Towards a theory of climate

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I have just had the honor of listening to Professor Murry Salby giving a lecture on climate. He had addressed the Numptorium in Holyrood earlier in the day, to the bafflement of the fourteenth-raters who populate Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament. In the evening, among friends, he gave one of the most outstanding talks I have heard.

Professor Salby has also addressed the Parliament of Eunuchs in Westminster. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk.

The Faceless Ones whose trembling, liver-spotted hands guide the European hulk of state unerringly towards the bottom were among the first and most naively enthusiastic true-believers in the New Superstition that is global warming. They could have benefited from a scientific education from the Professor.

His lecture, a simplified version of his earlier talk in Hamburg that was the real reason why spiteful profiteers of doom at Macquarie “University” maliciously canceled his non-refundable ticket home so that he could not attend the kangaroo court that dismissed him, was a first-class exercise in logical deduction.

He had written every word of it, elegantly. He delivered it at a measured pace so that everyone could follow. He unfolded his central case step by step, verifying each step by showing how his theoretical conclusions matched the real-world evidence.

In a normal world with mainstream news media devoted to looking at all subjects from every direction (as Confucius used to put it), Murry Salby’s explosive conclusion that temperature change drives CO2 concentration change and not the other way about would have made headlines. As it is, scarce a word has been published anywhere.

You may well ask what I might have asked: given that the RSS satellite data now show a zero global warming trend for 17 full years, and yet CO2 concentration has been rising almost in a straight line throughout, is it any more justifiable to say that temperature change causes CO2 change than it is to say that CO2 change causes temperature change?

clip_image002

The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.

I had first heard of Murry Salby’s work from Dick Lindzen over a drink at a regional government conference we were addressing in Colombia three years ago. I readily agreed with Dick’s conclusion that if we were causing neither temperature change nor even CO2 concentration change the global warming scare was finished.

I began then to wonder whether the world could now throw off the absurdities of climate extremism and develop a sensible theory of climate.

In pursuit of this possibility, I told Professor Salby I was going to ask two questions. He said I could ask just one. So I asked one question in two parts.

First, I asked whether the rapid, exponential decay in carbon-14 over the six decades following the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests had any bearing on his research. He said that the decay curve for carbon-14 indicated a mean CO2 atmospheric residence time far below the several hundred years assumed in certain quarters. It supports Dick Lindzen’s estimate of a 40-year residence time, not the IPCC’s imagined 50-200 years.

Secondly, I asked whether Professor Salby had studied what drove global temperature change. He said he had not gotten to that part of the story yet.

In the past year, I said, four separate groups haf contacted me to say they were able to reproduce global temperature change to a high correlation coefficient by considering it as a function of – and, accordingly, dependent upon – the time-integral of total solar irradiance.

If these four groups are correct, and if Professor Salby is also correct, one can begin to sketch out a respectable theory of climate.

The time-integral of total solar irradiance determines changes in global mean surface temperature. Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic-ray amplification, which now has considerable support in the literature, may help to explain the mechanism.

In turn, the time integral of absolute global mean temperature determines the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here, the mechanism will owe much to Henry’s Law, which mandates that a warmer ocean can carry less CO2 than a colder ocean. I have never seen an attempt at a quantitative analysis of that relationship in this debate, and should be grateful if any of Anthony’s readers can point me to one.

The increased CO2 concentration as the world warms may well act as a feedback amplifying the warming, and perhaps our own CO2 emissions make a small contribution. But we are not the main cause of warmer weather, and certainly not the sole cause.

For the climate, all the world’s a stage. But, if the theory of climate that is emerging in samizdat lectures such as that of Professor Salby is correct, we are mere bit-part players, who strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are heard no more.

The shrieking hype with which the mainstream news media bigged up Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, ruthlessly exploiting lost lives in their increasingly desperate search for evidence – any evidence – as ex-post-facto justification for their decades of fawning, head-banging acquiescence in the greatest fraud in history shows that they have begun to realize that their attempt at politicizing science itself is failing.

Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.

I asked Professor Salby whether there was enough information in the temperature record to allow him to predict the future evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. He said he could not do that.

However, one of the groups working on the dependence of global temperature change on the time-integral of total solar irradiance makes a startling prediction: that we are in for a drop of half a Celsius degree in the next five years.

When I made a glancing reference to that research in an earlier posting, the propagandist John Abraham sneeringly offered me a $1000 bet that the fall in global temperature would not happen.

I did not respond to this characteristically jejune offer. A theory of climate is a hypothesis yet to be verified by observation, experiment and measurement. It is not yet a theorem definitively demonstrated. Explaining the difference to climate communists is likely to prove impossible. To them the Party Line, whatever it is, must be right even if it be wrong.

The group that dares to say it expects an imminent fall in global mean surface temperature does so with great courage, and in the Einsteinian spirit of describing at the outset a test by which its hypothesis may be verified.

Whether that group proves right or wrong, its approach is as consistent with the scientific method as the offering of childish bets is inconsistent with it. In science, all bets are off. As al-Haytham used to say, check and check and check again. He was not talking about checks in settlement of silly wagers.

In due course Professor Salby will publish in the reviewed literature his research on the time-integral of temperature as the driver of CO2 concentration change. So, too, I hope, will the groups working on the time-integral of total solar irradiance as the driver of temperature change.

In the meantime, I hope that those who predict a sharp, near-term fall in global temperature are wrong. Cold is a far bigger killer than warmth. Not that the climate communists of the mainstream media will ever tell you that.

Advertisements

875 thoughts on “Towards a theory of climate

  1. Marvellous stuff from the Noble Lord as usual. On the subject of betting, I suggest that the only way one can get a drama green to make a prediction is by the implication inherent in a wager and sceptics should employ this method, within their means, to winkle warmists out of their holes.

  2. I’m struggling with how Henry’s law, a warming ocean and the decrease in alkalinity of seawater fit together.

  3. I think Salby’s theory is very interesting, but I am a little – shall we say – sceptical.
    So, is there observational evidence, e.g. in the ice cores, that supports the theory?

    The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows temperature, but this is over thousands of years. As the mechanism has a delay of around 800 years (oceans absorbing/emitting CO2) it only works over thousands of years, and could not explain the modern CO2 increase, which has happened over 100 years.

    So is there evidence in the ice cores or elsewhere of CO2 rises being caused by temperature rises on the scale of a century or so? How about the MWP and Roman warm periods? If they don’t show any rises on this scale then it’s unlikely the theory could explain the 20th century CO2 rise.

    Having said that, it would be wonderful if he were right. It would mean that not only the temperature rise was natural, but the very thing blamed for the rise was also natural.
    Chris

  4. “Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk”
    ——————————————————————————————————

    And who elected you Monckton to the House of Lords to which you assert to be a member? At least ‘ Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament’ was elected by the people of Scotland who may irritate you by longer being seen as an English Lords property, but who have a right to a democratic process. Stick to climate comments , otherwise the words ‘glasshouse’ and ‘throwing stones’ tends to spring to mind when you use this site to roll out your right wing landed gentry view of the world.

  5. I am in agreement with the predicted cooling as sun cycle 24 progresses and 25 is flat as predicted. I wish it were not to be, just hope this isn’t the end of the Holocene I see as the earth is a roller coaster car now over the 1998 sun peak. When the AMO goes cold will should see major crop failures.

  6. Hi there,
    I keep on hearing about the alkalinity change of the seawater.. could someone give me a citation on that? (I found plenty of the change of the alkalinity for the surface seawater)

    Best regards,
    LoN

  7. “If these four groups are correct, and if Professor Salby is also correct, one can begin to sketch out a respectable theory of climate.”

    I think they are correct and have taken an initial stab at how it could all fit together whilst obeying the basic laws of physics.

    Note that this is a conceptual rather than quantitative description but good enough as a starting point for further investigation:

    1) Solar activity increases, reducing ozone amounts above the tropopause especially above the poles.

    2) The stratosphere cools. The number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere increases due to the increased solar effects with faster destruction of ozone.

    3) The tropopause rises, especially above the poles altering the equator to pole height gradient.

    4) The polar high pressure cells shrink and weaken accompanied by increasingly positive Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.

    5) The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move poleward and the ITCZ moves further north of the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle increases due to the cooler stratosphere increasing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.

    6) The main cloud bands move more poleward to regions where solar insolation is less intense and total global albedo declines via a reduction in global cloud cover due to shorter lines of air mass mixing.

    7) More solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as the subtropical high pressure cells expand.

    8) Less rain falls on ocean surfaces allowing them to warm more.

    9) Solar energy input to the oceans increases but not all is returned to the air. A portion enters the thermohaline circulation to embark on a journey of 1000 to 1500 years. A pulse of slightly warmer water has entered the ocean circulation.

    10) The strength of warming El Nino events increases relative to cooling La Nina events and the atmosphere warms.

    11) Solar activity passes its peak and starts to decline.

    12) Ozone levels start to recover. The stratosphere warms.

    13) The tropopause falls, especially above the poles altering the equator to pole height gradient.

    14) The polar high pressure cells expand and intensify producing increasingly negative Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.

    15) The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move back equatorward and the ITCZ moves nearer the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle decreases due to the warming stratosphere reducing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.

    16) The main cloud bands move more equatorward to regions where insolation is more intense and total global albedo increases once more due to longer lines of air mass mixing.

    17) Less solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as the subtropical high pressure cells contract.

    18) More rain falls on ocean surfaces further cooling them.

    19) Solar energy input to the oceans decreases

    20) The strength of warming El Nino events decreases relative to cooling La Nina events and the atmosphere cools.

    21) It should be borne in mind that internal ocean oscillations substantially modulate the solar induced effects by inducing a similar atmospheric response but from the bottom up (and primarily from the equator) sometimes offsetting and sometimes compounding the top down (and primarily from the poles) solar effects but over multi-decadal periods of time the solar influence becomes clear enough in the historical records. The entire history of climate change is simply a record of the constant interplay between the top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences with any contribution from our emissions being indistinguishable from zero.

    We saw the climate zones shift latitudinally as much as 1000 miles in certain regions between the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. It would surprise me if our emissions have shifted them by as much as a mile.

  8. One of the alarmists main supporting actors to AGW is ocean acidification. Another is warming oceans. (They’ve tried to pin Haiyan on warmer seas.) However, if CO2 is somehow causing warmer oceans as well as ocean acidification, then there’s a clash of opposites.

    Warmer oceans hold less CO2…but ocean CO2 is increasing and thus causing acidification?
    Which is it? Warming oceans and lower sea-levels of CO2, or cooler oceans and CO2-driven acidification? Do tell, warmists. Eh?! Contradictions abound.

    PS…’Numptorium’. Lovely. :-)

  9. Well said your Lordship; CO2-AGW is pretty near zero because of something totally missed by Climate Alchemists; ditto the Methane Bomb. It’s all to do with the negative feedback from clouds.

    Cloud and ice albedo increase is likely very soon; the real GHE. -0.5 K in 5 years is feasible. So is -1.5 K in 35 years. Trouble is, Carl Sagan got his aerosol optical physics wrong and that begat the claim that the GHE is lapse rate**. Then the alchemists made a whole load of mistakes getting the ‘positive feedback’ cheat going. The real AGW is polluted clouds have lower albedo.

    I sympathise with the alchemists because unlike engineers like me, they were misled by MODTRAN. This predicts OLR quite well but they didn’t understand that the 16 deg C surface radiation field boundary condition is that in equilibrium with OLR = 238.5 W/m^2 for the present OLR spectral distribution, no matter whether the heat is convected or radiated.

    Any new equilibrium has a different OLR spectral distribution which satisfies external irreversible thermodynamics requirements. Also, the model predicts radiation fields at a plane but the two-stream approximation is based on temperature not energy flux, which can be any combination of convection and net radiation.

    **At the last glacial minimum, the GHE was ~2 K. It’s currently ~11 K. This is because the equilibrium radiative temperature with Space for no clouds or ice would be 4 to 5 deg. C. The -18 deg C only applies for present albedo. The 33 K/11 K = 3 positive feedback is a mistake.

  10. Earth’s surface is heated by the sun, water evapourates, convects, condenses, and most of the (latent heat) energy escapes to space. Earth’s surface is a solar and geothermal powered refrigerator, and the water cycle is a massive and dominant negative feedback.

    Lindzen’s Iris suggestion, ie, http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Greenland%20revisited%20DJA%202010/Diesendorf%20cherry%20pie/Heat%20pipes/Slide14.jpg Willis Eschenbach’s thunderstorm ‘governor’ mechanism, Dr. Noor van Andel’s work on the ITCZ, to name just some, ALL point to the power of the water cycle, that the water cycle is a heat pipe, that the water cycle is a negative feedback mechanism, and that the water cycle in that it acts as a heat pipe is dominant. It is such a shame that they all trip themselves up by not questioning the greenhouse effect “theory” basis of AGW. If they did then explaining “things” would be so much more realistic. Untill then we are left in a GH “theory” based gaga land of having to accept P/4 and “atmospheric back radiation warms earth’s surface”, niether of which apply or happen at earth’s surface. No good will come of such a basic omission.

    The irony is that the known LAWS of thermodynamics do explain what we observe in the moment, yet GH based “theories” do not. A little clue there for those that can observe i would suggest.

  11. Chris Wright says:
    November 10, 2013 at 3:54 am

    “The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows temperature, but this is over thousands of years. As the mechanism has a delay of around 800 years (oceans absorbing/emitting CO2) it only works over thousands of years, and could not explain the modern CO2 increase, which has happened over 100 years.”

    The questions with the first natural relationship, with CO2 following temp, are: why the rising CO2 did not halt the declining temperatures as we entered ice ages, and why didn’t temperatures keep climbing as we came out of ice ages, because in both cases CO2 should have driven temperatures, with feedbacks working a little bit like perpetual motion machines?

  12. “Laws of Nature says:

    November 10, 2013 at 4:06 am”

    Apparently, according to NASA, the pH has dropped from ~8.2, pre-industrial age, to 8.1 post industrial age. Given there is no actual system to measure global ocean pH levels, the figures are bogus at best.

    In debates about “climate” I often link to the RSS satellite graph, as above. In response, I am told by alarmists, that the RSS satellite system is unreliable however, they never support their claims with actual evidence. Is the RSS system subject to satellite orbit decay and thermometer device error and is there any evidence to support that claim?

  13. 09 NOVEMBER 2013

    Intrade, an online betting website that halted trading earlier this year after uncovering suspected financial irregularities, said it “successfully resolved” issues with representatives of former CEO John Delaney following his death.

    http://www.independent.ie/business/world/in-brief-intrade-progress-29739348.html

    If Intrade can also resolve its issues with US regulators, it would be possible to make long-term bets against Abraham on global temperatures there. There are two bets ending in 2019, with varying amounts of temperature change by then. Odds fluctuate according to buy and sell pressures from customers, which compensates for bets not usually being the exact amount of temperature rise or drop a bettor might prefer. (There is a visible bid/offer order book.)

  14. You may well ask what I might have asked: given that the RSS satellite data now show a zero global warming trend for 17 full years, and yet CO2 concentration has been rising almost in a straight line throughout, is it any more justifiable to say that temperature change causes CO2 change than it is to say that CO2 change causes temperature change?

    If this evidence is true, then the conclusion here is not. What the evidence suggests, is that temperature and CO2 levels are completely decoupled on the first order. CO2 levels may have a cyclic association with temperature, but not through straightforward physical chemistry. Given the extent to which CO2 is a major physical component of the biosphere (and I include lacustrine and related geologies here), the association between temperature and CO2 is more likely a chaotic relationship coupled to biogenic processes (or lack of them), then the simplistic physical arguments that have come from many physical scientists and climastrologers.

  15. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 10, 2013 at 4:06 am

    Stephen,

    With understanding the note in your post (“Note that this is a conceptual rather than quantitative description but good enough as a starting point for further investigation:”) it appears from the below concept of ozone that heat is a net result in both the creation and destruction of ozone. Perhaps you could explain more about why you say :
    1) Solar activity increases, reducing ozone amounts above the tropopause especially above the poles.
    2) The stratosphere cools. The number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere increases due to the increased solar effects with faster destruction of ozone.
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    source: http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/ozone/ozone.html

    “The ozone in the stratosphere is produced by photochemical reactions involving O2. When diatomic oxygen in the stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths less than 240 nm, it breaks apart into two oxygen atoms.
    O2(g) + uv light = 2 O(g) (light wavelength < 240 nm)

    The resulting oxygen atoms combine with O2 molecules to form ozone.
    O(g) + O2(g) = O3(g)
    This reaction is exothermic, and the net effect of the previous two reactions is the conversion of three molecules of O2 to two molecules of ozone with the simultaneous conversion of light energy to heat. Ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths as long as 290 nm. This radiation causes the ozone to decompose into O2 molecules and oxygen atoms.
    O3(g) + uv light = O2(g) + O(g) (light wavelength < 290 nm)

    This, too, is an exothermic reaction. The overall effect of this reaction and the previous reaction is the conversion of light energy into heat. Thus, ozone in the stratosphere prevents highly energetic radiation from reaching the Earth's surface and converts the energy of this radiation to heat.”

    .

  16. when prof Salbys story did get some airtime,
    ABC aus was damned fast to get the pr from the uni on to damn him,
    and to discredit and deny all and any info he presented.
    that done, all mention is supressed.
    thanks Lord M for another good article with humour:-)

  17. Even by the high standards of this blog, the comments are exceptionally interesting. For instance, who could not be intrigued by Stephen Wilde’s elegant outline of a cyclical theory of climate?

    Chris Wright asks whether CO2 concentration tracks the time integral of global mean surface temperature on all timescales. Is there, he wonders, any evidence for Professor Salby’s proposition in the ice cores?

    Indeed there is, and the Professor specifically discusses ice cores in some detail. He has given considerable thought to that question, and has concluded that the diffusion of air trapped in ice increases with age, so that the further back one goes in the record the greater the degree to which the CO2 concentration in the samples understates the CO2 concentration that actually obtained.

    At first sight, it may seen surprising – as it does to Mr. Wright – that an argument such as that of Professor Salby might work on centennial and also on millennial timescales. However, Professor Salby has correctly used exactly the right analytical method: Fourier analysis, which concerns itself with sums of sinusoids at all frequencies: for the calculation is carried out in the frequency domain rather than in the time domain.

    It is indeed possible for CO2 change to lag temperature change on a wide range of timescales, and Professor Salby devotes much of his talk to this question.

    Cheshirered asks about the balance between the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 increasing because of anthropogenic emissions, thereby increasing the oceanic CO2 concentration, and the propoensity of warmer water to outgas CO2 by way of Henry’s law. It is exactly that trade-off that I have not yet seen quantitatively analyzed. I suspect the results would be interesting. In the meantime, as several commenters have rightly pointed out, no sufficiently extensive or well-resolved measurements of changes in ocean pH have yet been taken, so we have no evidence that the oceans are becoming less alkaline.

    So far only one troll has surfaced, saying he is dismayed at my calling Scotland’s daft wee parliament Scotland’s daft wee parliament. At present, five laws in six are made for us by the unelected Kommissars of Europe. One law in 20 is made by the Parliament of Eunuchs at Westminster. That leaves one law in eight made at the Numptorium. UKIP’s policy is that upon Britain’s exit from the absurdly bureaucratic and egregiously corrupt Eurottoman Empire, whose own auditors have refused to certify its accounts as a true and fair record for 19 successive years, all powers handed to the Dismal Empire by Westminster should be returned not to Westminster but to Holyrood, turning the daft wee rubber stamp into a real parliament at last.

    Finally, the troll asks by whom I was elected to the House of Lords. I was elected by a Higher Authority.

  18. Satellite data is the best temperature data we have. I believe most satellites these days keep track of their orbital status constantly. If the orbit decays the satellites can measure it. As we all know surface data is quite unreliable. Adjustments, station moves, siting issues, infilling, extrapolation, recording errors, varying the thermometers being used, etc. all have an impact. On top of that they pretty much ignore UHi, AHI, and other issues that impact local temperatures.

    I suspect that fully half of the warming (if not more) over the modern temperature record is due to these problems. Without that warming all we have is the continuation of the warming from the LIA with variability due to ocean cycles. I highlight the PDO phases in the trend segments of this graph. Notice how all the warming segments correlates with the PDO warm mode and the cooling segments correlate with the PDO cool mode.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1912/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1944/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend

  19. “Monckton of Brenchley says:

    November 10, 2013 at 5:16 am

    Finally, the troll asks by whom I was elected to the House of Lords. I was elected by a Higher Authority.”

    Why is “Monckton of Brenchley” allowed to label another postie a troll, without qualification? And who’s “Higher Authority” was “Monckton of Brenchley” elected by?

  20. RE: Finally, the troll asks by whom I was elected to the House of Lords. I was elected by a Higher Authority.

    I’m just going to jump ahead and give a video reply for him. Because we all have seen the movie.

  21. You know if he’s a real Lord he’ll be able to pull Excalibur from the rock. And he has two Holy Grails!

    I think I should give myself a title.

    Tigre of the Hill People – has a ring.

    Don’t mind me. I’m just giddy from lack of sleep.

  22. ‘In the past year, I said, four separate groups haf contacted me.’
    My Lord, do I detect a German accent?

  23. Patrick and Gareth: can we just accept that: 1) Chris Monckton is a Viscount by birth; 2) Technically, he is a member of the HoL – but cannot ‘sit’ there; 3) As a result of 2, he does not participate in the making of laws so needs no mandate and no vote. 4) He is as entitled to the courtesy of his rank as you both are to expect to be called ‘Mr’ or ‘Sir’ when dealing in life.

    Now that we have got over that little tantrum, and having played the man, perhaps you can now play the ball and tell us (we wait with bated breath) what your technical conclusion – pro or anti – are to Chris Monckton’s piece.

  24. “Snotrocket says:

    November 10, 2013 at 6:19 am”

    If only he was, errrm, less “Holier than thou”, maybe. The fact the he classifies “others” who, gosh shock horror, disagree with him, as “trolls” and now claims his “position” was elected “by a Higher Authority” suggests he is, somehow, above us. What higher authority?

  25. Gareth Phillips says:
    November 10, 2013 at 3:59 am
    “Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk”
    ——————————————————————————————————

    And who elected you Monckton to the House of Lords to which you assert to be a member? At least ‘ Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament’ was elected by the people of Scotland who may irritate you by longer being seen as an English Lords property, but who have a right to a democratic process. Stick to climate comments , otherwise the words ‘glasshouse’ and ‘throwing stones’ tends to spring to mind when you use this site to roll out your right wing landed gentry view of the world.
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    Me thinks you are barking up the wrong tree. I took it he is referring to the ” Boffins in Brussels”.

  26. Chris Wright says:
    November 10, 2013 at 3:54 am
    I think Salby’s theory is very interesting, but I am a little – shall we say – sceptical.
    So, is there observational evidence, e.g. in the ice cores, that supports the theory?

    The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows temperature, but this is over thousands of years. As the mechanism has a delay of around 800 years (oceans absorbing/emitting CO2) it only works over thousands of years, and could not explain the modern CO2 increase, which has happened over 100 years.

    So is there evidence in the ice cores or elsewhere of CO2 rises being caused by temperature rises on the scale of a century or so? How about the MWP and Roman warm periods? If they don’t show any rises on this scale then it’s unlikely the theory could explain the 20th century CO2 rise.

    Having said that, it would be wonderful if he were right. It would mean that not only the temperature rise was natural, but the very thing blamed for the rise was also natural.
    Chris
    —————————————————————————————————————
    Yes this also “concerned” me. But is this not just a question of resolution. Ice cores can only point to very long-term changes as they “average” or smooth out shorter term variations like those that have and are occurring in the 20th and 21 Century.

  27. Patrick and Gareth,
    OK, you don’t like Monckton. We got that.
    You got anything intelligent to contribute on the subject matter or not?
    Ron Richey

  28. CMoB:
    In due course Professor Salby will publish in the reviewed literature his research on the time-integral of temperature as the driver of CO2 concentration change. So, too, I hope, will the groups working on the time-integral of total solar irradiance as the driver of temperature change.

    ===

    He’s been saying this ‘just about be to be published’ for two or three years now. The story is wearing thin.

    I’m very interesting in seeing his work. The question of T vs CO2 is crucial and has never been properly assessed.

    If he is being obstructed in certain journals he needs to go public with it any way. If there is anything to his work he is playing to warmists game by delaying getting this seen and verified.

    I know Jo Nova has been encouraging him to publish too, the more he waits, the more it looks like he knows it will no stand up to scrutiny.

    Let’s have it !

  29. Patrick, you say: “The fact the he classifies “others” who, gosh shock horror, disagree with him, as “trolls”…”

    You see, Patrick, if you go for the man rather than the ball, you earn the name. On the other hand, you play the inverse-snobbery card and expect Chris to give you a courtesy you have not earned.

    Personally, I’d welcome your take on what Monckton/Salby has said – at a technical level – as that would help to move the argument forward.

    BTW: You do realise that we (in the UK – and the rest of the EU) are governed by an UNELECTED commission in Brussels, who have difficulty accounting for their enormous expenditure. I figure, I’d rather be governed by honest men like Monckton than faceless pols in Brussels.

  30. [i]In the meantime, I hope that those who predict a sharp, near-term fall in global temperature are wrong. Cold is a far bigger killer than warmth.[/i]

    I can think of an even bigger killer than cold: tyrannical governments. I’ll take the cold because:
    * It will wake the world up to the Watermelon tyrants, who will be disgraced and kicked out
    * The cost of energy will drop again, to keep us warm in the colder climate
    * Food will be cheaper; farmers will simply adapt their crops to suit the cold, but we won’t be subsidising stupid biofuels
    * The cost of EVERYTHING will be less, due to no more tax-funding of stupid Green projects
    * The Third World might just stand a chance of industrialising and lifting themselves out of poverty

    Aye, give me the cold scenario ANY day.

  31. Tom in Florida says:
    November 10, 2013 at 4:59 am

    Hi Tom.

    The processes of creation and destruction of ozone above the tropopause are finely balanced and more complex than the basic description that you supplied.

    Changes in the mix of solar wavelengths and particles (especially ultra violet wavelengths) appear to cause significant changes in that balance at different heights and different latitudes

    I’d better not go too far into detail here because this thread is mostly about CO2 quantities.

    I put my climate description into play because it explains how solar changes alter ocean temperatures which in turn drive CO2 amounts in the atmosphere.

    The recent solar changes have only so far turned warming into a temperature plateau and there is the complicating factor of CO2 amounts also being affected by the 1000 to 1500 year thermohaline circulation and so the current fall in solar activity has not yet been enough to stop the background rise in CO2 emissions from the oceans.

    We can see that sunlight on oceans is what drives the CO2 content of the atmosphere from this:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/

    which supports Murry Salby’s proposals.

  32. Monckton complains:
    So far only one troll has surfaced, saying he is dismayed at my calling Scotland’s daft wee parliament Scotland’s daft wee parliament.

    Response:
    As I said, you may not like it, but unlike you it is elected and reflects the will of the people of Scotland.You seem to want power returned to the UK, via UKIP, but are vehemently opposed to the people of Scotland having a say in self determination. Do I detect some cognitive dissonance there? By the way, just because I point out a truth does not make me a troll, annoying maybe, but tough. You utilise this site to campaign for a for your own right wing masters in UKIP, then whine when someone calls you to task on it. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

    Monckton continues
    Finally, the troll asks by whom I was elected to the House of Lords. I was elected by a Higher Authority.

    Response:
    Ah, I see, Monckton answers only to his God, who blessed us mere mortals by placing him on this earth. Some may contest that Monckton , some may even say it was an accident of birth which gives rather smaller mandate for governing than being elected by your fellow citizens. I believe in common with many that I would rather be governed by politicians I have a say in electing rather than those who govern by accident of birth or war. ( Please don’t moan about EU commissioners, I did not vote for Cameron but I accept his political role) Your politics differ,but you follow the same political line as North Korean political philosophy.

  33. Here is Central England temperature from the Met Office which over the years has been shown to be a reasonable proxy and indicator of Northern Hemisphere temperature.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    As can be seen, here in Britain we have declined nearly .0.75 degrees centigrade since the peak reached in 2000. In the NH-temperatures may follow the CET lead as they have in the past. There are however many uncertainties so I certainly wouldn’t bet on it as it would be a reversal of a long term warming trend we can observe for the last 350 years.

    tonyb

  34. Christopher, I would humbly ask you to reconsider the line “Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.”

    “Typhoons are acts of nature,” perhaps?

    I say that only because the warmist blogosphere are likely to latch onto this and effectively dismiss anything else that you say. A belief in “god” is a personal option, IMHO, and discussing important stuff such as (the existence or not of) CAGW is too easily derailed by the opposition who would prefer not to debate the facts but smear their opponents.

    Apart from that, more power to your elbow.

  35. ” I certainly wouldn’t bet on it as it would be a reversal of a long term warming trend we can observe for the last 350 years.”

    Well it looks like a fairly convincing reversal of the bit we were supposed to panic about: the late 20th “run-away warming”.

    “… over the years has been shown to be a reasonable proxy and indicator of Northern Hemisphere temperature.”

    Were does that claim come from?

    I’m not saying you’re wrong but I’ve learnt to mistrust such casual affirmations from any source in this game.

  36. For those who asked about more recent CO2 vs temp correlations you can find this in Chapter 5, “The Cryosphere” by Easterbrook, Ollier, and Carter in the just published NIPCC volume (available online). Take a look at figures 5.7.1, 5.7.2, (you can also find these on Joanne Nova’s blog) and 5.7.3. The source of figure 5.7.3, which shows more recent CO2/temp relationships is Humlum, O., Stordahl, J., and Solheim, J., 2012, The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature: Global and Planetary Change, vol. 100, p. 51–69.

  37. “Ron Richey says:

    November 10, 2013 at 7:01 am”

    The issue is not about liking someone or not. Monckton is not my friend. Don’t see your point there. He attributes the label of “troll” to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. His responses clearly show that.

  38. “I say that only because the warmist blogosphere are likely to latch onto this and effectively dismiss anything else that you say. ”

    No one should have to deny their faith to discuss science. The idea that regarding the scientific method as a useful tool is incompatible with spritual belief is a mistake only made by those that understand neither.

    Compare:
    In the beginning there was the word and the word was God …..

    In the beginning there was a band, it was a big bang.

    I don’t find either position more compelling than the other.

    Christians believe there is an invisible, undetectable force holding the universe together. They call it God, or ‘the light’.

    Scientists believe there is an invisible, undetectable force holding the universe together, they call it the Higgs field , filled with ‘dark energy and dark matter.

    The latter is as much a statement of faith as the former.

  39. I have listened to Dr. Salby’s lecture in London, November 6 and asked him a few questions where he answered rather evasive. Unfortunately I wasn’t properly dressed (no tie…) to follow the organizers in the catacombs of the Parliament to have a follow up of the discussions.

    Let us start with the math: It is perfectly possible to match the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere with the integral of the temperature anomaly, simply by choosing the right offset, as there is already a linear slope in the temperature trend, that will give a slightly quadratic increase (as can be seen in the CO2 trend) over time. But that is only curve fitting without a physical basis.
    It is as perfectly possible to use a factor (0.53 will do) for human emissions which are slightly quadratic increasing over time. That gives a perfect match for the trend:

    Over the past 50(/110) years, the match between increase in the atmosphere and human emissions is almost perfect:

    while that between temperature and increase in the atmosphere is somewhat less:

    For the derivative, we see that more clearly:

    Where human emissions are twice the increase in the atmosphere and the variability around the trend is from temperature variability, see Wood for Trees
    As Wood for Trees has the human emissions not in its database, we can’t plot them together there, but the previous plot shows what it is with yearly emissions.
    As you see, there is no trend in the derivative of the temperature, thus temperature itself has zero influence on the slope of dCO2/dt, except if there was a process which releases CO2 non-linear with temperature (which fortunately doesn’t exist).

    The huge variability of the CO2 rate of change is clearly linked to the huge year-by-year variability of (ocean) temperature, while the trend is linked to human emissions.

    Then Henry’s law. Indeed Henry’s law shows that an increase of 1 K of ocean surface temperature will increase the pCO2 of seawater with 16 µatm. That means that an increase of ~16 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere will restore the in- and outfluxes between oceans and atmosphere back to what they were before the temperature increase:

    There is no way that a (small) sustained increase in temperature would give a constant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere without suppressing the influx from the equatorial upwelling from the (deep) oceans and increasing the outflux into the polar (deep) ocean sinks. It is an equilibrium reaction, highly depending of (partial) pressure differences of CO2 between the ocean waters and the atmosphere.

    Moreover, look at the influence of temperature on the CO2 variability:
    for seasons to 2-3 years, the CO2 variability is 4-5 ppmv/K temperature change. For 50 years to multi-millennia, the CO2 variability is 8 ppmv/K (Law Dome: MWP-LIA, Vostok: 420 kyr, Dome C: 800 kyr). Over the past 50 years, it should be suddenly over 100 ppmv/K, which again disappears over the longer time scales…

    The whole biosphere is currently a net sink for CO2, as can be deduced from the oxygen balance:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    The oceans are a net sink for CO2, as regular ships and buoys measurements show:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml

    Then the ice core “migration”. There is no measurable migration of CO2 in ice cores. What Dr. Salby has done is calculating a theoretical migration to fit his hypothesis and isn’t based on any real world data. If there was migration as he supposes, then the maxima during an interglacial would have been 10 times higher than measured, but as migration does influence the difference between peaks and valleys, that doesn’t change the average. That means that the minima of 180 ppmv measured in the ice cores during 90% of the time in glacial periods would have been much lower, even negative, effectively destroying near all life on earth… Moreover, such a migration doesn’t stop until all differences are gone, thus for each interglacial back 100kyr in time, the peaks would fade further and further, but that isn’t seen at all.

    Thus what Dr. Salby proposes may be mathematically possible, but practically non-existing.

  40. “Snotrocket says:

    November 10, 2013 at 7:04 am”

    Going for the man rather than the ball? Maybe you should direct that accusation at Monckton. He has stated that a “higher authority” elected him. What authority was that?

  41. Patrick says:

    November 10, 2013 at 4:24 am

    “In debates about “climate” I often link to the RSS satellite graph, as above. In response, I am told by alarmists, that the RSS satellite system is unreliable however, they never support their claims with actual evidence. Is the RSS system subject to satellite orbit decay and thermometer device error and is there any evidence to support that claim?”

    Here’s what Roy Spencer says:

    ”Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

    ”Based upon the evidence to date, it is pretty clear that (1) the UAH dataset is more accurate than RSS, and that (2) the RSS practice of using a climate model to correct for the effect of diurnal drift of the satellite orbits on the temperature measurements is what is responsible for the spurious behavior noted in the above graph.”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/more-on-the-divergence-between-uah-and-rss-global-temperatures/

  42. Any climate theory calculation based on total solar radiance misses the fact that Earth is covered with physically stable (IE land, water, etc), physically unstable (IE clouds, dust, ash, etc), generally consistent (IE total amount of desert, total amount of vegetation, etc), and highly variable (IE extent of snow and/or ice, or total cloud cover, etc) substances that of their own accord readily and strongly affect TSI received at Earth’s surface to a far greater degree than TSI varies of its own accord.

    Play around with the following interactive to see how much these substances affect Earth’s temperature via albedo changes. And notice the degree of variability and “estimate” each substance has across research studies.

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html

  43. “Snotrocket says:

    November 10, 2013 at 7:04 am”

    BTW, I am from the UK. I am fully aware of the EU (Formally known as the common market then) influence on the UK, since 1973, hence the growth in popularity of the UKIP party.

    Monckton, by his own words, had nothing better to do than be “science adviser” to Thatcher between 1982 and 1986.

  44. We saw the climate zones shift latitudinally as much as 1000 miles in certain regions between the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. It would surprise me if our emissions have shifted them by as much as a mile.

    Dear Stephen,

    You tell an engaging story, but the problem with engaging stories is that they can be engaging but not true, just as ugly stories can sometimes be true but not engaging. The other problem with the story is that it completely omits CO_2, which is not really reasonable. You say it would surprise you if emissions have shifted climate zones by a mile. Why? Exactly the same problem that plagues the GCM folks (if they are honest) plagues your even less developed hypothesis. We have multiple causes shifting around, some systematically, some not, with many overlapping timescales driving the dynamics. For example, it is not at all clear if your model (fully developed) will suffice to explain the entire dynamical evolution of GAST over the last N thousand years, the MWP and LIA and the gradual warming post LIA including the two “cycles” evident in the data from the last 150 years.

    Some fraction of that warming was (if you like) natural variation, some of it appears to be modulated by decadal oscillations such as the PDO (which has roughly the right period to correspond to the variation in the data), and, because we do not know and cannot either predict the future or explain that past variation of the baseline, the post LIA warming, we cannot say whether or not it “should have” kicked over into cooling at some point and would have if it weren’t for CO_2, or if it “should have” continued warming at a nearly unchanged rate so that the role played by CO_2 in observed warming is dwarfed by it.

    A second issue is — OK, so you have a concrete hypothesis. So take a GCM (say, CAM 3.0) and code in the hypothesized missing physics. You are making very specific assertions concerning e.g. stratospheric chemistry and movements of e.g. the tropopause and thermocline — these hypotheses are computable in a multiple slab GCM. Put them to the test. It won’t be easy because you cannot just turn off CO_2 and aerosols and water vapor in a GCM or things will come out egregiously wrong — you’ll have to try to solve the same problem that so far seems quite intractable, only worse with a presumed ozone/water vapor modulation in the stratosphere. One which I actually agree with, by the way — there is NASA data that fairly strongly supports it. But the question is one of degree, because you could be dead right, and we could have entered a natural cooling phase, but CO_2 could still be neutralizing the natural cooling we might have been experiencing so that we are temperature neutral instead. In the end, your hypothesis has to be quantitative and computable as well as plausible in order to be tested either via hindcast or (more usefully) in the future.

    Mr. Monckton: Regarding Salby’s identification of the time integral of e.g. insolation or whatever as a causal factor in CO_2 concentration — which is essentially searching for a replacement to the Bern model IIRC — here the problem is one of mathematics. Let us suppose that the variation of atmospheric CO_2 concentration is described by a differential equation with several terms. There will be positive and/or negative terms associated with all of the sources and sinks for CO_2 — the general biosphere, soils, the ocean, and sure, human generated CO_2 produced from mined carbon or hydrocarbon. Each of these sources/sinks plus the atmosphere itself constitutes a massive reservoir for carbon. As one solves this coupled system (which will definitely have temperature dependence in its rates, and where the first order temperature dependence will always be, by the nature of Taylor series expansions of smooth functions, a linear one) one will inevitably do a time integral of the linear temperature pieces.

