Jo Nova writes:
Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond, which he has at length in a PDF (see below). The figures listed below refer to that PDF, which encompasses 15 years of events.
I don’t have the resources (unlike the National Science Foundation, the NSF) to investigate it all, but wanted to give Murry the right of reply.
On closer inspection the NSF report used by people to attack Salby does not appear to be the balanced, impartial analysis I would have expected. Indeed the hyperbolic language based on insubstantial evidence is disturbing to say the least. Because of the long detailed nature of this I cannot draw conclusions, except to say that any scientist who responds to a question about Murry Salby’s work with a reference to his employment is no scientist.
Remember the NSF report was supposedly an inhouse private document. It was marked “Confidential”, subject to the Privacy Act, with disclosure outside the NSF prohibited except through FOI. Desmog vaguely suggest there “must have been an FOI”, but there are no links to support that. In the end, a confidential, low standard, internal document with legalistic sounding words, may have been “leaked” to those in search of a character attack.
My summary of his reply:
See: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/
The PDF:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Allan, that site you just gave shows one weeks worth of CO2 measurements, I hardly think you would see anything in that time. It looks as if the University of Utah has only been measuring for about 10 years,but if you look at that time period,
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=1&id=0&img=12
you can see the rise in the base line.
Bart, Let’s try a different approach. Can you look at the graph that dbstealey keeps posting,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.26/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
and tell me if you think his use of the ‘isolate’ function is appropriate – try it with and without, try different values.
dbstealey says:
August 19, 2013 at 4:56 pm
If you don’t like that graph, here’s another you can argue about. The fact is, they both show cause and effect: ∆T causes ∆CO2.
db, again, the graphs you refer to don’t show what happened with the increase over the past 50 years, simply because by using the rate of change (the derivative of the CO2 and temperature trends) you have essentially removed the trend. Thus your graphs doesn’t show what happened with temperature and CO2 over the past decades. If you plot the real trends, then it is clear that the increase in CO2 doesn’t follow temperature over the past 50 years and certainly not in the early 1900’s, but that it follows the emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg
In pre-indsutrial times, CO2 always followed temperature. For short term variability, CO2 still follows temperature variability, but the increase over the past decades doesn’t follow temperature…
Bart,
If you know about Taylor series then I am even more surprised that you have not seen what you have done.
“Now, you can argue that my constant value is arbitrary, and I could vary it and substitute some other constant rate driving force in its place.”
No, I would not argue that your constant is arbitrary – quite the opposite – I would argue that the constant is fixed, and that you are not allowed to change it, because if you do, then you have changed the derivative of the linear term. The fact that you have done so, by scaling the curves, is why you have lost the long term trend (defining ‘long term’ in this case as 50-60 years) and are left only with the short 2-3 year oscillations. Now it seems that people agree that the short term oscillations are temperature dependent, but since you have lost the linear term, you cannot say anything about the temperature dependence of the overall trend – you have thrown away the information that is relevant to that,
dbstealey, the graph you suggested at http://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/co2-temperature-roc.png
unfortunately does not have enough detail to know how it was calculated, even after tracking it back to the original article. However it seems to be comparing derivatives, and from the spacing of the peaks, is only looking at short term variation. So, like the others, this graph proves nothing about the longer term trend.
Allan MacRae says:
August 19, 2013 at 9:55 pm
(PLANT) FOOD FOR THOUGHT
CO2 is such a scarce and excellent plant food that it is gobbled up very close to the source during the growing season….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will agree with you there. Also remember the metabolic temperature dependence of microbes, plants and insects
WHEAT: “….The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values….” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034
CO2 depletion in a greenhouse
And If you go to Barrow there are microbes, and the oceans mucking up the works too.
The Russians did a bit of work in the Arctic area:
Here is Becks information from Barrow:
Date – –Co2 ppm * * latitude * * longitude * * *author * * location
1947.7500 – – 407.9 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1947.8334 – – 420.6 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1947.9166 – – 412.1 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.0000 – – 385.7 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.0834 – – 424.4 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.1666 – – 452.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.2500 – – 448.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.3334 – – 429.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.4166 – – 394.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.5000 – – 386.7 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.5834 – – 398.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.6667 – – 414.5 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
1948.9166 – – 500.0 * * * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
[Ernst-Georg Beck, real history of CO2 gas analysis, http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/data.htm ]
Scholander got more than a 100ppm swing at Barrow over a year’s time.
And then there are termites. Termites beat us hands down.
According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?)
