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.
Also thank you Richard Verney on August 13, 2013 at 1:08 am – also correct.
dbstealey says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:52 pm
db,
What you see is a high correlation on short term. That is caused by fast processes like plant growth and decay and the exchanges with the ocean surface. These are limited in capacity, so their uptake or release is only for a part of the CO2 increase over time, but they are the cause of the variability and the correlation.
Other processes are at work for the uptake of the rest of the human emissions: deep ocean exchanges and more permanent storage in vegetation. These are much slower processes but have near unlimited capacity. These processes are mainly pressure dependent and hardly influenced by temperature. That can be seen if you compare the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere with the total release of CO2 by humans:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2.jpg
Compare that to the changes in temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2.jpg
It is quite obvious that the short term CO2 variation in uptake capacity is caused by the short term temperature variations and that the longer term increase is caused by human emissions…
Regarding the Mass Balance Argument, etc.:
There is evidence that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is predominantly captured close to the source by increased uptake by plants. CO2 is scarce in the atmosphere and plants thrive on it.
If indeed the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily caused by man rather than from natural sources, then it appears probable that deforestation is the main culprit, not the burning of fossil fuels.
The imminent global cooling (hope not) should solve this question, but could also cause great harm to humankind and the environment.
Regards, Allan
Posted one year ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/#comment-1070493
Here is an interesting article about Japanese satellite results, at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West
Posted on 31 October 2011
[excerpt]
“ It seems that the Japanese have a nice tool on orbit and set out to figure out who was a “maker” and who was a “taker” in the CO2 production / consumption game. Seems they found out that CO2 was largely net absorbed in the industrialized ‘west’ and net created in the ’3rd world’. “
See also Murry Salby’s video at time 10:38 – the major global CO2 sources are NOT in industrial areas – they are in equatorial areas where deforestation is rampant.
As I’ve posted to Ferdinand Engelbeen in the past:
“Variations in biomass (e.g. deforestation and reforestation) may be the huge variable that would make your mass balance equation work better.”
As Richard Courtney ably summarizes above:
“The unresolved issues are
(a) what is the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle?
(b) how does the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle vary?
(c) what causes the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary?
(d) does the anthropogenic CO2 emission induce the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary discernibly?”
To summarize:
This is an important scientific debate about the carbon cycle and the primary sources of increasing atmospheric CO2. It is entirely possible, some say it is probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 is NOT primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, others say it IS, and the scientific debate goes on.
To be clear, however, the only significant apparent impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, because CO2 is a plant food.
The claim that increasing CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming is being falsified by these facts:
– there has been no net global warming for 10 to 15 years, despite increasing atmospheric CO2;
– predictions of catastrophic global warming are the result of deeply flawed climate computer models that are inconsistent with actual observations;
– the leading proponents of catastrophic global warming hysteria have been shown in the Climategate emails to be dishonest.
A decade ago, we wrote:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Since then there has been NO net global warming.
Also a decade ago, I (we) predicted global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030. When this cooling does occur, many of these scientific questions will be answered.
In the meantime, society should reject the claims of the global warming alarmists, because they have a demonstrated track record of being wrong in ALL their major climate alarmist predictions.
In science, such an utter failure on one’s predictive track record is a fair and objective measure of the falsification of one’s hypotheses.
Repeating, from 2002, with ten more years of confirming data:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/27/new-study-demonstrates-the-role-of-urban-greenery-in-co2-exchange/#comment-1020034
NASA now:
“The researchers found that typical suburban greenery, such as trees and lawns, played significant roles with respect to CO2 uptake. For nine months out of the year, the suburban landscape was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere; but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood.”
Me two weeks ago (how am I doing so far?):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/global-warming-splodeified/#comment-987456
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in Salt Lake City:
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
This daily CO2 data profile is very interesting.
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
These are current CO2 readings taken in May 2012.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~470ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. I assume that human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then this urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I have previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
IF these results are typical of most urban environments (many of which have much larger populations, but also have much greater area, precipitation and plant growth), then the hypothesis that human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 seems untenable. Humanmade CO2 emissions are lost in the noise of the much larger natural system, and most humanmade CO2 emissions are probably locally sequestered.