    The catch is that under ordinary circumstances, doing these time integrals should lead to saturation on SOME time scale. After all, if we increase the Earth’s mean temperature by (say) 0.5 C, we don’t expect CO_2 to increase indefinitely, we expect it to increase from a former equilibrium to a new equilibrium, so we expect CO_2 to have a negative curvature once we get past the initial transient associated with the warming pulse. This in turn depends strongly on the time constants implicit in the system of equations describing the derivative of the concentration. If the most important of those time constants were years to decades in size, and if the human addition to the concentration was unimportant, we would have expected CO_2 concentration to have visibly changed curvature from very slightly positive to increasingly negative over the last 17 years. OTOH, if the most important time constants are indeed on the order of 50 years or longer — and I’m not talking about residence time, I’m talking about the time required for the ocean itself to thermalize to depth so that system has a chance to reach steady state in detailed balance with the atmosphere as a reservoir at its eventual steady state temperature — then the bulk of the rise we observe and its positive curvature could be due to the fact that we are still in the “transient” associated with the 20 year rapid rise that apparently ended with the 1997/1998 ENSO event.

    Here we are handicapped by an appallingly short period of reliable and consistent measurement, just as we are handicapped throughout climate science. 30+ years is barely sufficient to get a crude glimpse of dynamical processes with relaxation timescales ranging from minutes to centuries. Our understanding of the system is further handicapped by profound covariance and confounding — the human contribution to the atmosphere competes with e.g. the oceanic reservoir’s contribution, and the ocean serves simultaneously as a source and a sink and has its own internal carbon cycle with at best approximately known, mostly assumed time constants. Eventually much of the CO_2 we add to the atmosphere will end up on the ocean floor in the form of oils and clathrates, to be subducted back under the tectonic plates and to perhaps emerge in a few hundred million years as oil and natural gas. But in the meantime it will go into solution at depth, it will be taken up by algae and eaten, it will follow many pathways back into the air and back out of it before finally settling out “permanently” (on a REALLY long timescale) at depth.

    There are numerous differential models that can be built that agree with the Mauna Loa data, and some of them are as simple as a first order ODE with a rate dependent on temperature — an ordinary integral. Given a nearly monotonic observed temperature over the fit interval and a monotonic CO_2 increase, of course one can create a model that reproduces the data. This does not mean that the model is correct, and indeed isn’t substantial evidence that the model is correct. I could create a model that strongly suggests that global temperature AND CO_2 concentration variation are “caused” by my age, because the latter sadly increases monotonically, or I could find even more compelling correspondences among other more pertinent variables. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, and remains a fallacy even when there is some compelling connection between one or more variables in a highly nonlinear multivariate process over some comparatively short period compared to the many known timescales associated with the system. Causality itself is by no means obvious.

    Warming releases oceanic CO_2, which causes warming — ordinarily towards an new steady state or back to the original steady state after a transient. But the cause of the original warming could equally well have been a change in the external forcing or a bolus of CO_2, because CO_2 causes warming which causes the release of CO_2 which causes warming. We know that there are no runaway solutions in here (or the Earth would long ago have run away) but we do not know the time constants associated with relaxation to the ever moving new steady state in the multiple, coupled, channels that contribute. There are (as noted above in my reply to Stephen) many ways to balance natural vs CO_2 forced changes to reproduce any given stretch of training data, but the bulk of these, however successful they are on the training data, will not extrapolate into a trial set and hence predict the future correctly, and if one does not train any given model (“physics based” or not) on data that shows non-monotonic variation, the model is always going to find an “easy path” with linearity dominant even if the actual system is strongly nonlinear so that the linear behavior is essentially an accident.

    This is not saying Salby’s reasoning or results are incorrect — it is saying that it is almost certainly inconclusive, like so much climate science is these days. It is premature by decades of observations. As long as CO_2 continues to increase monotonically with a slight upwards curvature, some fraction of this increase very likely comes from things like an equally monotonically warming ocean, and some fraction of it from other causes including the release of anthropogenic CO_2. It is determining what these fractions are that is the bitch, given relaxation times of up to centuries in different parts of the multiple coupled reservoirs and the ability to easily create multiple models (all different) that reproduce the tiny chord of human observation. If anything, the monotonic nature of the CO_2 rise argues against it being a simple integral of some sort of temperature change towards a new steady state. It doesn’t have the right shape, curvature, and has absolutely no “discrete” (smeared) structure associated with the changes in e.g. Bob Tisdale’s SST data.

    One final comment (which I might have made before). You do your own argument a disservice when you put the CO_2 anomaly and the temperature anomaly on the same graph. If you want to make this point effectively, make two graphs. Put the absolute CO_2 concentration on one graph. It will vary by some 10-20% over the last 17 years, IIRC. Put the absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin on the other (with the same time axes). It will be a nearly perfectly flat line with barely perceptible noise (at the one pixel level on any reasonable graph scale) and still will be labelled with a neutral trend, essentially zero slope.

    Be very careful what you conclude from this. The correct conclusion is first, “the GCMs used in AR5 are mostly incorrect models and should not be used to set expensive public policy”. The second justified conclusion is that if CO_2 is still a demon and the 0.5 K warming predicted by the hottest GCMs (with the highest climate sensitivity) is being cancelled by natural variations omitted in the models, then the assertion in AR5 that “the bulk of the warming observed over the late 20th century is due to CO_2, not natural causes” (which they assert with high confidence, although where and how they can compute “confidence” in failing models eludes me) is inconsistent. They cannot have it both ways. If natural variation can be responsible for 0.5 C of anomalous, systematic cooling to unexpectedly cancel the predicted 0.5 C of warming over 17 years, there is no possible way that they can conclude that the 0.3-0.5 C warming of the late 20th century is predominantly due to CO_2. Of course the observed warming from the first half of the 20th century also confounds this argument but it is good to make the argument twice on independent grounds.

    It is not (as I know that you know very well) sufficient to prove that there is no GHE or any such thing, nor is it really sufficient to prove beyond any doubt that we could not be headed towards a CO_2 driven climate catastrophe — it’s a highly nonlinear, strongly coupled system and we do not know how to separate human influences, climate feedbacks, and natural variations out in its internal dynamics. It does more than suffice as lack of support for any asserted catastrophe, and it should be causing climate scientists to modulate their predictions for climate sensitivity down. This is even happening, although perhaps too slowly. The catastrophists are still hoping, not even particularly secretly, for another sudden surge in GASTA like that following the 1997/1998 ENSO and in the meantime are grasping for any straw as evidence of “climate change”, cherrypicking specific events shamelessly while ignoring general trends equally shamelessly. And sure, it could happen. But every additional year with no discernible warming, with warming at a pace far below the extrapolations of the GCMs, adds a preponderance of weight to Bayesian prior assertions of low climate sensitivity at the expense of Bayesian prior assertions of high climate sensitivity. At some point not even the most shamelessly dishonest climate scientist will be able to defend the hottest running models in CMIP5.

    Personally, I don’t see how they can justify their inclusion in the AR5 SPM spaghetti graph already — 0.5 to 0.6 K too warm over a mere 15 years seems to me to be a compelling argument that the models that exhibit this much erroneous warming, at least, are broken and should not be included as being plausibly correct. Where exactly to make a cut-off for inclusion is subject to some argument, but excluding even the obviously incorrect models causes the “mean” GCM climate sensitivity in admissible, non-falsified models to plunge.

    And then there is the really interesting question. A few of the GCMs are actually in decent agreement with the data, only a bit too warm. Where exactly do they end up in 2100? That spread should be the most reliable prediction out of the CMIP5 models, although the systematic disagreement should be sending everybody back to the drawing board to reconsider both the model physics and the computational accuracy anew. It would be nice to insist that all of the models ultimately included in any sort of “prediction” agree when applied to a toy problem such as an untipped “water world” or other baseline benchmark systems. It’s difficult to believe any of the models when they don’t even get the same answers for toy problems with none of the complexity of the Earth, even if we cannot check those answers to see if any of the (agreeing or not) are correct.

    rgb

  45. Patrick says: “Monckton, by his own words, had nothing better to do than be “science adviser” to Thatcher between 1982 and 1986.”

    And what great piece of work were you doing in 1982, Patrick. Not that I’m knocking your career to date. Just that I have to accept that Monckton has a greater claim to my attention than you. Also, in claiming a higher authority for his mandate, most of us can see the irony in his riposte. The fact that you insist on missing it says more about you. Still, you can redeem yourself and come up with an argument that rebuts Chris’s piece. I’d be happy to read it and put it in the balance.

  46. Greg Goodman

    Greg rightly asks of me on what basis I make the assertion;

    “ (CET) … over the years has been shown to be a reasonable proxy and indicator of Northern Hemisphere temperature.”

    I had a meeting with the Met office a couple of weeks ago to discuss this and other matters. I had the pleasure to meet, amongst others, David Parker who created the 1772 CET Hadley set I referenced. He and others confirmed that this assertion was generally held to be correct and are giving me tacit assistance in preparing a paper that will demonstrate (or not) this proposition.

    tonyb

  47. I’m surprised at the credulity given by so-called “skeptics” towards the proposition that the main source of rise in CO2 might be something other than human activity. I have three pieces of advice for people who still don’t believe the source of CO2 rise is mainly anthropogenic:
    * No matter how desirable the theory, if it disagrees with observations, it’s false.
    * Those who fail to perform arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.
    * Shop keepers can reliably tell whether stock is being stolen from their shops without watching every item on every shelf and every customer in every shop every hour of the day, which also means we can tell if the CO2 is coming from us without accounting for every single CO2 event in every forest and ocean on the planet.

    Rather than repeat the whole Mass Balance argument here, I’ll link to a previous discussion on NoTricksZone: [
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/10/murry-salbys-presentation-in-hamburg/#comment-528413 ]
    If you have the anthropogenic emissions figures from CDIAC and the the CO2 from MLO then you have all the facts you need. We can know that Dr Salby’s overly complicated analysis is wrong, because we already have an answer from the simplest way to answer the question.

    Further, the conclusions of the paper by Humlum et al are, in my humble amateur experience, erroneous.
    Their lagged correlation technique was new to me, but I’ve made an air/plants/ocean/industry model in a spreadsheet which confirms my first impression. It is only an approximate model running over 8 simulation years, but the essential relationships are all there, conservation of mass included. The derivative of 12-month smoothed SST and CO2 for this simple model shows a correlation between SST and CO2 which is strongest if CO2 lags 8 months behind temperature change, just like in Humlum’s results, except in my model there was an anthropogenic CO2 emission constantly pushing up the air CO2 levels. Same analysis result from a cause different to what they inferred, so their attribution conclusions do not necessarily follow from their analysis. For me that’s enough to prove their technique is bogus and cannot be used to identify the CO2 source. What’s really happening is… The yearly changing temperature of the ocean modulates the rate at which nature absorbs our CO2, which causes the correlation they find in the derivatives.

    In short, a correlation of derivatives only tells you what is most rapidly modulating the derivative, not the cause of the original observed quantity. Or in more plain terms…. If your car’s speed shows lagged correlation with the position of the brake pedal, you would not conclude the brakes are driving the car forward.

    Those who have refrained from jumping on the Natural CO2 bandwagon have already shown proper and justified skepticism.

  48. “No one should have to deny their faith to discuss science.”

    I am not suggesting that, but I am suggesting that discussing science is better done without invoking gods, mythical (or otherwise) – because those that argue that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is true and real will simply focus on the god stuff and say there you go – nutjobs, the lot of them.

    Believe whatever you want but keep to a scientific approach when discussing science – otherwise the opposition will trash the argument without engaging it.

  49. “Our Lord” writes:

    “…Murry Salby’s explosive conclusion that temperature change drives CO2 concentration change and not the other way about would have made headlines. As it is, scarce a word has been published anywhere.”

    Maybe the reason is that only a few take Salby’s hypothesis seriously (the same goes for Humlum).

    Fred Singer had this to say in an article in American Thinker:

    “From time to time, skeptics have claimed that the CO2 increase was mainly due to global warming, which caused the release of dissolved CO2 from the ocean surface into the atmosphere. (A recent adherent of this hypothesis is Prof. Murry Salby in Australia.) However, the evidence appears to go against such an inverted causal relation. While this process may have been true during the ice ages, the isotope evidence seems to indicate that the human contribution from fossil-fuel burning clearly dominates during the last 100 years.”
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/a_tale_of_two_climate_hockeysticks.html#ixzz2h7ZyRVmo

  50. rgb.

    I appreciate the time you have spent on your comment but aver that you have fired off without having fully appreciated my hypothesis.

    I do not set out an ‘engaging story’.

    It is actually a description of what really happened in the real world in the correct sequence.

    Nor does it omit CO2. I actually accept GHGs as having a role in atmospheric circulation but given that the so called greenhouse effect is a result of the kinetic energy required to be at the surface to hold the gases of the atmosphere off the surface it is inevitably a consequence of atmospheric mass and not the radiative capabilities of GHGs.

    To say that I am incorrect in that assertion you must invalidate the Gas Laws which contain a term for mass but not for radiative characteristics.

    Given that the greenhouse effect is a matter of mass and not radiative characteristics how far do you think our emissions could shift the climate zones?

    Please provide your workings :)

  51. I attended this from a political perspective, and the implications of his talk, if true, are extreme. From my notes at Westminster:

    Prof. Salby went through his talk in detail, from the long term past which showed that temperature conclusively drives CO2 levels. The most interesting part was the demonstration that recent and short term CO2 levels do not directly follow temperature swings, but are induced by and dependent upon the time integration of the temperature changes.

    If this is true, and the resultant integration plot does almost exactly follow the atmospheric CO2 level increase, then the assertion that CO2 levels affect global temperature cannot possibly be correct. Further, all those computer models programmed to show CO2 and temperature correlation are simply wrong.

    This completely undermines any basis whatsoever for political campaigns for CO2 reduction or ‘decarbonisation’. The UN IPCC and its ARn reports are similarly rendered pointless. The subsidies for renewables are not needed. Carbon trading, green taxes, carbon energy price floors, the Climate Change Act 2008, carbon capture research, UEA and the global warming institutes, the premature closing of coal fired powered stations, manufactured hairshirt angst, and restrictions on shale gas exploration, are all history.

    All the while that this systematic and stiletto-blade scientific dismantling of the case for AGW was unfolding in the Gladstone room, the debating chamber annunciating screens in the corner were flicking up some familiar names. The learned debate in the Commons was the ‘Energy Price Freeze’, with Caroline Flint and Ed Davey no doubt displaying their familiar level of understanding of energy fundamentals.

    There is a heavy political fallout coming.

  52. FrankK says:
    November 10, 2013 at 6:53 am

    Yes this also “concerned” me. But is this not just a question of resolution. Ice cores can only point to very long-term changes as they “average” or smooth out shorter term variations like those that have and are occurring in the 20th and 21 Century.

    Different ice cores have different resolutions, depending on the snow accumulation speed. The Law Dome DSS core has a resolution of ~20 years and covers the past 1000 years, thus including the MWP-LIA transition:

    The drop of ~0.8 K between the MWP and LIA caused a drop of ~6 ppmv in the ice core with a lag of ~50 years. Thus about 8 ppmv/K, the same as seen in the Vostok and Dome C ice cores over 420 and 800 kyears.
    That means that the current increase in temperature out of the depth of the LIA is only good for maximum 8 ppmv CO2 of the 100+ ppmv increase we see today. Humans meanwhile emitted over 200 ppmv CO2 all together in the same period…

  53. climate agnostic said:

    “While this process may have been true during the ice ages, the isotope evidence seems to indicate that the human contribution from fossil-fuel burning clearly dominates during the last 100 years.”

    I used to accept the isotope evidence but no longer do so because the creation and destruction of different CO2 isotopes is not as simple as when the idea was first proposed. For example biological activity in the oceans can affect the isotope type of CO2 released by the oceans to the air.

    And then there is this:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/

    Which shows that the sources are sun warmed ocean surfaces and that there being no CO2 plumes downwind of human populations it seems that our emissions are quickly scrubbed out locally and regionally by the biosphere.

  54. Whenever I see a set of data, I ask two questions:

    1. How was it collected?
    2. What was done to it after collection?

    I get very nervous, maybe suspicious is a better word, when I see the words “selected data”, “extrapolated”, “transformed” (even when proper), “adjusted” (particularly this word – so calm, so serene, so safe….so potentially deadly to the truth), “manipulated”, and the like, regarding the collection and analysis of a particular dataset. And, in all my decades as a biologist I have never been more suspicious of data than that related to historical global temperature and CO2. No dataset has been more ripe for exploitation because of the amount of money and power associated with its use.

    Unfortunately, most of the general public (and the MSM, it seems) only see/hear the data, and more often just the selected “conclusions” and do not know to ask these two questions; furthermore, our journals may be on the same path as “peer review” takes on new meaning. Maybe the satellite data will alleviate these concerns but only if those involved, and those watching, insist on the highest standards of data collection and analysis. The “Methods” section is the first referee and remains the most important part of any paper, and always will.

  55. Very thoughtful stuff RGB,

    ” If anything, the monotonic nature of the CO_2 rise argues against it being a simple integral of some sort of temperature change towards a new steady state. ”

    in fact it’s not that monotonic if we can get away from dumbly staring at the basic time series. The interesting detail is in the derivatives, which will of course inform an ODE or other model.

    I posted this earlier but it’s still stuck in moderation because I put TWO links in the same post !

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233

  56. Chris Wright wrote:
    “I think Salby’s theory is very interesting, but I am a little – shall we say – sceptical.
    So, is there observational evidence, e.g. in the ice cores, that supports the theory?”

    To answer that he’d best wait for the release of video on Youtube or the PDFs of the lecture – in the next few days. The basic answer is yes to his queries.

  57. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 10, 2013 at 4:06 am

    Your climate theory sequence begins with and depends wholely on changes in solar activity. It seems that accurate solar activity predictions are necessary for weather/climate models to actually work. A true climate theory to be comprehensive must include external solar forcing.

    My focus of personal research for nearly seven years has been the causes of solar activity and its effect on people, weather and climate (climate equals the time-integral of daily weather.) I saw that solar flares, CMEs, filament eruptions, and coronal holes emit vast amounts of charged particles that accelerate outwards towards the planets. These particles, mostly protons, interact with our magnetosphere, charge up the Van Allen belts, and ultimately discharge to ground here on Earth via various pathways creating weather. I call this sequence the electric weather effect.

    Years later I found out others recognized this concept too. A good primer on the subject is “Solar Rain” by Mitch Batros (2005). I was pleasantly surprised to see many citations in that book to a real pioneer in the Sun-Earth climate science, astrophysicist Piers Corbyn from WeatherAction long-range weather forecasters. I had already known of Piers’ for a few years at that point and had seen him sucessfully predict solar activity levels and Earth weather.

    Corbyn’s forecasts are not that expensive and I find it interesting to watch it all play out every month. For instance he forecasted 30 days ahead the highest solar activity level for the last week of October, and we had all those x-flares. His weather forecasts for that period were correct for both sides of the Atlantic. There are so many great examples of electric weather – I’m working on something to reveal all that…

  58. Andrew McRae says at November 10, 2013 at 8:28 am
    Quite right we should not just ignore the possibility that CO2 changes are caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use.
    But your shopkeeper analogy is fundamentally flawed. The “shop” is a warehouse that is far bigger than the observed sales and has many flows in and out.

    * Shop keepers can reliably tell whether stock is being stolen from their shops without watching every item on every shelf and every customer in every shop every hour of the day, which also means we can tell if the CO2 is coming from us without accounting for every single CO2 event in every forest and ocean on the planet.

    It is more like the Amazon warehouse. You can’t tell if total stock in the warehouse is rising or falling by looking at your own purchases on your own PC. The total flows dwarf your own purchases.

    And that is why you can’t just assume the 20th Century change in CO2 is anthropogenic.

  59. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 10, 2013 at 8:42 am

    For example biological activity in the oceans can affect the isotope type of CO2 released by the oceans to the air.

    Any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. Biological activity in the ocean surface increases the 13C/12C ratio even more, both in the ocean surface as in the atmosphere (if there was more release than uptake). But we see a firm decrease in ratio in both, in lockstep with human emissions:

    The CO2 “evidence” of AIRS is for July only. If you look at the December plot, it shows just the opposite change in CO2 levels. Human emissions are not detectable in the AIRS data, as the resolution is too coarse (+/- 5 ppmv) and the human contribution is about 0.07 ppmv/month, even if that is concentrated in the NH.

  60. Patrick: “Is the RSS system subject to satellite orbit decay and thermometer device error and is there any evidence to support that claim?”

    Eh. The basic claim is that we aren’t competent to place thermometers on spacecraft. And, really, I’d discard the idea at once if it weren’t for the other examples of brilliance in engineering that come out of climate set. So let’s just say, without proof, that it’s entirely plausible that we’ve lofted a large mass of useless into orbit.

    However, if there are any systematic biases in the spacecraft instruments, then we do have local ‘anchors’ to get the data in order. That is, well sited Stevenson screen in the middle of nowhere that the satellite has an unoccluded view of, as well as various ballon measurements. Given that the local points are local, but can’t measure the unknown empty miles between. And given that the spacecraft measure all the spaces, but have an unfixed reference or systemic bias, then it’s sufficient, to various degrees, to fit the spacecraft map to the well known and unquestionably good local points. This is an adjustment, without question, but it’s not remotely as specious or tenuous as well known adjustments in TOBS, avg temp as (min+max)/2, gridded interpolations, and so on.

    So if they are saying that it’s unreliable, then sure, maybe. But if it is unreliable, it’s still trivially recoverable into a useful shape without half the shenanigans as elsewhere. Has that been done? Not to my knowledge. I’ve seen complaints about the satellite data. But I’ve not seen complaints about how it is corrected to local fixed points.

  61. Humlum et al’s data and analysis in “The Phase Relationship between Carbon Dioxide and Global temperature” supports Salby’s assertion that warming of the ocean caused the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 70 years rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    Humlum et al’s detailed analysis of the timing of temperature changes and CO2 changes determined that 7 out of 8 times in the recent past atmospheric CO2 rose after planetary temperature increased. There are two paradoxes related to the observational fact that effect follows cause rather than cause following effect 1) Some other forcing mechanism is causing the increase in planetary temperature rather than CO2 and 2) the increase in planetary temperature is causing the increase in CO2. Further support for the second paradox was the study’s analysis to determine the physical location and timing of the CO2 increases. That analysis showed that the increase in atmospheric CO2 started in the Southern Oceans rather than in the Northern hemisphere where the majority of the anthropogenic CO2 is released which provides support for the assertion that the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was the increase in ocean temperature rather than the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (see below for an explanation of the mechanism that is related to the heat is hiding in the ocean hypothesis).

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
    http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

    http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18208928/233408642/name/phase%2Brelation%2Bbetween%2Batmospheric%2Bcarbon%2Band%2Bglobal%2Btemperature.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2_FClsSVBbTLdzlwJJytToRLHpNw&oi=scholarr&ei=ybZ_UvDjLcTuyQHJxYGgAg&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQgAMoADAA

    “Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyzes suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.”

    If the heat hiding in the ocean hypothesis is correct then there is sustained mixing of surface ocean water with deep ocean water. As there is 32 times more dissolved CO2 in the ocean than in the atmosphere, if a portion of the deep ocean is replaced with surface ocean water (this must occur if there is mixing) then there is a vast sink and source of CO2 which works to resist surface forcing changes in CO2 due to volcanic activity or lack of volcanic activity and due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

  62. rgb said:

    “As long as CO_2 continues to increase monotonically with a slight upwards curvature, some fraction of this increase very likely comes from things like an equally monotonically warming ocean, and some fraction of it from other causes including the release of anthropogenic CO_2. It is determining what these fractions are that is the bitch,”

    With CO2 plumes downwind of sun warmed oceans and no CO2 plumes downwind of human populations there is no ‘bitch’.

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/

    All that is necessary is slow, multidecadal / centennial sea surface warming as a result of changes in solar activity altering global albedo to skew El Nino events relative to La Nina events and thereby increasing the proportion of ToA insolation able to enter the oceans.

    Which is what we observe to have happened.

  63. Gareth Phillips says:
    November 10, 2013 at 7:19 am

    “You seem to want power returned to the UK, via UKIP, but are vehemently opposed to the people of Scotland having a say in self determination.”

    Curious interpretation, I thought he meant quite the opposite when he said “… turning the daft wee rubber stamp into a real parliament at last.”

    “You utilise this site to campaign for a for your own right wing masters in UKIP, then whine when someone calls you to task on it.”

    No, he campaigned against tyranny. It appears your comprehension could do with a polish. And “whining”? … You do like to exaggerate, don’t you?

    “When you are in a hole, stop digging.”

    Perhaps you should take your own advice.

  64. Gareth Phillips says:
    November 10, 2013 at 3:59 am

    “Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk”
    ——————————————————————————————————

    And who elected you Monckton to the House of Lords to which you assert to be a member? At least ‘ Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament’ was elected by the people of Scotland who may irritate you by longer being seen as an English Lords property, but who have a right to a democratic process. Stick to climate comments , otherwise the words ‘glasshouse’ and ‘throwing stones’ tends to spring to mind when you use this site to roll out your right wing landed gentry view of the world.

    Okay, let me, a libertarian landed (woods on the side of a mountain) non-gentry, and non-lord make a comment:

    Unfortunately Salby did not get the opportunity to talk to your real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk.

  65. The Chicago Board of Trade is the proper place to bet on climate, and it’s still a game of chance that should be shunned by investors and savers.

    Furthermore, there are now 15 or 20 different models that are regularly reported about in aggregate in the press. When are journalists going to start answering the obvious question, namely, which is doing best? Or more realistically, of all the wrong answers coming from the models which is least wrong? This ploy by the scientists of creating an ensemble of models needs some dissection by the journalists.

  66. Ferdinand.

    Rather than relying on shallow water sponges do you have any data on global ocean plankton effects on the isotope ratio ?

    Even better, something for the oceanic biological processes as a whole?

    As regards the December Airs data (that you don’t link to) the CO2 emissions are still over the sun warmed subtropical latitudes are they not?

    As for Airs not being of fine enough resolution to see human emissions then that suggests that the ebb and flow of natural sources and sinks is far more significant and I am no longer satisfied that the isotope ratios within the natural CO2 exchange are as simple as you say due to varying biological contributions.

    We cannot resolve that here. Only more data can resolve it.

  67. Greg Goodman says:
    November 10, 2013 at 8:44 am

    With the right offset and factor, you can fit any linear change with any other linear change. With a change in order, you can fit any linear increase with any other quadratic increase. But that doesn’t say anything about attribution of the cause of the increase.

    There is no natural process that gives a non-linear increase of CO2 for a linear increase in temperature. Or that gives a constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere for a sustained (small) change in temperature above an arbitrary baseline…

  68. Ferdinand said:

    “There is no natural process that gives a non-linear increase of CO2 for a linear increase in temperature. Or that gives a constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere for a sustained (small) change in temperature above an arbitrary baseline…”

    The thermohaline circulation (THC )would subduct CO2 poor waters during a warmer spell such as the MWP and CO2 rich waters during a colder spell such as the LIA and the Dark Ages.

    The THC has a round trip between 1000 and 1500 years with timings varying from one ocean basin to the next.

    Maybe we currently have CO2 rich water from the Dark Ages resurfacing ?

  69. M Courtney, November 10, 2013 at 9:05 am, says:

    The “shop” is a warehouse that is far bigger than the observed sales and has many flows in and out. … It is more like the Amazon warehouse. You can’t tell if total stock in the warehouse is rising or falling by looking at your own purchases on your own PC.

    You ignored my analogy and substituted your own strawman argument. Then you assumed that Amazon have no way of knowing whether they are losing stock through theft because their own operation is too big to monitor. Guess you better tell jeff bezos all those barcode scanners are wasted!
    My analogy was correct; accounting can tell you the answer for a conserved quantity.
    The choice of a 3-repository carbon model of Earth for solving the mass balance equation is explicitly a partition of the planet, so by definition there is no carbon process excluded from it. There is nothing missing. It’s so simple it can’t be wrong, there’s nowhere for a mistake to hide.

    And that is why you can’t just assume…

    Nope, your studied ignorance does you no good. It’s not an assumption, it’s the result of observation and arithmetic. You can’t actually criticise an argument that you don’t understand, you can only make noise trying.

  70. I have to say, this post is helping confirm a troubling view I have. A couple users pointed out a problem:

    Patrick:

    Why is “Monckton of Brenchley” allowed to label another postie a troll, without qualification?

    The issue is not about liking someone or not. Monckton is not my friend. Don’t see your point there. He attributes the label of “troll” to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. His responses clearly show that.

    Gareth:

    By the way, just because I point out a truth does not make me a troll, annoying maybe, but tough. You utilise this site to campaign for a for your own right wing masters in UKIP, then whine when someone calls you to task on it. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

    Until recently, I had never paid much attention to Christopher Monckton, and I hadn’t realized he posts in the absurdly insulting way we see in this post. I certainly hadn’t realized he attacks anyone who dares criticize him like Patrick and Gareth pointed out. It’s only in the last couple months I’ve come to realize how terrible a participant he is. The biggest shock to me was when he had the audacity to say:

    [Brandon’s] culpable silence about the manifest and serious defects in that paper stands in painful and disfiguring contrast with his persistent, purposeless whining about the imagined (indeed, imaginary) defects in my letter, as though he were a gaggle of teenagers upon being told that Justin Dribbler would not after all be appearing at their pop concert. His strange and disproportionate behaviour raises legitimate doubts about whether he genuinely seeks the objective truth.

    He literally said I am responsible (cuplable) for the problems in Cook et al’s paper. Ignoring everything else about me, I was the first person to find major problems in Cook et al’s paper. Monckton discussed problems I drew attention to then had the audacity to blame me for those problems!

    It seems Monckton can say and do practically anything and still be accepted by many people. That’s ridiculous and embarrassing. Now that I’ve seen a number of posts he’s written for this site, I’m embarrassed to have ever submitted posts here.

    Extremists like Monckton are a blight. I welcome participation from people regardless of their views, but nobody should welcome the poisonous, vile diatribes he posts. At the very least, they’re as strategically unsound as anything can be.

  71. Ron Richey says:
    November 10, 2013 at 7:01 am
    Patrick and Gareth,
    OK, you don’t like Monckton. We got that.
    You got anything intelligent to contribute on the subject matter or not?
    Ron Richey

    ———————————————————————————–

    Thank you Ron, I can’t say I dislike Monckton , I don’t know him so cannot make that judgement. I believe I am commenting on Moncktons post, I am responding to what he has said, it just happens to be in a different area of his essay than your subject. People ask me why, as a lefty and a warmest I like this site. Well, it’s because I like the freedom of expression here and the right to be wrong as it were without condemnation from moderators. Something which is severely lacking on the warmest side of the debate. And on this day above all it’s good to recall all the people who fight and died to give us that freedom from people who thought they had a God given right to rule over us. While Monckton writes climate related essays that I read, find interesting and occasionally agree with, his criticisms of a democratic process in a small country while writing of his belief that he has a God given right to his position over the people of the UK was crass in nature and in opposition to much of philosophy the site embodies, especially on this day of all days. If Monckton does not like being challenged on his political stance, his best bet is to stick with climate issues and use the site to promote his extremist political views.

  72. The comments continue to be more than usually fascinating. As always, I am indebted to Professor Brown for his thoughtful discussion. He is one of those great teachers of physics who manages to generate more light than heat. He rightly reminds us that the climate is complex enough to complicate any attempt to reduce to a simple function the relation between – say – the time-integral of global mean surface temperature and the atmospheric concentration of CO2. However, Professor Salby’s analysis (which is worth watching, particularly in the Hamburg version, where there is more math) is a great deal more sophisticated than my short, fumbling account conveys. His comparison of the annual rates of net CO2 emission with annual temperature anomalies is interesting. His demonstration that, in the admittedly short record since 1850, the change in CO2 concentration is a function of the time-integral of temperature change to a high correlation, his observation that the theoretical and actual cross-correlation profiles of CO2 concentration change and temperaature change are near identical – all of these suggest that there may be something in what he says, which is why I hope that he will find the time and resources to work up his results for publication.

    He makes the fair point that, if the IPCC is correct, the numerous natural CO2 sources and since that Professor Brown mentions are in balance – or, more correctly, in approximate balance. I should certainly have felt more confident in Professor Salby’s argument if he had been able to say why the time-integral of global mean surface temperature drives the changes in CO2 concentration. Establishing that a thing is so is the first step; establishing why it is so is the important second step. That said, I have recently been looking at how Fourier analysis is used to improve the understanding of relationships such as that which Professor Salby posits, and at present I remain impressed with the logic of his argument, as far as it currently reaches.

    Professor Brown says he would rather I did not display temperature and CO2 anomalies on the same graph. However, the graph, which has been much circulated in scientific and government circles, has been effective in showing that, while CO2 concentration is rising at a rate that the usual suspects regard as significant enough to warm the planet, there has been no global warming (on the RSS dataset, at any rate) for 17 full years. As long as the temperature trend does not exceed zero and the CO2 trend significantly exceeds zero and the period is sufficiently long to be interesting, it is legitimate to show the temperature and CO2 anomalies on the same graph, which nicely illustrates the difference between prediction and measurement. I share Professor Brown’s concern that, in this as in many other inconvenient truths long evident in the real-world data, the IPCC and the modelers are burying their heads in the sand. After all, it has been less than a year since the pompous national delegates of almost 200 nations at the Doha climate conference screamed in savage fury when I told them there had been no global warming for 16 years. Then, they did not know that, because the mainstream news media had kept The Pause secret because it did not fit the Party Line. Now, many people know The Pause is happening, but they are still startled when they see the anomalies and trends clearly displayed on the same graph. Like all graphs, its purpose is to make clear a scientific truth that would not be readily discernible by examining the tables of underlying data. In that ambition, it is in my submission not unsuccessful, and it is not in any sense misleading.

    Another commenter says Fred Singer has his doubts about whether Professor Salby’s analysis is correct, on the basis that isotope studies show the additional CO2 in the atmosphere to be anthropogenic. Professor Salby starts out by addressing that point. In his opinion, many of the natural sources of CO2 have isotopic signatures (i.e 13C/12C fractions) very close to those of anthropogenic CO2. And, as I pointed out during question time, the partial pressure of 14C has declined since the nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s following an exponential curve that strongly suggests a CO2 residnece time of 40 years rather than the 50-200 years imagined by the IPCC, still less the thousands of years trotted out by some of the usual suspects.

    Bottom line: one must accept that a naive relation between the time integral of global mean surface temperature and atmospheric Co2 concentration is unlikely to be enough on its own to solve the climate question. And I bear in mind that the change in CO2 concentration during the 17-year temperature Pause does show a very slight acceleration when, all things being equal, one might expect a very slight deceleration. However, the linear trend has a correlation of 0.94, which suggests that the curvature is not really great enough to invalidate Professor Salby’s theory. I conclude that it would be prudent to bear in mind the possibility that he is right, and that it is not necessary to posit any anthropogenic contribution to the CO2 concentration increase in order to explain that increase. That is not to say we are making no contribution: but it is possible that we are not making a great contribution. One of the greatest questions in all this is how it is that half of Man’s emissions do not end up in the atmosphere at all but disappear instantly. Professor Salby’s analysis offers the least unconvincing answer to the problem of the vanishing anthropogenic emissions that I have seen.

  73. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:27 am

    Rather than relying on shallow water sponges do you have any data on global ocean plankton effects on the isotope ratio ?`

    “global” is a little too broad, but there are several time series at a few places and regular ships surveys which show that the seasonal changes are an increase of the 13C/12C ratio in summer and a decrease in winter, but that also depends of wind (mixing) speed. Here for the North Atlantic (free subscription needed):
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2374.full
    and directly:

    The data for the North Pacific are here (sheet 10 of the 7 MB .ppt file):
    http://courses.washington.edu/oc583/Figures09/Carbon_A_W07.ppt
    together with more interesting data…

    As regards the December Airs data (that you don’t link to) the CO2 emissions are still over the sun warmed subtropical latitudes are they not?

    Indeed they are as there is constant upwelling from the deep oceans, which release their CO2 when warmed near the surface. The opposite happens near the poles, where the cold polar waters are permanent sinks. But as long as sinks and sources are in equilibrium, that doesn’t change the amounts residing in the atmosphere. Here the movie of the AIRS data over years:
    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2010-03-30-CO2-Movie/
    it takes some time to load…

    As for Airs not being of fine enough resolution to see human emissions then that suggests that the ebb and flow of natural sources and sinks is far more significant
    Are you saying that there is no significant rise in sealevel, because the 2 mm/year is not measurable in the meters change caused by waves and tides? One need 25 years to filter out the ocean level fluctuations in this noise, one need only 3 years of data to separate the trend of CO2 (whatever the cause) from the temperature caused noise…

  74. I’m willing to be corrected but wasn’t the higher power that called the esteemed Lord the one and only Anthony Eden, best known now for the sheer stupidity that was the Suez Crisis.

  75. “One of the greatest questions in all this is how it is that half of Man’s emissions do not end up in the atmosphere at all but disappear instantly.”

    The simplest most likely answer is that it all gets absorbed by the local or regional biosphere whilst there is something wrong with the isotope / mass balance proposal.

  76. Monckton: ” I should certainly have felt more confident in Professor Salby’s argument if he had been able to say why the time-integral of global mean surface temperature drives the changes in CO2 concentration. ”

    Only basic notion is outgassing of the oceans. Everything else is an attendant issue. eg. Animal life growing by relative respiration faster than plant life. Ice melt. Perhaps greater chance of fires, or greater chance of larger fires. Beyond the oceans, it’s largely a matter of angels on a pin.

  77. Ferdinand said:

    “There is constant upwelling from the deep oceans, which release their CO2 when warmed near the surface. The opposite happens near the poles, where the cold polar waters are permanent sinks. But as long as sinks and sources are in equilibrium, that doesn’t change the amounts residing in the atmosphere. ”

    But sinks and sources need not be in equilibrium on multi-decadal and centennial time scales due to the Thermohaline Circulation.which is 1000 to 1500 years long.

    CO2 rich water from the Dark Ages would only now be resurfacing to face warming from the reduced cloudiness of the late 20th century which was itself the result of the more active sun.

    Furthermore, the ocean cycles resident in each ocean basin will interact to upset any such equilibrium.

    I judge that something is wrong with the assumptions behind the isotope / mass balance proposal.

  78. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 10, 2013 at 7:52 am

    “But that is only curve fitting without a physical basis.”

    Physical basis right here.

    “Indeed Henry’s law shows that an increase of 1 K of ocean surface temperature will increase the pCO2 of seawater with 16 µatm.”