(They just had to get that dig in about humans increasing CO2 didn’t they)
As Dr. J. A. Glassman so aptly put it in one of his replies,
Why does everyone make the assumption that the CO2 readings are good when we know the same advocates of the “cause” have mucked around with the temperature data and adjusted it to show warming?
An interesting bit of history:
jimmi_the_dalek says: August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am
Allan, that site you just gave shows one weeks worth of CO2 measurements, I hardly think you would see anything in that time. It looks as if the University of Utah has only been measuring for about 10 years,but if you look at that time period,
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=1&id=0&img=12
you can see the rise in the base line.
_________________
Your comment misses the point jimmy.
The point is that even in urban environments where most fossil fuels are burned, the daily CO2 signature is overwhelmingly natural – the urban CO2 peaks do not occur at morning and evening rush hours as one might expect if the primary driver was humanmade; the urban CO2 peaks occur in the middle of the night, and are lowest during the day, due to urban plant photosynthesis.
This may be where the “mass balance argument” falls apart. The natural CO2 cycle is apparently not a bath tub, where you add CO2 at all points on the globe and they all fill up the same big tub. CO2 is apparently so scarce that the excess amounts produced by fossil fuel activity just effectively disappear, quickly sequestered in the natural environment by increased botanic activity. The fact that there is no apparent daily CO2 signature even at the CO2 urban source provides a further insight into the complexity of this question.
Several parties keep repeating the old mantra – that atmospheric CO2 levels are currently increasing – we all get that.
The key point is we do not know WHY atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing.
Richard has ably dissected the mass balance argument.
Humanmade CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels is a small portion of total annual CO2 flux.
Furthermore, that humanmade CO2 does not even leave a characteristic daily signature in the urban environment, and the annual “sawtooth” rise and fall of CO2 is also overwhelmingly natural.
Finally, CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. This could nature’s way of telling us that the CO2 cycle is also overwhelmingly natural and temperature drives CO2, and possibly that the humanmade component from fossil fuel combustion is not the primary cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
I remind you of my above post where I pointed out that atmospheric CO2 concentrations actually declined occasionally during the cooling period from ~1940-1975, despite ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels.
Regards to all, Allan
_____________
Notes:
Annualized Mauna Loa dCO2/dt “went negative” a few times in the past (calculating dCO2/dt from monthly data, by taking CO2MonthX (year n+1) minus CO2MonthX (year n) to minimize the seasonal CO2 “sawtooth”.)
These 12-month periods when CO2 decreased are (Year and Month ending in):
1959-8
1963-9
1964-5
1965-1
1965-5
1965-6
1971-4
1974-6
1974-8
1974-9
jimmi_the_dalek:
At August 19, 2013 at 4:28 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1394947
you say
NO! It is not!
The question is what is the TRUE cause of the rise from ~300 ppm to 400 ppm over 100 years.
You are making the same serious mistake as Nick Stokes made and I refuted at August 15, 2013 at 2:40 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1390631
Richard
milodonharlani:
Concerning my post at August 19, 2013 at 3:20 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1394894
Your post at August 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm asserts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1394962
No. My “analysis” (actually, explanation) explains that the arguments of Bart and Ferdinand each assume what they intend to prove.
My “analysis” does NOT invoke the logical fallacy of ‘begging the question’: it explains that Bart and Ferdinand each does..
Richard
Sorry Richard, the cause of the rise ~300 ppm to ~ 400 ppm requires a hypothesis. As such it (whatever it is) cannot be proved TRUE as hypotheses can only be supported, or proved false.
Consequently my statement that we are looking for the most plausible explanation i.e the explanation which best fits the available observations, is in fact the correct terminology.
Bart:
Your post at August 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1395020
misrepresents what I said by selective quotation then disputes your selected quotation.
You say
No.
I actually wrote
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1394894
That clearly IS your basic assumption because – as I have told you in the past and jimmi_the_dalek has repeatedly said in this thread – you have an unaccounted linear term.
The mechanism by which temperature has a “pumping action into the atmosphere” is not relevant to – and is not indicated by – your analysis.
The importance of your analysis is that it does provide direct empirical evidence for a temperature effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration. And when your analysis does provide that evidence then your assumption is very reasonable because there has been a long-term rise in temperature from the LIA. But it is an assumption.
Also, you may care to note that there is no direct empirical evidence for an anthropogenic effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration. To date, Ferdinand and others have failed to provide such direct empirical evidence but – of course – that does NOT indicate there is no anthropogenic effect.