There may be some large urban areas (perhaps in China) where concentrated human activities overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux, but on a global scale these areas are miniscule. In winter, when plant growth is minimal, concentrated human activities may also overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/global-warming-splodeified/#comment-987456
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/co2-police-can-now-be-equipped-to-rat-out-cities/#comment-988034
Billy Liar says: May 15, 2012 at 11:47 am
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in SLC:
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
Thank you Billy.
This daily CO2 data profile is very interesting.
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
These are current CO2 readings taken in May 2012.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~470ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. I assume that human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then this urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I have previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
IF these results are typical of most urban environments (many of which have much larger populations, but also have much greater area, precipitation and plant growth), then the hypothesis that human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 seems untenable. Humanmade CO2 emissions are lost in the noise of the much larger natural system, and most humanmade CO2 emissions are probably locally sequestered.
There may be some large urban areas (perhaps in China) where concentrated human activities overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux, but on a global scale these areas are miniscule. In winter, when plant growth is minimal, concentrated human activities may also overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux.
These observations, if correct, suggest that human combustion of fossil fuels is NOT the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.
These observations are consistent with my 2008 paper, which notes that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
In what has become “mainstream climate science”, there are many inconsistencies that have been resolved by data fabrication and contortions of logic.
There appears to be a much simpler explanation. Temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse.
___________
Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
Gail Combs says:
“I think in Allan’s first comment on CO2 in his first paragraph, he inverted the meaning by mistake.”
Thanks for the correction, Gail. My mistake was scanning Dr MacRae’s post and then responding too quickly. I think Allan and I are on the same page.
I think we all agree that ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is plenty of empirical evidence proving that. It seems that FerdiEnb thinks there are other forces in play at longer time scales. But as Richard Courtney convincingly shows, ∆CO2 still follows ∆T on much longer time scales.
I am still interested in finding a chart showing that ∆T is caused by ∆CO2. Despite my numerous requests, no one has ever produced one that I’ve seen. To me, empirical evidence trumps everything else. We have solid evidence showing that global land and ocean T controls atmospheric CO2 levels. I am willing to accept contrary evidence — but I have to see it with my own eyes since I’m a Doubting Thomas on that question. Ferdi has patiently tried to explain, but maybe I’m slow to learn. If the claimed effect exists, then there must be some verified evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. But I have never seen any such evidence.
The whole carbon scare is predicated on the assertion that CO2 controls global T. All I’m saying is: ‘Show me’. But after many months of asking, still no joy. ☹
“A cause cannot follow its effect, and this implies the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is induced by global temperature rise.”
If you like – now all you have to explain is where all the anthropogenic CO2 went and why your hypothesis is simpler than simply observing that we certainly have been burning fossil fuels.
Ferdinand,
I was working on my comment and did not see your reply above before I posted it.
Your charts are fine as overlays. They show concurrent changes. But they still do not show any cause-and-effect like this chart does.
Do you have anything showing that the rise in CO2 is definitively the cause of rising global temperatures? I am still looking for a clear cause-and-effect chart.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At August 13, 2013 at 3:32 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388340
you assert
No, It is quite obvious that the short term CO2 variation in uptake capacity is caused by the short term temperature variations
but
there is no evidence of any kind that the longer term increase is caused by human emissions…
This is because
1.
the short-term sequestration is limited by the maximum exchange rate of CO2 between air and ocean
but
2.
the long-term sequestration is limited by the maximum transfer rate of CO2 between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean.
If we understood the dynamics of the annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 then we would have definitive evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural or anthropogenic in part or in whole. This is because, as our paper
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
says
Our paper shows that
A.
The dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle can easily absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year
but
B.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 indicates the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle do not absorb all the emissions of CO2 in each year
The important question is;
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 paper explains that this question can be answered by assuming the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle has altered. And at issue is whether such an alteration has had a natural or an anthropogenic cause.
Richard
PS I will not be able to reply to any response for several hours
Nyq Only:
At August 13, 2013 at 4:02 am you say
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388361
That would make sense if “all the anthropogenic CO2” were much, but it is a trivial proportion of the CO2 flowing around the carbon cycle: almost all of the CO2 is in the deep oceans.