    As shown at the link, Henry’s law dictates a temperature dependent integral just as observed.

    “Over the past 50(/110) years, the match between increase in the atmosphere and human emissions is almost perfect:”

    There is no match to the bumps and wiggles in the rate of change of CO2. Temperature, however, matches both the bumps and wiggles and the trend.

    “The whole biosphere is currently a net sink for CO2, as can be deduced from the oxygen balance:”

    No, as can be conjectured from the oxygen balance. The data are not comprehensive, and in any case are open to many interpretations, not just the one you proffer.

    rgbatduke says:
    November 10, 2013 at 8:14 am

    “After all, if we increase the Earth’s mean temperature by (say) 0.5 C, we don’t expect CO_2 to increase indefinitely, we expect it to increase from a former equilibrium to a new equilibrium, so we expect CO_2 to have a negative curvature once we get past the initial transient associated with the warming pulse.”

    Indeed, that is why CO2 cannot be significantly driving temperature. Otherwise, there would be a positive feedback loop, as discussed at the first link above. As for negative curvature, the curvature has already flattened (linear slope in CO2) with the flattening of temperatures. There is every reason to expect it will go negative as temperatures decrease.

    ” But the cause of the original warming could equally well have been a change in the external forcing or a bolus of CO_2, because CO_2 causes warming which causes the release of CO_2 which causes warming.”

    This is the positive feedback cycle of which I speak. It is self-reinforcing. It would have started eons ago, and it would have driven us to a boundary of the system eons agon. Therefore, it cannot be. We know from basic principles that temperature must increase CO2 in the atmosphere. The ineluctable conclusion is that temperature sensitivity to CO2 at the current state of the system is negligible.

    “It is not (as I know that you know very well) sufficient to prove that there is no GHE or any such thing…”

    As alluded to above, it is not necessary that the GHE be equally powerful in all conditions. There can be a GHE, yet its effects can be countered by other conditions/feedbacks in the current state of the system, rendering it effectively nil at the present time.

    Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 8:28 am

    “Rather than repeat the whole Mass Balance argument here…”

    The “Mass Balance” argument is a naive proposal put forward by people who do not understand feedback systems. It is simple arithmetic in an application which demands calculus.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:12 am

    “Any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.”

    You think. This is narrative, not evidence.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:33 am

    “There is no natural process that gives a non-linear increase of CO2 for a linear increase in temperature.”

    Yes, there is. First link above.

    Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:39 am

    “You can’t actually criticise an argument that you don’t understand, you can only make noise trying.”

    You should listen to your own advice. The bougus “mass balance” argument has been thoroughly eviscerated on these pages many times in the past. It thorougly relies on a “weak sink” assumption which has no foundation. It assumes all CO2 flows have been observed and accounted for, again without foundation. It is a very stupid argument.

  79. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:59 am

    “I should certainly have felt more confident in Professor Salby’s argument if he had been able to say why the time-integral of global mean surface temperature drives the changes in CO2 concentration.”

    My hypothesis here.

  80. > “there is something wrong with the mass balance proposal.”

    Then you better tell the chemists that conservation of mass doesn’t apply to the atmosphere. They will be upset to hear that the time they spent balancing their reaction equations was wasted because carbon atoms can just appear or disappear into nothing.

    Or you could try arguing the anthropogenic emissions figures are exaggerated by a factor of more than 4x, but good luck proving it.

  81. ” because carbon atoms can just appear or disappear into nothing.”

    CO2 atoms can appear from or disappear into the oceans.

    Good try conflating the movement of CO2 in and out of the oceans with net atmospheric mass globally.

  82. I have several times suggested that climate is the integral of weather; a bit simplistic, in that many things affect climate, all on different time scales. But an interesting consequence of integration, is time delay.

    Professor Salby’s thesis that the time integral of temperatures determines CO2, as Lord Monckton relays here, is a bit subtle I think, because planet earth is not busily computing mean global Temperature, as humans try to do. Salby’s time integration is going on at all points, simultaneously and independently. The CO2 over the Indian ocean may heed the local temperature, but pays no heed to the Atlantic Temperatures, which will do their own local thing, as regards CO2.

    And the offset delay time of the integral might be also expected to depend on local peculiarities.

    But is it just co-incidence, that 800 years prior to the present CO2 up ramp, we had the medieval warm period. Integration does not replicate functional shape. A step in Temperature, or even a short impulse, tends to integrate as a ramp. Well after an impulse passes, the ramp will terminate, but not head down again unless a negative impulse follows.

    So I find Salby’s idea very interesting.

    I have also stated on several occasions, that the 6ppm annual ML CO2 cycle indicates a decay time constant of just a handful of years, which would support Professor Lindzen’s 40 year residence for CO2 in the atmosphere.

    I don’t believe nature pays any attention to averages. Each event leaves its effect, as it happens, and they tend to accumulate. Only humans, with time on their hands see merit in computing averages; it has the advantage that it can’t be observed experimentally , so it can’t be questioned by critics.

  83. I wonder what happened to my comments?

    [they may have gone into spam and deleted with others – we’ve been gettign a spam barrage lately – try again – mod]

  84. Salby’s thesis that the time-integral of global temperature determines CO2 concentration change (corr coef ~0.9), as reported by Monckton, can be considered in regard to the following WUWT post and discussion from almost 4 years ago:

    {note: all bold emphasis by me – JW}

    WUWT post => ‘New paper on mathematical analysis of GHG’, posted on February 14, 2010
    ‘Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming’ by Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz – Department of Economics, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel.

    Abstract:
    We use statistical methods designed for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW). This theory predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW when global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas forcings (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in 2nd differences.

    We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.

    The differencing (& associated idea of integration) of the various time series appear to be stimulating more interest on and funding for the formation of a new climate theory versus the insufficient AGW one.

    John

    Personal Note: As soon as it came out in January 2012 I purchased Salby’s textbook ‘Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate’. It is my initial go to reference in checking on basic climate science statements on this and other blogs.

  85. Bart says:
    “It is simple arithmetic in an application which demands calculus.”
    Differentiation is part of calculus, and in the absence of a symbolic function a derivative of a quantity can only be calculated by subtraction of two measurements, which is arithmetic. Besides, the situation does not “demand” anything from us, it just is what it is.

    Bart says:
    “It assumes all CO2 flows have been observed and accounted for”
    Nope. It makes no such assumption. In fact by partitioning the planet into the 3 buckets depicted it means we do not have to track carbon flows in nature at all. To solve for the unknown Natural repository derivative requires only that we know the derivative of the atmospheric carbon repository and the derivative of anthropogenic repository. We know them both.
    Seems you needed my advice too. You have to understand something to criticise it, or you just end up making noise.

  86. On C-14 decay rate and CO2 residency in the atmosphere …

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833148

    Towards the end of the piece …

    ‘Recent research indicates that the rate of increase in emissions might be slowing down, but the gases can continue to concentrate in the atmosphere and exert a climate influence for hundreds if not thousands of years. ‘

    40 years? Pah, it’s thousands I tell you. :)

  87. People can (and will) believe what they want for as long as they can. But, it is worth pointing out that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 stalled in the last decade, precisely at the time global temperatures stalled. At the same time, global anthropogenic emissions have continued accelerating. Though there was, for a time, a superficial similarity between the two, there is a marked divergence between them now which is growing with time. It should not be too much longer now before Nature settles the debate. It is pretty clear which side it is favoring as of now.

  88. Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 11:02 am

    “Seems you needed my advice too.”

    (Sigh). All right. Put up your stupid argument in mathematical terms and I will once again show you where it goes wrong, as I have shown so many others before you.

  89. “The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.”

    For the mathematically challenged, could someone put into simple English what “the time-integral of global temperature” means? I might have intuited the right meaning, but I’m not sure.

  90. Stephen Wilde says:
    “CO2 atoms can appear from or disappear into the oceans.”

    There are no CO2 atoms but I know what you mean. Carbon atoms can certainly go into and out of the oceans, nobody has ever said otherwise.
    But to go into one place means to come from another place, that is the mass balance principle.
    Whatever was put into the atmosphere which did not remain in the atmosphere must have gone Somewhere Else, and you don’t even need to know where exactly that Somewhere Else is precisely. That’s the 3rd bucket, defined implicitly as every repository we can’t measure, and whose collective rate of change can then be calculated reliably, because carbon atoms do not disappear from the system.

    Again, you have to understand something to criticise it.

  91. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:39 am

    The thermohaline circulation (THC )would subduct CO2 poor waters during a warmer spell such as the MWP and CO2 rich waters during a colder spell such as the LIA and the Dark Ages.

    Indeed that is the case, but if you look at the changes in subduction and release, the maximum change is about 3% in outflux from the atmosphere into the polar sinks, which gives a maximum of 3% in influx many centuries later. The return flux gives a change in equilibrium of halve the change of the past (as the sinks will increase with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere). Or a 6 ppmv drop during the LIA would give a 3 ppmv increase today if nothing happened of mixing inbetween and constant temperature… Here a graph for what happens with a 10% increase in CO2 concentration in the upwelling seawaters:

    and what happens if the temperature increases five years later:

    temperature and concentration are hardly influencing each other. There is a near linear increase of upwelling from both higher concentration and temperature, near independent of each other (the deviation from linear is 2% for 1 K change in temperature).

  92. 6Patrick says:
    November 10, 2013 at 7:48 am
    “Ron Richey says:

    November 10, 2013 at 7:01 am”

    The issue is not about liking someone or not. Monckton is not my friend. Don’t see your point there. He attributes the label of “troll” to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. His responses clearly show that.
    _________________________________________________________________

    Its the correct label given the personal attack that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

  93. Stephen Wilde says:
    “Here is something about the mass balance proposal”

    Nope. That’s not the mass balance proposal. That’s a totally different argument which is referred to by various names such as the Isotope Ratio Argument, but it’s not a plain application of the general mass balance principle. I have never believed the Isotope Ratio argument because I never saw why ancient plants would have a different 13C ratio than modern plants. The mass balance argument has nothing to do with the isotope ratio argument and does not rely on isotope ratio measurements at all.

    Again, you have to understand an argument to be able to criticise it.

  94. Bart: ” At the same time, global anthropogenic emissions have continued accelerating.”

    Let’s assume then that Salby’s math is beyond reproach. (No idea whether that’s the case or not.) Then the take away is not that dT leads dCO2 and thus causality in AGW is spurious or simply backwards. It is that whatever determines dCO2 is significant enough that it dwarfs whatever man is doing for output. (Assuming here that the estimates of man’s CO2 output is fit for use.)

    Putting aside all else, the only relevant question is: Are there any interesting flaws in Salby’s math? (It’s guaranteed the there are many objections, it’s only relevant if they are dispositive.)

  95. I don’t know whether at present the human contribution to CO2 concentration be 16 ppmv of dry air or 100 ppmv. It would be good to discover convincingly what fraction is indeed of anthropogenic origin, but from a public policy standpoint it matters little if, as seems likely, climate sensitivity be low, ie one to two degrees C or less increase in global mean temperature for a doubling of CO2 levels from ~280 to 560 ppmv. In that case, more atmospheric plant food is a good thing, since runaway heating catastrophes of whatever imagined type are not possible. IPeCaC’s evidence-free, assumed positive feedbacks are pure fantasy, shown false by actual observations.

  96. Bart says:
    “… as I have shown so many others before you.”
    Oh? So many others? Then there is no need for me to post the equation (all one line of it), since you can just point me to two previous occasions where you have “shown” that the disappearance of carbon atoms from one place does not require them to reappear at any other place. That will be either educational for me or hilarious, depending on how it goes.
    Those links are….?

  97. Christopher Monckton,

    Thank you for teeing up Salby and a discussion of other views towards new theories of climate. The discussion you have created in important.

    I often, but not always, have found fundamentally significant value in your posts here over the years.

    However, Christopher Monckton , I personally ask you to desist from your increasing frequency of instances of your uncivil habit of troll name calling to the commenters whom you perceive as critical of your postings. In my view (only my view), I do not consider it in the spirit of this venue’s discourse.

    John

  98. “Professor Salby’s thesis that the time integral of temperatures determines CO2, as Lord Monckton relays here”

    If this is indeed what Salby is now saying he’s drifting off course. I have yet to see anything in writing from Salby so the “if” should be taken literally. I suspect there is some misreporting going on here.

    Though it may appear similar it is not the same as saying temp determines d/dt(CO2).

    There is temperature dependency in rate of emission of any gas from a liquid , this is due to the temperature dependency of the “constant” of Henry’s law. But this does not start at absolute zero, maybe closer to zero deg. C, though water also gives up most of its CO2 before freezing. Neither is it linear except approximately, over short range.

    If the bulk water temperature changes it will absorb/out-gas to move towards a new equilibrium with CO2 content. As atm CO2 rises, the difference will reduce and the rate of outgassing will thus also reduce. This is what rgb was objecting to above. CO2 can’t just be the integral of temperature, otherwise it will never fall and must always rise. I’m sure Salby is far more competent than to suggest that so I’m sure someone has got the wrong end of that particular stick.

    As temp has been fairly stable for some 15 or more years, rate of CO2 increase should be slowing as atm CO2 get nearer to the new equilibrium value. And we can see this happening.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223

    The rising SST from 1974 to around 1995 saw increasing rate of change of CO2 (ie. accelerating change of CO2). Since 1997 ‘plateau’ in SST d/dt(CO2) has also seen a ‘plateau’. That is it’s rate of change has been fairly constant on the decadal scale.

    That 2ppmv/year plateau could be read several ways.

    1. current SST is a long way from thermodynamic equilibrium so little sign of d/dt(CO2) falling towards zero. Just remaining level with level SST.

    2. It’s already equilibrated with SST and the remaining rate of change is due to ever increasing emissions.

    3. something else….

  99. Ferdinand said:

    “if you look at the changes in subduction and release, the maximum change is about 3% in outflux from the atmosphere into the polar sinks, which gives a maximum of 3% in influx many centuries later. ”

    You should also consider changes in the reduced CO2 carrying capability of the equatorial sources. Reducing that capability increases atmospheric CO2 independently of changes in the rate at which CO2 goes from the polar atmosphere to the polar sinks.

    And changes in the amount of sunlight entering the oceans when global cloudiness changes.

    Your 3% assumes all else being equal but it is not.

  100. Gareth Phillips says:

    November 10, 2013 at 3:59 am

    “Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk”

    Gareth, I think your baggage dragged you to a wrong interpretation. However, using the interpretation that I believe Monckton was using, I wish you independence next year, complete independence, only then will your baggage be unloaded from the your hold.

  101. Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 11:27 am

    “…you can just point me to two previous occasions where you have …”

    Unfortunately, this site does not have an advanced search function which I can use to find past threads easily. It’s been done to death on these pages. You’re just the latest naif to wander down the pike, cocksure in his brazen ignorance.

    So, we will have to do it all over again, hence the (sigh). Now, put up, or shut up. Give me the equations, and I will show you where you go wrong.

  102. Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Strange. my link clearly refers to mass balance in relation to the isotope ratio which was what I was referring to.

    I now have no idea what mass balance concept you were referring to.

  103. New plot so new post.

    Now we can examine the second derivative directly.
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233

    Here we see a clear drop in CO2 since 1998. to 2007, ending negative, so it was starting to slow. There seems to be a greater variation since but I’d still put the average below zero, ie deceleration. Again this would seem to show some equilibration is occurring though this could also reflect the beginnings of a downward trend in SST since 2005.

    So there is clearly strong evidence of a significant out-gassing effect occurring. But like RGB says, it’s all a question of how much. That requires some ODE models at least as a first step.

    The changes are far from monotonic if we examine the derivative so the result will be informative.

    If Murry Salby has something to say on this, it well time that he put it down in writing for validation rather than just doing a world tour of talks. I look forward to seeing what he’s got.

  104. I am a little saddened to the extent which Christopher Monkton uses sarcasm in this article. It does little to assist the credibility of his thoughts and gives ammunition to his detractors. However it raises some interesting ideas which are enhanced by subsequent comments.

    We should appreciate that Henry’s Law applies to dilute solutions (as does Raoult’s Law to concentrated solutions) in equilibrium with their atmosphere. The oceans/atmosphere system is never in equilibrium and therefore Henry’s Law can only be used to indicate the direction in which mass transfer will occur and indicate at what rate the system will endeavour to obtain equilibrium.

    There has been much comment regarding the implications of ice-core data and the 800 year time lag, together with some numbers to indicate the amount of movement to be expected from a temperature change. One simplistic thought strikes me, though. We are presently about 800 years from the MWP which suggests, despite arithmetic estimations as to extent, present CO2 levels may well be tracking temperature movements in the MWP.

    Finally, I am intrigued with the parallel that considerations of time-integrals of temperature (warming or cooling) offer with the classical Ziegler-Nichols process control theory. That theory uses three factors in the control of chemical and physical processes: a proportional factor, a rate (or differential) factor, and an offset (or integral) factor. The latter uses the accumulated error, or deviation from the control set point, to increase the driving force required to bring the system back to the set point. The situations are not necessarily analogous, but do offer the possibility of another method of analysis.

  105. Dear Lord!

    or, at least, dear Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    It seems to me that Prof Salby has not pretended to a theory of climate – only to a description of the apparent lack of causative linkages between various measures of atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Svensmark may be on the way to a theory of climate change, but Salby isn’t.

    Thus the most important thing about Salby’s work is the opposition to it -because his results are far more about finding new support for something already known than about finding new knowledge. That’s valuable, but not ground breaking.

    Know what’s really needed? Something called “Towards a theory of Warmism” explaining why political groups claiming allegiance to science and liberal social values so eagerly sign on for errant nonsense and then demand that those who call them on it be jailed.

  106. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 10, 2013 at 8:40 am

    FrankK says:
    November 10, 2013 at 6:53 am

    Yes this also “concerned” me. But is this not just a question of resolution. Ice cores can only point to very long-term changes as they “average” or smooth out shorter term variations like those that have and are occurring in the 20th and 21 Century.

    Different ice cores have different resolutions, depending on the snow accumulation speed. The Law Dome DSS core has a resolution of ~20 years and covers the past 1000 years, thus including the MWP-LIA transition:

    The drop of ~0.8 K between the MWP and LIA caused a drop of ~6 ppmv in the ice core with a lag of ~50 years. Thus about 8 ppmv/K, the same as seen in the Vostok and Dome C ice cores over 420 and 800 kyears.
    That means that the current increase in temperature out of the depth of the LIA is only good for maximum 8 ppmv CO2 of the 100+ ppmv increase we see today. Humans meanwhile emitted over 200 ppmv CO2 all together in the same period…
    _________________________________________________________________________

    Thanks for your input Ferdinand.
    You imply that the contribution by humans is 200 ppmv since industrialisation, but is that not just simply based on the difference between what was purportedly the concentration pre-industrialisation and what it is at present? Notwithstanding that ice core CO2 concentrations are considered by some not to be all that accurate (i.e. much greater in the past and now much less) due to diffusion over time (e.g. Salby’s view) the CO2 contribution by humans is estimated to be only 9 Gt/yr yet natural emissions at idealised steady state to be around 150 Gt/yr with the same assumed to be absorbed.

    However, under transient conditions the natural emissions in-out can vary substantially particularly if temperature varies (Salby view) which when you integrate the temperature over time you can show that this can yield the Hawaii measured CO2 concentration levels to a high degree of accuracy (See his Hamburg lecture and verified by a Swedish researcher). And the argument that fossil fuel emissions have a a particular carbon isotope ratio that counters that view has been dismissed by Salby. (See his lecture in Hamburg)

    OK its a hypothesis but one that needs, and is worthy of further investigation rather than accepting the constant dogma promulgated by the usual AGW crowd.

  107. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Professor Salby starts out by addressing that point. In his opinion, many of the natural sources of CO2 have isotopic signatures (i.e 13C/12C fractions) very close to those of anthropogenic CO2. And, as I pointed out during question time, the partial pressure of 14C has declined since the nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s following an exponential curve that strongly suggests a CO2 residence time of 40 years rather than the 50-200 years imagined by the IPCC, still less the thousands of years trotted out by some of the usual suspects.

    While I agree that the IPCC is completely wrong on this point (they may be getting right when we use near all oil and gas and lots of coal, when the deep oceans are getting saturated), the 40 years of the 14CO2 decay is too short (as I told Tallbloke at the London meeting) and Dr. Salby is right and wrong on that point.

    The 14CO2 decay in general follows the 12CO2 decay at about the same rate (with a slight change in composition) in vegetation and in the upper ocean layer. But it doesn’t do that for the deep ocean exchanges:
    What goes into the deep oceans is the 14C/12C ratio of today. What comes out of the oceans is the 14C/12C ratio of ~1000 years ago, minus the 14C radioactive decay. That means that out of the oceans comes 97% of the 12CO2 which does sink today into the oceans, but only 45% of the 14CO2 which sinks today. Thus the decay rate of 14CO2 is faster than of 12CO2.
    Here the fluxes for the peak 14CO2 in 1960:

    and in 2000:

    The real decay rate of 12CO2 is longer: with the current extra pressure of about 210 GtC (100 ppmv) above equilibrium, the net sink rate is about 4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year). That gives an e-fold decay rate of 210/4 = 52.5 years. Still far below the hundreds of years of the IPCC…

    Mostly all inorganic carbon on earth (oceans, carbonate rocks, volcanic vents) has an isotopic signature around zero per mil δ13C (the standard was a carbonate rock, Pee Dee Belemnite – PDB). All organic carbon, fossil as well as recent, has a δ13C level far below zero. The atmosphere is in between at -6.4 per mil (pre-industrial) to -8 per mil today.

    There are two methods to discriminate between fossil carbon and new carbon:
    – fossil carbon is completely depleted of 14CO2 (it is too old). That can be used to detect the origin of sooth.
    – the oxygen balance: Fossil fuel burning uses oxygen. One can calculate the total oxygen use from the mix of fuels and their burning efficiency. That gives a certain depletion of oxygen in the atmosphere over time. The measured decrease is somewhat lower than calculated, which means that the total biosphere (land and sea plants, microbes, insects, animals, humans) produces more oxygen than it uses. Or the earth is greening: more CO2 is taken in than produced by the biosphere and by preference more 12CO2 than 13CO2 in ratio, thus giving an increase in 13C/12C in the atmosphere and thus not the cause of the sharp decrease of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

  108. Christopher, you asked for pointers to ocean-temp/CO2 capacity research.

    Not quite what you asked for but you might want to look at the following: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/lets-get-sorted.html

    In brief, I have a conjecture (based on some evidence; not totally pie-in-the-sky) that ocean temperatures follow solar variation after a 99-year transient response due to centuries-scale shallow/deep ocean circulation. I call this SORT – Solar Oceanic Response Timelag.

    Oh for a research grant! ;-)

  109. yes, some of us are agreed on that it has started global cooling.
    I think my findings are more or less the same as others, who arrived at this at different angles.
    quote
    ….from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
    end quote.

    Lord Monckton says he hopes I am wrong.
    That is just wishful thinking. And putting your head in the sand.

    Namely, there is a danger of the so-called ice age trap: this is when earth incidentally or accidentally gets covered by too much snow which reflects a lot of irradiation. I am hopeful though that a return to LIA [ that would be caused by this] can be prevented.What we have seen in most NH countries is a very active policy to remove snow with heat (rooftops, bicycle roads, etc) and salt. In a similar way, if too much of earth gets covered with snow we could cover the snow with carbon (!) dust, which could prevent us falling into the trap as this would keep the solar energy in, instead of being deflected back to space. So, the carbon can save us.

    nevertheless, the droughts that will be caused by the coming cold at >[40] latitudes from around 2021 cannot be prevented [I think]
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  110. Bart: ” Though there was, for a time, a superficial similarity between the two, there is a marked divergence between them now which is growing with time”

    That seems to be what Ole Humlum’s paper says in some detail though he goes about it rather poorly and does some fairly horrible data processing errors:

    Humlum et al: ” The most serious consequence of smoothing or filtering is the shift of peaks and troughs in the smoothed curve, relative to the original data. If several data series are to be compared, identical filtering must therefore be applied at all series, as spurious effects else may arise, perhaps even inviting a false interpretation (see, e.g. discussion in Stauning 2011).”

    The “shift of peaks and troughs” is not a necessary consequence of filtering data, it is a direct result of choosing to use friggin running means.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

    If someone knows how to contact Ole, I’ll send a link and suggest how he can redo his analysis without shifting peaks and troughs.

  111. Bart says:
    November 10, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 11:27 am

    Must depart for a time. If you post something while I am away, I will respond when I return.

  112. Gareth Phillips says:
    November 10, 2013 at 3:59 am
    “Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk”
    ——————————————————————————————————

    And who elected you Monckton to the House of Lords to which you assert to be a member? At least ‘ Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament’ was elected by the people of Scotland who may irritate you by longer being seen as an English Lords property, but who have a right to a democratic process. Stick to climate comments , otherwise the words ‘glasshouse’ and ‘throwing stones’ tends to spring to mind when you use this site to roll out your right wing landed gentry view of the world.

    Attacking the speaker does not an argument make. The usual epithets used by left-wing believers/deniers, that are responsible for this ridiculous scare-mongering are lost whenever they are required to argue facts and always resort to verbal and personal abuse as noted above. One would rather be a rational, thinking, functioning “right-wing” conservative than a mealy-mouthed, lunatic that all CAGW followers have clearly demonstrated themselves to be. Move along and find a site where your abuse is the standard method of communication.

  113. Greg Goodman says:
    November 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Filtering with a finite impulse response, and shifting the data to the midpoint, gives a zero-phase response. I’m sure you know this. The WFT site does this shifting automatically for its averages.

  114. Jquip says:
    November 10, 2013 at 10:19 am
    Monckton: ” I should certainly have felt more confident in Professor Salby’s argument if he had been able to say why the time-integral of global mean surface temperature drives the changes in CO2 concentration. ”

    Only basic notion is outgassing of the oceans. Everything else is an attendant issue. eg. Animal life growing by relative respiration faster than plant life. Ice melt. Perhaps greater chance of fires, or greater chance of larger fires. Beyond the oceans, it’s largely a matter of angels on a pin.

    Would it also not be the case that an increase in CO2 should actually decrease the level and even the starting of fires when one follows the hysteria about CO2 being now to be overwhelming the planet ?

    It is not the case that CO2 is not “fire friendly” and will actually reduce fires from starting or spreading or producing such intensities as recent fires have shown, especially when there is plenty of fuel laying on the forest floor that people are not able to touch due to green hysteria ?

  115. To work toward a scientific theory of climate is a splendid idea. This theory would have to be built upon the events underlying the theory. Currently, global warming climatology holds no such events. Thus, step 1 in the design of the associated study is to identify them.

  116. Andrew McRae says to me at November 1, 2013 at 9:39 am…
    Well, you misunderstand my analogy and then claim I misunderstand yours.
    So forget the analogies.

    Look, if you have three buckets with very flows in and out that are known without certainty (as you say, we don’t monitor the whole ocean or every forest) you can’t know the amount of each flow that is anthropogenic or due to termites or just outflows form undersea volcanoes or…

    You can know that total flowing in to the sky bucket because we measure the total and assume perfect mixing. You can estimate the loss from the coal and gas bucket by burning from monitoring our industrial output. But that doesn’t mean you know how much if the latter goers into the former.
    But – for illustration (OK, analogy): If all the flows into and out of the Ocean bucket were 10 billion billion tomes larger than the flows from industry would you argue that the Ocean flows are perfectly balanced and can be overwhelmed by the gnat’s flatulence that is man? Of course not, if that were the case.

    But without knowing the all the inputs and outputs from the reservoirs you can’t be sure the two balance anyway. And even though man’s output is real (my first reply to you assumed so to begin with) and even though man’s output may be the cause of the rise in the atmosphere (my first reply to you said so to begin with…
    Even though man has an effect, we do not know what effect unless we make assumptions about reservoirs that are unjustified.

    Bart and Ferdinanad Engelbeen are experts on this. Look out for them and their on-going debate.

  117. Lord Monckton (and several commenters) –
    You may not (yet) find a reliable quantitative discussion of marine CO2. Anyone insisting on Henry’s Law as central to this is ill-informed.

    Some points from my skim so far:

    > Any description of ocean CO2 that ignores marine life is incomplete.
    Paleoclimatologists and such refer to the *biogeochemical* cycle, as they have had to infer a persistent active role for life in the geological record.
    Some plankton apparently actively transport and accumulate shell-building materials.
    Active photosynthesis can raise pH to surprising alkalinity locally. The fixed CO2 is (semi-)permanently removed from the system, making steady-state assumptions unsafe.

    > Sources and sinks of CO2 are not yet well-characterised.
    The ocean may be a (small net) CO2 source. If so, that CO2 is from deep water, which is mostly formed in remote polar regions.
    A ½% change in marine shell (or limestone) chemistry suffices to double (or null) the 20th-C atmospheric CO2 increase. Whether it may have appears open.

    Henry’s Law provides a simple, neat model (and no more).

  118. “Finally, I am intrigued with the parallel that considerations of time-integrals of temperature (warming or cooling) offer with the classical Ziegler-Nichols process control theory. ”

    Ah , the PID controller. That implies a second order ODE model. Someone suggested that for the regulatory effect of tropical storms, where I’d already shown evidence of the degree.day integral being held constant.

    I don’t know whether that is necessary for CO2 (simpler the better in principal, at least for my brain).

    However, I don’t think temp is enough on it’s own. Atmospheric pressure (as revealed by arctic oscillation) seems to correlate better during recent ‘hiatus’ of temperature:
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259

    During post ’75 warming temperature seemed to dominate. That suggest that a combination of the two may be needed.

  119. Bart says:
    November 10, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Physical basis right here.

    No, that is mathematical fitting of a curve, not based on any law of physics and violating about all known observations…

    As shown at the link, Henry’s law dictates a temperature dependent integral just as observed.

    You are completely wrong at that point: Henry’s Law shows an increase of 16 μatm in seawater for 1 K temperature increase. That increases the pCO2 difference between seawater and atmosphere which (linearly) increases the influx of CO2 into the atmosphere with a few %, until the CO2 in the atmosphere also increased with 16 μatm (~16 ppmv). That happens with an asymptote over time until the new equilibrium, restoring the previous fluxes, is reached. Nothing to do with integration of temperature: a fixed increase in temperature gives a fixed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere to equilibrium. That is what Henry’s law says and nothing else.

    There is no match to the bumps and wiggles in the rate of change of CO2. Temperature, however, matches both the bumps and wiggles and the trend.

    Temperature doesn’t match the trend (or it gives a too low amplitude of the wiggles) or it does match the wiggles, but then the trend is too high. The rate of change of emissions is double the trend while the temperature wiggles match the wiggles around the trend…

    [Any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.]

    You think. This is narrative, not evidence.

    No matter what you think, you can’t decrease the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere by adding CO2 with a higher 13C/12C ratio from any source. This effectively rejects your theory of a huge source of CO2 from the (deep) oceans. No way to reject that on any physical ground.

    If you reject every single evidence that your theory is wrong only on the ground that it doesn’t fit your theory, then your theory never can be disproven…

    Bart says:
    November 10, 2013 at 11:08 am

    there is a marked divergence between them now which is growing with time.

    As repeatedly said to Bart: by using different units for similar variables, he creates a false impression. Here is the real ratio between human emissions and the growth rate in the atmosphere, where halve the human emissions still completely fit within the natural variability:

    In reality it is not the yearly human emissions that regulate the sink rate, but the total of the residual increase in the atmosphere above equilibrium. That is caused by a relative slow decay rate (~53 years), which doesn’t cope with human emissions. Thus far above the near instant decay as Bart assumes and far below what the IPCC assumes…

  120. Bart says:
    “this site does not have an advanced search function…”

    Ahh, this is hilarious already, not only do you deny that the chemistry principle of mass balance applies to the atmosphere, but you deny that Google applies to wattsupwiththat.com.
    Which is why you will never be able to find this comment of yours, in which you show only that you don’t understand the carbon accounting argument where you say:

    Ferdinand basically assumes the sinks are constant, and do not vary in response to the amount of CO2 in the system. Only in such a static situation is his “mass balance” argument applicable.

    Well I cannot comment on “Ferdinand” or his arguments, but the only mass balance argument I have ever heard, and the argument I put forth, does not assume anything about the size of the sourcing/sinking for any repositories that we don’t actually have measurements for already.

    Since Google does not apply to WUWT, you will also never be able to find this other comment of yours last year, again arguing against Ferdinand’s mass balance arguments, where you say:

    it all conflicts with the simple observation that the rate of change of CO2 is proportional to the properly baselined temperature anomaly

    No it doesn’t, Bart! The warmer the oceans are the slower they absorb our CO2 and so the quicker it accumulates in the air. Having a correlation in the short term between delta Temperature and delta CO2 is completely expected, but that is fine-grained dynamics of the situation. It does not conflict at all with the requirement for mass balance, which means no matter how quickly or slowly the carbon is increasing in the atmosphere, the sum of carbon derivatives of all repositories must equal zero.

    Since Google does not apply to WUWT you will also be unable to recall this comment of yours where you said:

    The fundamental reason I doubt that the recently recorded rise in CO2 is most significantly of human origin is the simple fact that accidents do not happen in Nature. If the feedback loop governing CO2 concentration is so weak as effectively to allow 100% accumulation of the anthropogenically released CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere, then it is too weak to have established an equilibrium and maintained it tightly for thousands of years before the Industrial Age.

    So firstly you assume correlation is always causation, because “accidents do not happen in Nature”. Then you use what appears to be a strawman argument about all aCO2 going into the air and ocean and none of it going into plants, which is not part of the carbon accounting argument and certainly not part of the general chemistry principle of mass balance.

    In that same thread you also say:

    Bottom line: This is a dynamic system, and you guys are doing static analysis. And, you are assuming greater precision in the quantification of natural fluxes than actually exist, and when anthropogenic influx is less than 3% of natural fluxes, you do not need a lot of error to destroy the conclusion.

    So many errors packed into such a short comment.
    How is a balance of the rate of change of carbon in linked repositories a “static” analysis?? A dynamic analysis is the only type possible because we cannot count how many carbon atoms are in the ocean at a snapshot in time.
    As for precision, the required precision to resolve the issue depends on what the analysis shows. As it turns out the measured d.Air/dt is half the d.Anthro/dt, so an error of at least 50% is needed in one of those measurements to put any doubt over the result, and our annual emissions would have to have been exaggerated by a factor of 4x for the real data to support your preferred belief of majority CO2 rise being natural.
    Further you again show you do not understand the carbon accounting argument when you invoke uncertainty on natural fluxes, because natural fluxes do not need to be measured in this argument at all, indeed I’d say they are impossible to measure, that’s the advantage of the Carbon Accounting Argument; It requires knowing only the things we have actually measured.
    Finally you trot out the tired red herring of annual anthropogenic “flux” being only 3% of annual natural “fluxes”, which has nothing to do with the carbon accounting argument. I have answered that already on NoTricksZone here (where Alfonso was smart enough to see how he was mistaken and that I was right about that). Basically the only important thing for the argument is how much each repository gains or loses year-on-year, the actual path that individual carbon atoms take is not relevant.

    It again looks like the only way to disbelieve the carbon accounting argument is to misunderstand and mischaracterise it.
    Again I ask, is there a comment or post, just one, where you have shown you actually understand the mass balance principle as applied to the carbon accounting argument for the origin of current rise in CO2, and have then precisely “shown” how it is false?

    I know what measurements I would have to see to disprove the conclusions of this carbon accounting argument, as I explained in that same comment on NoTricksZone, and we did not see net rises in atmospheric CO2 of over 8ppm per year during 2004/2005. My hypothesis is tested by the measurements and it passes.

  121. “I sympathise with the alchemists because unlike engineers like me, they were misled by MODTRAN.”

    Spot on! it must take an engineer to see this.

    I am so glad at least one other person is also seeing this is where the real misunderstanding lies, in the IR spectrums that change as you move from surfaces toward the TOAs. You cannot isolate co2 lines as some invariant entity in the spectrums, for every different ghg brings in its own degrees of freedom at different frequencies through opaque absorptions and equipartition, and a change in just one, such as just a co2 line, changes all other lines across the entire spectrum outside the window frequencies per the local temperatures. You cannot merely take a one or two slab view of the transfers within an entire atmosphere and get it to make sense in multiple different atmospheres and work for them all, using at least one hundred levels or slabs will get you closer to the ballpark. This becomes perfectly clear when you look into two or more different atmospheres in our solar system for the same physics has to apply simultaneously to them all.

    Distance does not matter to radiation at a velocity of c, you get the same absorption from one meter through a concentration of one as a path through ten meters through a concentration of one-tenth and that is where lapse rates which rely on distance will mislead you out of the physics involved, but by lapse rates alone, you would swear there is a difference where none exists. An already opaque atmosphere at given lines and bands is concentration invariant, add the equipartition and you see what actually is happening in all atmopsheres with a mixture of different ghgs.

    I’m not at the very bottom of this line of thought but it is getting clearer as I follow it along.

  122. Lord Monckton advances the Svensmark’s hypothesis while Dr. Brown advises about the importance of various time constants.
    Here is an alternative view:
    The N. Hemisphere’s long term temperature variability is well reflected in Loehle’s temperature reconstruction. It is known fact that N. H’s. long term temperature variability is decisively affected by the N. Atlantic circulation. Its the large currents circulatory systems is known as N. A. Subpolar gyre (SPG), where overflow of the cold Arctic currents is mixed with the warm Gulf Stream’s waters. The circulatory period of the SPG is variable, mainly in range 20-30 years.

    WHOI: “The North Icelandic Jet is a deep-reaching current that flows along the continental slope of Iceland. North Icelandic Jet (NIJ), contributes to a key component of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also known as the “great ocean conveyor belt,” which is critically important for regulating Earth’s climate. As part of the planet’s reciprocal relationship between ocean circulation and climate, this conveyor belt transports warm surface water to high latitudes where the water warms the air, then cools, sinks, and returns towards the equator as a deep flow.”

    Continental slope of the North Iceland is tectonically vary active; however this is not an easy variable to reconstruct, but the surface magnetic records are a reasonable even if not very accurate proxy either in the intensity or timing.
    Calculated 20 and 30 years delta for magnetic field change along the continental slope of North Iceland and the Leohle’s temperature anomaly reconstruction are shown here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT.htm
    This may be or not a coincidence, but if not, may not wise to dismiss, even if a direct operating mechanism is not readily recognised.
    If in the unlikely event either Lord Monckton or Dr. Brown consider above worth of a further attention I would be glad to forward the annual magnetic data for the 1650-2000 period. extracted from the global geomagnetic data base.

