC/year increase is that the recovery from the low 13C human contribution is slower.

  130. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 26, 2013 at 3:46 am

    “All I have seen from you and Salby, is a pure theoretical solution which is possible, but not probable.”

    I understand that it is difficult for a lay person to understand why it the necessary conclusion. I do not hold out much hope that it will be widely accepted until the observations begin to show a marked divergence in emissions and measured concentration. This has already begun, so I think all we have to do is wait and have patience.

    My main goal right now, though, is to get you to understand how and why the “mass balance” argument is flawed, and to stop promoting it, perhaps even to actively oppose it when you see others doing so. Every other argument on your list is subject to debate, but the “mass-balance” argument, were it legitimate, would be decisive. It would be the only argument one needed to know, and there would be no alternative possibility.

    It is not legitimate. In a system in which sinks expand in response to all forcings, part of their inventory is going to be artificially induced, and cannot be accounted strictly in the “natural” column.

  131. Bart says:
    June 26, 2013 at 8:32 am

    I understand that it is difficult for a lay person to understand why it the necessary conclusion.

    While most of my theoritical knowledge is too far in the past, I had a lot of practical experience in processes to know what is possible or probable and what not.

    The mass balance argument still holds but that seems to be an endless discussion.

    Regardless of the mass balance argument, the isotopes argument I explained recently is as good, it shows that there is no substantial increase of CO2 from deep ocean upwelling. And the oxygen balance shows that vegetation is a net sink for CO2 (and thus a net sink for preferably 12CO2).

    Further, as discussed before, atmospheric inputs and outputs from/to the oceans are fully pressure difference dependent. It simply is impossible that a constant difference in temperature will give an increasing accumulation without a negative feedback from increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

  132. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    June 26, 2013 at 11:38 am

    “The mass balance argument still holds but that seems to be an endless discussion.”

    It trivially does not. You should be embarrassed to even claim it. Someday, you will realize it.

Comments are closed.