You have fallen for the trap of forgetting that for every complicated question there is a simple answer which is wrong.
Richard
Allan MacRae says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:56 am
There is evidence that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is predominantly captured close to the source by increased uptake by plants. CO2 is scarce in the atmosphere and plants thrive on it.
The 13C/12C ratio changes over time show a different picture: these are quite consistent with human emissions, not including deforestation. The whole biosphere, including deforestation was a small net source of CO2 until ~1990 and a growing sink thereafter. Currently absorbing ~1 GtC/year from the ~9 GtC increase by humans. That is deduced from the oxygen balance.
The main sinks are the deep oceans. One can calculate the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges from the theoretical change in 13C/12C caused human emissions and the observed changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West
Posted on 31 October 2011
The image given by chiefio is only for one summer month, July 2009, when NH forests are huge sinks for CO2. If you look at the January 2010 image, it is all reverted:
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html
I suppose that the comment of Salby, like many before him, is based only on the July image…
These observations, if correct, suggest that human combustion of fossil fuels is NOT the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.
You are looking at the daily noise at a place where it is near impossible to see any human influence. Although there are places where one can see the daily peak of CO2 at rush hours if under inversion, in general the human emissions are too small to be detected in the huge natural noise. It is like finding a trend in sealevel via a tide gauge: one need at least 25 years of data to filter out the trend from the huge noise.
In the case of human emissions, one need 2-4 years to get enough data to separate the trend from the noise…
dbstealey says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:08 am
Do you have anything showing that the rise in CO2 is definitively the cause of rising global temperatures? I am still looking for a clear cause-and-effect chart.
I had misunderstood your question…
I am pretty sure that the recent rise in CO2 is not caused by temperature (there is no natural process that can do that without a negative feedback reaction from the increase in the atmosphere), but by humans. Even if Bart and Salby come with a physically impossible continuous extra CO2 inflow from a sustained temperature difference.
If the increase will have an influence on temperature is a more difficult question to answer. Theoretically yes, but the question is how much: theoretically a doubling of CO2 gives not more than 0.9 K increase in temperature at the surface, based on the absorption characteristics of CO2. But everything depends of the feedbacks: lots of positive feedbacks (according to the models), lots of negative feedbacks (according to the skeptics, myself included).
To know who is right, we may need another 15 years or so, when we have had a full PDO/NAO cycle and the result of the current decrease in solar activity and a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. Until then the possible signal is too weak to be separated from the noise…
richardscourtney says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am
Hello Richard, some time ago… I hope all is well with you.
there is no evidence of any kind that the longer term increase is caused by human emissions…
Except that human emissions fit with all observations and all other (theoretical) explanations fail one or more observations…
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?
Different processes at work. For a temperature increase:
Seasonal temperature effect (~5 ppmv/K):
– positive for oceans (~90 GtC CO2 release, same back into the oceans at cooling)
– negative for vegetation (~60 GtC CO2 uptake in spring/summer, same back in fall/winter; vegetation at mid- and highlatitudes is dominant in the NH, less in the SH).
Interannual temperature effect (4-5 ppmv/K) + precipitation:
– positive for ocean surface
– positive for vegetation (dominant temporarely 1-3 years extra release from tropical forests, less effect in higher latitudes)
Multidecadal to multimillennial temperature effect (~8 ppmv/K):
– positive for oceans surface and total ice free area (oceans are dominant)
– negative for vegetation (average uptake, longer growing seasons and larger area).
The fast dynamics are in the ocean surface and direct response of vegetation, but these are limited in capacity. The slow response is from the deep oceans and more permanent storage in vegetation. The latter shows that the increase in temperature since the LIA had not more effect than an increase of 8 ppmv. The rest of the 100 ppmv increase is from…
For an increase of CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere beyond the temperature dictated equilibrium, the fast responses are only taking away some 10% of any excess atmospheric CO2 into the ocean surface. The rest needs more time…
***
Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm
***
Bart, you seem smart, but on the CO2-accumulation issue, Ferdinand has it all over you. Even Stokes sees that.
Thank you for your comments Richard, Ferdinand and all.
The global CO2 flux is complicated and I agree with Richard that we do not yet know the answer.