Richard
Bart says: August 19, 2013 at 12:42 pm
“Just to restate the answer to Nyq’s silly argument, the question is, do these series match, or do they not? If they do (and, they do), then the integrated CO2 lags temperature by 90 degrees in phase.”
The integral of WHAT YOU HAVE GRAPHED might but by finding the derivative and adjusting offset and scale you’ve thrown away effect of the linear trend. I think Nick Stokes first pointed this out and it remains elementary calculus. If you can explain why I am wrong your comrades may appreciate it.
As for the phase shift not only do I understand your point I can even illustrate it. I have to use graph that makes use of both yours and dbstealey’s technique but you shoudl appreciate it as it neatly illustrates your point:
‘Derivative’ of CO2 matching temperature: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60/derivative/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/isolate:60/normalise
Now I just remove the ‘Derivative’ filter:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/isolate:60/normalise
TA-DA! The ‘Integral’ of the previous graph lagging behind temperature.
So yes – I do understand the relationship you are trying to describe. I can reproduce it and graph it and produce it on demand. Thing is the graph with the lag is not a graph of CO2 concentration. Normalised to show it on the same scale as temperature CO2 concentration looks like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/isolate:60/normalise
Shazzam! Lag vanishes.
M Courtney says: August 19, 2013 at 1:56 pm
“But then he assumes that the extra CO2 is manmade. It isn’t all an effect of temperature therefore it is manmade… ?So, temperature cannot effect a non-linear change in CO2 reservoirs?
The reservoirs (which dwarf man’s emissions) cannot change by independent causes?
The extra CO2 is known to be able to unbalance the reservoirs because man’s CO2 is particularly sneaky?”
Where I wandered it to the CO2 aspect of this thread was regarding Occam’s Razor – my claim was that simplest hypothesis was that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. That isn’t the same as proof or very strong evidence put let us pursue that.
Richard S Courtney has shown there is certainly ‘space’ for other hypotheses. Anthropogenic emissions aren’t so large that the only possible source of the rise must be anthropogenic. However we would need to judge such alternate hypotheses based on their own merits. Anthropogenic emissions are a ‘prime suspect’. Now there are potentially other lines of evidence but lets us look at some compelling evidence for an anthopogenic cause that has come from dbstealey. Dbstealey has produce numerous lines of evidence that show CO2 following temperature at a variety of time scales and time periods. Now we would expect that if the late twentieth century rise was due to some normal natural cause that wasn’t temperature then at SOME OTHER TIMES CO2 would not follow temperature. So dbstealey’s graph show that the late twentieth rise is atypical – at least apparently.
So this lends further credence to an anthropogenic cause but we can’t rule out a natural cause yet. There is another possibility – the late twentieth century rise only may only SEEM atypical because this is the time scale we have most accurately measured CO2 concentration and temperature is in that time period. Beyond my skill to rule that out – although not necessarily beyond the skill of others.
Allan MacRae:
I write to draw attention to a point in your excellent post at August 20, 2013 at 1:57 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1395205
You say
YES! And, as I said above, this daily fluctuation also provides information on the dynamics of the carbon cycle. These dynamics exhibited by the seasonal variation provide the paradox which I have repeated asked to be addressed in this thread. Indeed, this daily fluctuation is another rebuttal of Ferdinand’s answer to the paradox.
I remind that paradox is stated by this question:
Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?
Our (i.e. Rorsch, Courtney & Thoenes) explanation of it is that something – natural and/or anthropogenic – has altered the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle, and the rate of transition to the new equilibrium is limited by the rate of carbon transfer between the ocean surface layer and deep ocean.
For those ‘late to the party’ my first explanation of the paradox in this thread is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388367
And my rebuttal of Ferdinand’s explanation of it is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393445
Richard
Bart says:
August 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm
It is very general because a smooth, differentialble function can always be represented by its Taylor series expansion.
That is nothing but curve fitting and doesn’t tell anythng of what caused the curve…
But, as far as human inputs are concerned, the question is moot, because they have not at all been constant in rate (top plot).
The sink rate doesn’t depend of the year by year emissions, but on the pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere above the equilibrium pressure. That depends thus of the accumulation rate in the atmosphere, which is in an incredible constant ratio with the total amount of the emissions. The correlation with temperature is far worse:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
note that the main increase is in the NH, not at the upwelling places in the equatorial SH
here the temperature curve:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Human inputs are not temperature dependent, hence do not fit the bill.