  123. Bart I have replied above (at #comment-1471312) but the text is long and has several hyperlinks so it may be stuck in moderation for a while. Until then…

    Your understanding the particular dynamics of the components will be useful for predicting the speed of future changes, but that is not necessary for determining what has already happened in the past, and whether nature (ocean+biosphere) had a net gain or loss of carbon (i.e. was it a source or sink and by how much).

    The sum of changes in all carbon repositories must equal zero. Define the repositories in whatever way allows real progress on the question, which means leaving only one repository with “unknown” rate of change. Do the algebra and plug in the measurements. It does not need to be any more complicated than that.

  124. Whatmenare… — “It is not the case that CO2 is not “fire friendly” and will actually reduce fires from starting or spreading or producing such intensities as recent fires have shown, ”

    It’s certainly possible if you had enough CO2. But on the idea that temp leads CO2, then high temps are generally considered to lead to drier conditions and so it’s hardly out of line to expect more fires, or fires to spread more. And from there to greater CO2. Though, if you’re into the runaway feedback, then more temp = more humidity. And so the converse would be the expected case would be less or smaller fires and so less CO2. In any ad-hoc partition or combination of the two, it’s anyone’s guess and so angels on pins.

  125. Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    The theory of Bart is somewhat different of what Dr. Salby says:

    According to Bart, there is a huge increase in emissions (probably caused by an increase in upwelling from the deep oceans) which leads to a huge and fast increase in sinks too. This increase is so huge and the response of the sinks is so fast that it dwarfs the human contribution to near zero and leads to the increase seen in the atmosphere, but still doesn’t violate the mass balance with a slightly higher natural sink than natural source.

    But that theory does violate all known observations:

    To be right, the increase of the natural emissions must mimic the increase in human emissions at exactly the same ratio in exactly the same time frame, because there is no difference in chemical/physical behavior between human and natural CO2 emissions.
    That means that the app. 150 GtC natural in/out the atmosphere in 1960 must have increased near a threefold over the past 50 years to 400 GtC/year in/out, of which all increase comes out of the deep oceans (from an estimated 40 GtC/year in/out to 290 GtC in/out). The biosphere is a proven sink and the ocean surface has a limited capacity.

    But that also reduces the residence time a threefold. Which isn’t seen in any recent estimates of the residence time: that slightly increased over time in accordance to a rather stable throughput in an increasing mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    That also means that the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere should go the wrong way out:

    Bart’s theory is only based on the relative nice fit between the short-term variability of temperature and CO2 rate of change (with an arbitrary offset and factor), similar to Dr. Salby’s theory between CO2 increase and the integral of temperature at a higher level, but that says nothing about the cause of the trend and it violates all known observations.

    But he doesn’t accept any observation that proves his theory wrong…

  126. Hmm.
    Bart, Engelbeen, Wilde, Gray, Monckton (talking about Salby), Tonyb and Vukcevic; all here on this thread.
    We’re only missing Svalgard and Stokes (please excuse filial disloyalty).

    This is the pinnacle of all scientific threads of all the WUWT threads that I can remember recently.
    Worth noting for editorial purposes (IMHO).

    More please.

  127. And who’s “Higher Authority” was “Monckton of Brenchley” elected by?

    The monarch (to his ancestor).

  128. Ferdinand Engelbeen on November 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    And

    All preceding Engelbeen comments on this thread.

    – – – – – – –

    Ferdinand Engelbeen,

    Can you provide some context for your fundamental position on the carbon cycle? Is your position basically that of AR5 and possibly inclusive of AR4?

    I would appreciate knowing your thinking on what is the best treatment of the carbon cycle.

    John

  129. Viscount Monckton, says, in answer to question by Chris Wright,

    Chris Wright asks whether CO2 concentration tracks the time integral of global mean surface temperature on all timescales. Is there, he wonders, any evidence for Professor Salby’s proposition in the ice cores?

    Indeed there is, and the Professor specifically discusses ice cores in some detail. He has given considerable thought to that question, and has concluded that the diffusion of air trapped in ice increases with age, so that the further back one goes in the record the greater the degree to which the CO2 concentration in the samples understates the CO2 concentration that actually obtained.

    Murry Salby is attempting to argue that the data rather than the theory is wrong. However his explanation requires a major coincidence. The long-term ice cores indicate that in each interglacial the peak CO2 is about the same (approx 280ppm) and in each glacial the throughs are approximately the same. If the gas is constantly diffusing through that period, then the original concentrations would have had to start at exactly the right amount, so that when we come to measure the concentrations, those peaks all come out the same. This is not plausible.

    There are other series problems. For example, if the modern rise in temperature, which is less than a degree, is sufficient to produce a rise of ~100ppm in CO2, then the fall in temperature of about 5 degrees during the glacials, would give a negative CO2 concentration.

  130. Flamenco says:
    November 10, 2013 at 7:35 am
    Christopher, I would humbly ask you to reconsider the line “Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.”

    “Typhoons are acts of nature,” perhaps?

    I say that only because the warmist blogosphere are likely to latch onto this and effectively dismiss anything else that you say. A belief in “god” is a personal option, IMHO, and discussing important stuff such as (the existence or not of) CAGW is too easily derailed by the opposition who would prefer not to debate the facts but smear their opponents.

    He was probably using “act of God” in the sense the insurance industry uses it–as opposed to an act of man.

    • He was probably using “act of God” in the sense the insurance industry uses it–as opposed to an act of man.

      I am sure you are right. My suggestion is to avoid handing the warmist opposition the opportunity to dismiss the argument without engaging it. They need no invitation.

  131. I don’t think that climate models will tell us anything about how the climate works.I think that climate scientist relying on these are making a wrong assumption about the nature of the climate . There is nothing that we cannot observe about the climate, there is nothing important that is hidden from us that climate models will uncover.The climate is just what we observe and climate theory should be based on observations not on how well climate models fit reality in my opinion.

  132. John Whitman says:
    November 10, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    Can you provide some context for your fundamental position on the carbon cycle? Is your position basically that of AR5 and possibly inclusive of AR4?

    I use mostly the basic data from NASA at:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
    but all the carbon cycle estimates are quite similar.

    While there may be huge differences with real life, like far higher local exchanges between rotting debris under trees and night/day respiration/photosynthesis, much of that probably doesn’t reach the bulk of the atmosphere.
    The estimates in general are based on the d13C/oxygen balances over the seasons and the solubility of CO2 in seawater at different temperatures. The estimated 150 GtC/yr total exchanges fits different estimates of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere of ~5 years in the currently 800 GtC as CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus probably not far off for the bulk atmosphere.

    I made my own estimate for the partitioning of ocean exchanges, based on the difference between theoretical and observed changes in d13C over time:

    That is important as there is a huge delay between output to and input from the deep oceans and the atmosphere, which makes that the excess decay of 13CO2 and 14CO2 is much faster than of an excess amount of 12CO2…
    The exchange with the ocean surface layer is much faster with an equilibrium rate with the atmosphere of 1-3 years, but with a limited capacity: about 10% of the change in the atmosphere because of the buffer (Revelle) factor.
    That makes that about 60 GtC is exchanged back and forth between the oceans surface over the seasons, mainly temperature related and some 40 GtC/year is continuously exchanged between the upwelling places in the warm equatorial (Pacific upwelling) waters and the cold (NE Atlantic) polar sinking waters, mainly pressure (difference) related.

  133. Ferdi: ” The estimated 150 GtC/yr total exchanges fits different estimates of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere of ~5 years in the currently 800 GtC as CO2 in the atmosphere.
    …..
    The exchange with the ocean surface layer is much faster with an equilibrium rate with the atmosphere of 1-3 years, but with a limited capacity”

    These are the same , you still have not corrected you ideas about the first part.

    150 Gt in 6 mo going in ; then 150 Gt in 6 mo going out. that’s an exchange rate of 300 Gt/a in a reservoir of 800 Gt

    800 Gt / 300 Gt/a = 2.7 years.

    That’s your 1-3 years.
    .

  134. jimmi: “Murry Salby is attempting to argue that the data rather than the theory is wrong. However his explanation requires a major coincidence. The long-term ice cores indicate that in each interglacial the peak CO2 is about the same (approx 280ppm) and …This is not plausible”

    I also have serious doubts about that part of his presentation. It just does not ring true to me. He may not be totally wrong in the short term but the way he spins it out orders of magnitude does not stand up, even of a cursory hearing.

    “There are other series problems. For example, if the modern rise in temperature, which is less than a degree, is sufficient to produce a rise of ~100ppm in CO2, then the fall in temperature of about 5 degrees during the glacials, would give a negative CO2 concentration.”

    Sorry, that’s silly. You can’t just linearly project everything over unlimited range.

  135. If CO2 follows temperature:
    1) why did 6-7 C of warming that ended the recent ice ages lead to only +100 ppm CO2, but now 1 C of warming has created +120 ppm CO2?
    2) where is the evidence of higher CO2 during the MWP?
    3) how did Venus get so hot?

  136. If CO2 follows temperature, then:
    1) why did 6-7 C of warming that ended the recent ice ages lead to only +100 ppm CO2, but now 1 C of warming has created +120 ppm CO2?
    2) where is the evidence of higher CO2 during the MWP?
    3) how did Venus get so hot?

  137. IPCC Vice President Jean Jouzel in a colloque recently claimed the IPCC predicted not more hurricanes but more powerful ones… Funny how the goal posts were again adjusted to fit the date. I imagine that should next year show more hurricanes less powerful, the same clown will claim the opposite…

  138. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 10, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    “No, that is mathematical fitting of a curve, not based on any law of physics and violating about all known observations…”

    No, it is an explanation of how steady upwelling of CO2 rich ocean waters creates a steady flow of CO2 into the atmosphere, and is further modulated by temperature, producing a relationship of the form

    dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)

    You are completely wrong at that point: Henry’s Law shows an increase of 16 μatm in seawater for 1 K temperature increase.

    You are completely wrong. Henry’s Law demands that continuous upwelling of CO2 enriched waters produces a steady rise in atmospheric concentration at the interface between oceans and air. In addition, the proportionality factor in Henry’s Law is temperature dependent, which leads to temperature modulation of the flow.

    It is like this. Suppose that the surface layer of the ocean is increasing in concentration, due to upwelling of CO2 rich waters, according to

    CO2(surface ocean) = a + b*t

    where a and b are constants, and t is time. Then the atmosphere at the boundary will be increasing according to

    CO2(atmosphere@ocean) = k*(a + b*t)

    where k is Henry’s constant. But, k is temperature dependent, and while temperature T was rising approximately linearly, it became

    k = k0 + k1*t

    Thus,

    CO2(atmosphere@ocean) = (k0+k1*t)*(a + b*t) = a*k0 + (a*k1+b*k0)*t + b*k1*t^2

    The curvature was 2*b*k1. It is fully accounted for by the temperature relationship.

    But, then in about 1998, T stopped rising, so it became

    CO2(atmosphere@ocean) = (k0+k1*1998)*(a + b*t)

    and its rise became linear. That is what we are seeing now, even as emissions keep increasing.

    Temperature doesn’t match the trend (or it gives a too low amplitude of the wiggles) or it does match the wiggles, but then the trend is too high.”

    If it is too high, then you have a problem – humans would have to be removing CO2 to make it balance. Since we obviously aren’t, there are either other forces involved, or the data are simply not precise enough to make a conclusion. Actually, the data are not precise enough to make a conclusion, but if CO2 needs to be taken out, then other forces are involved, and they aren’t human.

    “No matter what you think, you can’t decrease the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere by adding CO2 with a higher 13C/12C ratio from any source. This effectively rejects your theory of a huge source of CO2 from the (deep) oceans. No way to reject that on any physical ground.

    Narrative, not proof.

    “If you reject every single evidence that your theory is wrong only on the ground that it doesn’t fit your theory, then your theory never can be disproven…”

    Hardly. I simply demand that your “evidence” have a unique explanation. When there are multiple possibilities, it is not proof.

    “As repeatedly said to Bart: by using different units for similar variables, he creates a false impression.”

    There is no difference. If I took away the label on the left hand side, you would have the same plot.

    “Here is the real ratio between human emissions and the growth rate in the atmosphere, where halve the human emissions still completely fit within the natural variability:”

    This just shows the robust nature of least squares fits. I fit mine to the first half to find the affine parameters, then carried that forward. But, you still cannot explain why the rate of change basically screeched to a halt in line with the halt in temperatures of the last 15 years, while the emissions curve is continuing to rise. Even your fit is diverging. If/when temperatures take a downturn, you will be hard pressed to keep fooling yourself.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    “To be right, the increase of the natural emissions must mimic the increase in human emissions at exactly the same ratio in exactly the same time frame…”

    No. If the sinks are very active, the increase of natural emissions must dwarf the increase in human emissions. This allows for a much greater set of possibilities, and is, in fact, the usual way in which feedback systems work.

    Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    “…which means leaving only one repository with “unknown” rate of change…”

    Yes, that is the classic error in the “mass balance” argument. The problem it implicitly assumes that the sinks are static – that they are wholly natural and only sink naturally produced carbon.

    But, that is incorrect. The sinks are dynamic. They expand in response to both natural and anthropogenic forcing. Thus, there is a natural portion of the natural sinks, and an anthropogenicially produced portion of the natural sinks. In effect, there are natural and artificial sinks. That makes two unknowns and one equation. You cannot solve it uniquely.

  139. rgbatduke says:
    “then the bulk of the rise we observe and its positive curvature could be due to the fact that we are still in the “transient” associated with the 20 year rapid rise that apparently ended with the 1997/1998 ENSO event.”

    I think you’ll find that the rapid rise is from the 97/98 Nino and not leading up to it:

  140. Gliese 581 d says:
    November 10, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    You’re kidding, right?

    But just in case you’re not, might I ask how did Mars get so cold, with 950,000 ppm of CO2?

    Granted, its solar irradiance is about 44% of Earth’s, but still, gimme a break, with so much magic gas in its atmosphere, how can it possibly be so much colder than Earth? For Pete’s sake, CO2 there forms ice at the poles.

    Did you know that at the point in the ocean-like atmosphere of Venus at which pressure is the same as at sea level on Earth, the temperature is also about equal? This despite the fact that Venus receives about twice as much solar irradiance as Earth.

  141. milodonharlani: No, I’m not kidding, especially about questions #1 and #2.

    Re: Mars — see “pressure broadening”

    Your last paragraph about Venus & Earth temperatures at 1 bar is only true if you set the albedos of Venus and Earth equal to one another, or equal to one. Neither is the case.

  142. Gliese 581 d says:
    November 10, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    As for Venus, albedo only matters as it might affect TSI at that point. TSI, temperature & pressure on Venus all come together at about terrestrial numbers at the same place in the Venusian atmosphere, Jim Hansen’s home planet.

    Thanks for bringing up your other questions again. Do you really imagine that average global ocean delta T during the onset of the Holocene & the Medieval Warm Period were the same as the difference in air temperature? If so, why?

    I’d urge you to study the Eemian & previous interglacial phases. The usual best guess for CO2 concentration during the early, especially warm portion of the Eemian is 330 ppm. It could have been higher & IMO probably was. I’m willing to accept that human activity during the Modern Warm Period might have added to CO2 levels, which of course is a good thing, but IMO all the evidence suggests that warming oceans release more gas, as of course simple physics would predict.

    Do you have any other questions?

  143. Ferdi “Temperature doesn’t match the trend (or it gives a too low amplitude of the wiggles) or it does match the wiggles, but then the trend is too high.”

    No, there are different time constants and capacities in different sinks and different rates of change at different time-scales since a deeper water volume is connected.
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233

    The inter-annual change is 8ppmv/K/a but inter-decadal is about half that. It takes time for CO2 and heat to diffuse to lower, larger sinks.

    I suspect centennial sensitivity will be of the order of single ppmv/K/a but since we are forever chasing a new equilibrium, that rate of change is potentially there every year for 100 years.

    Now if it’s 2ppmv/K/a it would account for just about all the post industrial CO2 increase (I think that unlikely).

    If it’s 0.2 ppm/K/a it will be about the 16 ppmv figure you seem to favour.

    It’s going to need some serious systems analysis and good data to pin it down more accurately than that.

  144. anyways.

    You can’t expect to weald supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

    So there.

    I feel better getting that off my chest.

  145. Bart says:
    November 10, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    Andrew McRae says:
    November 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    I’m sure the argument will not end with the rather simple observation above that you have one equation with two unknowns. But, I will not have much time tomorrow, and would like to tie this conversation off.

    The key point is that the sinks are dynamic, that they expand in response to forcing. If they can expand very rapidly, then you must have a very powerful input to budge things. But, the natural forcing is not at all well known, and can be arbitrarily large. You can think of it as the two unknowns being the expansion sensitivity of the sinks, and the input from nature. You have to solve for the unknown parameters and inputs of the system, and there are more than can be done with a single equation.

    Allow me to give an analogy. Suppose you have one of those old fashioned lavatory sinks with two faucets, one for cold water, and one for hot. The cold one is turned on and water has begun to collect. It rises to the point at which the rate of water coming in is the same as the rate draining out.

    Let’s call the level of water L, and the input rate of cold water C. The differential equation governing the flow is

    dL/dt = -L/tau + C

    where tau is a time constant associated with the size of the drain. In the steady state, dL/dt = 0 and L = C*tau.

    Let us call this equilibrium level L0, and the input flow for C producing this level is C0. At some time later, we are going to increase C to C0 + deltaC, and we are going to turn on the hot water faucet so that we have a new flow H coming in. The differential equation now becomes

    dL/dt = -L/tau + C0 + deltaC+ H

    At time t later, assuming H and deltaC are constant, the observed level will be

    L = L0*exp(-t/tau) + tau*(C0+deltaC+H)*(1-exp(-t/tau))

    so, the increase has been

    dL = L – L0 = tau*(deltaC+H)*(1-exp(-t/tau))

    Consider time 5*tau. We make an observation that, at this time,

    dL = 0.5*H*(5*tau)

    That is less than the total virtual accumulation of H. Does this mean the rise is wholly due to H? Of course not. We have

    2.5*H= (deltaC+H)*(1-exp(-5)) = 0.9933*(deltaC+ H)

    which means deltaC = 1.52*H, which is to say that greater than 60% of the rise was due to deltaC, and not to H.

    In general, if tau is very short, then we can solve the differential equation approximately as

    L = L0 + tau*(deltaC+H)

    for general bandlimited H and deltaC. Suppose deltaC= (0.5*H/tau)*t. Then, because tau is small, the increase is almost completely due to deltaC, and very little due to H.

    But, this is just a long-winded way of stating the obvious. If the drain is very powerful (small tau), it takes a huge input to budge the water level significantly. Since deltaC is unknown, and therefore arbitrary, it can be as large as needed, and the input due to H simply drains rapidly away.

    It is the same with CO2 in the atmosphere. If the sinks are very active, then human forcing cannot account for the rise.

  146. “If the sinks are very active, then human forcing cannot account for the rise.”

    And, it is very apparent that the sinks are very active, because the temperature relationship accounts for essentially all of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and there is very little room for human inputs to affect things significantly.

  147. Fantastic post! 7.8 clownshoes on the KoKo scale.
    Would have scored higher but for the unfortunate confusion between Theorem (a mathematical statement based on other established statements) and Theory (an explanation of a natural process developed through repeated observation).
    Recommend, as per previous oft-repeated advice, completion of basic undergraduate courses in mathematics and physics to avert error recurring.

  148. Margaret Hardman says:
    November 10, 2013 at 10:15 am

    Apparently you’re unaware that the third viscount Christopher’s grandfather, Walter Turner Monckton, Anthony Eden’s Minister of Defence 1955–56, was the only cabinet minister to oppose Eden’s Suez policy, & for this transgression was demoted to Paymaster-General in 1956–57. Thus, arguably, it was Lord Christopher’s grandfather’s opposition to the Middle Eastern adventure to which you allude that secured for his descendants the viscountcy.

  149. And while on the provenance of His Lordship’s title, let us consider for the nonce the life of his granddad’s benefactor Anthony Eden, first Earl of Avon. Disparage as you will his mistakes as Prime Minister, yet here was a man who served with honor as a company officer in the horrors of the Western Front in the Great War, in which conflict his older & younger brothers perished, & whose oldest son died in the Second World War, a man who after experiencing the squalor of the trenches returned to academia to learn French, German, Russian, Persian & Arabic, who between the wars, despite his understandable hatred of war, came to recognize the need to resist Hitler, & tried to the best of his ability to serve his nation, Crown & Western Civilization.

  150. remember how we make CO2 free water (for standard solutions)?
    HCO3- + (more) heat => (more) CO2 (g) + OH-

    likewise the CO2 sinks according to:
    CO2 + 2 H2O + (more) cold => (more) HCO3- + (more) H3O+

    the two reactions must balance out if energy in stayed the same.
    hence, if, as shown in the graph on top of this post, temps. have remained “unchanged” over the last 17 years, then we can say at least that the warming and cooling cancelled each other out over the period of the graph.
    hence, there has been a net gain of 396-362=34 ppm due to human emissions 1996-2013
    So what?
    The proposed mechanism for AGW implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. Clearly, as the graph shows, that is not happening.
    So now what?
    What does the extra CO2 do?
    It is like dung in the sky!!!
    The Dutch tomatoes growers add CO2 in their greenhouses to get bigger tomatoes.
    Don’t worry. Be happy. More CO2 is OK!
    God is good!!

  151. Brandon Shollenberger says:
    November 10, 2013 at 9:45 am

    The biggest shock to me was when he (Monckton) had the audacity to say:

    “[Brandon’s] culpable silence about the manifest and serious defects in that paper stands in painful and disfiguring contrast with his persistent, purposeless whining about the imagined (indeed, imaginary) defects in my letter, as though he were a gaggle of teenagers upon being told that Justin Dribbler would not after all be appearing at their pop concert. His strange and disproportionate behaviour raises legitimate doubts about whether he genuinely seeks the objective truth.”

    He literally said I am responsible (cuplable) for the problems in Cook et al’s paper. Ignoring everything else about me, I was the first person to find major problems in Cook et al’s paper. Monckton discussed problems I drew attention to then had the audacity to blame me for those problems!

    No he didn’t! He said you are culpable for being silent about them. There’s a difference. There’s also a difference between insulting somebody and simply lampooning a fool. Monckton has done verbally to Brussels what Josh does to Michael Mann.

  152. HenryP said: “The proposed mechanism for AGW implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. Clearly, as the graph shows, that is not happening.”

    It is because Qin = Qout = Qsurf + Qatmo, and so if some Qsurf gets absorbed by the atmosphere then the atmosphere simply emits more Qatmo. The atmosphere might warm but this doesn’t warm the surface and is not quite greenhouse mechanics. Now, if CO2 increases atmospheric emissivity then Qatmo increases independently, and so to keep Qout constant (since Qin is constant, from the Sun), then both the atmosphere and surface can cool to a lower temperature and still emit the same amount of energy that is coming in. The graph shows the real physics…as measured, because it is measured from reality. Reality trumps theory. Cooling is an expected result if CO2 increases emissivity…and emitters do that.

  153. It’s a shame it wasn’t written without all the insults. I eagerly await publication of Prof Salby’s work, with data and computer code. What he has given us so far is the functional equivalent of advertising.

  154. If a step toward a theory of climate is desired, then the first should be to base heat flow in the climate on thermodynamics. Salby’s work, while mathematically and logically valid and correct for its rather simple purpose, is simply physical mechanics, not thermodynamics. Thermodynamics doesn’t actually enter Salby’s work at all. That being said it doesn’t enter climate science in general either. Salby’s work (and similar) should replace climate science as it is just so that the mechanics can be simplified and parameterized; but then a thermodynamic theory of climate really needs to be created in order to actually get the fundamental principles actually solved. They’re not currently.

  155. The gentrified English viscount title and position is grand and all that, and I appreciate the author’s sharp tongue and mind in this important debate, but boy am I glad that the only American title that mattered in the early stages of Pioneer life was who was the best shot at both spitt’n and shoot’n.

  156. Patrick says:
    November 10, 2013 at 5:46 am
    ======================

    Boring. Obsessive. Who cares? He’s a good ‘un. That’s all that matters. What’s YOUR contribution towards shining a light into the dark recesses of the CAGW cesspit?

  157. Bart says:

    Yes, that is the classic error in the “mass balance” argument. The problem it implicitly assumes that the sinks are static – that they are wholly natural and only sink naturally produced carbon.

    Nope. Try again. This is the second time you have not understood what I have written about the sink rates being dynamic. The mass balance principle applies to the total change over a period, regardless of the size of the individual changes in that sum. There is nothing in the carbon accounting argument which says the sink rates must remain the same size over time. You must re-solve the unknown for each year. The mass balance principle is applied year-by-year. You keep imagining this assumption of “static sinks” because it is your only way to pretend the carbon accounting argument is wrong, but there is no such assumption in the carbon accounting argument.

    The sinks are dynamic. They expand in response to both natural and anthropogenic forcing.

    Indeed yes they are, and in my own basic simulation of the carbon repositories I have a Plants component which absorb a percentage of available atmospheric CO2 depending on temperature and releases it six months later also proportional to temperature, which means their peak sink rate in Spring (and emission rate in Autumn) increases as both available CO2 and temperature increases, exactly as you prescribe. Similar for the ocean which I model as absorbing as much as it had to have absorbed in any given year to make the total mass change balance to zero, allowing for some emission from the ocean due to higher temperatures, all in accordance with the mass balance principle. My model has ocean CO2 decreasing and air CO2 increasing slightly during high sea temperatures, and my virtual plants are so hungry for CO2 they increase their winter biomass by 4% in just 6 years due to more CO2 being available from industry.
    So the main relationships are modelled, it is not a “static analysis”, the natural sinks increase capacity over time, the mass balance principle is applied to ensure it is physically plausible, the dCO2/dt vs dTemp/dt lagged correlation analysis shows CO2 change lags 8 months behind temperature change, and the cause of rising CO2 in this model as designed is anthropogenic. No contradiction.

    That makes two unknowns and one equation.

    No it doesn’t, because nature does not know or care where the CO2 came from and does not distinguish between them when absorbing it. Trees have trunks which respond slowly to elevated CO2 and seasonal leaves which can respond quickly to elevated CO2, and exactly what portion of absorbed CO2 goes rapidly into leaves versus slowly into trunks is irrelevant to the argument. To model trees and trunks (or natural and boosted growth portions) as separate repositories would be futile as these could never be measured, indeed making the equation impossible solve or verify. This is probably your fundamental misunderstanding.
    The purpose of this carbon accounting argument is NOT to model how the sinks and sources change over time. The carbon accounting argument is simply trying to determine for a SINGLE given year whether nature acted as a NET source or a NET sink, and by how much in gigatonnes of carbon. When comparing 1 Jan 2004 to 1 Jan 2005 the only important thing is the total change in a repository over that period.

    Again the only way to disbelieve the carbon accounting argument is to misunderstand it.

  158. Greg Goodman says:
    November 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    150 Gt in 6 mo going in ; then 150 Gt in 6 mo going out. that’s an exchange rate of 300 Gt/a in a reservoir of 800 Gt

    The definition of residence time is reservoir content/throughput which is equivalent to content/input or content/output:

    800/150 = 5.33 years residence time
    800/154 = 5.24 years residence time

    It doesn’t matter if the real exchange is over halve a year, as the other halve year there is no net input, only a net output and vv.

    In your answer to Jimmy:
    Sorry, that’s silly. You can’t just linearly project everything over unlimited range.

    Jimmy is right: migration in ice cores does flatten the peaks, but doesn’t change the average. Thus any flattened peak must have been compensated by lower CO2 levels than measured over the rest of the 100 kyr period. That means very low to negative values during the (90% of the time) glacial periods, if Salby’s theory is right…

    That’s good , could you post a link to the up to date emissions data?
    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8 up to 2011, that are metric tons CO2, conversion factor to GtC (or PgC): 12/44,000

  159. Greg Goodman says:
    November 10, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    The inter-annual change is 8ppmv/K/a but inter-decadal is about half that. It takes time for CO2 and heat to diffuse to lower, larger sinks.

    The essential error you and Bart make is that you suppose that a sustained step change in temperature causes a continuous increase in CO2. For the oceans, that is not what Henry’s law says: a step change in temperature causes a finite increase of CO2 until a new (dynamic) equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere is reached:

    Thus your ppmv/K/year changes for 1 K step from about 1 ppmv/k/year to 0.01 ppmv/K/year after 30 years. Far from a constant ratio over the whole period.

    The overall change for seawater is about 16 ppmv/K at equilibrium. As the biosphere in general gets more active with higher temperatures (and occupies more land, less ice sheets), the overall ratio between CO2 changes and T changes is 8 ppmv/K as can be seen in ice cores with resolutions of 20 years (Law Dome: MWP-LIA transition) to 560/600 years (Dome C: 800 kyr; Vostok: 420 kyr). This 8 ppmv/K holds for the full 800 kyrs, no matter the cooling, warming, speed of change, with a variable lag of CO2 to temperature, depending of the speed of change. Except for the past 150 years, where the short term variability still is around 4-5 ppmv/K (seasons to 2-3 years) but the medium term CO2 increase is far larger than the Henry’s law equilibrium level for the temperature increase, while human emissions do fit the trend…

  160. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley writes:

    “First, I asked whether the rapid, exponential decay in carbon-14 over the six decades following the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests had any bearing on his research. He said that the decay curve for carbon-14 indicated a mean CO2 atmospheric residence time far below the several hundred years assumed in certain quarters.”

    This is a common misunderstanding of the carbon cycle and confuses the residence time (or turnover time, defined as the ratio of the mass of a reservoir and the total rate of removal from that reservoir) with the adjustment time (the the time scale characterising the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir), which are not at all the same thing. The rate at which atmospheric CO2 increases depends on the adjustment time and is essentially independent of the residence time. Nobody assumes that the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is several hundred years, the IPCC for example clearly state that the turnover (residence time) is about four years and that the adjustment time is about 100 years (for the initial removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, full removal requires processes that operate on still longer timescales). See the glossary of the AR4 WG1 report under “lifetime” for a concise and unambiguous statement. Nobody claims that residence time is hundreds of years, anybody that thinks that has not done their basic scholarship (such as looking it up in the IPCC reports).

    The residence time argument was most recently introduced by Prof. Robert Essenhigh in his paper “Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide”, published in Energy & Fuels ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r ). I wrote a peer reviewed comment paper on this also published by Energy & Fuels ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u ), explaining why residence time is indeed short, but that is completely in accord with the rise in atmospheric CO2 being anthropogenic. The paper also explains how we can be very sure that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and hence opposing the rise in CO2 rather than causing it and provides a very simple model (very similar to that of Prof. Essenhigh) that shows that a short residence time, a long adjustment time and a constant airborne fraction are exactly what we should expect to see if the cause of the observed rise is purely the exponential rise of anthropogenic emissions.

    I wrote the refutation of Prof. Essenhigh’s paper because argumennts such as this, which are very easily refuted, do neither side of the climate debate any good. I recommend that people read Fred Singer’s article “Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name” ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html ), while I don’t agree with all that he says, he is exactly right in pointing out that there are many skeptic arguments that are so obviously wrong that they ought to be dropped. The idea that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic is one of the arguments that he singles out.

    P.S. The flaw in Prof. Salbys integral argument is discussed here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html

  161. I’m not making any assumptions about what the long term equilibrium result is, I am evaluating the short term dynamic response (on two time scales).

    That is consistent the kind of exponential asymptote that you show.

    The initial slope is steeper , that is exactly what I am finding.

    I have said I expect it to be less again on centennial scale.

  162. You will remember Gosta Petterson’s papers, he looked at 1998 too but made a similar mistake to you in using the wrong period. He found 4.5 IIRC. I will have to re-read his paper to recall the details.

  163. Bart says:
    November 10, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    You are completely wrong. Henry’s Law demands that continuous upwelling of CO2 enriched waters produces a steady rise in atmospheric concentration at the interface between oceans and air. In addition, the proportionality factor in Henry’s Law is temperature dependent, which leads to temperature modulation of the flow.

    Your curvature needs a coincidence of three independent variables: a steady increase in concentration (or volume) of the upwelling waters in the equatorial oceans and an increasing temperature, which combination matches human emissions in increase rate and timing. Temperature increase is measured, but an increase in upwelling is not observed, to the contrary: there is no increase in ocean pCO2 measured at the upwelling places, neither a decrease in residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Moreover, as said before: one need an increase in deep ocean upwelling from an estimated 40 GtC/year to 290 GtC/year to suppress and mimic the near threefold increase of human emissions in the trend. Which isn’t seen in any observation.

    The maximum enrichment of upwelling waters (from e.g. the cold LIA) is about 3%, far from the sevenfold increase you need to dwarf the human emissions…

    If it is too high, then you have a problem – humans would have to be removing CO2 to make it balance. Since we obviously aren’t, there are either other forces involved, or the data are simply not precise enough to make a conclusion.

    Or your theory is simply wrong. The variability in sink (not source) rate is (near) entirely from temperature variations, while the increase in increase rate is (near) entirely from human emissions.
    The larger the human contribution to the trend, the better the amplitude is matched around the trend (because of the factor needed to match the trend). Which shows that temperature is not the cause of the trend…

    Narrative, not proof.
    Hardly. I simply demand that your “evidence” have a unique explanation. When there are multiple possibilities, it is not proof.

    Whatever you try, it is impossible to decrease the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere by adding CO2 from the oceans with a higher 13C/12C ratio. That is a unique explanation. If you see another possibility, I like to hear that.

    There is no difference. If I took away the label on the left hand side, you would have the same plot.

    Have a better look:
    Here is Bart’s plot using different units for the two variables and
    here is the same plot using the same units for emissions and increase in the atmosphere. Quite a difference in impression.
    The emissions still are widely above the natural, temperature dependent variability in sink rate and the “airborne” fraction still is widely within the natural variability…

    No. If the sinks are very active, the increase of natural emissions must dwarf the increase in human emissions. This allows for a much greater set of possibilities, and is, in fact, the usual way in which feedback systems work.

    Sorry, but nature doesn’t make a differentiation between natural and human CO2 (except a small one in the isotopes). If human emissions increased near a threefold in 50 years time, the natural sources must have increased a threefold in the same period to show the same behavior as seen in the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and to dwarf the influence of human emissions. That is how feedback systems work…

  164. http://www.false-alarm.net/author/gosta/
    paper 3:
    During the period (6 months in 1997) indicated by the blue area
    in Fig. 1, the temperature increased 0.18 ̊C. Concomitantly, the rate of change of the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide increased by about 1.8 ppm/year.

    This corresponds to a sensitivity measure of 5 ppm/ ̊C, if the carbon dioxide level is assumed to
    respond instantaneously to temperature changes.
    ===

    Not the error as I recalled. His dynamical value is about 10ppmv/K/a but he then looked at change in CO2 assuming it equilibrated (unlikely) in 6 months.

  165. anomalatys says
    Cooling is an expected result if CO2 increases emissivity…and emitters do that.
    henry says
    well, to me the whole concept of GHG is a total misnomer
    as without the GHG’s, most notably the ozone, peroxides and n-oxides TOA,
    we would probably fry….

    You say that more CO2 causes more cooling?
    If you want to prove that to me you must come up with a balance sheet showing me how much warming is caused by an increase of x % of Y gas (by re-radiation of earthshine) versus the cooling caused by an increase of x% of same Y gas (by back radiating sunshine)

    in the meantime, the reason why we see what we are seeing, ,
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    is that from around 2002 there is actually less energy coming through the atmosphere

    as expected from my results…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    The CO2 has no effect on temps.
    but more of it beneficial to the biosphere

  166. anomalatys says
    Cooling is an expected result if CO2 increases emissivity…and emitters do that.
    henry says
    well, to me the whole concept of GHG is a total misnomer
    as without the GHG’s, most notably the ozone, peroxides and n-oxides TOA,
    we would probably fry….

    You say that more CO2 causes more cooling?
    If you want to prove that to me you must come up with a balance sheet showing me how much warming is caused by an increase of x % of Y gas (by re-radiation of earthshine) versus the cooling caused by an increase of x% of same Y gas (by back radiating sunshine)

    in the meantime, the reason why we see what we are seeing, ,
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    is that from around 2002 there is actually less energy coming through the atmosphere

    as expected from my results…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    The CO2 has no effect on temps.
    but more of it is beneficial to the biosphere

  167. People forget the seasonal temperature cycle – the real temperature is never constant. When one seasonal cycle is over, atmospheric CO2 concentration doesn’t necessarily return to its starting point, even when the temperature does. The exchange coefficents during the warming and cooling phases of the seasonal cycle may be different and the CO2 lifetime is not zero.

    The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 correlates with the amplitude of the seasonal cycle too and this is consistent with the seasonal temperature cycle causing the variation in atmospheric CO2.

  168. “Again the only way to disbelieve the carbon accounting argument is to misunderstand it.”

    If people misunderstand it, it must be because you haven’t explained it. Have you explained it in this thread?

  169. Ferdi, what is the basis for your graph. Once again, you just throw stuff out , without any explanation and expect it to be accepted as fact.

    I note that after the step there is an increase of about 15ppm in 20 year = 0.75 ppmv/K/a
    about 10ppm in 7 year = 1.4 ppmv/K/a

    My measurements are substantially more that that but not wildly so.

    What is the initial, instantaneous slope and what do you base this calculated response on?

  170. tonyb says:
    November 10, 2013 at 7:28 am

    “Here is Central England temperature from the Met Office…..”

    The dramatic cooling since around 2000 is quite extraordinary, and it does feel chilly. During the 1990’s the BBC endlessly told us it was getting warmer because of climate change. But now the exact opposite is happening they’re strangely silent on this subject.

    But of course the lies just go on and on. Here’s the heading from a report in the Telegraph a few weeks ago:
    “British climate warming much faster than the rest of the world”.
    Needless to say, the clowns at the Grantham Research Institute were involved.
    What can decent people do against these lies, when even the President of the United States tells us that global warming is accelerating?
    Chris

  171. Edim “The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 correlates with the amplitude of the seasonal cycle too and this is consistent with the seasonal temperature cycle causing the variation in atmospheric CO2.”

    Temp drives CO2 on an annual and inter-annual basis. It drives it on the millennial time scale. What those who seem to think CO2 drives temperature need to show is at what point this relationship flips from lead to lag and then at what time-scale it flips back again.

    Such a behaviour seems improbably but I’m always open to new evidence. So far we still seem to be at the stage of confusing assuming a vague long term correlation in monotonically rising time series somehow “proves” CO2 is driving , while studiously avoiding any serious evaluation of correlation such as done by Allan MacRae, Ole Humlum and evidence I have presented.