And I agree with Ferdinand that we probably need more time and more good data, especially during a global cooling cycle, to help decipher the variables.
Ferdinand, it would not surprise me greatly if there is indeed a humanmade component to the increased atmospheric CO2. And indeed it could be partly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, not just deforestation. But as Richard correctly states, the fossil fuel component is a small part of natural global CO2 flux.
Also, with regard to the Japanese satellite data, the CO2 data shows that there is Summer in July in the Northern Hemisphere and Winter in the South, and , and Summer in January in the Southern Hemisphere and Winter in the North, and that Nature, not Man dominates the CO2 cycle. No surprises there. This is consistent with my earlier statements. http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html
Also, I understood from the work of others that the C13/C12 argument “did not hold water”, so to speak.
It would also not surprise me greatly if, during the next natural cooling cycle, atmospheric CO2 actually declined even as fossil fuel emissions increased, as happened in several 12-month intervals from 1959 to 1974 (see below).
To summarize the CO2 balance – we do just not know enough to separate the variables, imo, but we can have our opinions.
On the alleged global warming crisis, I think we know enough now to dismiss this phenomenon as deeply flawed misinterpretations of climate science (to be very generous to global warming alarmists – deliberate falsehood and fraud appear more probable).
I think it is highly probable that the so-called “sensitivity of global temperature to increased atmospheric CO2” is so small as to be inconsequential, if it exists at all. There is evidence that this “sensitivity” does not even exist at these CO2 concentrations, since the only signal I have been able to detect in the data is that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, ergo …
… and the entire alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming crisis does not exist, as we confidently wrote more than a decade and more than a trillion dollars (of squandered global resources) ago.
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
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thankyou for your reply to me at August 13, 2013 at 6:30 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388439
I hope all is well with you, too.
Before responding to your post, I recognise there may be onlookers who are not aware of the long history of disagreement between us. So, for their benefit, I point out that for well over a decade you and I have been arguing about the carbon cycle and attribution of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our disagreements have often been ferocious and always mutually respectful.
I now write in continuation of that spirit of bluntness.
You say
Please, Ferdinand, we have been over this many times and you know it is NOT true that “all other (theoretical) explanations fail one or more observations…”.
And, yes,” human emissions fit with all observations” but the “fit” is poor.
For example, the IPCC uses 5-year smoothing to get agreement between the anthropogenic emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2. But there is no justifiable reason for this: the data is ‘tortured’ to force it to agree.
2-year smoothing is justifiable because emissions from one year may be wrongly accounted as being in an adjacent year.
And 3-year smoothing is justifiable because different reports of emissions may be reported for ’12 month periods’ with different start dates.
But there can be no valid reason to smooth over 4, 5 or more years.
The IPCC uses 5-year smoothing because using smoothing over shorter times fails to get agreement between the anthropogenic emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2.
The 12C:13C isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing in the direction expected if the change were a result of the anthropogenic emission. But it has an equal chance of changing in the expected direction or in the other direction. Importantly,
the 12C:13C isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing at a rate which differs by a factor of 3 from the rate of change expected if the change were a result of the anthropogenic emission.
As I said,
the human emissions do “fit” with all observations” but the “fit” is poor.
It is important to note that an ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole. So, the ability to force a “fit” between the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and the rise in atmospheric CO2 is only evidence that the anthropogenic emission of CO2 cannot be rejected as a possible cause of the rise.
And I posed the question
To which you have answered
Say what!?
Your answer is a non sequitor. It has no relation to the question.
I introduced the question by saying
This matters because
the residual of the variation in each year is the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration of each year. If the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle did absorb all the emissions of CO2 in each year then there would be no rise.
Please see my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388367
which you have answered for a proper answer to the question; i.e.
something (either natural or anthropogenic) has altered the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle.
Richard
Nick Stokes says:
August 12, 2013 at 7:18 pm
“And if the fit fails, you have nothing.”
It doesn’t fail. It is next to perfect, about as good as you can expect to get. You are clutching at straws.
“Of course this completely disregards elementary mass balance.”
Of course it does not. The usual “mass balance” argument is a circular argument which has been debunked innumerable times.