The sink rate and therefore the increase in the atmosphere is mainly pressure dependent, not temperature dependent. Temperature variations only fit the fast variability in CO2 rate of change, but don’t fit the trend, except by using an arbitrary offset…
As temperatures fall off, so is the rate of change of CO2 in lockstep. The rate of emissions continues to increase, and the two series are diverging
The pressure dependence of the sink rate remains about the same as in other periods and fits the curve as good as the temperature dependency for the period after 2000:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1960_2011.jpg
jimmi_the_dalek:
re your post addressed to me at August 20, 2013 at 2:11 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1395209
It says
We could debate semantics all day. I do not intend to waste space on the thread by doing that.
We are seeking the nearest approximation to truth indicated by all available information. Many things may be “plausible” and it is merely subjective opinion as to which is most plausible. I seek evidence which falsifies all hypotheses except one which then becomes a theory.
And that is why I ‘sit on the fence’ in the debate of this thread. Ferdinand and Bart each provide plausible hypotheses. When one is falsified then – in the absence of another hypothesis – I will adopt the other as a theory until additional empirical evidence falsifies that theory.
I have explained my view on the matter in this post. And I have explained why adopting a “plausible explanation” is harmful (remember Lysenko) in a previous post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1390631
Hence, if you want to pursue this issue then please do, but I have said all I intend to on the matter.
Richard
Nyq Only says ” I think Nick Stokes first pointed this out and it remains elementary calculus”
You are correct, it was. I have just read through the whole thread again and he pointed this out on Aug 12 at 2:45 am, though Ferdinand Engelbeen must also have known this. It seems the flaw has been known for some time.
jimmi_the_dalek says: August 20, 2013 at 3:42 am
” I have just read through the whole thread again and he pointed this out on Aug 12 at 2:45 am”
Wow – I wasn’t even being attention to this sub-topic then. Stokes is sharp. I note also that we’ve wandered some way from Prof Salby’s hypothesis. I’ve seen the videos but is there a transcript handy? I’m curious how much Prof Salby’s ideas correspond with some of those we’ve seen on the thread.
Allan MacRae says:
August 20, 2013 at 1:57 am
CO2 is apparently so scarce that the excess amounts produced by fossil fuel activity just effectively disappear, quickly sequestered in the natural environment by increased botanic activity. The fact that there is no apparent daily CO2 signature even at the CO2 urban source provides a further insight into the complexity of this question.
The uptake by plants is calculated from the difference in O2 use between fossil fuels and plants. Of the ~9 GtC/yr emitted by humans, the whole biosphere sequesters ~1 gtC/yr, while the back and forth release and uptake of vegetation over the seasons is ~60 GtC. Thus far larger than the human emissions, but far lower in net uptake:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
BTW, human emissions are (somewhat) measurable at morning rush hour under inversion at Diekirch, Luxemburg. That is in a shielded valley with forests, small industry and traffic in the main wind direction:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html
Nyq Only:
At August 20, 2013 at 3:57 am you ask
Salby provides new information on effects of soil moisture. Other than that, his work repeats findings which I have repeatedly explained in this thread and that are in one of our earlier reports
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
.
Richard
Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 3:57 am
I have followed his video and commented on several relevant points from here on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-313/#comment-1346717
– the 13C/12C ratio decline maybe from vegetation decay, but that is negated by the oxygen balance.
– Salby integrates the short term temp/CO2 variability against an arbitrary baseline, as Bart did.
– Salby calculates a theoretical diffusion of CO2 in ice cores to fit his theory (Bart simply refutes ice cores), but there is no such diffusion, neither theoretical (90% of the time CO2 levels would be negative!), nor practical (that would smooth out the interglacial peaks more and more for each 100 kyr back in time, but there is no measurable smooting).
Ferdinand:
You have – and you provide – a good argument. It is not helped by posting points such as those in your post at August 20, 2013 at 4:15 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1395262
The point made by Allan MacRae at August 20, 2013 at 1:57 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1395205
was on the basis of a study in Salt Lake City
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=31
and it was
This evidence would be overcome by evidence that the observations in Salt Lake City are unique or atypical.
His evidence is not overcome by pointing out that, as you say
The fact that effect of human emissions can be “(somewhat) measurable” under unusual weather conditions (i.e. an inversion) in a “shielded valley” does not ‘cut it’.
And your calculations of O2 change assumed to be a result of plant growth are trumped by the empirical data Allan MacRae provided (empirical data always trumps theory).
Ferdinand, we both know you are better than this.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
A post I made to you is inexplicably in moderation. This post is on a different matter and replies to your post at August 20, 2013 at 4:34 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1395268
which disputes points in Salby’s analysis.