    Ferdi, since you are here, are you aware of any evidence on any time-scale showing CO2 leading temperature change or even being in phase (with any identifiable features).

    If now, how do you explain cause following effect?

  172. Vince Causey, it (the mass balance equation) has been discussed here repeatedly. It is basically this:

    Step 1 : the carbon cycle obeys the principle of conservation of mass, it is a closed system and carbon is not created or destroyed, but is merely exchanged between atmosphere and the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

    Step 2 : This means that if more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere each year than is taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere each year then the atmospheric CO2 level will rise by an amount equal to the difference between total emissions into the atmosphere each year and total uptake from the atmosphere each year.

    Step 3 : Lets restate that algebraically: Let Ea represent annual emission from anthropogenic sources (e.g. fossil fuel use, land use changes), En represent total annual emissions from all natural sources (e.g. oceans, volcanos etc.), Un represents total annual uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere into all natural sinks (e.g. primary production, oceans again), and C’ represent the annual change in atmospheric CO2 then

    C’ = Ea + En – Un

    Technically there is also Ua, which is anthropogenic uptake of CO2, but since we are not currently making any significant steps in carbon sequestration this is to all intents and purposes negligible.

    Step 4 : rearrange the equation, we get

    C’ – Ea = En – Un

    Note that we don’t have direct measurements of En or Un, but we do have reliable measurements of C’ (from Mauna Loa) and Ea (as fossil fuel use is taxed and hence governments keep records). Note that in Prof. Salby’s Sydney Institute talk, he explicitly states that both of these sources of data are reliable and states that the rise in CO2 depends on the difference between total emissions and total uptake, which is exactly what the first equation states. However, as we do know C’ and Ea with good reliability, we can use the equation to work out En – Un.

    Step 5 Get the data for C’ and Ea (both available from the Carbon DIoxide Information and Analysis centre), and use the equation to determine En – Un. A plot of the results are shown here:

    Every year for since the start of the Mauna Loa record, C’ – Ea has been negative (i.e. the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 has been less than anthropogenic emissions) in which case En – Un must also be negative, i.e. total annual emissions from all natural sources is less than total annual uptake by all natural sinks. In other words, the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in, and is OPPOSING the rise in atmospheric CO2, rather than causing it.

    Now Bart will claim that the above argument assumes source and sinks are constant. This is clearly not true, if you follow the link to the image given above, you will find that the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake is both very variable from year to year and has on average been increasing with time. That would be rather difficult to achieve if the sources and sinks were constant! ;o)

    Hope this helps.

  173. Dikran, nobody claims that the natural environment is a net CO2 source. The observation is that the change in atmospheric CO2 is temperature-dependent.

  174. “Every year for since the start of the Mauna Loa record, C’ – Ea has been negative (i.e. the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 has been less than anthropogenic emissions) in which case En – Un must also be negative,”

    Does that follow ?

    Suppose that all or nearly all human emissions are being absorbed by the energising of the local or regional biosphere AND that due to solar induced warming of oceans and warming of soil on land or CO2 rich water returning from the thermohaline circulation the natural environment is currently a net source.

    We see no sign of ‘excess’ CO2 downwind of human sources but lots downwind of sun warmed ocean surfaces in the subtropics.

  175. rogerknights says:

    November 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    And who’s “Higher Authority” was “Monckton of Brenchley” elected by?

    The monarch (to his ancestor).”

    The monarch has no power (In reality). If that were true what you are suggesting is some sort of royalist dictatorship. We have moved on from those times.

  176. @Edim, so you are arguing that the natural environment is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 whilst taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in?

    @stephen wilde writes “does that follow”, yes it is a direct consequence of algebra, if C’ – Ea = En – Un, then if Ea > C’ then En > Un. If you accept the equation, and the laws of algebra, then you need to accept the logical consequence. The equation is merely a restatement of the principle of conservation of mass, which seems a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

    If the natural environment were a net source (emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than it take up each year) the atmospheric CO2 levels would be rising faster than anthropogenic emissions because both mankind and the natural environment would be net sources. The observations tell us that this is not the case.

  177. son of mulder:

    Your post at November 10, 2013 at 3:31 am says in total

    I’m struggling with how Henry’s law, a warming ocean and the decrease in alkalinity of seawater fit together.

    And at November 10, 2013 at 4:18 am Cheshirered explains why there is an apparent dichotomy between warming ocean and decrease in alkalinity. This link jumps to his/her post
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1470938

    I write to explain “how Henry’s law, a warming ocean and the decrease in alkalinity of seawater fit together”.

    Salby’s views of the carbon cycle reprise views published in one of our2005 papers
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
    However, as many know, Ferdinand Engelbeen and I strongly disagree about our interpretations of the carbon cycle. He provides his opinion in his post at November 10, 2013 at 7:52 am, and this link jumps to his explanation
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1471078

    I also disagree with Bart. Ferdinand asserts that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, Bart asserts it is natural, and I don’t know if it is anthropogenic or natural in part or in whole but I want to know.

    At November 10, 2013 at 4:24 am Patrick says:

    Apparently, according to NASA, the pH has dropped from ~8.2, pre-industrial age, to 8.1 post industrial age. Given there is no actual system to measure global ocean pH levels, the figures are bogus at best.

    That depends on what one means by “bogus”.

    The reason for the asserted pH change is that there is equilibrium between the CO2 in the air and in the ocean surface layer. If the chemistry of the ocean surface layer were constant then Henry’s Law decrees that a rise in temperature would alter this equilibrium to increase the CO2 in the air. And the temperature has been rising (intermittently) for centuries as the Earth warms from the Little Ice Age. Almost all the CO2 is in deep ocean so any reduction to CO2 in the surface layer could be replaced by CO2 exchanges between (a) air and ocean surface layer and (b) ocean surface layer and deep ocean.

    However, the chemistry of the ocean surface layer changes. As the CO2 in the air increases then the result is more CO2 in the ocean surface layer and this reduces the pH of the ocean surface layer. This effect is mitigated by the carbonate buffer.) Hence, NASA calculates the very small change of ocean surface layer pH of ~0.1 in response to the increase of CO2 in the air, and assumes the additional CO2 is the anthropogenic emission.

    But the calculated pH change is an equilibrium effect. Almost all the CO2 is in the deep ocean. If the CO2 upwelling from deep ocean reduces surface layer pH (e.g. because it contains sulphur or nutrients from undersea volcanism) then that would alter the equilibrium to CAUSE the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And this pH change would not be mitigated by the carbonate buffer. It is important to note that the anthropogenic CO2 is trivial when compared to the CO2 in the deep ocean so, if the atmospheric rise is caused by surface layer pH change, then the anthropogenic emission is too small for it to have a significant effect.

    Please note that this possibility alone refutes the silly mass balance argument.

    Furthermore, the equilibrium change as the CAUSE of the rise is atmospheric CO2 concentration fits available evidence much better than any other explanation.

    Firstly, it provides an explanation of why the ice cores show atmospheric CO2 concentration following temperature by ~800 years. The CO2 which enters deep ocean at times of higher temperatures takes ~800 years to be transported by the thermohaline circulation prior to returning to the ocean surface layer.

    Secondly, it matches the form of the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    As can be seen in the link, in each typical year the atmospheric CO2 rises then falls in a saw-tooth form. This is not consistent with the sinks saturating: there is negligible reduction to the sequestration rate as the sinks approach saturation prior to net sequestration reversing to become net emission. And the rate of net sequestration is so large (more than 100 times the annual increase to anthropogenic emission) that it is clear the sinks could sequester ALL the total CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic), but they don’t. If the sequestration equalled the total emission of each year then there would be no rise of atmospheric CO2 emission over each year.

    This saw-tooth oscillation and annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is consistent with a change to equilibrium between the air and ocean surface layer. The seasonal oscillation is consistent with temperature variation altering the equilibrium in accordance with Henry’s Law. And the annual rise is consistent with the annual rise being a slowly changing equilibrium induced by altered ocean surface layer pH possibly as a result of volcanism altering nutrients (so biological activity) and sulpur in the ocean surface layer.

    Also, the possibility of rapid pH changes in the ocean surface layer as a result of pulses of sulphur and/or nutrients entering the ocean surface layer is a possible explanation for the peak in atmospheric CO2 concentration reported in the data collated by Beck.

    Richard

  178. “If the natural environment were a net source (emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than it take up each year) the atmospheric CO2 levels would be rising faster than anthropogenic emissions because both mankind and the natural environment would be net sources”

    Not if there is an energised local or regional biosphere sink dealing with our emissions concurrently with a global solar induced increased oceanic source.

    The mass balance proposal doesn’t take into account that separate parts of the natural sinks and sources can be of opposite sign to one another.

    That is why some went on to use the isotope ratio as an alternative approach but that has flaws as well especially since the precise global balance of different isotopes from different biological and geological sources has not been fully described.

  179. @stephen wilde O.K., so do you disagree with the equation C’ = Ea + En – Un. Are you saying that the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is not given by the difference between total annual emission from all sources (whatever they may be) and total annual uptake by all sources (whatever they may be)?

  180. With the Henry’s law, and outgassing, and temperature dependance, and tropical oceans, and seething active volcanoes, Hawaii is about the last place on Earth that an honest broker would place a co2 monitor.

    Unless you have an agenda, and aren’t really looking for answers.

    Makes me wish climatologists would go back to snatching retirement checks from pensioners.

  181. Ooops! This is a correction.

    I wrote
    But the calculated pH change is an equilibrium effect. Almost all the CO2 is in the deep ocean. If the CO2 upwelling from deep ocean reduces surface layer pH (e.g. because it contains sulphur or nutrients from undersea volcanism) …

    But I intended to write
    But the calculated pH change is an equilibrium effect. Almost all the CO2 is in the deep ocean. If the water upwelling from deep ocean reduces surface layer pH (e.g. because it contains sulphur or nutrients from undersea volcanism) …

    Sorry.

  182. dikranmarsupial:

    re your post at November 11, 2013 at 5:58 am.

    Nobody is disputing your equation: viz.
    C’ = Ea + En – Un
    But people who think about it know it is meaningless because “total annual emission from all sources (whatever they may be) and total annual uptake by all sources (whatever they may be)” cannot be quantified and they are not constant from year to year.

    The ‘mass balance argument’ assumes they don’t vary in unknown ways, but they do vary in unknown ways.

    Richard

  183. Going back to the evidence that Ice Core samples present in terms of the Co2 lag against temperature rise there can be no correlation with recent times when Man has emitted huge amounts of it with less than convincing short term consequential temperature rise and Fred Singer even must be wrong in proposing that Co2 in itself can drive Global Temperatures in an upward direction.
    What could ever overcome the eventual temperature rise following de-glaciation if the Co2 .it caused to be released was a driver in itself.
    It could even be of the very opposite nature given time.

  184. Chris Wright

    As you will know instrumental CET goes back to 1659. I have subsequently reconstructed it to 1538.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/

    The anomaly is now around 0.3C . This a quite extraordinary drop-although it comes from a high level. If you listen to the BBC you may hear ‘Farmers today’, whereby a decade ago Farmers were planting all sorts of exotic fruits, they now seem to be digging them up.

    CET has a small allowance for UHI. I suspect that it should be larger and the notable hump is exaggerated somewhat, but there has still been a significant decline that other data sets will possibly follow.

    In the meantime you might like to send your MP my little graphic-which others at WUWT have utilised

    It takes quite a genius to deliberately jack up prices just as temperatures start plummeting. Add in uncertainty of supply and you have a potent combination of problems that the UK govt needs to address.

    tonyb

  185. Richard S Courtney The mass balance analysis does not assume that the sources and sinks are constant from year to year. Indeed if you follow the link to the figure I gave in my post, you will find that the mass balance analysis shows that there is considerable variability in En – Un from year to year and that En – Un is also steadily growing more negative. This would be rather difficult to explain if En and Un were constant (note I did point this out at the end of my post, but assumed it would be Bart that would make this objection).

    Similarly the mass balance analysis does not try and quantify En or Un, but it does provide a constraint on the difference between En and Un. If you accept the equation and the laws of algebra, you must logically accept that if C’ < Ea then En < Un.

    If it makes it easier, express the equation as

    C'(i) = Ea(i) + En(i) – Un(i)

    where C'(i) is the change in atmospheric CO2 in year i; Ea(i) is total anthropogenic emissions during year i; En is total emissions from all natural sources during year i and Un(i) is total uptake by all natural sources during year i; The algebra and the conclusions are unchanged.

    @stephen wilde, It would help if you would give a direct answer to the question in order for me to understand your point of view. Do you accept the equation or not?

  186. david:

    In your post at November 11, 2013 at 6:19 am you assert

    Going back to the evidence that Ice Core samples present in terms of the Co2 lag against temperature rise there can be no correlation with recent times when Man has emitted huge amounts of it …

    Please define what you mean by “huge”.

    Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.

    Richard

  187. “@Edim, so you are arguing that the natural environment is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 whilst taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in? ”

    Yes.

  188. dikranmarsupial:

    It would be helpful to discussion if you did not put words in my mouth and refute ‘red herrings’ of your own imagining.

    At November 11, 2013 at 6:24 am you write

    Richard S Courtney The mass balance analysis does not assume that the sources and sinks are constant from year to year.

    I did NOT say that!

    At November 11, 2013 at 6:09 am I wrote

    Nobody is disputing your equation: viz.
    C’ = Ea + En – Un
    But people who think about it know it is meaningless because “total annual emission from all sources (whatever they may be) and total annual uptake by all sources (whatever they may be)” cannot be quantified and they are not constant from year to year.

    The ‘mass balance argument’ assumes they don’t vary in unknown ways, but they do vary in unknown ways.

    My statement that
    “The ‘mass balance argument’ assumes they don’t vary in unknown ways, but they do vary in unknown ways.”
    is NOT the same as
    “The mass balance analysis does not assume that the sources and sinks are constant from year to year”.

    Richard

  189. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 6:24 am

    Work it out for yourself dk.

    What happens to your equation if local and regional sinks energise to remove our emissions whilst at the same time sun warmed oceans increase release of CO2 to the air and the latter is greater than the former ?

  190. “Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.”

    There is no scientific evidence for a Deity to be the cause of typhoons (or anything else for that matter). Typhoons are acts of Nature.

  191. dikranmarsupial:

    For the benefit of onlookers, I write to explain that the dispute between us is not merely semantic.

    The issue is that it is not possible to determine a ‘known’ from two ‘unknowns’.

    As illustration I cite the famous Drake equation which purports to estimate the number of alien civilisations in our galaxy. Wicki gives this good explanation of it
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

    The Drake equation seems ‘sciencey’ but it is meaningless because it consists of unquantified parameters.

    The ‘mass balance argument’ seems seems ‘sciencey’ in the same way but it is similarly meaningless because it consists of unquantified parameters.

    Richard

  192. richardscourtney

    OK, but it doesn`t matter if it cannot be proven that Mans Co2 emissions are responsible for the known increase in atmospheric Co2 over recent times and which may not even register on the Ice Cores that may be drilled out in the distant future but the issue, as I went on to describe it, is simply whether the increased Co2 levels can be sensibly considered to be the driver of a temperature increase which may well have passed its peak already when the History of Ice Cores has nailed it to be a “Cart”,in effect,.

  193. The climate is thermal physics problem, and Salby’s work doesn’t have any thermal physics in it. What Salby’s work is, is mechanics via parameterization. This can identify relationships for you, such as CO2 being a result of temperature change, but then you have to go back and see what this implies for the underlying thermal relationships. What it implies, and successfully, is that CO2 doesn’t affect or drive temperature. Salby’s work doesn’t use feedback to temperature from CO2, and it doesn’t need to, and it doesn’t come up.

    So now, go back and re-evaluate what this implies for the thermal physics which is typically assumed for the climate. Think about existing thermal systems, such as the Rankine Cycle, and what they have to say about the thermal physics assumptions in the climate. In other words, why and how does CO2 have no effect on temperatures…if CO2 is “supposed” to have an effect on temperatures? Is reality wrong, or are other assumptions wrong?

    You’re all kind of missing the point, but if you get the point, THEN you can take a step towards a theory of climate.

  194. re.Nor does it omit CO2. I actually accept GHGs as having a role in atmospheric circulation but given that the so called greenhouse effect is a result of the kinetic energy required to be at the surface to hold the gases of the atmosphere off the surface it is inevitably a consequence of atmospheric mass and not the radiative capabilities of GHGs.

    To say that I am incorrect in that assertion you must invalidate the Gas Laws which contain a term for mass but not for radiative characteristics.

    Given that the greenhouse effect is a matter of mass and not radiative characteristics how far do you think our emissions could shift the climate zones?

    Dear Stephen,

    And here, you are simply ignoring (some of) the correct physics. That the ideal gas laws omit radiative characteristics is a failure of the ideal gas laws to be precisely correct, to in fact be an idealization, not reality. Physics is full of these idealizations. The first correction one makes to the ideal gas laws — that postulate elastically interacting “hard sphere” atoms or molecules in their second least complicated derivation (the kinetic theory derivation is simpler still and just ignores the means of internal interaction and postulates the equipartition theorem without deriving it)) is to include a longer range interaction and one obtains e.g. a van der Waals gas:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_equation

    This is the simplest gas equation capable of nonlinear behavior and hence describing a phase transition, and is still a substantial idealization. One can do better still using an actual intermolecular potential based on quantum theory, e.g. a 6-12 Lennard-Jones potential and the proper theory of statistical mechanics, but this too neglects external radiative coupling and is an idealization. All of the gases described by these idealizations, with no radiative coupling, would never cool if placed in a container with perfectly transparent walls in outer space, and that is surely not the case.

    As has been repeatedly pointed out on WUWT by all of the people that actually understand physics, if one points a spectrograph upward at night, one measures not only downwelling radiative energy but a lot of downwelling radiative energy. This energy is not coming from outer space, it is coming from the atmosphere. We completely understand where it is coming from at the quantum mechanical level, we completely understand how it got there in the first place. None of this is particularly mysterious. Trying to build a model for the Earth’s climate that completely omits the simple fact that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — predominantly water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in roughly that order — are strongly radiatively coupled in the LWIR band that dominates the thermal radiation from both the surface and the atmosphere itself to outer space as the only cooling mode of the planet (aside from absolutely negligible outgassing at the TOA) is doomed to failure — not only failure, but failure to the point where nobody who understands physics will take you seriously even if you make valid points elsewhere.

    The correct way to proceed — even if you want to use the ideal gas law to describe the local relationship between P, V and T in parcels of the atmosphere — is to solve the radiatively coupled Navier-Stokes equation (or better yet, equations, one set for the atmosphere and one for the ocean and maybe even the magnetohydrodynamic equations for the sun as one technically has to predict the future state of the sun, the ocean and the atmosphere all together to predict the future state of the climate, and even this is probably an incomplete description although the omitted physics at this point may or may not have negligible impact). This is almost absurdly difficult. The plain old non-radiatively coupled NS equation is already so difficult to solve that mathematicians cannot even prove that solutions always (in general) exist. One can always try to discretize the medium and solve it numerically (and this is precisely what GCMs are) but there are countless problems with the numerical solutions reflecting the essentially chaotic nature of the motion, the tendency for neglected fluctuations at all length scales to grow and lead to widely divergent future states. Which is precisely what GCMs ALSO do, and is one of many reasons that they aren’t terribly reliable as predictors of the future. The problem is compounded by the fact that one can almost never say that neglected physics is truly negligible — if it alters the nonlinear couplings even a little bit it can lead to dramatic changes in the distribution of future states. There are numerous simple numerical examples of solutions of chaotic systems that illustrate all of these points.

    If you leave radiative coupling out, the atmospheric gas will only cool at the surface of the Earth, because in that case only the surface of the Earth will be able to radiate energy away to space. Since warm air rises (due to buoyancy forces) and since air, once warmer than the surface, will be unable to lose heat once it has lifted away from the surface and will always be displaced and held aloft by cooler air underneath, the atmosphere would promptly invert — coolest at the bottom, hottest at the top, and a nearly smooth gradient from coolest to warmest. In other words, the tropopause would drop until it was much, much closer to the surface, maintained only by diurnal differential heating and the equatorial-polar gradient. All of the temperatures one obtains from this oversimplified circulation would be incorrect, as well, since they would simply leave out the clearly observable BOA downwelling radiation — the surface would cool directly to space at the unblocked blackbody rate. This is all empirically false as TOA and BOA spectrographs clearly and absolutely unambiguously demonstrate. An incorrect model is most unlikely to lead to correct conclusions.

    But you still miss my main point. If you want to leave out radiative coupling in your hypothesis, that’s your privilege although it means that your model is a particularly nonphysical idealization and IMO is certainly going to be egregiously wrong. Regardless, you cannot just assert and argue for your model in words. That’s the point I was trying to make. You have to build an actual, computable model with your assumptions incorporated and show that it is quantitatively correct. After all, we’re all quick to trash the GCMs because they do the right thing (solve a computable model) and get the wrong answer. Should we not pay even less attention to an assertion that hasn’t been tested as a computable model to see if it gives the right answer?

    rgb

  195. Let us make it simpler: Salby’s parameterization bypasses the greenhouse effect, and works. Salby’s work does not have temperature feedback from CO2, and it works. This is consistent with 20 years of CO2 increases and no change in temperature. So, therefore, you kind of have to abandon the idea that CO2 causes temperature change, and if you abandon that, you abandon the “theory” which goes along with it, and the thermal physics reasons why you would do so become obvious, particularly if you consider existing practical thermal physics.

  196. barry’s remark implies
    there is no God
    henry says
    read the book of Job
    He put the stars up in the sky and ‘not one of them is missing”

    if, with your comment, you want to say or imply there is no God,
    how do you explain that something [intelligent] came forth out of absolutely nothing?
    that it is an impossibility?

    OTOH, if it is your time to go, according to His time,
    make sure you have signed your ticket to heaven
    Jesus said: “anyone who comes to me, I will in no way cast out”
    just saying

  197. Bart says:
    November 10, 2013 at 7:22 pm
    “If the sinks are very active, then human forcing cannot account for the rise.”
    ===============
    What has always struck me as very odd, is that every year 50% of the new human emissions are absorbed (assuming that nature’s net contribution is zero.) And that this ratio has remained reasonably constant year to year as human emissions have increased.

    The 50% figure is way to co-incidental to be simply accidental. Perhaps what we are seeing can be explained by a simple geometric exercise. Consider that each increase in CO2 is a step function, an infinitesimally small rectangle over time. Nature responds by expanding the sink, in effect drawing an infinitesimally small triangle within the rectangle that is always 50% of the area. Add the rectangles and triangles up and you have 50% of new emissions absorbed each year.

    Which suggests that the model of water filling and draining a tub of water is incorrect. What we have is a sink that is dynamically changing the size of the drain in response to the pressure of water in the tub.

    In effect, life (the drain) expands and contracts in response to the water pressure (CO2 concentration). When CO2 is low, life (the drain) contracts to preserve CO2 (water pressure). When CO2 is plentiful life (the drain) expands to make use of CO2 (water pressure).

  198. rgbatduke: “The plain old non-radiatively coupled NS equation is already so difficult to solve that mathematicians cannot even prove that solutions always (in general) exist. One can always try to discretize the medium and solve it numerically (and this is precisely what GCMs are [sic, do?]) but there are countless problems with the numerical solutions reflecting the essentially chaotic nature of the motion, the tendency for neglected fluctuations at all length scales to grow and lead to widely divergent future states.”

    For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with the general circulation models that the climate-science establishment runs on its supercomputers: Are you saying that those models really attempt numerical solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for the atmosphere as a whole? At what time and spatial resolutions? (I’m speaking from total ignorance of fluid mechanics–which I’ve resigned myself to having become too old to learn–so I would not at all be surprised that my gut reaction is totally wrong. But it sounds preposterous that resolutions fine enough to yield creditable results for the atmosphere as a whole over any appreciably long time scales are seriously being attempted, even with supercomputers.)

  199. rgb,

    Again thank you for your efforts but I must continue to disagree.

    In particular, in the absence of GHGs a radiatively inert atmosphere around a rotating sphere will experience uneven surface heating and thus density differentials will arise together with a convective circulation that would prevent an isothermal atmosphere such as you describe.

    The rest of your response doesn’t seem to contradict my view that radiative gases will simply rise higher than non radiative gases of the same weight and will stop rising when the energy they radiate directly out to space equalises with the radiation they send directly back to the surface and at that height they no longer warm the surface because that which they send down is offset by that which is sent out of the atmosphere to space.

    In reality they don’t act alone but in conjunction with non radiative gases to which they conduct energy but the outcome is the same.

    I tried to use your suggestion that the Gas Laws could incorporate the effect of non radiative characteristics of non ideal gases over and above their mass when I conversed with Phil on another thread but he convinced me that there was no scope for that since the gas constant is dependent on mass and nothing else both for ideal and non ideal gases.

    I don’t think you can get out of your bind that way.

    In fact I can show that my hypothesis is quantitatively correct and it is really simple.

    The energy exchange employed in keeping the weight of atmospheric gas off the surface i.e. the energy exchange between surface and atmosphere nets out to zero over time.

    The energy exchange between top of atmosphere and space also nets out to zero over time.

    Thus if anything other than mass causes a molecule to acquire more energy than needed to lift it off the ground to a height determined by mass gravity and insolation then the only thing it can do in response is rise higher and cool rather than warming the surface.

    If it were to warm the surface then there would be more kinetic energy at the surface than needed to maintain atmospheric height and ToA energy balance with the result that S-B would be breached.

    The only physical process that can cause surface temperature to exceed that predicted by S-B is the diversion of energy to holding the mass of the atmosphere off the surface.

    That is a mechanical process and not a radiative process.

    The surface is no warmer than S-B predicts once one deducts the energy tied up in the surface / atmosphere exchange

    It is incorrect to assert that the surface temperature differs from the S-B prediction because of DWIR.

    It does so only because of the diversion of kinetic energy to supporting atmospheric mass off the ground.

  200. Humans are want to explain and thus predict and even control chaotic systems. Why? We still fear the unknown, the terrible monster that lies outside the cave at night. Many here have replaced the greenhouse gas-based CO2 theory with equally predictive theories.

    What if the system we call Earth’s “climate slash weather pattern variation” is indeed entirely intrinsic to our planet, and is random with unpredictable various swings between cold and hot, dry and drought, plenty and starvation? What if the “theory” is to take advantage of productive climate and weather while storing up for and always being ready for the worst it can throw at us?

  201. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 5:15 am

    Thanks for the clear explanation. What is the conclusion to be drawn? It seems to be that the difference between all natural emissions and uptakes is equal to the difference between C’ and human emissions, if I understand you correctly. Yet is that not an algebraic tautology?

    Isn’t the question “is C’ the sole result of Ea alone?” I can imagine that if the ratio En/Un changed then you could have something like the C’ we observe today, even with Ea of zero.

    Not saying that is what is happening, just that it is a mathematical possibility. I only bring it up because a previous poster asserted that it is mathematically impossible for this to be the case.

  202. david:

    I am replying to your post at November 11, 2013 at 7:13 am.

    You had said

    Going back to the evidence that Ice Core samples present in terms of the Co2 lag against temperature rise there can be no correlation with recent times when Man has emitted huge amounts of it ..

    I asked you to define what you meant by “huge” when nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for each CO2 molecule emitted from human activities. Your reply addressed to me – which I am answering – ignores my request and changes the subject.

    OK. So, we can add another name to the list of trolls infesting this thread with intent to sidetrack discussion of the thread’s subject.

    However, although I did not mention effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration on global temperature, for the record I state that I do not think increased atmospheric CO2 concentration above present levels can have sufficient effect on climate for the effect to be discernible.

    Richard

  203. Greg says:
    November 11, 2013 at 4:28 am

    Ferdi, what is the basis for your graph. Once again, you just throw stuff out , without any explanation and expect it to be accepted as fact.

    The emissions from the oceans are in direct ratio to the partial pressure difference between the ocean’s pCO2 and the atmospheric pCO2. A step increase of 1 K gives an instantaneous step increase of 16 μatm in pCO2(aq) without a direct response of the atmospheric pCO2. The maximum pCO2(aq) found at the equatorial upwelling places is ~750 μatm (see: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml ). An increase of 16 μatm of pCO2(aq) will increase the pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere from 350 μatm to 366 μatm and the (estimated) CO2 influx from the oceans into the atmosphere from 40 GtC/year to 41.8 GtC/year. That gives an increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere of ~0.9 ppmv, as the sink part of the atmosphere is hardly increasing.
    That happens in the following years: as the pCO2 in the atmosphere increases, the pressure difference at the source decreases and so does the influx, while at another part of the globe, the pressure difference between the atmosphere and the cold polar waters increases, thus pushing more CO2 into the deep oceans.
    When the atmospheric pressure increased with 16 μatm, the fluxes of before the temperature step are restored and everything is back in equilibrium at a higher CO2 level.

    Thus a step change in ocean temperature gives a asymptote in CO2 increase of 16 ppmv/K, not an eternal increase of x ppmv/yr…

    Further, the short term variability of the rate of change is as good explained by dT/dt as by T of any derivative level, see Wood for Trees.

  204. Andrew McRae says:
    November 11, 2013 at 1:48 am

    “No it doesn’t, because nature does not know or care where the CO2 came from and does not distinguish between them when absorbing it.”

    You have two unknowns, the expansion sensitivity of the sinks, and the input from nature.

    I broke it down for you as simply as could be. Suppose the sinks are infinitely expansive. Then they immediately expand to take out everything put in. They are the immovable object. The only thing which can change the position of the immovable object is an irresistible force. Since natural forcing is arbitrary, in this scenario, it must play the role of the irresistible force, and be responsible for any observed movement.

    If you still do not understand this, I do not see how I can help you any further.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 11, 2013 at 2:21 am

    “The essential error you and Bart make is that you suppose that a sustained step change in temperature causes a continuous increase in CO2. For the oceans, that is not what Henry’s law says…”

    Yes, it is, when the oceans are outgassing from CO2 enriched upwelling waters.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 11, 2013 at 3:35 am

    “Your curvature needs a coincidence of three independent variables: a steady increase in concentration (or volume) of the upwelling waters in the equatorial oceans and an increasing temperature, which combination matches human emissions in increase rate and timing.”

    This seems an argument from incredulity. I could as easily say your notion requires the same coincidences in reverse, a halving of the emissions, and an unphysical filtration of the temperature dependent rise. The observations are what they are, and they indicate what they indicate. If I deal out a specific hand of poker, you can say it is an amazing coincidence that you got 4 kings. Yet, the deal is what it is after the fact, and the a priori probability function has collapsed.

    “The maximum enrichment of upwelling waters (from e.g. the cold LIA) is about 3%, far from the sevenfold increase you need to dwarf the human emissions…”

    An assertion without foundation. The maximum increase from human inputs is 3%, which is the currently accepted fraction of anthropogenic inputs to total inputs.

    “Here is Bart’s plot using different units for the two variables and here is the same plot using the same…”

    No, it is not the same. Your fit is for the whole data set, mine for the first half. And, even yours is diverging. CO2 rate is steady, for the last decade. Emissions are climbing.

    “the natural sources must have increased a threefold in the same period to show the same behavior as seen in the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and to dwarf the influence of human emissions. That is how feedback systems work…”

    That is precisely how they do not work. A feedback loop attenuates the impact of disturbances. That is why we employ them so extensively. Systems without feedback tend to wander without limit. The notion of weak feedback which is required for human causality is inconsistent with rock steady CO2 levels for centuries before.

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 5:15 am

    This is a static analysis.

    C’ – Ea = En – Un

    Un must be broken up into two components, Una and Unn. Unn is natural uptake of natural input, and Una is natural uptake of anthropogenic input.

    Una would not exist without Ea. It is driven by anthropogenic emission. It is, for all practical purposes, an artificial sink. This is a dynamic system, and the sinks expand in response to all forcings. Now, you have one equation, and two unknowns. It cannot be solved uniquely.

    “Now Bart will claim that the above argument assumes source and sinks are constant. This is clearly not true…

    It is clearly true. You have lumped two separate dynamics into a single variable. Your sinks do not expand in response to anthropogenic input. That is wrong on a very elementary level.

  205. Stephen wilde wrote: “Work it out for yourself dk.”

    Sorry, this is just evasion. You know that your position is untenable if you answer the question either “yes” or “no”, so you refuse to answer. Sadly this sort of thing is rife in discussion of climate, if you were genuinely interested in the science you would be keen to make your position clear and would have given a direct answer, rathe than prevaricating.

  206. dikranmarsupial – THINK! Consider the scenario I gave to Andrew MacRae above. In that scenario, the sink response is arbitrarily large, so that it immediately takes out any human inputs. Then, whatever the cause of change is has to be coming from something other than human inputs. That addition can be as small or large as you like. It can be precisely enough to match 1/2 of the virtual accumulation of human inputs. The fact that it is less than the virtual accumulation of human inputs changes nothing.

  207. Joe Born says:
    November 11, 2013 at 8:40 am

    “Are you saying that those models really attempt numerical solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for the atmosphere as a whole?”

    I do not think so, and yes, I agree that would be a monumental task. As Willis Eisenbach has shown numerous times, the models all behave like a simple one-box model with CO2 as driving input. I think they are really rudimentary.

  208. Richard S Courtney, I am sorry if I misunderstood your position, however the quote to which I was responding was

    “…But people who think about it know it is meaningless because “total annual emission from all sources (whatever they may be) and total annual uptake by all sources (whatever they may be)” cannot be quantified AND THEY ARE NOT CONSTANT FROM YEAR TO YEAR”” [EMPHASIS mine]

    The part written in capitals in my opinion can be reasonably summarised as “The mass balance analysis assumes that the sources and sinks are constant from year to year”, hence my response.

    As it happens the mass balance analysis makes no assumption whatsoever about the mechanisms of the natural sources and sinks or about their behaviour or that they can be quantified (the mass balance argument does not require us to know what En and Un actually are, but it does place a constraint on En – Un). The only assumption made is that they exist and that the carbon cycle obeys the principle of conservation of mass.

  209. Slacko:

    No he didn’t! He said you are culpable for being silent about them. There’s a difference.

    Monckton referred to my “culpable silence.” That is, silence which is culpable for something. It requires a huge stretch of the imagination to take an adjective applied to “silence” as applying to “Brandon,” especially when that doesn’t fit any of the context of the paragraph.

    Pat:

    Well said that man!

    Thanks. I find it interesting to note who agrees with me about Monckton and who doesn’t. I’m not used to siding with SkS contributors, yet I just did on Twitter regarding Monckton. Très bizarre.

  210. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 9:23 am

    “The only assumption made is that they exist and that the carbon cycle obeys the principle of conservation of mass.”

    And that the sinks do not expand in response to anthropogenic inputs, but continue taking out only the natural inputs.

  211. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley writes:

    “In the meantime, I hope that those who predict a sharp, near-term fall in global temperature are wrong. Cold is a far bigger killer than warmth. Not that the climate communists of the mainstream media will ever tell you that.”

    Global mean temperature is immaterial, the depth of cold shots into the temperate zone are purely dependent on short term solar forcing of Arctic air pressure. Given the very high incidence of strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation episodes through late Maunder, Dalton, the 1880/90’s. and since 2010 in this also very weak solar cycle, it’s a matter of when and not if more deep cold shots occur. The most damaging time for them to occur is through the the growing seasons. A few summers in a row like, or worse than 2012, would decimate UK farmers businesses.

  212. Bart wrote:

    “It is clearly true [that the above mass balance argument assumes source and sinks are constant]. You have lumped two separate dynamics into a single variable. Your sinks do not expand in response to anthropogenic input. That is wrong on a very elementary level.”

    In which case, how is it that the consequence of the mass balance argument (shown in the figure referenced in the post) shows that En – Un varies from year to year if the mass balance argument assumes that En and Un are constant?

    Note also that the figure shows that En – Un has been becoming increasingly negative over time, and this is precisely because the “sinks have expanded” (although the mass balance argument itself doesn’t tell us that, just that either the natural sources have shrunk, natural sinks have expanded, or both, or both natural sources and sinks have expanded, but sinks more so than sources. The last of those four options is the mainstream scientific view – see e.g. the IPCC WG1 report.).

    You are still making the same mistake – the mass balance argument is not a model of the carbon cycle, it is merely a statement of a constraint on En and Un that must be true if the cabon cycle obeys the principle of conservation of mass.

  213. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 9:36 am

    Look at it this way.

    C – Ea = En – Un

    Supose Un takes out a proportion p of the inputs, Un = p*(Ea + En). Then,

    C = (1-p) * (En + Ea)

    You now have to solve for En and p. You cannot do it with one equation.

    Suppose, for example, that we observe C = 0.5*Ea.

    0.5*Ea = (1-p)*(En + Ea)

    En = ((0.5+p)/(1-p))*Ea

    En can then vary anywhere from 1/2 to approaching infinity times Ea. If it is 1/2, then p = 0, and Ea accounts for precisely 1/2 of the rise. If it is approaching infinity, then p is approaching 1, and Ea accounts for approaching zero to the rise of C.

    I am making no mistakes, you are. You are implicitly treating this as a static system, even though you are unaware of how you are doing so.

    It is not a static system.

  214. Vince Causey wrote “Isn’t the question “is C’ the sole result of Ea alone?” I can imagine that if the ratio En/Un changed then you could have something like the C’ we observe today, even with Ea of zero.”

    The mass balance tells us that if C’ is less than Ea then En must be less than Un, which is what we actually observe. Now if En is less than Un, then we know the ratio En/Un is less than one, however that is just another way of expressing the fact that we know the natural environment is a net carbon sink (emitting less than it takes up). There are no (positive) values of En and Un for which the ratio En/Un is less than one (which we know to be the case) that would give us the observed C’ if Ea is zero.

  215. I challenged Bart to explain how the the mass balance argument can show that En – Un varies from year to year (the green line in this diagram http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/3_mass_balance.png ) if the analysis assumes that En and Un are constant (as he asserts).

    You will notice that his response does not mention the results shown in the figure at all, and instead he just repeats his mistake of trying to interpret the mass balance equation as a model of the carbon cycle and asserts yet again that it is a static analysis. This is why there is no point in continuing to discuss the mass balance analysis with Bart, he simply isn’t listening.

  216. Fred : “In effect, life (the drain) expands and contracts in response to the water pressure (CO2 concentration). When CO2 is low, life (the drain) contracts to preserve CO2 (water pressure). When CO2 is plentiful life (the drain) expands to make use of CO2 (water pressure).”

    Thanks, I was puzzling about this earlier. In fact the percentage of emissions that remain has been steadily dropping (by a few %) since early 90’s at least. I was trying to find data to plot this earlier, having seem someone post it recently.