“But if the multi-decadal alignment fails rather frequently, as with global air temp or SST, then there’s no basis for inference at all.”
Wrong. You could as easily claim that failure to track a stock market index is indicative of failure of the model. If the variable being tracked is only tangentially related, then it will only tangentially track. In this case, the main dynamic is with ocean temperatures in the SH.
richard verney says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:03 am
Excellent observation.
Nyq Only says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:50 am
“Now perhaps that is exactly what has happened but without some startling observational data and some pretty solid theoretical work the scientifically parsimonious explanation is that the rise in CO2 has, to a large degree, come from human activity.”
Observation is right here. It indicates that your explanation is, by far, too parsimonious to hold up.
richardscourtney says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am
“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? “
Indeed!
beng says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:12 am
“Ferdinand has it all over you.”
Ferdinand has a narrative, which he has practiced and polished over several years. But, it has no physical foundation, no appreciation for the necessary dynamics of flows.
“Even Stokes sees that.”
Suggesting that you do not carry such high regard of Stokes’ opinions in general. It is curious that you would decide his opinion worthy of consideration now.
Look, I cannot stop you from believing what you want to believe. I can only show you the evidence. In the end, you will see. As I have shown, the rate of change of CO2 fits temperature perfectly. Meanwhile, the superficial resemblance between emissions and CO2 is even now diverging. In the years ahead, the divergence will become so pronounced that people will look back and wonder how they could ever have held such a misconception that humans have any significant effect on CO2 concentration at all.
Steve Short says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:07 am
/////////////////////////
Steve,
I note that you are implying that any increase in CO2 emissions during the war years was absorbed by oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) and this is why there was no spike in observationakl measurements of CO2 in these years (and even explains why there was a fall in the lvel of CO2 during those years).
It seems highly implausable that sulphur and iron particles emitted at funnel height get trapped by sea spray which breaks over the fore-deck but rarely to bridge height, still less to funnekl height (especially as funnel smoke is warm and hot air rising would carry the particulates to altitude).
If sea spray is as dense and prevalent as you suggest, it would be rather difficult for DWLWIR to penetrate it and reach the ocean surface below. As you are no doubt aware, LWIR (due to its wavelength and the absorption characteristics of water) can only penetrate matters of a few nanometers in water; about 50% of all LWIR is fully absorbed within just 3 or 4 nanometers, and only about 10% can penetrate as much as 10 nanometers. This would suggest that DWLWIR would have little global effect, being absorbed by ocean spray merely assisting evaporation of already airbourn water particles (ie., the ocean spray), and DWLWIR would predominantly be a land based phenomena.
I accept the possibility of the low level cloud point, and I do accept that eventually it gets rained out predominantly back over the oceans, but not exclussively.
Is there any hard evidence (ie., something other than anedodal evidence of your father) for a dramatic increase in the abundance of oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) during the war years and a fall back in the prolification of that organism after the war? That is at the root of your argument and I would wish to see evidence on population.
I would point out that, whilst bunker quality was more variable back in the war years, I consider that you overlook the fact that it is only relatively recently (by which I mean effectively only this centrury, of note it was only in 2005 the IMO produced regulations capping sulphur content at 4.5%) that low sulphur emission regulations have been implemented, and even now they are not enforced world wide (there are of course designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas where enforcement is more rigorous).
Bunker fuels (I am ignoring gas oil which is not commonly used for main propulsion) with up to 4.5% sulphur are still in use (although HFO of this spec is being phased out by the latest IMO regulations which set a 2012 date for this but is not enforced world wide so one still sees the use of this fuel), and 3.5% is still quite common. Of course one can now procure low sulphur varities with less than 1.5% or even less than 1% (I am ignoring gas oil which is not commonly used for main propulsion at least not unless within designated sensitive zones) but fuel is only slowly finding its way into worldwide wide spread usage.
I have seen reports that claim that the 16 largest ships plying ocean trade today emit as much sulphur as all the cars in the world put together!. I do not know how well researched and accurate that claim is, but the presence of such a claim does suggest that even with today’s recent trend for lower sulphur emissions, ships are still today emitting vast quantities of sulphur and accordingly, I doubt that during the war years the sulphur emissions were substantially higher than today. Today, there are far more bigger ships and far more trade (well before the relatively recent China downturn) such that total sulphur emissions are up compared to 1935/45 such that one would expect today to see the prolific blooming of oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae).