You say of Salby’s work
That “negation” only true if you assume the oxygen balance is independent of variations in forest fires. It may be, but your argument is moot.
You say
Yes, and we have discussed such assumption in this thread.
You say
Not only the ice cores, also in the firn in the years prior to sealing of the ice. Mixing of gases in the firn (i.e. a material with open porosity open to the atmosphere) is certain to occur as weather varies atmospheric pressure so pumps air in-and-out the firn.
You (and others) make the theoretical assumption that bubbles in the ice act as containers for ice because they are sealed. But the bubbles are not closed containers because the ice is permeated by liquid water that differentially dissolves gases.
Salby and you may be right or wrong. Data to falsify either of your analysis is inconclusive.
Richard
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:19 am
The “isolate” function is basically a high pass filter. His plot shows that the variational parts of CO2 generally lag the temperature by 90 degrees in phase (1/4 wavelength for the ups and downs). As we have seen in general, the SH data generally match the relationship better, especially in the early era.
This is all consistent with the dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq) relationship. He has stripped out the lower frequency linear trends and quadratic components. The quadratic component is accounted for by the gain “k”, which also accounts for the variational match and so is independently corroborated. Integrating the human rate of emissions also begets a quadratic component but, as this is already accounted for by the independently corroborated “k” in the temperature model, there is no, or at least very little, room for it. That is why human inputs cannot have a significant impact.
People who are not familiar with control systems seem to find it exotic and unlikely that nature can pass through the natural variation but be largely unaffected by the human input. However, this is actually fairly common control action. Far, far less exotic and unlikely than nature picking and choosing which parts of the temperature relationship it will keep and which it will dismiss to make way for the human input. Pace Ferdinand’s continued insistence, the latter is really not physically possible.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:34 am
…but the increase over the past decades doesn’t follow temperature…”
Absurd. Of course it does.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:41 am
jimmi, I assure you I am extremely adept at this kind of stuff and know precisely what I have done. I am not hanging my hat on the linear term in the overall concentration.
Let me repeat: I am not hanging my hat on the linear term in the overall concentration. You keep saying this, and I keep explaining it is not so, and then you tell me again.
I am hanging my hat on the match between the variations and the quadratic terms. The match with the quadratic term, which preciesly arises when you match the variations, is what rules out human inputs.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2013 at 2:33 am
“That clearly IS your basic assumption because – as I have told you in the past and jimmi_the_dalek has repeatedly said in this thread – you have an unaccounted linear term.”
No, that IS NOT my basic assumption. That is the blind alley Ferdinand keeps trying to push me into. The linear term is due simply to the equilibrium temperature. There has to be an equilibrium baseline. There is certainly no reason it should be the same baseline as has been chosen for the temperature anomalies.
But, that baseline temperature is set by external conditions, not just the change in temperature. It can be set, e.g., by the CO2 concentration of currently upwelling waters.
For determining human attribution, it does not matter. The question is moot. The independently corroborated sensitivity or scale factor “k” as in my model above prohibits human input from being significant, because it produces a quadratic term in the overall concentration, and that quadratic term matches the quadratic term, the curvature, in the measured CO2 record. Adding in human inputs to any level of significance would cause a mismatch with the quadratic component. Hence, human inputs are insignificant, QED.
Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 2:37 am
Why do you continue to insist on broadcasting your cluelessness?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 20, 2013 at 3:09 am
“Temperature variations only fit the fast variability in CO2 rate of change, but don’t fit the trend, except by using an arbitrary offset…”
Why is it so hard for you people to understand??? A change in the linear portion STILL DOES NOT MAKE ROOM FOR HUMAN INPUTS!!! There is a quadratic factor which is necessarily produced by the human inputs BUT WHICH IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP!!!
People… look at the plot again. The value of the scale factor is 0.3. That scale factor matches the variations AND the trend. When you integrate this time series, you get attenuation of the variation, and a quadratic term due to the linear trend in the derivative, which matches the quadratic term in measured concentration.
Here is that generally quadratic component. It is accounted for by the integration of the temperature using the scale factor “k” which also matches the variation, and is thereby independently corroborated.
Human emissions also have a trend in rate, which integrates to a quadratic term in accumulated emissions. There is no room for it. The temperature relationship already accounts for it by the independently corroborated “k”.
It does not matter that I also have a constant offset in my model for the rate of change of CO2 which could be varied to make way for other processes. Human inputs are not a constant-in-rate process!!!