    I was thinking that this must indicate the system was getting ever further from equilibrium and hence absorbing a larger fraction. This seems at odds with other indications.

    Your pointing out that the biosphere will react to higher CO2 and higher surface temps by eating progressively more could probably easily account for this few % drop and explains the contradiction.

    thx

  217. @dikranmarsiupal

    Are you so blind as to not seeing the facts staring you straight in the eyes in the graph that starts this post??
    there is no warming effect by more CO2
    never mind the fact that you never even produced the balance sheet that I had asked you for when I was not yet banned from your SS site?
    here it is again:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011
    I hope you will take the trouble to provide me with that balance sheet that I had been asking for?

  218. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:08 am

    “I challenged Bart to explain how the the mass balance argument can show that En – Un varies from year to year (the green line in this diagram http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/3_mass_balance.png ) if the analysis assumes that En and Un are constant (as he asserts).”

    Not what I stated. I am not saying the variables are static. I am saying that you are implicitly assuming there is no response to anthropogenic forcing.

    Deal with the math.

    1) C – Ea = En – Un

    2) Un = p*(Ea + En)

    3) C = (1-p) * (En + Ea)

    4) 0.5*Ea = (1-p)*(En + Ea)

    5) En = ((p – 0.5)/(1-p))*Ea.

    p = 1/2 implies the entire rise is due to Ea. p = 1 implies the entire rise is due to En.

    You cannot get around it. Equation 4 states that the rise is 1/2 of Ea, yet as p approaches 1, Ea has less and less actual impact.

    Your “mass balance” argument is falsified. QED.

  219. Ferdi, thanks for the explanation, I’ll give it some futher thought before commenting.

    “Further, the short term variability of the rate of change is as good explained by dT/dt as by T of any derivative level, see http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/scale:0.19/offset:0.14/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/derivative

    Now there you have just proved you own statement wrong.

    It is blatantly obvious that the red and green lines ( temp and dCO2) do show a good degree of correlation. It is equally obvious that the blue line does not. Pay particular attention to the 1998 El Nino , the lower blue line has a peak followed by a trough. If WTF.org was capable of putting an grid on the graph you could verify that the zero crossing of the blue line aligns with the peak of the other two.

    This was looked at in great detail in Ole Humlum’s paper. see:
    William Astley’s comment for link to paper.
    November 10, 2013 at 9:17 am

    Trying to suggest that dT matches dCO2 just as well a T(t) does , you demonstrate that you can see whatever you want to see in the data.

  220. Ulric Lyons: “Global mean temperature is immaterial, the depth of cold shots into the temperate zone are purely dependent on short term solar forcing of Arctic air pressure.”

    I’m inclined to that way of thinking , at least as a significant factor. Can you point to proof of that statement?

  221. Bart, “Not what I stated. I am not saying the variables are static. I am saying that you are implicitly assuming there is no response to anthropogenic forcing.”

    Again this is not correct, the mass balance analysis IS NOT A MODEL OF THE CARBON CYCLE (how many times to I have to say that) and makes no assumptions at all about the behaviour of the natural sources and sinks. It just says that if you could measure En and Un, whatever the physical mechanism that gave rise to them, then if C’ were less than Ea then you would find that En would be less than Un.

  222. Greg says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Bravo! I’ve been trying to get that through to Ferdinand forever. He thinks he can just arbitrarily ignore phasing.

  223. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:32 am

    “It just says that if you could measure En and Un, whatever the physical mechanism that gave rise to them, then if C’ were less than Ea then you would find that En would be less than Un.”

    But, that does not answer the question of attribution, which is supposed to be the whole point of the conversation.

    So, En is less than Un. So what? Un has a part of it due to Ea. Take that out, and En will no longer necessarily be less than Un with the anthropogenically induced part taken out.

  224. richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 5:52 am

    If the CO2 upwelling from deep ocean reduces surface layer pH (e.g. because it contains sulphur or nutrients from undersea volcanism) then that would alter the equilibrium to CAUSE the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Any reduction in pH form (deep) oceanic origin will release CO2 from the ocean surface into the atmosphere, but at the same time that will reduce the total carbon (CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) in the ocean surface. But we see the reverse: the total carbon increases.
    Moreover, the 13C/12C ratio of the ocean surface decreases in lockstep with the decrease in the atmosphere and the area weighted CO2 partial pressure difference between the atmosphere and oceans is 7 microatm higher in the atmosphere. Which shows that more CO2 is going from the atmosphere into the ocean surfaces than reverse…

  225. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:37 am

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:32 am

    “Take that out, and En will no longer necessarily be less than Un with the anthropogenically induced part taken out.”

    This is the whole point of why you analysis is static. You think the part of Un due to Ea is merely a displacement of Un due to En. But, it isn’t. The sinks grow in response to forcing. The part taking out Ea is a wholly additional part which made the sink larger than it was.

  226. The mass balance argument is interesting, but I am still not sure what conclusions can be drawn.
    viz: The increase in atmospheric C is less than anthropogenic emissions, therefore all of C is a result of these anthropogenic emissions.

    Yes, this is algebraically true, but is tautologous. If C was > Ea, then Ea would be responsible for part of the increase. If C was < 0, then Ea would be responsible for lessening the decline. Whatever the value of C, it would be to some extent the consequence of Ea. It doesn't tell us what the atmospheric levels would be in the absence of Ea.

    Look, take the observation that En – Un is negative. Yet that implies that C would have been declining without the effect of Ea, which is a state of affairs that could not exist for very long without catastrophic results. Somehow, Ea appears to have initiated a net sink effect. We do not know whether this is the result of decreased En or increased Un.

    Doesn't it appear there is some sort of synergy going on, some interactive or coupled effects between Co2 emissions and sinks? Can we even make any predictions about the future ratios of En to Un or their absolute magnitudes or about future projections of Co2 levels?

  227. Incidentally, it is worth looking at the last step of Bart’s analysis

    5) En = ((p – 0.5)/(1-p))*Ea.

    which is saying that natural emissions are a constant multiple ((p – 0.5)/(1-p)) of anthropogenic emissions. One wonders how the natural environment somehow knows how much CO2 we emit each year from fossil fuel emissions and land use changes? It also means that if Ea were zero, natural emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere would also be zero, so before mankind evolved, the oceans and terrestrial biosphere emitted no carbon into the atmosphere whatsoever! Sounds somewhat unlikely to me.

  228. Bart wrote “So, En is less than Un. So what? ”

    if En is less than Un, it means that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, i.e. it has been consistently taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere that it has been putting in. So how can the natural environment be causing atmospheric CO2 to increase by taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it is putting in?

  229. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 9:30 am

    And that the sinks do not expand in response to anthropogenic inputs, but continue taking out only the natural inputs.

    No, it really doesn’t say that at all. All it says is “hey, let’s add all the natural sources for a given year and label it ‘En’, and let’s add all the natural sinks for a given year and label it ‘Un'”. This is *all* it does. It doesn’t say that the size of the natural sources or sinks doesn’t change from year-to-year or moment-to-moment.

    It’s really very simple math. You don’t need anything more complex in order to show that the *total* natural emissions is less than total natural sinks, and humans have contributed the difference. And this won’t change if you split it up regionally or monthly or any other way, since those regional natural sources/sinks will always add up to create the total (i.e., global) natural source/sink.

    Basically, Murray Salby denies arithmetic.

  230. Vince Causey says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:41 am

    “Look, take the observation that En – Un is negative. Yet that implies that C would have been declining without the effect of Ea…”

    But, it doesn’t imply that. If you take away Ea, then Un shrinks. They are coupled together. You cannot change one while holding the other steady. That is the mistake the “mass-balancists” make.

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:41 am

    “…which is saying that natural emissions are a constant multiple ((p – 0.5)/(1-p)) of anthropogenic emissions.”

    Good grief! That’s the observation! I set the observed concentration to 1/2 of anthropogenic emissions to get that equation. It’s not a physical law. It’s your observation!

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:45 am

    “So how can the natural environment be causing atmospheric CO2 to increase by taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it is putting in?”

    Because part of what it is taking out is the anthropogenic input. If you cease the anthropogenic input, that part of the sink goes away.

    This is my whole point! You are doing a static analysis. You are assuming the anthropogenic input and the sinks are uncoupled. They are not.

  231. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:52 am

    “It doesn’t say that the size of the natural sources or sinks doesn’t change from year-to-year or moment-to-moment. “

    It says that Un will be the same, whether you have Ea or not. That is incorrect.

    “It’s really very simple math.”

    Yes, much too simple. It is simple arithmetic for a problem which demands the calculus of feedbacks.

  232. Vince Causey wrote “Look, take the observation that En – Un is negative. Yet that implies that C would have been declining without the effect of Ea,”

    yes, exactly

    “which is a state of affairs that could not exist for very long without catastrophic results.
    Somehow, Ea appears to have initiated a net sink effect. We do not know whether this is the result of decreased En or increased Un.”

    The point that you are missing is that the reason that En is less than Un is because of anthropogenic emissions. Prior to the industrial revolution, Ea was more or less zero and atmospheric CO2 was reasonably constant at about 280ppmv, which means that En and Un must have been in approximate equilibrium. The reason that there was a reasonably stable equilibrium is due to the carbon cycle having various feedback mechansims (such as the temperature dependent solubility of CO2 in the oceans), and the equilibrium is the result of a balance between these feedbacks.

    Now once we start emitting CO2 from fossil fuels, we disturb this equilibrium and the feedback mechansims kick in. One of these is Henry’s law which says that the solubility of a gas is proportional to the difference of partial pressure in the water and in the atmosphere. So if you increase the partial pressure in the atmosphere, solubility in the oceans increases due to Henry;s law and hence Un increases.

    The mass balance equation doesn’t explain why En is less than Un, the point is that if En is less than Un then the natural environment is actively opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2 and is acting to bring it back towards it equilibrium value.

    To understand why the natural environment is a net sink you need a full quantative model of the carbon cycle, the mass balance analysis just establishes that the natural environment IS a net carbon sink, but doesn’t explain why.

  233. Bart writes “Because part of what it is taking out is the anthropogenic input. If you cease the anthropogenic input, that part of the sink goes away.”

    So how does this sink differentiate between molecules of CO2 from anthropogenic emissions (Ea) and molecules of CO2 from natural emissions (En)? There is no physically plausible mechanism by which that could take place.

  234. It’s really that simple, guys. Un is a function of En as well as Ea. You cannot speculate on what the mass balance would be in the absence of Ea without also changing Un.

    This is a feedback sink. Un adjusts to both En AND Ea.

  235. Greg says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Greg, if you have a short term variability (sinusoid) in temperature, CO2 levels will follow with a pi/2 shift. If you take the derivative, you shift dT/dt and dCO2/dt backwards again pi/2. That makes that T and dCO2/dt are perfectly aligned. But that has not the slightest physical meaning.

    It is T that drives CO2 with a lag and thus dT/dt that drives the variability of dCO2/dt with a lag (but not the trend…).

    Some theoretical background:
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/diary-date-murry-salby.html?currentPage=2#comments
    comment by Paul_K at Oct 26, 2013 at 8:19 AM

  236. Lots of sound, fury and equations signifying nothing.

    Address my earlier contention. Further attempts at diversion not welcome.

    Suppose human emissions are quickly sequestered by energised local and regional biosphere sinks whilst at the same time the oceanic ability to absorb is being reduced by increasing sunlight on subtropical ocean surfaces and soil moisture with the latter effect being around two times greater than the former effect.

    We would observe exactly what we do observe namely a rise in global atmospheric CO2 whilst all our emissions are absorbed.but it would appear that half our emissions were not being absorbed.

    Back to the isotope ratio but that is deeply flawed because there has been no reliable inventory of the isotope varieties produced by the plethora of biological and geological processes.

  237. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:55 am
    Yes, much too simple. It is simple arithmetic for a problem which demands the calculus of feedbacks.

    Nope. It’s an observation of recent past years, not a prediction of future years, which as you say, would require a very complex model. IOW, all this tells us is that the atmospheric CO2 increase has been due to human activity. It doesn’t say anything about future CO2 changes, since we don’t know what C or Ea or Un or En will be in the future.

    It also doesn’t say this:
    It says that Un will be the same, whether you have Ea or not. That is incorrect.

    For the same reasons. It describes a relationship between the atmospheric concentration, human emissions, and the net natural source/sink. That relationship will hold true, even as the individual parts change.

  238. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:59 am

    “So how does this sink differentiate between molecules of CO2 from anthropogenic emissions (Ea) and molecules of CO2 from natural emissions (En)?”

    IT DOESN’T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That is the WHOLE POINT!!!

    It is only by assuming it does that you uncouple Un from Ea.

  239. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:00 am

    “That relationship will hold true, even as the individual parts change.i>

    Nope. Un will decrease when you take away Ea. They are inextricably coupled.

  240. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:00 am

    YES!

    It is so simple. How can these guys not be getting it?

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:59 am

    Mathematical gibberish. You cannot shift the phase willy nilly. If you lag it 90 degreees, you must be integrating. This requirement holds for any natural, minimum phase system.

  241. Let’s leave God out of this please, Christopher!:] Nature will suffice.
    Also Carbon is not the issue. Many forget that CO2 was 10 times higher than at present during the height of the last worldwide glaciation and lags behind warming anyway as Bart just reminded us.

  242. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:00 am
    Nope. Un will decrease when you take away Ea. They are inextricably coupled.

    I think you’re making the mistake of thinking that the equation is describing constants. It’s not. For the purpose of this discussion, C, En, Ea, and Un are all black-box functions with regard to time, and that doesn’t change the conclusion we’ve drawn at all.

    Even if En/Ea/Un all depend on each other, or on time, or on the price of tea in China, the equation still holds, and the increase in C must have come from Ea. The following will always be true:
    C – Ea = En – Un

    (Well, neglecting Ua, etc., which is a perfectly fine approximation for now). We’re not even talking that much about Un, but about (En-Un), which is the important part.

    The increase in atmospheric CO2 has come from humans. There’s no way around that, since we’ve emitted it faster than it’s been absorbed by natural systems.

  243. David G says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:08 am

    I assume you’re referring to the Ordovician glaciation, during which CO2 levels were indeed much higher than now, possibly more than ten times. Although higher than now during the subsequent Carboniferous-Permian glaciation, which lasted much longer, they weren’t ten times higher.

  244. dikranmarsupial:

    I take severe exception to your post at November 11, 2013 at 9:23 am.

    At November 11, 2013 at 5:58 am you made an assertion.
    At November 11, 2013 at 6:09 am I explained why your assertion is false.
    At November 11, 2013 at 6:24 am you claimed I had said other than did.
    At November 11, 2013 at 6:39 am I pointed out your misrepresentation.
    At November 11, 2013 at 6:51 am I explained the importance of my point.
    At November 11, 2013 at 9:23 am you AGAIN misrepresent what I wrote!

    And you have the gall to accuse

    Vince Causey iterates – and provides another explanation of – my point in his post at November 11, 2013 at 10:41 am.

    I cannot be more clear than my post at November 11, 2013 at 6:51 am. To save you the trouble of finding it, I copy the significant part of it to here

    The issue is that it is not possible to determine a ‘known’ from two ‘unknowns’.

    As illustration I cite the famous Drake equation which purports to estimate the number of alien civilisations in our galaxy. Wicki gives this good explanation of it
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

    The Drake equation seems ‘sciencey’ but it is meaningless because it consists of unquantified parameters.

    The ‘mass balance argument’ seems seems ‘sciencey’ in the same way but it is similarly meaningless because it consists of unquantified parameters.

    Richard

  245. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:59 am

    It’s really that simple, guys. Un is a function of En as well as Ea. You cannot speculate on what the mass balance would be in the absence of Ea without also changing Un.

    This is a feedback sink. Un adjusts to both En AND Ea.

    Which makes that you must increase En a threefold to match the threefold increase of Ea over the past 50 years (a sevenfold if it comes from the deep oceans), IF and only IF En is the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. Which isn’t seen in any proxy or direct measurement…

  246. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:09 am

    “The following will always be true:

    C – Ea = En – Un”

    But, if you take away Ea, if you stop the anthropogenic input, it is not still true that

    C = En – Un

    Un will now change. It will decrease. It is coupled to Ea.

    The question is not are the natural sinks greater than the natural inputs? The question is, would the natural sinks be greater than the natural inputs IF THE ANTHROPOGENIC INPUT WERE TO CEASE?.

  247. “The question is, would the natural sinks be greater than the natural inputs IF THE ANTHROPOGENIC INPUT WERE TO CEASE?.”

    If human sources ceased the energised local and regional sinks would decline similarly.

    Meanwhile the change in oceanic absorption capability would go on unaffected.

    You would see exactly the same increase over time but you would no longer be able to blame humans for it.

    Bart said:

    “It is so simple. How can these guys not be getting it?”

    Because they don’t want to.

  248. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:09 am

    I must go. All of what I have stated is mathematically demonstrated at the comment above. Equation #4 is a statement of the observation that the observed rise is roughly 1/2 of Ea.

    As I show, the actual contribution of Ea to C can still be tiny. It all depends on the feedback factor p.

    This is trivial. This is obvious. The mass balance argument does not establish attribution for the rise in CO2 to human inputs.

  249. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:15 am
    But, if you take away Ea, if you stop the anthropogenic input, it is not still true that
    C = En – Un

    No, it’s definitely true – though that should have been C’, not C, sorry. If you take away the anthropogenic emissions, all of the change in atmospheric CO2 that remains is due to natural emissions/sinks. This is true regardless of whether En or Un change with time.

    If there weren’t humans around, all changes in CO2 come from natural sources. That seems obvious, no?

  250. “The point that you are missing is that the reason that En is less than Un is because of anthropogenic emissions. Prior to the industrial revolution, Ea was more or less zero and atmospheric CO2 was reasonably constant at about 280ppmv, which means that En and Un must have been in approximate equilibrium.”

    Do we really know if atmospheric co2 levels were constant? Some scientists believe that ice core samples are flawed because co2 leaks out over time leading to a bias to the low side. Also, Beck has shown that past measurements were anything but constant.

    Does Henry’s law indeed predict that one half of the increase in co2 will be absorbed in the oceans rather than say 1/3 or all of it? Would increases in Northwest forest growth also lead to Co2 being absorbed? If so, that is a change in Un instigated by changes in land use and not Ea.

    What seems simple at first ain’t necessarily so.

  251. Here, I can put this argument another way:
    C’ = Ea + Nn
    (Nn is “net natural”; the total, global sum of natural CO2 sources and sinks over a period of time. Nn = En – Un).

    Over any given period of time, Nn must be greater than zero, equal to zero, or less than zero. In other words, the total natural source/sink must be emitting CO2, doing nothing, or absorbing CO2. It cannot – on net – be both absorbing and emitting CO2. That’s nonsense. A number cannot be both greater than and less than zero.

    So:
    C’ – Ea = Nn
    We know that C’ has been positive over recent years, and that Ea > C’, which means Nn must be negative during that time. That means that on net, the natural systems have been absorbing CO2, and that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
    It’s just arithmetic, that’s all.

  252. Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    Thankyou for your reply to me at November 11, 2013 at 10:39 am.

    You make two assertions; i.e.

    Any reduction in pH form (deep) oceanic origin will release CO2 from the ocean surface into the atmosphere, but at the same time that will reduce the total carbon (CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) in the ocean surface. But we see the reverse: the total carbon increases.
    Moreover, the 13C/12C ratio of the ocean surface decreases in lockstep with the decrease in the atmosphere and the area weighted CO2 partial pressure difference between the atmosphere and oceans is 7 microatm higher in the atmosphere. Which shows that more CO2 is going from the atmosphere into the ocean surfaces than reverse…

    We have gone over this repeatedly.

    The measurements of sea surface layer carbon are so sparse and so variable that no valid conclusions can be drawn. However, if it is true that “the total carbon increases” in the sea surface layer then so what? At issue is a change to the equilibrium between the CO2 concentrations in the air and the ocean surface layer. The pH change induces a change to that equilibrium by increasing the CO2 in the air, and that does not imply that the CO2 in the sea surface layer must decrease. There is an order of magnitude more CO2 pumped in and out of the oceans each year than is emitted to the air as anthropogenic CO2. A change to the equilibrium could result in less CO2 being sequestered by the ocean than is released by the ocean so the CO2 in the air would rise but the CO2 in the ocean need not fall.

    Perhaps the 13C/12C ratio of the ocean surface does decrease and this would be consistent with its being a result of “more CO2 is going from the atmosphere into the ocean surfaces than reverse”, but again so what? If the ratio is going to change then there is an even chance that it would decrease or increase. And, again, the measurements are so sparse and so variable that no valid conclusions can be drawn. Importantly, there is an addition of anthropogenic CO2 to the air. And the CO2 in the air is pumped in and out of the sea surface layer by the seasonal variation, so there is a net flux of anthropogenic CO2 into the sea surface layer as the anthropogenic CO2 mixes with the air and mixes with the CO2 in the sea surface layer. But that says nothing about why the equilibrium between the CO2 concentrations in the air and the ocean surface layer is changing.

    Richard

  253. Greg Goodman says:

    Ulric Lyons: “Global mean temperature is immaterial, the depth of cold shots into the temperate zone are purely dependent on short term solar forcing of Arctic air pressure.”

    I’m inclined to that way of thinking , at least as a significant factor. Can you point to proof of that statement?
    ===================================

    Record negative Arctic Oscillation conditions, and very low temperatures even by late Maunder standards, e.g.Dec 2010 and March 2013.
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table

  254. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:15 am
    The question is not are the natural sinks greater than the natural inputs? The question is, would the natural sinks be greater than the natural inputs IF THE ANTHROPOGENIC INPUT WERE TO CEASE?.

    Right now? Definitely yes. The natural sinks do not care where the CO2 comes from, whether from humans or not, and the natural sinks are already greater than the natural inputs. We can expect this to continue, and if humans stopped emitting CO2, atmospheric CO2 would drop, at least for a while.

  255. Windchasers:

    At November 11, 2013 at 11:09 am you say

    The increase in atmospheric CO2 has come from humans. There’s no way around that, since we’ve emitted it faster than it’s been absorbed by natural systems.

    Nonsense! That is argument by assertion and it is not true.

    For one example of why it is not true please see my above post at November 11, 2013 at 5:52 am. This link jumps to it.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1471966

    Richard

  256. Vince Causey wrote: “Do we really know if atmospheric co2 levels were constant? Some scientists believe that ice core samples are flawed because co2 leaks out over time leading to a bias to the low side.”

    These issues are known to the scientists who work on the ice core data and are taken into account. I am no expert on this, perhaps Ferdinand would like to discuss this point.

    “Also, Beck has shown that past measurements were anything but constant.”

    Becks analysis was fundamentally flawed by the fact that his measurements were of surface CO2, often in towns, so the measurements weren’t representative of the bulk atmosphere. It would not be physically plausible for CO2 levels in the bulk atmosphere to change as rapidly as Becks results suggest. ISTR there was a comment paper publsihed in response to Becks article that explains the flaws, but I haven’t read it for a while.

    “Does Henry’s law indeed predict that one half of the increase in co2 will be absorbed in the oceans rather than say 1/3 or all of it?”

    No, the constants need to be determined from observations, and you need a full model of the carbon cycle to determine the effects on atmospheric CO2.

    “Would increases in Northwest forest growth also lead to Co2 being absorbed? If so, that is a change in Un instigated by changes in land use and not Ea.”

    Ea includes land use changes and forest growth is included in Un.

    “What seems simple at first ain’t necessarily so”

    Yes, simple explanations like the mass balance argument, or the simplified first order model of the carbon cycle found in my journal paper. However if you want to perform a worthwhile quantative analysis you need a full model of the carbon cycle which includes more of the physics, which is what carbon cycle researchers actually do.

    The mass balance argument ought to be enough to establish that En < Un, from which point common sense should be enough to conclude that the natural environment is opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2 (as one would expect from a peturbed dynamic system that was previously in approximate equilibrium) rather than causing it. Why it is doing so is a more involved question.

  257. Vince Causey says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:29 am

    Do we really know if atmospheric co2 levels were constant? Some scientists believe that ice core samples are flawed because co2 leaks out over time leading to a bias to the low side.

    Those scientists are wrong: if ice cores show 180-300 ppmv and the outside air is 360-380 ppmv during drilling, extraction, relaxation and measurements, then any net migration would be from the outside to the inside, not reverse. Thus leading to too high levels, not too low…

    Does Henry’s law indeed predict that one half of the increase in co2 will be absorbed in the oceans rather than say 1/3 or all of it? Would increases in Northwest forest growth also lead to Co2 being absorbed? If so, that is a change in Un instigated by changes in land use and not Ea.

    That the absorption rate is about halve the human emissions is pure coincidence: it is a combination of a relative modest removal rate (currently about 40 years half life time) and a slightly quadratic increase in human emissions and therefore a slightly quadratic increase in the atmosphere over time. The latter is what pushes CO2 into the oceans (and plant alveoles…).The increase in the atmosphere and the total emissions over time are quite constant in ratio over time.

    But if human emissions should increase less and les and shouldn’t increase anymore, that would give a decline in rate of change and eventually a new equilibrium in the atmosphere where human emissions and sinks are equal.

    Land use changes in general are included in Ea but currently are negative: more forests are destroyed than replanted…

  258. I just love the handles.

    We have our dickenmarsupials, a reverse Fumperdinck Engelbert, and plain ol’ names. The handles are almost as much fun to read as the comments. I love this site.

  259. richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:46 am

    Windchasers:
    At November 11, 2013 at 11:09 am you say

    The increase in atmospheric CO2 has come from humans. There’s no way around that, since we’ve emitted it faster than it’s been absorbed by natural systems.

    Nonsense! That is argument by assertion and it is not true.

    Nope. It’s simple math, as shown above, and again here:
    C’ = Ea + Nn
    We have a good handle on both C’ and Ea, which means we know Nn, the total natural contribution to CO2. And again, Nn obviously cannot be both positive and negative over a given period of time. It’s mathematically impossible.

    I read over your post, but I think you’re wrong about how flexible/robust the natural sinks are. Otherwise – why would the atmospheric CO2 be increasing?

  260. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:35 am

    “Right now? Definitely yes.”

    Obviously a flippant response.

    No. Backwards in time to the beginning. Or, after steady state has been achieved, if you prefer. No reliance on transient response.

    If you take away the anthropogenic inputs completely, is the natural sinking of CO2 still greater than the natural input? That is the question which must be answered in the affirmative to establish human culpability.

    It cannot be answered solely on the basis of the “mass balance” argument you have proffered. Therefore, the argument is trivial and meaningless.

    “We can expect this to continue, and if humans stopped emitting CO2, atmospheric CO2 would drop, at least for a while.”

    And, after that “while”? I think your subconscious is trying to tell you something.

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:48 am

    “The mass balance argument ought to be enough to establish that En L.T. Un…”

    A trivial, meaningless conclusion.

    “…from which point common sense should be enough to conclude…”

    Common sense is notoriously bad in reaching conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Common sense told us that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that leeches could cure sickness.

  261. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:54 am

    “Otherwise – why would the atmospheric CO2 be increasing?”

    You are begging the question. Stephen Wilde has given you a scenario in which this occurs.

  262. Bart, writes:
    ==========================================================================
    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:48 am

    “The mass balance argument ought to be enough to establish that En L.T. Un…”

    A trivial, meaningless conclusion.
    ==========================================================================

    Does that mean that you agree that total annual emissions from all natural sources is less than total annual uptake by all natural sinks and has been since at least the start of the Mauna Loa records of atmospheric CO2? An unambiguous “yes” or “no” would be appreciated, just for the record.

  263. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:29 am

    “If there weren’t humans around, all changes in CO2 come from natural sources. That seems obvious, no?”

    But, the natural sinks would shrink without human inputs driving them.

    Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:35 am

    “That means that on net, the natural systems have been absorbing CO2…

    So what?

    “…and that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.”

    Non sequitur.

  264. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    “Does that mean that you agree that total annual emissions from all natural sources is less than total annual uptake by all natural sinks and has been since at least the start of the Mauna Loa records of atmospheric CO2? An unambiguous “yes” or “no” would be appreciated, just for the record.”

    Yes. So what? It does not establish attribution. The uptake by natural sinks is dependent on anthropogenic forcing.

  265. Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    At November 11, 2013 at 11:50 am you say

    Do we really know if atmospheric co2 levels were constant? Some scientists believe that ice core samples are flawed because co2 leaks out over time leading to a bias to the low side.

    Those scientists are wrong: if ice cores show 180-300 ppmv and the outside air is 360-380 ppmv during drilling, extraction, relaxation and measurements, then any net migration would be from the outside to the inside, not reverse. Thus leading to too high levels, not too low…

    Argument by assertion seems popular in this thread.

    This is yet another subject which you and I have debated interminably.

    The ice core data show low atmospheric CO2 concentrations while the stomata data show much higher and more variable CO2 concentrations. There are reasons to dispute the ice core data and the stomata data, but there are more reasons to doubt the ice core data.

    For example, ice cores trap air when the ice solidifies. It takes several years to solidify (the IPCC says Vostock ice takes 83 years) and is porous firn until it does solidify. Air is pumped in and out of the porous surface layer by variations in atmospheric pressure, and this mixes the air in the firn. The effect is to smooth the observations of trapped atmospheric CO2 concentration with an effect similar to conducting a running mean on CO2 concentrations measured from ice which sealed in a year. Rises in CO2 such as those recorded at Mauna Loa since 1958 would not be observable in the Vostok ice core which takes 83 years to seal.

    The leaves of plants form stomata in response to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Leaves which fall into e.g. peat bogs can be retrieved and their ages determined by carbon dating. The relationship of stomata formation to atmospheric CO2 concentration is calibrated by laboratory experiment and is used to determine CO2 concentration from the stomata of leaves retrieved from e.g. peat bogs. The leaves form and fall in individual years so the stomata data are obtained for individual years with no smoothing.

    Sadly, people tend to ‘champion’ the ice core or the stomata data according to what they think past CO2 concentrations ‘must’ have been. In reality, both ice core and stomata data are indicative and provide useful information, but neither should be taken as a clear and reliable quantitative indication of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    Richard

  266. Bart says “do the math”

    Sadly again a direct question recieves an evasive response that took up more characters than a simple “yes” or “no” that would have unambiguously settled the question. Sorry, I am happy to discuss science, but life is just to short to waste on rhetorical games such as this.

  267. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:04 pm
    No. Backwards in time to the beginning. Or, after steady state has been achieved, if you prefer. No reliance on transient response.
    As you’ve pointed out so many times, the natural sources and sinks of CO2 change with respect to time, human emissions, and god knows what else. There are certainly no constant, long-term values for the sources and sinks, or otherwise CO2 would never change naturally (and we know it does, from the ice core records).

    While it will be useful and interesting to study the carbon cycle and the long-term sources and sinks of CO2, these aren’t necessarily relevant to today’s situation. For instance, we know there’s at least one important sink – ocean absorption – that operates on relatively long timescales compared to how quickly we’re emitting it today.

    In other words, it’s the transient response that we’re interested in, since we’re talking about what is to blame for today’s increase in CO2. You can’t say “well, ____ mechanisms are relevant at long timescales, so humans aren’t to blame today”; it’d be a non-sequitur, equating the long-term and short-term effects.

    “And, after that “while”? I think your subconscious is trying to tell you something.”
    Well, it’s trivially obvious that at some point, atmospheric CO2 will stop dropping, or be dropping so slowly as to not matter – it can’t go lower than zero. But more likely, it will oscillate as the Earth goes into and out of interglacial periods, as shown by the ice core records, though rarely if ever attaining the highs it has attained under human emissions.

    Wind: “Otherwise – why would the atmospheric CO2 be increasing?”
    Bart: You are begging the question. Stephen Wilde has given you a scenario in which this occurs.

    Not at all. No one, yourself and Stephen included, has explained how the net total contribution can be both positive and negative over a given period of time. You can’t really say that the sinks are totally up to the task of taking out all the CO2 in no time at all, but also claim that they aren’t doing so, and are in fact emitting CO2. All together, the natural system has to be in net either absorbing or emitting CO2 – it can’t be doing both.

  268. “All together, the natural system has to be in net either absorbing or emitting CO2 – it can’t be doing both.”

    The natural system is currently in net emitting mode due to warming oceans or possibly CO2 rich water surfacing from the thermohaline circulation. but most if not all of the the separate human sources are quickly absorbed by energising of the local and regional biosphere.

    What else do you need?

  269. windchasers says
    Not at all. No one, yourself and Stephen included, has explained how the net total contribution can be both positive and negative over a given period of time
    henry says
    I did

  270. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Apparently, you cannot do the math. OK.

    Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    “In other words, it’s the transient response that we’re interested in, since we’re talking about what is to blame for today’s increase in CO2.”

    Incorrect. The question is simply, would CO2 be rising anyway if humans were not here? If it would, then we are not responsible for the observed rise.

    “All together, the natural system has to be in net either absorbing or emitting CO2 – it can’t be doing both.

    It seems you have not actually considered Stephen’s scenario.

    Do the math.

  271. Windchasers:

    At November 11, 2013 at 11:54 am you ask me

    I read over your post, but I think you’re wrong about how flexible/robust the natural sinks are. Otherwise – why would the atmospheric CO2 be increasing?

    Clearly, if you did read my post then you failed to understand it.

    The atmospheric CO2 is increasing because the equilibrium of the carbon cycle is changing and has changed.

    Some mechanisms of the carbon cycle are very fast and provide the seasonal variation; see
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    As I explained in my post at November 11, 2013 at 5:52 am the saw-tooth nature of the seasonal variation does NOT fit with sequestration processes saturating so being incapable of sequestering all the emissions (both natural and anthropogenic).

    Other mechanisms of the carbon cycle are very slow and have rate constants of years and decades so the carbon cycle takes decades to establish a new equilibrium. The slow and seemingly inexorable rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from year-to-year is an effect of the system adjusting towards that new equilibrium.

    At issue is NOT what individual sinks do or do not do. At issue is what has caused the equilibrium of the carbon cycle to change.
    Perhaps the cause of the equilibrium change is the anthropogenic emission, or perhaps it is the intermittent temperature rise from the LIA, or perhaps it was sulphur release from undersea volcanism, or perhaps it was one or more of several other things.

    But you ignore all the observations and say the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is merely that the anthropogenic emission is overloading the sinks although it clearly is not. Incredible!

    Richard

  272. The natural system is currently in net emitting mode due to warming oceans or possibly CO2 rich water surfacing from the thermohaline circulation. but most if not all of the the separate human sources are quickly absorbed by energising of the local and regional biosphere.

    What else do you need?

    I can’t see how that makes sense. Humans are going to emit about 26 Gt of CO2 this year, and the atmospheric is going to increase by about 15 Gt CO2 (if this year is like recent years).

    Where does the rest of the CO2 go, if the natural system is also a net emitter?

    Hmm. I’d say based on the above numbers, it would sure seem like the natural system is going to be a net sink of CO2 this year, by the amount of ~11 Gt CO2.

  273. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the “natural” system responds to the artificial forcing, and is therefore no longer strictly natural?

  274. Professor Salby’s presentation was very interesting. In regards of the C12 and C13 ratio. He accepted the consensus figures, displayed them, and then questioned them, using the consensus’s own logic. By this means he found the accepted interpretations are wrong, or at least not supported by the consensus’s own figures.

    He used the same method with the global energy budgets and showed they only allow CO2 to change temperature, which he also showed to be not the case, again using the consensus’s own figures.

    Neat, simple, understandable, logic and questioning.

    However, we know the consensus figures for the modern global CO2 atmospheric concentration (ie, MLO) are questionable, if not completely wrong, as per Beck. We know the proxy record for CO2 atmospheric concentration (ice cores in this case) are questionable, if not completely wrong, as per Drake. We know the method by which they were spliced together is also questionable. Indeed, temperature reconstructions from ice cores are questionable (for the same reasons as CO2 reconstructions), ocean temperatures are questionable, if not just wrong, etc, etc, etc.

    Is there a single reliable, unquestionable global metric in climate science? Almost certainly not. Yet, Professor Salby produces plots with a scale of 0.1 parts per million for global CO2 atmospheric concentration, without error bars. I would suggest that the noise is far, far larger than the signal. So, although excellent, it probably proves nothing, except the consensus does not have any reliable figures.

    His questioning of the global energy budgets does stand up though in my opinion. He showed they must be wrong, and at a very basic level, again, only by using the consensus’s own logic / figures.

    All in all, his presentation was brilliant and a correct way to go about matters. I take my hat off to the good Professor. Thank you Murray Salby.

    Towards a new theory of climate though, NOT without including realistic thermodynamics, and that Professor Salby did not need to cover, because the consensus does not, and niether do most others. Mores the pitty.

  275. richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    The ice core data show low atmospheric CO2 concentrations while the stomata data show much higher and more variable CO2 concentrations.

    Richard, indeed we have been there before.

    The ice core data are accurate measurements (+/- 1.3 ppmv 1 sigma) of a mix of several years of CO2 data. The number of years (the resolution) depends of the accumulation speed and is between 10 years (Law Dome) and 600 years (Vostok).
    Fast changes, shorter than the resolution in the ice core for a full cycle can’t be detected. But even the current increase in CO2 over the past 160 years (if it was part of a cycle) would be detected in the Vostok ice core.

    An important point is that while the resolution does blind faster changes, the resolution doesn’t change the average of the CO2 levels over the period of the resolution. Neither does migration after bubble closing (which is undetectable).

    Stomata data have much more problems than ice core data:
    The stomata (index – SI) data are a rough proxy (+/- 10 ppmv) for the average CO2 level during the previous growing season. The CO2 levels are local CO2 levels over land where the plants did grow. That already causes a positive bias against the bulk of the atmosphere. The bias is compensated for by calibrating the SI against direct measurements, firn and ice over the past century. But there is not the slightest knowledge how the local/regional bias changed over previous centuries caused by climate changes, land use changes, landscape changes, etc.

    Anyway, if the stomata data show not the same average level of CO2 over the same time frame as the ice cores, then the stomata data are certainly wrong…

  276. Friends:

    Perhaps some of the confusion in this thread is the repeated but untrue assertion that the natural system is consistently sequestering about half of the anthropogenic emission. This is NOT true.

    In some years almost all the anthropogenic emission seems to be sequestered and in other years almost none. Thus, there is NOT a consistent failure of the sinks to sequester the anthropogenic emission of each year. The IPCC overcomes this problem by using the completely unjustifiable tactic of applying 4-year smoothing of the data to obtain a fit between the data and its Bern model.

    Richard

  277. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    Incorrect. The question is simply, would CO2 be rising anyway if humans were not here? If it would, then we are not responsible for the observed rise.