Whilst I have been involved in shipping for some 25 years, I am not aware of significant changes in the amount of iron in bunker fuels. Of course, particulates are of concern to the ship owner (because of engine damage/wear & tear), but my experience suggests that this is directed more at aluminium, silicone, nickel, vanadium content rather than iron.
What evidence do you have that the iron content of bunker fuel has significantly changed from the war years? Again, I would want to see some evidence that iron emitted by shipping during the war years was higher than that emitted today and this fuelled the blooming of the oceanic cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) to which you refer during the war years.
Ferdinand says:
“I had misunderstood your question… I am pretty sure that the recent rise in CO2 is not caused by temperature…”
Ferdinand, what we are left with is this: All of the empirical evidence available to us shows that ∆CO2 follows ∆T, from years to hundreds of millennia. By your admission, there is no empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T [it may. I have always acknowledged that possibility, by saying that any effect from CO2 is too small to measure].
At current concentrations, adding more CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. I understand why you are arguing the way you are, and you may be right. But I’m a “show me” kind of guy. If there is NO measurable evidence that something exists, then it is only speculation. Conjecture. Opinion. But it is hardly testable science.
The alarmist crowd got into trouble because they took the position that the primary cause of global warming is due to the rise in CO2. But there is no empirical evidence for that, none at all. No one has been able to produce a chart of real world temperatures that show any cause-and-effect between a rise in CO2, and a rise in temperature. All such charts are only coincidental overlays. They do not show cause and effect, like the charts I posted above do.
CO2 may cause some minuscule warming. Or maybe it doesn’t. We simply have no evidence showing that “carbon” is the cause of any global warming, and any opinions to the contrary are just that: opinions. Beliefs. Assumptions, etc.
“That would make sense if “all the anthropogenic CO2″ were much, but it is a trivial proportion of the CO2 flowing around the carbon cycle: almost all of the CO2 is in the deep oceans.”
LOL – so your Occam’s razored theory is that all of the human emissions have somehow got themselves locked up in the ocean but by magic coincidence a similar additional amount of CO2 has become released from the oceans neatly in tune with the rise of human consumption of fossil fuels?
richardscourtney says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:42 am
But there can be no valid reason to smooth over 4, 5 or more years.
There may be reasons to smooth even over 25 years, if the noise is far larger than the signal you wish to detect. That is done for e.g. the detection of a sealevel trend in the huge noise of waves and tides.
And there is hardly a difference between 3 or 5 years smoothing for the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em_avg.jpg
Only the 1992 Pinatubo eruption is a clear outlier (probably due to light scattering that increases CO2 uptake by vegetation). For the rest, the variability in atmospheric increase is from temperature variability, which influences the year by year sink rate. But the trend clearly is from human emissions.
the 12C:13C isotope ratio in the atmosphere is changing at a rate which differs by a factor of 3 from the rate of change expected if the change were a result of the anthropogenic emission.
Simple answer: the human “fingerprint” is diluted by the deep ocean exchanges. What goes into the oceans is the current isotopic composition. What comes out is the composition of 1000 years ago without human influence. That can be used to calculate the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
The dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle can easily absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year
My answer was right: there are different processes at work: the seasonal processes are fast but limited in capacity. That means that these processes can absorb and release some 15% of all CO2 in the atmosphere for a global change of 1 K, but then it stops, as full capacity for that temperature change is reached. If you want to get rid of more CO2 out of the atmosphere, you need the slower processes.
“Observation is right here. It indicates that your explanation is, by far, too parsimonious to hold up.”
Well it certainly is a nice graph. You do know what you’ve plotted don’t you? You have the DERIVATIVE of interpolated mean of CO2 measurements for one line and temperature for the other. OK now work out what that says – the short term rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature increases. That tells us nothing about the overall growth in CO2 in the atmosphere and tells us a lot about how the ACTUAL long term increase of CO2 is influenced by temperature beyond what we already know from the basic physics of CO2’s solubility in water.