    I disagree, for two reasons:
    1) “would be rising” is not at all equivalent to “would have risen this far”. Maybe CO2 would be rising a little, but there’s no reason at all to think that it would have risen to where it has under human influence.
    2) You can’t say this makes us not responsible for the rise. Say I go shoot a guy with cancer, and he dies. “Well, he would have died anyway!” I respond. See the problem with that? But really, the importance of that comes back to point #1, that the two events are dissimilar enough to matter (rising CO2 with or without humans, or being killed by cancer vs gunshot).

    Do the math.

    Well, #2 seems quite wrong. Natural uptakes are going to be much more dependent on C than on (Ea + En). This is why Un has increased as C has increased; it’s why we see the Earth greening and the oceans acidifying as atmospheric CO2 increases. Not that Un doesn’t depend on other things, too…

    richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    Windchasers:
    Clearly, if you did read my post then you failed to understand it.

    Hey, just because I disagreed with it, that doesn’t mean I didn’t understand it. =p

    As I explained in my post at November 11, 2013 at 5:52 am the saw-tooth nature of the seasonal variation does NOT fit with sequestration processes saturating so being incapable of sequestering all the emissions (both natural and anthropogenic).
    Okay, that part I didn’t get, yes. I do not agree that the seasonal variation points to the sequestration being unsaturated, and you haven’t made much of a case that it has — unless you’re saying that all we have to do to get the CO2 sequestered is to get rid of winter, in which case I’ll agree. =)
    In other words, the seasonal variation just suggests that CO2 sequestration is hindered by lack of sunlight or warmth during NH winter. Maybe that’s right and maybe it’s wrong, but what you did was “argument by assertion”.

    But you ignore all the observations and say the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is merely that the anthropogenic emission is overloading the sinks although it clearly is not.
    I’m really just arguing the math. Humans are emitting quite a bit, atmospheric CO2 is also going up, though more slowly, and CO2 is a well-mixed gas (meaning, sources are fungible) —> humans are causing the increase.

  278. Henryp

    Thanks for your various comments.

    Snow is quite rare in Britain. I do not think we could have any material effect on its impacts due to this infrequency.I do Remember putting soot on our path during the 1962/3 winter. In my opinion soot in the arctic is possibly a major factor in its melt.

    I wrote about the frequency of snow during dickens life here

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/

    It was he who was partly responsible for this notion that Britain always had snowy winters.

    However, there is no doubt that there has been a general upturn in winter warmth over the last century but having said that most notable examples of this warmth happened from 1700 to 1739 and ironically there were some very mild winters during dickens life especially the year he published ‘A Christmas Carol’

    Tonyb

  279. Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    In my post at November 11, 2013 at 12:15 pm I wrote

    The ice core data show low atmospheric CO2 concentrations while the stomata data show much higher and more variable CO2 concentrations. There are reasons to dispute the ice core data and the stomata data, but there are more reasons to doubt the ice core data.

    And I cited one example of why the stomata data can be argued to be superior to the ice core data before concluding

    Sadly, people tend to ‘champion’ the ice core or the stomata data according to what they think past CO2 concentrations ‘must’ have been. In reality, both ice core and stomata data are indicative and provide useful information, but neither should be taken as a clear and reliable quantitative indication of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    At November 11, 2013 at 12:47 pm you have replied by championing the ice core data then concluding
    <blockquote Anyway, if the stomata data show not the same average level of CO2 over the same time frame as the ice cores, then the stomata data are certainly wrong…
    QED

    Richard

  280. Ferdinand:

    My last post addressed tio you had a formatting error. Sorry.
    This is a repost.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    In my post at November 11, 2013 at 12:15 pm I wrote

    The ice core data show low atmospheric CO2 concentrations while the stomata data show much higher and more variable CO2 concentrations. There are reasons to dispute the ice core data and the stomata data, but there are more reasons to doubt the ice core data.

    And I cited one example of why the stomata data can be argued to be superior to the ice core data before concluding

    Sadly, people tend to ‘champion’ the ice core or the stomata data according to what they think past CO2 concentrations ‘must’ have been. In reality, both ice core and stomata data are indicative and provide useful information, but neither should be taken as a clear and reliable quantitative indication of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    At November 11, 2013 at 12:47 pm you have replied by addressing what you claim to be superior performance of the ice core data then concluding

    Anyway, if the stomata data show not the same average level of CO2 over the same time frame as the ice cores, then the stomata data are certainly wrong…

    QED

    Richard

  281. Windchasers:

    I am replying to your post addressed to me at November 11, 2013 at 12:55 pm as a courtesy so you can see I have not ignored it.

    In reply to my having written

    Clearly, if you did read my post then you failed to understand it.

    you write

    Hey, just because I disagreed with it, that doesn’t mean I didn’t understand it. =p

    and you immediately follow that with a critical point I had made and say

    Okay, that part I didn’t get, yes.

    Hmmm.

    I will reply to further posts from you only (a) if and when they say something worthy of a response, or (b) if you again say something ridiculous which needs refutation for the benefit of onlookers.

    Richard

  282. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    “Maybe CO2 would be rising a little, but there’s no reason at all to think that it would have risen to where it has under human influence.”

    It is a separate argument as to whether there is a reason or not. There is, but that is a separate argument. The argument before us here is, is the “mass balance” argument dispositive in assigning attribution for the rise to humans? It is not.

    “You can’t say this makes us not responsible for the rise.”

    Again, this is a separate debate. The “mass balance” argument does not constrain us to have been the cause.

    “Well, #2 seems quite wrong. Natural uptakes are going to be much more dependent on C than on (Ea + En).”

    They are going to take out in proportion to what is being put in. But, if you want to go the full differential equation route, you can. It leads to the same place. If the sinks are powerful, then humans have little influence on CO2 levels, regardless of the “mass balance” argument. The “mass balance” argument is trivial and meaningless.

  283. Well, real greenhouses function because there is no radiative greenhouse effect. And isn’t that a convenient hijack of definitions and concepts. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air, it prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc. But the most ironic thing about this is, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t. We also have 200 years of thermal power systems that operate independently of any radiative greenhouse effect, even though the radiative greenhouse effect should be found in these cycles too. The Carnot Heat Engine and Rankine Cycle are thermal power system that function specifically because there is no “radiative greenhouse effect”. All this worry about the source of CO2, but since empirical data and basic thermal theory shows that CO2 doesn’t affect temperature, and all CO2 does in the atmosphere is feed plants, then we can begin to develop a theory of climate based on thermodynamics, and identify the original mathematical flaw. This thread is growing by leaps and bounds, but there’s a bigger underlying point to understand.

  284. “If the sinks are powerful, then humans have little influence on CO2 levels, regardless of the “mass balance” argument. “

    It is easy to see this in the reductio. Assume the sinks are so powerful that human inputs are very rapidly removed. Now, natural forcing has to be responsible for the observed rise. Since the natural forcing is an unknown quantity, it can be whatever it needs to be to make up the discrepancy with observations.

  285. richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    and you immediately follow that with a critical point I had made and say
    Okay, that part I didn’t get, yes.
    Hmmm.

    Indeed, and I then went on to explain why I didn’t think your explanation was very good; why it seemed like an argument from assertion.

    If you can explain in more detail how the seasonal response to CO2 means anything about the non-seasonal response to CO2, that might help your case. As it is, I don’t think that it’s appropriate to compare the sequestration during spring/summer with the multi-year, average sequestration. Plants are going to be limited in growth by many factors (like sunlight, fertilizers, precipitation, and warmth).
    So how quickly carbon is sequestered during spring and summer should not be assumed to be representative of potential year-round sequestration. (Again, unless you can manage to get rid of winter, and even then foliage growth will still slow in most areas after some period of non-winter conditions).

    I also wouldn’t mind a response to the basic argument, that:

    W: Humans are going to emit about 26 Gt of CO2 this year, and the atmospheric is going to increase by about 15 Gt CO2 (if this year is like recent years), so it would sure seem like the natural system is going to be a net sink of CO2 this year, by the amount of ~11 Gt CO2.

    This is irrespective of yearly fluctuations in CO2 levels, obviously. We’re talking about how quickly the natural system can respond to a repeated annual forcing of ~6ppm here, and everything we see seems to say “not fast enough”.

  286. Bart:

    At November 11, 2013 at 12:40 pm you ask

    Why is it so hard for people to understand that the “natural” system responds to the artificial forcing, and is therefore no longer strictly natural?

    I answer because there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – that the “natural” system is responding to anything other than natural variations so it probably was, is and will remain “strictly natural”. And people who wish to make the extraordinary assertion that humans are affecting it with an “artificial forcing” need to provide some evidence to support their assertion.

    The number of arguments by assertion in this thread is also extraordinary.

    Richard

  287. richardscourtney said: “The number of arguments by assertion in this thread is also extraordinary.”

    Isn’t that basically ALL of climate science alarm?

    richardscourtney : “people who wish to make the extraordinary assertion that humans are affecting it with an “artificial forcing” need to provide some evidence to support their assertion.”

    Well given that the radiative greenhouse effect had never even been demonstrated and doesn’t even exist in real physical greenhouses, and that there’s been no temperature rise for 20 years with a marked rise in CO2, and that there’s no historical evidence that CO2 drives temperature, only that temperature drives CO2…well then YES(!), maybe the climate alarmists should be asked to provide ANY actual evidence for their assertions.

  288. Derek Alker:

    Thankyou for your fine review of Salby’s lecture which you provide in your post at November 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm.

    It is good to hear from you again, and I hope all is well with you.

    Richard

  289. Greg says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Trying to suggest that dT matches dCO2 just as well a T(t) does , you demonstrate that you can see whatever you want to see in the data.

    I know, mathematicians (like Bart) see a match and thus that is the cause… But have a look at what happens with a T sinusoid with a linear slope which allegedly produces a slope in CO2 increase in following emulation (no human inputs or sinks involved):

    The small response of CO2 on the T variability follows T with 90 deg. as expected.
    Now we take the derivative:

    As you can see there is a complete synchronisation of T and dCO2/dt while dT/dt leads dCO2/dt with 90 deg.
    Thus according to Bart, T is the cause of dCO2/dt.
    But some trouble arises: as the slope in CO2 is linear, dCO2/dt is completely flat and no factor can make that the amplitude of the CO2 variability matches that of the T variability (here we used a small factor to show the synchronisation of T and dCO2/dt). That while dT/dt can match the amplitude and variability of dCO2/dt with a lag, whatever the slope of CO2 and T.

    The solution Bart uses is that there is an increase of CO2 concentration in the upwelling waters completely synchronised with the increase in temperature, which gives a quadratic slope of CO2 in the atmosphere (as observed) and by coincidence is completely synchronized with the quadratic slope of human emissions. Too many coincidences on a row.
    Moreover, there is not the slightest indication that there is an increase of concentration (or volume) of upwelling waters…

  290. It has repeatedly been said that the mass balance analysis is not a model of the carbon cycle.
    Which is a statement I can understand.

    But please will someone tell me what the mass balance analysis is trying to do. What is the purpose of the mass balance analysis?
    If it is just saying that total emissions (anthropogenic + natural) – total uptake of the sinks = the left over CO2 then… isn’t that trivial?

    Genuine question from someone who is trying to follow the argument. I am told that you can use the mass balance analysis to avoid needing to know all the activities of the sinks. Which is helpful. But helpful for what exactly?

  291. richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    ‘I answer because there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – that the “natural” system is responding to anything other than natural variations so it probably was, is and will remain “strictly natural”. ‘

    But, that can only be the case if the sinks are powerful enough that they effectively drain the human produced CO2 rapidly out of the atmospheric system so that it has little effect. So, essentially, you are merely restating my argument from another perspective.

  292. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    But, that can only be the case if the sinks are powerful enough that they effectively drain the human produced CO2 rapidly out of the atmospheric system so that it has little effect.

    So they’re powerful enough to drain the human emissions, but not powerful enough to drain the natural emissions? …That doesn’t make any sense. The natural sinks don’t distinguish between natural and human emissions. If they could drain any amount of human emissions, they could do the same for natural emissions.

    I think the accounting (mass-balance) identity is much more useful, and tells us more about why the CO2 is rising. And it tells us that at recent levels of human emissions and CO2 conc., the natural system is a net sink, and it’s a sink that’s not strong enough to counter human emissions. (Or otherwise, C would be dropping, not rising).

  293. M Courtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    “But helpful for what exactly?”

    There’s the rub. The balancers claim that the intake of the sinks being greater than natural input flows proves the observed rise is human induced.

    The problem for them is, the former observation does not compel the latter conclusion. If you take away the human influence completely, it does not follow that nature would then be a net sink, or even in balance.

    The reason is that a portion of the sink activity is a response to the anthropogenic flows. And, when you take away those flows, the sink activity also decreases. So, you can still have a natural imbalance.

    If you could somehow take out the natural imbalance, there is no guarantee that if you reintroduced the human input, atmospheric concentration would then build significantly. The sinks can easily be powerful enough to attenuate that input to virtually nothing.

    There is nothing dispositive about the mass balance argument. It is trivial and meaningless.

  294. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    “So they’re powerful enough to drain the human emissions, but not powerful enough to drain the natural emissions? …That doesn’t make any sense.”

    Of course it does. Turn on the faucet in your kitchen sink. The drain handles it easily, does it not? Now, aim a firehose into it. Will the drain handle that, too?

    “…and it’s a sink that’s not strong enough to counter human emissions.”

    That is a convenient answer, but it is not compelled by the mass balance argument.

  295. Bart says:
    November 11, 2013 at 2:06 pm
    The problem for them is, the former observation does not compel the latter conclusion. If you take away the human influence completely, it does not follow that nature would then be a net sink, or even in balance.
    The reason is that a portion of the sink activity is a response to the anthropogenic flows. And, when you take away those flows, the sink activity also decreases. So, you can still have a natural imbalance.

    Ah, okay. A clearer description of Bart and I disagree.

    Bart’s wrong – if human influence was taken away, nature would still be a net sink. Nature does not care where the CO2 came from, and the fact that the natural system is a net sink now means it would be a net sink under the present conditions no matter what.

    Additionally, nature does not care about human emissions, but about the total atmospheric concentration of CO2. Nature “sees” human emissions and natural emissions as interchangeable. And CO2 is well-mixed, so a plant in the rainforest of Borneo doesn’t know (or care) if the CO2 came from a coal plant 1000 miles away or decomposing plants next door.

    The reason is that a portion of the sink activity is a response to the anthropogenic flows. And, when you take away those flows, the sink activity also decreases.

    Sure, if human emissions stopped tomorrow, sink activity will indeed decrease after a while. That’s because without human emissions, CO2 concentration will drop over time, and that will cause natural sinks to drop.

    Say you have a greenhouse, and you pump in CO2 to help your plants grow faster. (That means the plants acts as a CO2 sink). Do those plants care if the CO2 came from fossil fuels or not? Heck no. They care what the CO2 concentration in the air is, and that’s it. That’s what they respond to, and that’s what makes them grow faster and sequester more carbon. The same principle goes for all the other CO2 sinks, like oceans and chemical processes.

    The entire argument against the mass-balance equation seems to be predicated on the idea that nature “knows” the difference between natural and anthropogenic emissions. It doesn’t.

  296. Derek Alker says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    We have met in the past… As I remember well, you don’t accept anything from any (even probable) AGW source, including the Mauna Loa data…

    Professor Salby’s presentation was very interesting. In regards of the C12 and C13 ratio.

    No, he was right in his assesment, but wrong in his conclusions: there are methods to detect the source of the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere: the oxygen balance:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    That shows that the whole biosphere has a net uptake of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, thus not the cause of the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere. As all other natural sources are higher in 13C/12C ratio than in the atmosphere then only human emissions are to blame.

    However, we know the consensus figures for the modern global CO2 atmospheric concentration (ie, MLO) are questionable, if not completely wrong, as per Beck. We know the proxy record for CO2 atmospheric concentration (ice cores in this case) are questionable, if not completely wrong, as per Drake.

    Ha, here we go again… the late Beck’s data were 90% taken near huge sources (and sinks): towns, forests, below, inbetween and above leaves of growing crops, with a huge diurnal variability (hundreds of ppmv for Giessen) and a huge bias (+40 ppmv for Giessen) compared to Mauna Loa (+/- 4 ppmv over a day for the outliers, no diurnal variation).
    I have tried to reason with Drake, he is completely unreasonable and tries to overwhelm you with non-relevant items. If that is your source of knowledge…

    We know the method by which they were spliced together is also questionable.

    That is pure nonsense: the late Jaworowski from who is this story did look at the wrong column in Neftel’s Siple Dome ice core table: he used the column of the age of the ice instead of the average gas age to compare with the Mauna Loa data. But as far as I know most of the CO2 is in the gas phase, which is much younger than the ice at the same depth…

    Last but not least, Salby was completely wrong about migration of CO2 in ice cores. There is no measurable migration in ice cores.

  297. Windchasers:

    At November 11, 2013 at 1:25 pm you ask me

    If you can explain in more detail how the seasonal response to CO2 means anything about the non-seasonal response to CO2, that might help your case. As it is, I don’t think that it’s appropriate to compare the sequestration during spring/summer with the multi-year, average sequestration. Plants are going to be limited in growth by many factors (like sunlight, fertilizers, precipitation, and warmth).
    So how quickly carbon is sequestered during spring and summer should not be assumed to be representative of potential year-round sequestration. (Again, unless you can manage to get rid of winter, and even then foliage growth will still slow in most areas after some period of non-winter conditions).

    Firstly, I did NOT claim “the seasonal response to CO2 means anything about the non-seasonal response to CO2”.

    I really do wish you would read what I actually wrote because your repeated misrepresentations are tiresome. I wrote in my post addressed to you at November 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    Some mechanisms of the carbon cycle are very fast and provide the seasonal variation; see
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    As I explained in my post at November 11, 2013 at 5:52 am the saw-tooth nature of the seasonal variation does NOT fit with sequestration processes saturating so being incapable of sequestering all the emissions (both natural and anthropogenic).

    Other mechanisms of the carbon cycle are very slow and have rate constants of years and decades so the carbon cycle takes decades to establish a new equilibrium. The slow and seemingly inexorable rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from year-to-year is an effect of the system adjusting towards that new equilibrium.

    If you cannot understand that those two paragraphs explain different mechanisms and their effects then I am at a loss to comprehend what you would understand.

    The seasonal variation is a rapid response to temperature by rapid mechanisms. In my post at November 11, 2013 at 5:52 am

    Secondly, it matches the form of the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    As can be seen in the link, in each typical year the atmospheric CO2 rises then falls in a saw-tooth form. This is not consistent with the sinks saturating: there is negligible reduction to the sequestration rate as the sinks approach saturation prior to net sequestration reversing to become net emission. And the rate of net sequestration is so large (more than 100 times the annual increase to anthropogenic emission) that it is clear the sinks could sequester ALL the total CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic), but they don’t. If the sequestration equaled the total emission of each year then there would be no rise of atmospheric CO2 emission over each year.

    Clearly, if the rapid mechanisms were providing sinks which were saturating then their ability to sequester would reduce as saturation was neared. This does NOT happen.

    The rapid mechanisms sequester such that atmospheric CO2 plummets until it reaches the minimum quasi-equilibrium set by the slowly changing slow mechanisms.

    Indeed, I explained that this could be explained purely as an effect of ocean/air equilibrium without need to consider other sinks, saying

    This saw-tooth oscillation and annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is consistent with a change to equilibrium between the air and ocean surface layer. The seasonal oscillation is consistent with temperature variation altering the equilibrium in accordance with Henry’s Law. And the annual rise is consistent with the annual rise being a slowly changing equilibrium induced by altered ocean surface layer pH possibly as a result of volcanism altering nutrients (so biological activity) and sulpur in the ocean surface layer.

    Your claim that I made an argument by assertion is ridiculous nonsense. I explained why your argument about saturated sinks does not agree with observations, and I linked to the observations. And I provided an explanation which agrees with the observations and I provided as illustration one scenario which fulfills that explanation.

    You also ask me

    I also wouldn’t mind a response to the basic argument, that:

    W: Humans are going to emit about 26 Gt of CO2 this year, and the atmospheric is going to increase by about 15 Gt CO2 (if this year is like recent years), so it would sure seem like the natural system is going to be a net sink of CO2 this year, by the amount of ~11 Gt CO2.

    This is irrespective of yearly fluctuations in CO2 levels, obviously. We’re talking about how quickly the natural system can respond to a repeated annual forcing of ~6ppm here, and everything we see seems to say “not fast enough”.

    I don’t see why I am expected to respond to an argument I did not make. However, I observe that it continues the untrue notion that “This is irrespective of yearly fluctuations in CO2 levels, obviously. We’re talking about how quickly the natural system can respond to a repeated annual forcing of ~6ppm here, and everything we see seems to say “not fast enough”. And, as I have already explained, the dynamics of the seasonal variation demonstrate that the rapid sequestration processes clearly ARE “fast enough”.

    Anyway, what “repeated annual forcing of ~6ppm”?
    Who says the anthropogenic emission is a “forcing” and why? I don’t.

    I say the anthropogenic emission is a small addition to the natural emission. The idea that this emission is so important that it is overloading the carbon cycle is extraordinary. As I have said to you at November 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm it may be overloading the carbon cycle, but that requires some evidence to support it, and there is none.

    Please consider what you are suggesting. A variation to the total emission of CO2 to the air of ~2% will overload the carbon cycle and so transform CO2 from being the very stuff of life itself into becoming the harbinger of Armageddon. Only 2% per year? Few natural processes are that constant!

    In conclusion, I remind you of what I wrote to you about this at November 11, 2013 at 12:36.

    At issue is NOT what individual sinks do or do not do. At issue is what has caused the equilibrium of the carbon cycle to change.
    Perhaps the cause of the equilibrium change is the anthropogenic emission, or perhaps it is the intermittent temperature rise from the LIA, or perhaps it was sulphur release from undersea volcanism, or perhaps it was one or more of several other things.

    But you ignore all the observations and say the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is merely that the anthropogenic emission is overloading the sinks although it clearly is not. Incredible!

    Richard

  298. Ferdi: “Some theoretical background:
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/diary-date-murry-salby.html?currentPage=2#comments
    comment by Paul_K at Oct 26, 2013 at 8:19 AM”

    I worked all this out in detail a while back, following a discussion with Paul_K on Lucia’s Blackboard:

    >>>
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
    Firstly it can noted that the final term is the transient response that only affects the beginning of the series. The other two are a term that is in phase with the original input driving signal and an orthogonal term (90 degrees out of phase with the driving force).

    At high frequencies the orthogonal term dominates, at low frequencies the in-phase term dominates. They are equal at ωτ=1. It is also interesting that orthogonal term is strongest at ωτ=1 and only becomes less significant at notably higher frequencies.
    >>>

    This was done for temp as fn of radiative forcing but it’s exactly the same linear relaxation model that is behind ocean outgassing. This is what is behind Salby’s basic argument: that short term it’s the orthogonal response that dominates and longer term it’s the in phase component that dominates.

    This trivial model is effectively a ‘single slab’ ocean model so the analogy should not be pushed too far but it does tell us how each slab will behave. It would appear that the shallow slab (mixed layer) that I’m fitting has a very short ωτ , since the response amplitude is already dropping :

    9ppmv/K/a from El Nino glitch.
    8ppmn/K/a from inter-annual
    4ppmn/K/a from inter-decadal

    That indicates that coeff of the orthogonal is already dropping and is thus, already at the interdecadal scale the in phase term should start to dominate though there will be a mix of the two.

    Once the 12mo cycle if filtered out (as I did in all this) there is a strong circa 3 year repetition – that is the origin of the 9month lag ;)

    Probably at 60 year time scale the response of the out-gassing from the mixed layer, at least , will be in phase with temp.

    Since there is a clear orthogonal signal and it magnitude can be detected from several different angles this should merit further thought.

  299. Windchasers says:
    November 11, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    “That’s because without human emissions, CO2 concentration will drop over time, and that will cause natural sinks to drop.”

    At which point, nature becomes a net source. You are so close. You really need to think this through.

    The net anthropogenic input is the emissions minus the portion of the natural sinks which respond to that forcing.

    Na = Ea – Una

    The net natural input is the total natural input minus the natural sinks plus that portion of the sinks which responded to human inputs.

    Nn = En – Un + Una

    Total is

    C = Nn + Na

    En – Un can be negative, yet still we can have Nn positive. And, that is why the “mass balance” argument is trivial and meaningless.

  300. Bart, thank you for replying to me. I thought that the mass balance argument was not able to prove anything and wasn’t meant to and you agreed with my thought but…

    But Windchaser makes a good point.
    The sinks do not know where the CO2 comes from. And as natural (good, old-fashioned traditional) sources of CO2 are bigger than the anthropogenic sources (I think) surely the response to a change in man’s emissions is a minor effect at best. Changes in natural emissions and absorption are what matter even though they respond to changes in man’s emissions.

    That argument makes sense to me.
    Although I still don’t see how the mass balance argument helps.

    I hope my question has progressed and clarified the debate and not diverted and ossified it.

  301. Greg Goodman says:
    November 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Basically, in the frequency band relevant to the timeline since 1958, you have a response which is -20 dB/decade and -90 deg in phase, i.e., which is an integrating action. There really is no way around it.

  302. M Courtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    “And as natural (good, old-fashioned traditional) sources of CO2 are bigger than the anthropogenic sources (I think) surely the response to a change in man’s emissions is a minor effect at best.”

    Yes, that is true. But, it goes beyond the scope of concluding whether the mass balance argument means anything or not.

    It is my, and others’, contention that the mass balance argument is inconclusive. That, as you say, the response to a change in man’s emissions is not necessarily significant based on that argument alone. But, Windchaser and dikran are claiming that it does, by itself, establish that humans are driving atmospheric CO2.

  303. Bart, thanks again for answering me.
    So it seems that the question is really unanswered still. For the question of “what does the mass balance argument mean” is actually one of “how significant is the evidence for the magnitude of man’s influence on the CO2 sinks” ? ?

    And that is a question that needs to be answered if we are to tell how impactful man’s emissions are.

    This is way beyond me – a bear of very little brain. I just hope that the question I asked helped clarify the debate for others like me who are lurking. Or maybe even for those who are engaging.

    How significant is the evidence for the magnitude of man’s influence on the CO2 sinks?

  304. richardscourtney: Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.

    Where is that documented? Not that I necessarily disbelieve you. I expect you posted or published it somewhere and I missed it.

    respectfully,

    Matthew

  305. Stephen Wilde: In particular, in the absence of GHGs a radiatively inert atmosphere around a rotating sphere will experience uneven surface heating and thus density differentials will arise together with a convective circulation that would prevent an isothermal atmosphere such as you describe.

    Where did rgb at duke assert an isothermal atmosphere?

  306. Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.

    I’d like to see the supporting evidence for this assertion.

  307. Richard. Thank you for your 8-58am swipe but 1% of something as enormous as Natures Co2 emissions is rather “huge” in my book.
    Of these I would suspect up-welling deep ocean waters as being the main contributor.
    Had you read on past that offending word you would have found that we,seemingly from what you say, concur on Co2 being a most unlikely temperature driver even if we arrived by very different routes.
    But there must be some correlation between increased anthropogenic Co2.emissions and increasing atmospheric Co2 concentrations if the figures being given are correct.
    Otherwise,do we really know the Co2 content of our Oceanic at depths >2000m say? and the quantity degassed as it wells to (near) surface?

  308. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    “Indeed they are as there is constant upwelling from the deep oceans, which release their CO2 when warmed near the surface. The opposite happens near the poles, where the cold polar waters are permanent sinks. But as long as sinks and sources are in equilibrium, that doesn’t change the amounts residing in the atmosphere.”

    There is more CO2 release in the tropics in El Nino episodes during less upwelling. Arctic waters have seen a lot of warming since the mid to late 1990’s. And global average surface wind speeds dropped significantly through the period of fastest warming, which has a big impact on oceanic CO2 absorption rates.

  309. Matthew R Marler says:
    November 11, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    “Where did rgb at duke assert an isothermal atmosphere?”

    He said:

    “If you leave radiative coupling out, the atmospheric gas will only cool at the surface of the Earth, because in that case only the surface of the Earth will be able to radiate energy away to space. Since warm air rises (due to buoyancy forces) and since air, once warmer than the surface, will be unable to lose heat once it has lifted away from the surface and will always be displaced and held aloft by cooler air underneath, the atmosphere would promptly invert — coolest at the bottom, hottest at the top, and a nearly smooth gradient from coolest to warmest.”

    which omits the inevitable circulation caused by uneven surface heating creating density differentials and doesn’t realise that simple uplift has a cooling effect because kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy with height.

    Nor does he realise that simple adiabatic descent has a warming effect as potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy.

    Good at physics but poor on meteorology.

  310. Stephen Wilde: which omits the inevitable circulation caused by uneven surface heating creating density differentials and doesn’t realise that simple uplift has a cooling effect because kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy with height.

    The quote from him explicitly recognizes temperature gradients: “If you leave radiative coupling out, the atmospheric gas will only cool at the surface of the Earth, because in that case only the surface of the Earth will be able to radiate energy away to space. Since warm air rises (due to buoyancy forces) and since air, once warmer than the surface, will be unable to lose heat once it has lifted away from the surface and will always be displaced and held aloft by cooler air underneath, the atmosphere would promptly invert — coolest at the bottom, hottest at the top, and a nearly smooth gradient from coolest to warmest.”

    That does not assert an isothermal atmosphere. I think that you must mean something else.

  311. “””””…..Michael Larkin says:

    November 10, 2013 at 11:15 am
    “The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.”

    For the mathematically challenged, could someone put into simple English what “the time-integral of global temperature” means? I might have intuited the right meaning, but I’m not sure……”””””

    Trivial; global Temperature, computed by whatever means, is a continuous function of time; i.e. you can plot agraph of “global temperature versus time..

    The area under that graph is the time integral of global temperature. Since climate variables can not be expected to all be linear with Temperature, the net effect is not the same as would be deduced by simply taking the long term average global temperature.

    Nature works on instantaneous variables. Averaging is a fictional figment of human minds; nature knows nothing of averages.

  312. “”””””……Margaret Hardman says:

    November 10, 2013 at 10:15 am

    I’m willing to be corrected but wasn’t the higher power that called the esteemed Lord the one and only Anthony Eden, best known now for the sheer stupidity that was the Suez Crisis…….””””””

    Well the people’s encyclopedia has some opinions to that effect. BUT, I’m not any sort of expert; or even mildly knowledgeable on British Protocol, and I wouldn’t put any money down on the Prime Minister; a politician in the house of Commons, having any influence on Peers, or the Peerage. I would bet (maybe wrongly) that such calls are the prerogative of the Monarch; in this case, that would be Queen Elizabeth II in 1957 (her Coronation was 1953.)

    Secondly, Peerages, and particularly Hereditary Titles, that can be passed down, are not made on the spur of the moment. They usually would reflect a good many years of service, but likely triggered by some significant event followed up by continuous service.

    So I would say nyet, on a Eden / Suez inspired trigger, and look for a much earlier event; particularly, one that the Monarch would have a special affinity for.

    So my money would be on The abdication of King Edward VIII, and the succession of King George VI to the throne, where Christopher’s grandfather, was a Kings Counsel, in those delicate proceedings. With WW-II rumbling in the wings; the effect of that change is incalculable; and also of great personal interest to The Queen.

    Sheer conjecture on my part; but the consequences of the abdication, were of much greater import, than any Suez Canal adventurism..

  313. Bart says
    “Basically, in the frequency band relevant to the timeline since 1958, you have a response which is -20 dB/decade and -90 deg in phase, i.e., which is an integrating action. There really is no way around it.”

    What ” frequency band ” do you consider relevant and why? Where do you pull your -20 dB/decade from?

    All frequencies are relevant to some degree and the inter-decadal time scale is very likely an inconvenient mix of both the orthogonal and in phase components of a number of frequency components, each with its own proportion.
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399

    There is a strong orthogonal of the circa 3.5 year periodicity, which is what the d/dt(CO2) plots reveal and I have put a figure on. That should not tempt us to fall into the same simplistic arguments that lead to the T=f(CO2) fallacy in the first place.

  314. Matthew R Marler says:
    November 11, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    I think rgb needs to clarify what he means.

    The words he uses are very similar to the usual description of an isothermal atmosphere whereby warmth rises and stays aloft with just a thin layer at the surface exchanging energy with the surface.

  315. Greg Goodman says:
    November 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Probably at 60 year time scale the response of the out-gassing from the mixed layer, at least , will be in phase with temp.

    The problem is that the 160 years of data (50+ years of direct measurements, ice cores before that) show a steady increasing increase in CO2, only recently (in the last decade, if that holds in the next years) starting to deflect to a linear increase/year. If temperature is the cause, then we have a wavelength of over 600 years. That doesn’t show up in a frequency analyses just covering over 50 years.

    From the process side: the ocean surface layer has a limited capacity and only varies with 10% (in concentration and ~ in mass) of the variation in the atmosphere. That is a matter of buffer (Revelle factor) capacity. The surface layer rapidely responds to temperature changes, and therefore is (partly) responsible (land vegetation also responds) for the high frequency changes in CO2 source/sink rate.

    Thus the long term response (70+ ppmv since 1960) is from a different process than the short term response (maximum 10 ppmv for +0.6 K since 1960 according to Henry’s law). That may be either the deep ocean circulation (as Bart thinks) or the human emissions (as I think). Either way you can’t deduce the cause of the long term trend from the short term variability…

  316. Matthew R Marler:

    Thankyou for your request of a clarification from me when you write at November 11, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    richardscourtney: Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.

    Where is that documented? Not that I necessarily disbelieve you. I expect you posted or published it somewhere and I missed it.

    It is “documented” in one of our 2005 papers which I referenced above; i.e.
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    Richard

  317. david:

    At November 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm you ask me

    Otherwise,do we really know the Co2 content of our Oceanic at depths >2000m say? and the quantity degassed as it wells to (near) surface?

    No, we don’t.

    CO2 in oceans is measured but the measurement sites are sparse and not over long times. Hence, the global data is only questionable estimates based on the inadequate estimates.

    Indeed, almost nothing is adequately quantified in the carbon cycle. We know the variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 and other places (e.g. Estevan, Shetland Islands, etc.) for lesser periods. And we have data on fossil fuel and cement production so we know the anthropogenic CO2 emission. Other than that, everything is estimated.

    This lack of adequate quantification is why so many interpretations of carbon cycle behaviour are possible; c.f. those of Bart and Ferdinand in this thread. And it is why I remain to be convinced of the cause(s) of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as e.g. measured at Mauna Loa.

    Richard

  318. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 11, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    There is more CO2 release in the tropics in El Nino episodes during less upwelling. Arctic waters have seen a lot of warming since the mid to late 1990′s. And global average surface wind speeds dropped significantly through the period of fastest warming, which has a big impact on oceanic CO2 absorption rates.

    Indeed, the tropical forests cause a net release of CO2 during an El Niño, partly due to the sudden warming (more bacterial breakdown in a rather balanced CO2 budget of mature forests), partly by drying out (rain patterns changed).
    On the other side, sink capacity near the poles is less directly affected by temperature and more by ice sheet cover: most waters with CO2 sinks near the edge of the ice, when freezing waters expell salts, increasing the density of the water which then sinks. I don’t know if wind speed changed that much in polar areas. It certainly does influence transfer speed in all waters, thus also at the upwelling places, thus causing less CO2 releases.

    But if one looks at the year by year variability of all natural factors involved, the variability is quite modest: some +/- 2 ppmv around the trend, while human emissions are above 4 ppmv/year and the increase in the atmosphere is around 2 ppmv/year:

    That includes the huge 1998 El Niño and the 1992 Pinatubo eruption. It doesn’t look like that the variability increased over time.
    That the variability is modest, despite the huge in- and outfluxes involved, may be a matter of opposite responses of different processes on short term temperature variations.

  319. richardscourtney says: No, we don’t.
    CO2 in oceans is measured but the measurement sites are sparse and not over long times. Hence, the global data is only questionable estimates based on the inadequate estimates.

    Ferdi: “Thus the long term response (70+ ppmv since 1960) is from a different process than the short term response (maximum 10 ppmv for +0.6 K since 1960 according to Henry’s law). ”

    So if short term (circa 60 years) of data show clearly identifiable correlation patterns that do not agree with your ‘Henry’ calculations we need to consider whether you have sufficient and representative data or whether you have an error in the calculation.

  320. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    “Indeed, the tropical forests cause a net release of CO2 during an El Niño, partly due to the sudden warming (more bacterial breakdown in a rather balanced CO2 budget of mature forests), partly by drying out (rain patterns changed).
    On the other side, sink capacity near the poles is less directly affected by temperature and more by ice sheet cover: most waters with CO2 sinks near the edge of the ice, when freezing waters expell salts, increasing the density of the water which then sinks. I don’t know if wind speed changed that much in polar areas. It certainly does influence transfer speed in all waters, thus also at the upwelling places, thus causing less CO2 releases.”

    The higher sea surface temperature with El Nino’s would release more. Cold upwelling with La Nina’s if anything would reduce release rates due to lower SST’s, and increased surface winds would favour increased sea surface absorption of CO2.
    As well as the sharp rise in Arctic SST’s, the whole north Atlantic warmed has considerably: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/6-no-atl.png
    The decline in average global surface wind speed will be reducing CO2 take up, and hence raising atmospheric levels.

  321. richardscourtney: It is “documented” in one of our 2005 papers which I referenced above; i.e.
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    thank you

  322. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 12, 2013 at 3:28 am

    The higher sea surface temperature with El Nino’s would release more. Cold upwelling with La Nina’s if anything would reduce release rates due to lower SST’s, and increased surface winds would favour increased sea surface absorption of CO2.

    The release of CO2 is a matter of temperature ánd wind speed: without wind there is practically no CO2 release, whatever the temperature, as the diffusion of CO2 in (sea)water is very slow.
    Temperature increases the pCO2 difference between the warm equatorial upwelling places and the atmosphere, but that is quite modest: 1 K of temperature increase gives 16 μatm more CO2 pressure in seawater, increasing the maximum 750 μatm to 766 μatm or the pCO2 difference with the atmosphere from 350 to 366 μatm.
    That causes an increase in influx into the atmosphere of 4.5% in the first year, for the same wind speed and the same volume of upwelling. In the next years, the increase in influx causes a slight increase in pCO2 of the atmosphere, reducing the pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere and thus the influx, at the same time increasing the pCO2 difference with the polar waters and thus the outflux. With an increase of 16 μatm (= 16 ppmv) everything is again in balance:

    There are no indicattions that the THC increased in speed (to the contrary, there was some panic over a decreasing overturning) and concentrations don’t change that much between colder and warmer periods, so that is not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
    See further:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml and following pages

  323. Greg Goodman says:
    November 12, 2013 at 3:05 am

    So if short term (circa 60 years) of data show clearly identifiable correlation patterns that do not agree with your ‘Henry’ calculations we need to consider whether you have sufficient and representative data or whether you have an error in the calculation.