Essentially your graph shows us that the RESIDUAL data of CO2 concentration *NOT* explained by the simpler upward growth of CO2 concentration is explained by yearly fluctuations in temperature. To use the vernacular – no sh!t Sherlock :). You’ve drawn a graph whose purpose is put the overall growth to one side and which provides some insight into the yearly wobbles in that growth.
Putting temperature and CO2 on the same scale you get this http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/normalise/plot/rss/from:1959/normalise
But lets have some more fun. You compared the derivative of atmospheric CO2 with temperature. Let’s flip that relationship around and see what we see. If global mean temp matches the derivative over time of CO2 concentration then the integral of global mean temp should also indicate your position when compared with CO2 concentration plotted over time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/normalise/plot/rss/from:1979/integral/normalise
Who is driving who?
Nyq Only:
Your reply to me in your post at August 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388712
demonstrates that your opinion is not only blinded by dogma, you are also content to proclaim your ignorance of the subject on which you pontificate.
Your post answers my having corrected your earlier error when I wrote to you
And your answer says
“A similar amount” has NOT been “released from the oceans”!
The annual increase to CO2 in the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Northern Hemisphere seasonal changes (decrease and increase) each year are approximately an order of magnitude greater than both the total annual increase and the total annual anthropogenic emission. This seasonal change is mostly release then absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans.
A difference of an order of magnitude is NOT “similar”.
I never cease to be amazed that few of the anonymous warmunists who post on blogs have learned it is better to be thought a fool than to make a post which proves they are a fool.
Richard
Bart says:
August 13, 2013 at 9:40 am
It doesn’t fail. It is next to perfect, about as good as you can expect to get. You are clutching at straws.
It fails for all periods outside the period for which it is fitted:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2011.jpg
It completely fails the glacial-interglacial changes.
Of course, because the good fit over the period 1960-current, the ice cores CO2 measurements must be wrong. Or how a theory is “proven” by rejecting all observations that don’t fit the theory…
Of course it does not. The usual “mass balance” argument is a circular argument which has been debunked innumerable times.
Except that the theoretical alternative for the mass balance argument is proven wrong: any huge change in natural circulation that causes a similar increase in the atmosphere as human emissions must be in ratio with the near 3 times increase of these emissions over the period 1960-current. That would lead to a near 3 times reduction in residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the residence time slightly increased over the past decades, which is what can be expected for a relative stable throughput in a growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ferdinand has a narrative, which he has practiced and polished over several years. But, it has no physical foundation, no appreciation for the necessary dynamics of flows.
While vegetation is a proven sink for CO2, there is no valid physical foundation for any increase of CO2 fluxes out of the oceans based on a sustained temperature difference that isn’t counteracted by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Besides that the release of such huge quantities of extra CO2 from the oceans would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, despite the human emissions, but we see a firm DEcrease:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_increase_290.jpg
That shows the d13C change 1960-2000 for a change in deep ocean releases from 40 to 290 GtC/year, which is necessary if Bart’s theory was right. The observations simply go the other way out.
Meanwhile, the superficial resemblance between emissions and CO2 is even now diverging…
Not at all. The sink capacity btw does not depend of the year by year emissions, but of the total amount (=pressure) of CO2 above the (temperature dictated) equilibrium:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1960_2011.jpg
The fit of my “model” is even slightly better than yours, including over recent years…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thankyou for your post at August 13, 2013 at 12:17 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388730
in reply to my post at August 13, 2013 at 8:42 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388508
As you will have expected, I disagree.
Concerning the forced fit of atmospheric CO2 concentration to agree with global temperature data, I explained
You have replied
Well, there may be reasons for pigs to fly if their wings are large enough.
Your (and the IPCC) argument is that a proportion of the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the atmosphere because the natural sinks cannot cope with it. But the data indicates that if the extra emission of human origin was the only emission, then in some years, almost all of it seems to be absorbed into the sinks, and in other years almost none.
What is this “noise” which results in the disagreement between the emissions and the sequestration? And how can anyone know this “noise” is not the cause of the failure of the sinks to sequester all of the emission with the result of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
You say
Well, “the hardly any difference” is sufficient to require the unjustifiable at least 5-year smoothing to force the desired “fit” between the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the rise in atmospheric CO2.
I wrote
And you have replied
So, you admit the discrepancy of a factor of 3 between the magnitude of the observed isotope ratio change and the magnitude of the change expected if it were induced by the anthropogenic emission.
And the “fingerprint” is smudged beyond recognition if it is altered by a factor of 3. Your assumption that the alteration is “dilution” from deep ocean is only that: an assumption. And it is a circular argument to use that assumption as evidence for the observed isotope ratio change being antrhropogenic.
The difference between observation and expectation indicates that some natural factor is at least 3 times larger than the anthropogenic factor. Your explanation of this is only a plausible hypothesis. So, in actuality, it is possible that all the isotope change may be a result of the unknown natural factor which it is certain causes most of the isotope change.
I wrote
And, as I explained, you answered with a non sequitor. You have replied to that explanation saying
I can only repeat that your answer is illogical nonsense. And again try to tell you why.
There are NO “different processes at work”.
The annual rise of CO2 for any year is the residual of the rise and fall of CO2 during that year.
The dynamics of the variation during each year show that the sequestration processes (i.e. the “fast” “seasonal processes”) can easily sequester ALL the annual CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic) but they do not. But they do not, and that is why there is an annual rise of CO2 each year.
None of this disproves an anthropogenic or a natural cause for the observed rise of atmospheric CO2. But it does show there is no reason for anyone to assume the cause of the rise is anthropogenic or is natural in whole or in part.
Richard
Nyq Only says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm
‘LOL – so your Occam’s razored theory is that all of the human emissions have somehow got themselves locked up in the ocean but by magic coincidence a similar additional amount of CO2 has become released from the oceans neatly in tune with the rise of human consumption of fossil fuels?’
No, that is not it at all. Both natural and anthropogenic inputs are quickly sequestered away. The difference is that the natural inputs are overwhelmingly larger, so they have a much greater impact.
Nyq Only says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm
“That tells us nothing about the overall growth in CO2 in the atmosphere and tells us a lot about how the ACTUAL long term increase of CO2 is influenced by temperature beyond what we already know from the basic physics of CO2′s solubility in water.”
Have you ever taken a course in calculus? The differential equation is
dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)
CO2 = CO2 concentration
k = sensitivity of CO2 rate to temperature
T = temperature
Teq = equilibrium temperature
This integrates to provide a very high fidelity reconstruction of atmospheric CO2, no human inputs required. At any time in the last 55 years since accurate measurements began, you can predict precisely what the atmospheric concentration will be at any later time solely by integrating the temperature relationship. Human inputs are superfluous.
Note that the plot shown is for GISS temperatures. All of the major temperature sets are more or less affinely related, so you can always find an affine model for a given set which integrates to the nominal CO2 concentration. The HADCRUT SH temperatures and the satellite temperatures are a better fit than GISS, and will necessarily produce a better fit in the overall integrated concentration, I just never got around to performing the integration with those data sets.
“Who is driving who?”
Obviously, temperature drives CO2. It would be absurd to say that temperature is determined by the rate of change of CO2. If that were the case, then you could drive CO2 to arbitrary concentration but, once you stopped driving it, the temperature would return to the equilibrium temperature.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm
“It fails for all periods outside the period for which it is fitted:”
No, your model for the proxy measurements fails. That is what Salby showed.
“…any huge change in natural circulation that causes a similar increase in the atmosphere as human emissions must be in ratio with the near 3 times increase of these emissions over the period 1960-current.”
Handwaving nonsense and circular logic.
“The fit of my “model” is even slightly better than yours, including over recent years…”
Your fit is only in the low frequency region. It is trivial to get affine agreement between two low frequency time series with comparable curvature. In the end, your agreement is merely a 50/50 coin flip. The temperature relationship, however, agrees across all frequencies. The odds of successfully doing that without there being an actual relationship are vanishingly small.
Well, well, well, Old Nyq. LOL, from your doggedly arguing above for CO2 being the driver of global temperature, we can now clearly see your motive for your vehement defense of those who mistreated Dr. Murry Salby who boldly and publicly states (in his 2012 book and in his April 18, 2013 Hamburg lecture) a compellingly persuasive argument for the opposite view.
Your opinion on the matter of his mistreatment, thus, has little probative value.