    The short term variability of dT/dt and T both correlate with the short term variability of dCO2/dt. The only difference is that T is synchronized with dCO2/dt, while dT/dt leads dCO2/dt with 90 deg.

    That T and dCO2/dt are synchronized is the result of the 90 deg lag of CO2 after T, which itself is the result of the physical process of releasing CO2 after a temperature increase, according to Henry’s law (which BTW still shows 16 ppmv/K not 16 ppmv/K/year!). That also gives that dCO2/dt lags dT/dt with 90 deg.
    Thus dT/dt causes the short term variation of dCO2/dt with a 90 deg lag, while the synchronised T and dCO2/dt is an interesting feature but has no physical meaning.

    In how far the underlying trend is caused by temperature and/or human emissions is a matter of debate, but the cause of the short term variability doesn’t say anything about the cause of the long term trend. That is a complete separate process, which is hardly temperature dependent and mostly pressure (difference) dependent.

  324. richardscourtney says: @ November 11, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    Just a quick addition to what you wrote.

    The CO2 levels in the distant past were much much higher than they are today and nature has been able to sequester (permanently) most of that CO2 to the point we are now in a time of “Carbon Dioxide Starvation”. Plants have responded by evolving C4 and CAM systems for photosynthesis.

    This says the Earth is quite capable of handling much higher levels of CO2 and the smidgen added by humans is not going to push the climate into some sort of ‘Tipping Point’ If there is any type of ‘Catastrophe’ looming it is the drop back into carbon starvation mode that accompanies the dip back into glaciation that is currently being debated.
    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

    This also says that “CO2 Equilibrium” is not the normal state of the earth.

  325. Matthew R Marler says:
    November 11, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    richardscourtney: Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.

    Where is that documented? Not that I necessarily disbelieve you. I expect you posted or published it somewhere and I missed it.

    The answer of Richard Courtney is right, but a little one-sided. There are several estimates of the carbon cycle in nature. I do use the NASA estimates with some additions:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
    Where about 90 GtC as CO2 is exchanged between oceans and atmosphere and 120 GtC between the biosphere and the atmosphere.
    Humans emit some 9 GtC as CO2 per year. Nature releases some 210 GtC within a year, mostly in a few seasons, partly continuous from the warm equatorial ocean upwelling places. Or about 1:23.

    What Richard doesn’t tell you is that nature also sinks 215 GtC as CO2 out of the atmosphere within a year, mostly in another few seasons, party continuous into the cold downwelling polar waters, while humans sink near zero carbon. Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, not a source, while human emissions are one-way additions.

    Thus that nature emits 23 (34 or whatever) molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity is true, but completely irrelevant for the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  326. Ferdi: “The short term variability of dT/dt and T both correlate with the short term variability of dCO2/dt. The only difference is that T is synchronized with dCO2/dt, while dT/dt leads dCO2/dt with 90 deg.”

    You’ve made this spurious claim once already. How about trying to justify it?

    Of course there is a lagged response since there is a fairly strong 3.5 repetition once you’ve filtered out <12mo variability. If you plot sine and cosine they look similar but the correlation is zero. As your WTF.org link shows it really does not correlate as well as d/dt(CO2) , that is clear even to the naked eye.

    You have knowledge of the carbon isotope content that appear useful at times but when you come out with rubbish like that it puts into doubt everything you say.

    "Thus dT/dt causes the short term variation of dCO2/dt with a 90 deg lag, while the synchronised T and dCO2/dt is an interesting feature but has no physical meaning."

    Yes, of course and the relationship between voltage and current in an electric circuit has no physical meaning and it's pointless trying to get information about the circuit by looking at the phase relationship of the two. Right.

  327. M Courtney says: @ November 11, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    It has repeatedly been said that the mass balance analysis is not a model of the carbon cycle.
    Which is a statement I can understand.

    But please will someone tell me what the mass balance analysis is trying to do. What is the purpose of the mass balance analysis?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It’s purpose is to confuse the general public who might skim below the surface of CAGW.

  328. Ferdi: “In how far the underlying trend is caused by temperature and/or human emissions is a matter of debate, but the cause of the short term variability doesn’t say anything about the cause of the long term trend. ”

    Well if all you are capable of is “debate” it probably won’t tell you anything. While exchanging ideas can be useful it is analysis , not ‘debate’ that will inform us. However, until someone takes a serious look at what information we can extract from the phase relationship between different derivatives it is premature to make bold statements about what it can and can’t tell us.

    Thanks for the link to Bishops Hill article. Paul K is once person who does have a grasp on this sort of work , with who ‘debate’ may be more fruitful. Sadly BH seems to take over a day just to approve a comment.

  329. ferdinand says
    but completely irrelevant for the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    henry says
    so what exactly do you say does the increase in CO2 in atmosphere do or cause?

  330. Henry

    We used the official CDIAC figures for modern times and the ‘accepted’ version of co2 which says that it rose from 280ppm pre industrial to 300ppm at the turn of the 20th century.

    I remain a little sceptical of the pre industrial figure despite Ferdinand’s valiant efforts to convince me otherwise, but it is best to use the ‘official’ data then people can’t accuse me of cherry picking.

    I don’t know if you saw my post on the Roy Spencer data just now. CET from 1772 after 240 years is at exactly the same anomaly as Roy’s satellite data.
    tonyb

  331. Greg Goodman says:
    November 12, 2013 at 11:35 am

    You’ve made this spurious claim once already. How about trying to justify it?

    As Paul_K showed, there is a 90 deg. lag of changes in CO2 after changes in T for all short term frequencies, if the longer term response is slower than the slowest frequency variation. Which is certainly the case.

    Thus short term variations in T cause short term variations in CO2.

    When you take the derivative, you shift any sinusoid back with 90 deg. That is the same for dT/dt as for dCO2/dt. Thus still a difference of 90 deg between the two. And surprise, surprise, T and dCO2/dt are now synchronized.
    Still, T changes caused CO2 changes with a 90 deg lag, thus in my humble opinion, dT/dt changes caused dCO2/dt changes with a 90 deg lag. Except if you have a physical explanation of what the synchronization of T and dCO2/dt means, without violating any physical law and/or the invoke of a third variable that needs to be synchronized all the way with the temperature (and human emissions)…

    Some more background:
    – The short term response of CO2 changes on T changes is about 4-5 ppmv/K (seasonal to a few years)
    – The (very) long term response of CO2 changes on T changes is 8 ppmv/K (50 years to multi millennia)
    – The current response is over 100 ppmv/K over the past 50 years, if really caused by temperature. But that level of increase then disappears over some longer period without leaving a trace?
    – One of the Law Dome ice cores covers the past 1000 years with a resolution of ~20 years, including the MWP-LIA transition of ~0.8 K. That gives a drop of ~6 ppmv CO2 with a lag of ~50 years, sustained over a few hundred years:

    The Law Dome ice cores CO2 measurents have an accuracy and repeatability of 1.3 ppmv (1 sigma) and accurately reflect the increase over the past 160 years, including a 20 years overlap (1960-1980) with direct South Pole atmospheric measurements.
    A change as seen in the past 50/160 years would be seen in all ice cores of all resolution, covering 800 kyears. But it is not.

    Thus in my opinion, any theory that says that human are not responsible for the current increase need a lot of proof…

    BTW, have a look at the opinion of a (moderate) warmer about the cause of the short term variation:
    http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
    from sheet 11 on.

  332. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
    “The release of CO2 is a matter of temperature ánd wind speed: without wind there is practically no CO2 release, whatever the temperature, as the diffusion of CO2 in (sea)water is very slow.”

    My beer should stay fizzy when it warms up then as long as I keep it out of the wind eh?
    The prime point I am making is that CO2 uptake by the oceans will be lower with slower surface winds globally.

    “Temperature increases the pCO2 difference between the warm equatorial upwelling places and the atmosphere..”

    The main upwelling at the equator is cold, it’s called a La Nina.

  333. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 12, 2013 at 10:55 am

    “Thus dT/dt causes the short term variation of dCO2/dt with a 90 deg lag, while the synchronised T and dCO2/dt is an interesting feature but has no physical meaning.”

    Gibberish. It’s physical meaning is that there is an integration of T into CO2. There is no avoiding it using rigorous mathematics. Look up the Bode Phase-Gain relationship – phase and gain are inextricably related in minimum phase systems. 90 deg phase lag means integration.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 12, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    More gibberish. You have completely misinterpreted Paul_K’s post, as I explained over and over to you at BH, and he himself told you. He still was reticent about allying with me, but he certainly was not your ally.

    Posting very spotty today. Will probably not be checking back in any time soon…

  334. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    My beer should stay fizzy when it warms up then as long as I keep it out of the wind eh?

    It takes less time to release most of the 3 bar CO2 from 20 cm of beer than 0.0008 bar CO2 in 200 meter ocean into the 0.0004 bar CO2 of the atmosphere…

    The prime point I am making is that CO2 uptake by the oceans will be lower with slower surface winds globally.

    The largest long term uptake is in polar waters, one need the wind speed there, global is too coarse…

    The main upwelling at the equator is cold, it’s called a La Nina.

    pCO2 at the upwelling places indeed is rather low, but increases when the waters warm up when drifting off the South American coast and give most release around the Galapagos islands…

  335. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 12, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    A change as seen in the past 50/160 years would be seen in all ice cores of all resolution, covering 800 kyears. But it is not.

    Thus in my opinion, any theory that says that human are not responsible for the current increase need a lot of proof…

    —————————

    I don’t know what constitutes “proof” in your book, but there is abundant, if not overwhelming evidence from all around the world that the speed & magnitude of 20th century warming is nothing at all out of the Holocene norm, & even less impressive by the standards of prior interglacials. You don’t need to rely on ice cores.

    Here’s such evidence just from the Sui-Tang (a warmer interval in the longer Dark Ages Cold Period) & Medieval Warm Periods in China & Tibet:

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpchina.php

    “Since one of the purposes of their study was “to test whether the warming in the 20th century has exceeded the maximum magnitude in the past 2000 years,” Ge et al. considered this question in some detail. At the centennial scale, they report that “the temperature anomaly of the 20th century is not only lower than that of the later warm stage of the Medieval Warm Period (the 1200s~1310s), but also slightly lower than that of the warm period in the Sui and Tang dynasties (the 570s~770s) and the early warm stage of the Medieval Warm Period (the 930s~1100s).”

    “On a 30-year scale, they likewise report that “the warmest 30-year temperature anomaly in the 20th century is roughly equal to the warmest 30-year one in the Sui and Tang dynasties warm period, but a little lower than that of the Medieval Warm Period.” And on the decadal scale, they say that “the warmest decadal temperature anomaly in the 20th century is approximately at the same level of the warmest decade of the early stage of the Medieval Warm Period.”

    “Last of all, Ge et al. additionally note that “although the warming rate in the early 20th century has reached 1.1°C per century, such a rapid change is not unique during the alternation from the cold period[s] to the warm period[s]” of the prior 2000 years. For example, they report that the per-century warming rate from the 480s~500s to the 570s~590s was 1.3°C, while that from the 1140s~1160s to the 1230s~1250s was 1.4°C, and that from the 1650s~1670s to the 1740s~1760s was 1.2°C.

    “In discussing the implications of these several observations of pre-20th-century faster-than-recent warmings and higher-than-recent temperatures, Ge et al. say that their analysis “gives a different viewpoint from that ‘the 20th century is the warmest century in the past 1000 years’, presented by IPCC, and is of great significance for better understanding the phenomena of the greenhouse effect and global warming etc. induced by human activities.” And what would that “different viewpoint” be? In the words of Ge et al., “the temperature of the 20th century in eastern China is still within the threshold of the variability of the last 2000 years,” which observation clearly indicates that the Chinese data provide no evidence for the hypothesis that the eastern part of the country’s 20th-century warming – or even a small part of it – was human-induced.”

    Proxy data show that Earth has been in a longer-term cooling trend for over 3000 years, with each warm fluctuation reaching a lower peak & cold phases generally cooler since at least the Minoan Warm Period, if not indeed the Holocene Optimum. IMO the evidence is overwhelming that contemporary humans, despite altering environments & excavating hydrocarbons, have had very little effect on natural climatic fluctuations, outside of urban heat islands.

  336. milodonharlani says:
    November 12, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    Sorry, I was talking about the cause of current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, not about the cause of the increase in temperature. The ice cores show a modest increase in CO2 of 8 ppmv/K over 800 kyrs, while te current increase is over 100 ppmv/K, which isn’t seen over pre-industrial times in ice cores of any resolution.

    The influence of the extra CO2 on temperature is an entirely separate debate, of which I have the opinion that it is at the low side, hardly measurable in the real world…

  337. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Apologies. Skimming instead of reading.

    I don’t know if you’re right that ~100 ppm of current Mauna Loa reading nearing 400 ppm is man-made or not, but you make a good case, IMO. I agree that the fourth molecule we might have added to 10,000 molecules of dry air has a negligible effect on global average temperature, if such can be measured.

  338. For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with the general circulation models that the climate-science establishment runs on its supercomputers: Are you saying that those models really attempt numerical solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for the atmosphere as a whole? At what time and spatial resolutions? (I’m speaking from total ignorance of fluid mechanics–which I’ve resigned myself to having become too old to learn–so I would not at all be surprised that my gut reaction is totally wrong. But it sounds preposterous that resolutions fine enough to yield creditable results for the atmosphere as a whole over any appreciably long time scales are seriously being attempted, even with supercomputers.)

    In a crude sense, yes. The granularity is order of 1 degree (which is absurd, yes, on a spherical surface but it’s the easy solution to program where the right solution — a scalable icosahedral tiling — is much more difficult) times some number of layers/slabs spatially, and IIRC CAM 3 did five minute time resolution. I think that they use differences for e.g. mass transport and density changes. But as long as they include vertical and horizontal convection (mass transport) and explicitly integrate over time, anything they do (no matter how they approximate the physics of each timestep) is basically a NS solution attempt because that’s the fundamental description of the fluid system. With lots of coupling, of course.

    That’s why they’re called “General CIRCULATION Models” — they account for mass transport as well as energy transport.

    As I said, the amazing thing about this dancing bear is that it can dance at all. The errors in GCMs would be nothing to be ashamed of if it weren’t for the fact that they are being used to push hundred-billion dollar, million death solutions on the world at the same time that they are systematically diverging from the actual observational data and fail to explain all sorts of things correctly. Yes, they can dance — sometimes, badly — but not nearly well enough to go on the stage in Moscow in a production of Swan Lake.

    rgb

  339. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    “The largest long term uptake is in polar waters, one need the wind speed there, global is too coarse…”

    The quickest rates as it is colder but not the largest uptake as the area is relatively small. It’s not as if this is the only area of uptake, and I disagree that global is too coarse, Slower surface winds will reduce uptake in any given area.

  340. thThe rest of your response doesn’t seem to contradict my view that radiative gases will simply rise higher than non radiative gases of the same weight and will stop rising when the energy they radiate directly out to space equalises with the radiation they send directly back to the surface and at that height they no longer warm the surface because that which they send down is offset by that which is sent out of the atmosphere to space.

    This means precisely nothing to me. Why would radiative gases rise higher than non-radiative gases of the same weight? Indeed, direct observational evidence demonstrates that the atmosphere is well mixed (and uniformly mixed) at all heights once you are away from the immediate vicinity of a source. Clearly you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. Why would they stop rising (not that they should ever have started) when they radiate equal amounts of energy up and down? They should always radiate equal amounts of energy up and down. A gas molecule retains no memory of the direction the photon that excited it came from and re-emits uniformly in all directions, on average. Nor do molecules have any idea of what is “up” or what is “down” while they are in free motion. Finally, what possible basis could you have for asserting that the radiation they send back down won’t “warm the surface”? Radiation carries energy, period. Energy input to the surface is a part of the energy flow budget that determines its temperature, and comes in on the positive side of the ledger just as energy emitted from the surface goes on the negative side of the ledger. “Warming” vs “Cooling” depends on the totals of both sides, but the downwelling radiation, carrying energy, is without any question a warming/forcing transaction.

    I have officially changed my mind. Based on your responses I can only conclude that you don’t understand physics well enough to usefully participate in model building. Your assertions are often plain old wrong, in direct contradiction to known experimental results, and when you explain the ones that aren’t in more detail, I can only conclude that you don’t understand what you are talking about.

    I don’t mean that as any sort of insult, by the way. It’s just that assertions that two molecular species at the same temperature and with the same mass will sort themselves out by height violates so many principles of thermodynamics that it is immediately clear that you’ve never taken a good course in the subject. And if you haven’t taken a good course in the subject, how in the world are you going to build a credible model for a system that climate physics Ph.D.s, trying pretty hard, have a difficult time capturing.

    I’d address the vertical vs horizontal advection problem in further detail as well, but there isn’t any point. I wasn’t asserting an isothermal atmosphere, I was asserting a profound lowering of the troposphere as most of the atmosphere inverts. With or without lateral heat transport, the only place the atmosphere can lose heat is at the surface. Tropical surfaces can lose heat at the poles, sure, but the ATMOSPHERE doesn’t lose heat ANYWHERE BUT AT THE BOTTOM. Hence outside of a thin mixed region at the bottom, it will form a nearly stable vertically stratified inverted atmosphere with warmer air strictly on top. The stratosphere will come way on down towards the surface, along with the tropopause.

    Sorry,

    rgb

  341. Bart says:
    November 12, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Gibberish. It’s physical meaning is that there is an integration of T into CO2. There is no avoiding it using rigorous mathematics. Look up the Bode Phase-Gain relationship – phase and gain are inextricably related in minimum phase systems. 90 deg phase lag means integration.

    That is a mathematical solution, but doesn’t explain the physical meaning. And it doesn’t hold for a combination of a sinusoid and a slope in temperature:

    where CO2 linearly follows T with a 90 deg lag for the sinusoid.
    with its derivative:

    As the increase of CO2 is a linear function of T, the slope of CO2 in the derivative is zero and the amplitude of the sinusoid in the derivative remains zero, thus integrating T with a factor zero and an offset will restore the slope of the CO2 increase but can’t restore its variability.

  342. I do not think so, and yes, I agree that would be a monumental task. As Willis Eisenbach has shown numerous times, the models all behave like a simple one-box model with CO2 as driving input. I think they are really rudimentary.

    Sorry, Bart, but this is just not true:

    http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/

    It’s open source, so you can grab it and look at the source. The atmosphere and ocean are partitioned into volumes, and coupled differential equations are solved in time. This IS a monumental problem, but they are indeed getting what amounts to a crude solution to the NS equation (or two coupled NS equations, depending on how they treat the ocean, but usually it’s treated as a “single slab”, effectively a couple boundary layer without much internal structure).

  343. Ulric Lyons says:
    November 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    The quickest rates as it is colder but not the largest uptake as the area is relatively small. It’s not as if this is the only area of uptake, and I disagree that global is too coarse, Slower surface winds will reduce uptake in any given area.

    Slower surface winds will reduce the release in warm areas and the uptake in cold areas. A lot of uptake and release is seasonal in the mid-latitudes surface waters (the mixed layer), thus absorbing in winter and releasing in summer. Over a year that gives a net uptake, reaching a maximum of 10% of the change in the atmosphere in 2-3 years. The only semi-permanent uptake is via the sink places near the poles, mainly the NE Atlantic where the THC deep waters are formed, coming back to the surface many centuries later.
    The surface waters play a role on short term, the deep oceans is where the main sinks are…

  344. Stephen Wilde: which omits the inevitable circulation caused by uneven surface heating creating density differentials and doesn’t realise that simple uplift has a cooling effect because kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy with height.

    And here is where we have to part ways. Simple uplift is caused by buoyancy. A parcel of air warms, its density decreases as it expands, and cooler air around it displaces it. You can watch this happen in any fluid heated at the bottom and cooled at the top. It creates convective rolls that carry heat from the bottom to the top, where the heat is lost to something else. Indeed, convective rolls in a fluid are a self-organizing heat engine.

    As the gas parcel rises, it is surrounded by air (which is a poor conductor) and it approximately adiabatically expands. The does indeed “cool” the gas in the specific sense of lowering its temperature, but not in the sense of losing its heat content. Indeed, the word “adiabatic” means “without gaining or losing heat” in thermodynamic contexts. So it does not actually cool in the sense that it loses any of the heat it picked up at the surface. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is the rate of temperature drop with height produced by the approximately adiabatic expansion of uplifted air and downfalling air in convective rolls.

    And there’s the rub. There are no convective rolls For there to be convective rolls, the air at the top has to cool and become more dense to sink, displaced by upwelling warmer air. Adiabatic expansion is expansion — it never recompresses the air. One has to lose the heat to a cold reservoir, somewhere, for the air density to increase so it can fall. But without radiative coupling, it cannot lose heat! Air is an excellent insulator, and the only two places it can lose heat TO are the surface or (via radiation) outer space. But you’ve turned off outer space along with radiation, and air high aloft cannot possibly lose heat to the surface via conduction.

    You end up with the air stratified pretty much the same way that water is stratified — warmest, air on top, without any density variation that can create large scale convective rolls and hence a DALR between a warm surface and a cold interface where the heat is finally lost. That’s what defines our troposphere — it is the height range where the atmosphere starts to aggressively lose heat to outer space via radiation. This cools it and increases its density, so that it has net NEGATIVE buoyancy compared to air at the surface, so it falls to displace it.

    As I said, you don’t seem to have studied thermodynamics or statistical mechanics. The thing that cools air parcels as they rise is adiabatic expansion, not some sort of tradeoff between temperature and gravity. There are numerous proofs out there that an air column in thermodynamic equilibrium is isothermal, whether or not it is a gravitational field. If it weren’t, one could build a second-law violating heat engine that used gravity as a Maxwell Demon to sort out warm air at the bottom even with no external energy input. Not happening.

    Like all cyclic heat engines, convective atmospheric rolls run between two thermal reservoirs — the heated surface and outer space at 3K. You MUST have a cold reservoir to reject the heat uptake. Turn off radiation, and you don’t.

    rgb

  345. Bob Weber says:/
    “Corbyn’s forecasts are not that expensive and I find it interesting to watch it all play out every month. For instance he forecasted 30 days ahead the highest solar activity level for the last week of October, and we had all those x-flares. His weather forecasts for that period were correct for both sides of the Atlantic.”

    He certainly did not forecast for X-flares in late October, his “Trafalgar” storm for the 21-23 Oct didn’t happen, and daily UK temperature deviations through the month were largely the opposite of he forecast, i.e. he forecast a cool start and warming up towards hot on the 9/10th, around normals for 12-19th, cool/cold for 21-26th, and warming towards month end. Here’s what really happened:
    http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/cgi-bin/klibild?WMO=u3008&ZEITRAUM=08&ZEIT=12112013&ART=MAX&LANG=en&1384297772&ZUGRIFF=NORMAL&MD5=

  346. “Where did rgb at duke assert an isothermal atmosphere?”

    He said:

    “If you leave radiative coupling out, the atmospheric gas will only cool at the surface of the Earth, because in that case only the surface of the Earth will be able to radiate energy away to space. Since warm air rises (due to buoyancy forces) and since air, once warmer than the surface, will be unable to lose heat once it has lifted away from the surface and will always be displaced and held aloft by cooler air underneath, the atmosphere would promptly invert — coolest at the bottom, hottest at the top, and a nearly smooth gradient from coolest to warmest.”

    Which in no possible interpretation of the meaning of plain English can be interpreted as an “isothermal atmosphere”.

    Note well that which omits the inevitable circulation caused by uneven surface heating creating density differentials and doesn’t realise that simple uplift has a cooling effect because kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy with height.

    Time to go retake thermodynamics. This is not a “cooling effect”.

    I wonder how you explain the stratosphere and thermosphere? Above the tropopause, the atmosphere gets hotter with height.

    Nor does he realise that simple adiabatic descent has a warming effect as potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy.

    Because it doesn’t. Adiabatic expansion and compression increase the temperature of a gas as it rises and falls, but the energy content of the parcel does not change. That’s what adiabatic means. You might want to get a book on the physics of this stuff and work through it. At no point in the derivation of the DALR does anyone ever assert that the cooling is conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. In fact, if you understood the equipartition theorem, you’d see why this is not, in fact, relevant. The gas is at all times in a near-thermal equilibrium (“quasi-static”) state. It cools for the same reason that a compressed gas quickly expanding into a vacuum cools, or why the gas in a cylinder in a Carnot cycle cools in the adiabatic leg of the cycle, and gravity has nothing to do with it.

    Good at physics but poor on meteorology.

    I wouldn’t even claim to be good at physics. Big subject, lots of physicists. But probably better than most humans who aren’t physicists. The “meteorology” bit is irrelevant here. As I hopefully have convincingly demonstrated above, you are misconstruing my words, turning a thermally stratified, inverted atmosphere into something “isothermal”. You are also getting some very simple physics quite wrong, at least according to the climate physics textbooks I’ve looked at and worked through and my not particularly terrible knowledge of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics outside of climate science entirely. Warming and cooling are words you need to use carefully in this discussion, because they can refer to increase or decrease of temperature or absorption and rejection of heat from reservoirs.

    When I say that a non-radiative atmosphere, in steady state, only cools at the bottom I mean specifically that they only place it can actually lose internal energy, once it gains it, is via direct contact with a cooler surface. Heat will take a one-way trip upwards, because without losing the heat it picks up at the surface via radiation, it cannot ever increase its density as it cools from adiabatic expansion, and hence it cannot ever fall again. Air will stratify from densest coolest at the bottom to warmest least dense at the top, just as it does everywhere above the tropopause now because radiative cooling becomes irrelevant when the greenhouse gas density drops to where the mean free path of LWIR photons suffices to allow immediate escape.

    rgb

  347. Gail Combs:

    Thankyou for your additions to information I provided which you provide in your post at November 12, 2013 at 11:14 am.

    As you say, if much higher atmospheric CO2 concentration had little climate effect in the past then there needs to be a very good explanation for why it is claimed slightly higher atmospheric CO2 concentration would have significant climate effect now.

    Richard

  348. milodonharlani says:
    November 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Thanks for the link! I did know, the ocean surface is a net sink for CO2 beyond the direct solubility thanks to a lot of coccoliths, dropping their shells and organics to the ocean bottom, either directly or after being eaten… But this is an extra…

  349. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    “The surface waters play a role on short term, the deep oceans is where the main sinks are…”

    It all takes place at the surface, and as you say, “a lot of uptake and release is seasonal in the mid-latitudes surface waters”. A falling trend in surface wind speed should produce a falling trend in uptake.

  350. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    You’re welcome. It was a sink that hadn’t been obvious to me. I’ve said all along that science doesn’t know all the carbon sinks, so it seems premature to build models on assumptions not in evidence.

  351. Snow is quite rare in Britain. I do not think we could have any material effect on its impacts due to this infrequency.I do Remember putting soot on our path during the 1962/3 winter. In my opinion soot in the arctic is possibly a major factor in its melt.

    Curiously, snow is quite rare in North Carolina, too. Snow in mid-November is scarce as hen’s teeth. And dammit, it is snowing outside, right now. I do believe that this is the earliest date with observable snowfall I’ve seen here in 40 years, although I’m not looking up the records that would prove or disprove my memory.

    Odd, though, no matter how you slice it. In the 80s and 90s I used to pick tomatoes from unfrosted tomato plants in my garden in December. This year we had our first killing frost weeks ago. But I’m certain that this is still going to be the fourth warmest November on record, or the like, by the time the CAGW climate bloggers get through with it.

    Sigh.

    rgb

  352. rgbatduke says: November 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    I’m reluctant to intrude when you’re mostly giving a much-needed correct scientific account. Just a few things, that have cropped up in various places:

    “Since warm air rises (due to buoyancy forces) and since air, once warmer than the surface, will be unable to lose heat once it has lifted away from the surface and will always be displaced and held aloft by cooler air underneath, the atmosphere would promptly invert — coolest at the bottom, hottest at the top, and a nearly smooth gradient from coolest to warmest. “
    Any dry gas below the DALR (dry lapse rate) is convectively stable. It takes energy to lift an air parcel, because it becomes cool and more dense for its level. So the lapse rate would still be maintained. A clue here is that its value is g/cp. No mention of radiative properties.

    “And there’s the rub. There are no convective rolls”
    It’s stable, so there are no natural convective rolls. But there is driven circulation. Whenever there is wind, there are eddies, with all orientations. It takes energy to push air up or down (lapse rate below DALR), but as you’ve said, it carries heat (adiabatic). It’s not perfectly adiabatic, so that heat gets transferred to the new level, and the heat pumping is downward, for both rising and falling air. The lapse rate is maintained by a heat pump, driven by the KE of the wind.

    And there will be wind, because there is still a heat source (tropic) and sink (polar), so a heat engine.

    “A gas molecule retains no memory of the direction the photon that excited it came from and re-emits uniformly in all directions, on average.”
    In fact, the gas molecule doesn’t even retain the energy. The time scale for ke exchange with colliding molecules is faster than the average time for re-emission. That’s a consequence of local thermodynamic equilibrium. Emission reflects just the temperature of the mixed gas, not prior absorption events. Of course, absorption helps maintain the temperature.

    “(or two coupled NS equations, depending on how they treat the ocean, but usually it’s treated as a “single slab”, effectively a couple boundary layer without much internal structure)”
    You’re absolutely right about GCM being a NS solver. And CAM doesn’t do much about the ocean – it’s an Atmosphere Model. But others, like GFDL, do full ocean dynamics.

  353. Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    I had written that

    Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.

    Your post at November 12, 2013 at 11:20 am comments on that saying

    The answer of Richard Courtney is right, but a little one-sided.

    “Right” but ”one sided”? No, it is right in so far as any such estimate is “right”.

    You say you use a lower NASA estimate of 23:1 and not our estimate of 34:1. This again demonstrates the lack of adequate quantification of all parts of the carbon cycle. However, assuming the NASA estimate is “right” then that does not alter my point that the anthropogenic emission is a small part of the total emission.

    You say

    What Richard doesn’t tell you is that nature also sinks 215 GtC as CO2 out of the atmosphere within a year, mostly in another few seasons, party continuous into the cold downwelling polar waters, while humans sink near zero carbon. Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, not a source, while human emissions are one-way additions.

    True, I did not “tell” anybody that.
    I also did not mention the height of the Eiffel Tower because that is also not relevant to my point that the anthropogenic emission is a small part of the total emission.

    And you also say

    What Richard doesn’t tell you is that nature also sinks 215 GtC as CO2 out of the atmosphere within a year, mostly in another few seasons, party continuous into the cold downwelling polar waters, while humans sink near zero carbon. Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, not a source, while human emissions are one-way additions.

    No, I did not “tell” anybody that because it is irrelevant nonsense.

    A CO2 molecule does not know from whence it was emitted. Any molecule in the air has an equal chance of being sequestered by the sinks (ignoring the trivial isotope separation). At issue is whether the small anthropogenic CO2 emission is sufficient addition to the natural CO2 emission to cause the resulting total CO2 emission to overwhelm the available sinks. The fact that humans don’t provide additional sinks is irrelevant to this issue.

    Importantly, it is the nonsensical assertion that there is importance to the statement that “humans sink near zero carbon” which has induced the insane pressures to enforce adoption of CCS so humans do “sink carbon”.

    Of importance is whether the small anthropogenic CO2 emission is sufficient to overwhelm the ability of the existing sinks to sequester all the total CO2 emission. And – as I have repeatedly explained above – the dynamics of the seasonal variation demonstrates they can, so the year-on-year rise in atmospheric CO2 is probably an effect of changed equilibrium of the carbon cycle. Perhaps the anthropogenic emission is the cause of that altered equilibrium, but other causes are more likely.

    Richard

  354. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 12, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    “And it doesn’t hold for a combination of a sinusoid and a slope in temperature:”

    It always holds, Ferdinand. It’s a mathematical law, not open to negotiation. If you think it doesn’t hold, you do not understand it.

    rgbatduke says:
    November 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    I stand corrected. Monumental tasks, though, tend to be vulnerable to monumental errors, mistakes, or omissions.

  355. rgbatduke says:
    November 12, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    I’ve had the same experience with tomatoes in Oregon. My crop this year was pitiful, as were those of my kith & kin. May have to start them in a real greenhouse next year.

    Well do I remember the year the PDO so dramatically flipped to its warm phase, 1977, although of course I didn’t know what was happening at the time, except a lot of strange things all at once, including to wheat prices. I also recall the remarkably cold winters of the ’60s, especially Dec ’68. But maybe that was just weather.

  356. richardscourtney says:
    November 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    “No, I did not “tell” anybody that because it is irrelevant nonsense.”

    Indeed, it is. It is the “mass balance” argument, soft peddled into the conversation. Half of this thread has been devoted to debunking it.

    The expansion of a sink which expanded due to human inputs is an artificial sink. It does not matter if it was constructed in passive opposition to our forcing. It is still increased capacity which would not be there if we were not inducing it.

  357. richardscourtney says:November 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    “True, I did not “tell” anybody that.
    I also did not mention the height of the Eiffel Tower because that is also not relevant to my point that the anthropogenic emission is a small part of the total emission.”

    It is entirely relevant. The “natural” emissions and absorptions are coupled. They have been proceeding for millenia in balance, and there are strong reasons for that.

    One main component is photosynthesis. About 100 Gt/year C is reduced by this process. The reduced C is subsequently oxidised, either by combustion or respiration. That is “natural” emission, and it cannot in the long term proceed faster than the reduction. Nor can it proceed slower, because there is no long term repository for reduced C. Wood (the most stable) lasts for decades, maybe even centuries, but eventually it all oxidises.

    The other main coupled precess is seasonal ocean exchange. Much of the ocean cools by several degrees toward winter, and warms by the same amount toward summer. CO2 is more soluble in cold water, so is absorbed as it cools and emitted as it warms. It warms and cools by the same amount.

    When we dig up and burn carbon, that is not part of a coupled process. It does not return to the coal seams. Unlike the natural cycling, it is new carbon added to the system.

  358. rgb says:

    Because it doesn’t. Adiabatic expansion and compression increase the temperature of a gas as it rises and falls, but the energy content of the parcel does not change. That’s what adiabatic means. You might want to get a book on the physics of this stuff and work through it. At no point in the derivation of the DALR does anyone ever assert that the cooling is conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. In fact, if you understood the equipartition theorem, you’d see why this is not, in fact, relevant. The gas is at all times in a near-thermal equilibrium (“quasi-static”) state. It cools for the same reason that a compressed gas quickly expanding into a vacuum cools, or why the gas in a cylinder in a Carnot cycle cools in the adiabatic leg of the cycle, and gravity has nothing to do with it.

    I agree with the general gist of your comments to Stephen Wilde. I would especially second, “Based on your responses I can only conclude that you don’t understand physics well enough to usefully participate in model building,” although I would probably say physics AND mathematics. In fact, it may be his lack of abilities to translate physics into any sort of mathematical model with equations and look at the implications of those equations that really makes his musings an exercise in nonsense.

    I do have a few comments though:

    (1) I am a bit confused by your definition of what “adiabatic” and what you mean by the “energy content”. The way I would say it is that “adiabatic” means no transfer of energy via heat; however, energy is still transferred via work, so the energy content does change. In fact, for an ideal gas, the temperature is directly proportional to the internal energy (or do you mean something different by “energy content”?)

    (2) As for the adiabatic warming and cooling, I agree with you that it is not due to the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. It is due to the gas expanding (as it rises) or compressing (as it falls) and this expansion doing work on the surrounding gas (or compression being work done on the parcel by the surrounding gas). One way I came up with to think about why there is no gravitational potential energy contribution in the derivation of the adiabatic lapse rate (which I think is a correct way to think about it, although I wouldn’t bet my life on it) is that for a neutrally-buoyant parcel of air, the gravitational force and the buoyant force balance, so any work done by the gravitational force will be exactly balanced by work done by the buoyant force of the surrounding air.

    (3) I would quibble with your claim that “gravity has nothing to do with it” just because it is the fact that the gas is in a gravitational field that causes the weight of the gas above the parcel to compress it and hence to lead to the density profile with height…And, of course, it is this density profile that leads to the expansion of the parcel as it rises up in the atmosphere. So, indeed “g” enters into the equation for the dry adiabatic lapse rate, but not because of any gravitational potential energy contribution but simply because of the hydrostatic condition (and that is probably the sense in which you mean that gravity has nothing to do with it).

  359. rgbatduke says:
    November 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    “There are no convective rolls For there to be convective rolls, the air at the top has to cool and become more dense to sink, displaced by upwelling warmer air. ”

    I don’t understand. The air can cool very effectively at the surface at night (consider a desert like the mojave), especially if there is no IR gas above it. This will cut the air column off at the knees over and over again until the sun changes the direction. The air sinks because of cooling at the surface. There is still plenty of radiative coupling at the surface whose efficacy is enhanced because of the lack of ghg’s above it.

  360. Richard S Courtney says:

    True, I did not “tell” anybody that.
    I also did not mention the height of the Eiffel Tower because that is also not relevant to my point that the anthropogenic emission is a small part of the total emission.

    So, let’s say I had a fountain which spits out water iat the rate of 10 gallons per minute, that water goes into the pool, down the drain at a rate of 10 gallons per minutes and then gets recycled back up to the fountain head to be emitted again. Next, let us say that someone has put a hose into the pool of water and that hose is adding 1 quart per minute of new (not recycled) water to the fountain and as a result of this, my fountain pool has started to overflow.

    In the bizarro world of Richard S Courtney, in diagnosing the reason that the fountain is overflowing, it would be irrelevant to mention anything but the fact that the fountain is adding water to the pool at a rate that is 40 times that at which the hose is adding. The fact that the fountain is just recycling water that has gone done the drain of the pool at that same 10 gallons per minute rate would be as irrelevant as bringing the Eiffel Tower into it!

    • It also requires external energy and an independent source of work to send the water (heat) back up the gradient, lol. Silly people.

  361. Poor joelshore. He lives in such a two dimensional, black and white world, not understanding that the biosphere reacts to more CO2, and the fact that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic.

    There are also unknown unknowns, otherwise we would have the planet’s climate figured out by now. But we are not even close.

  362. joeldshore says:
    November 12, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Except that the fountain isn’t overflowing, despite more water being added from whatever source.

  363. Nick Stokes says:
    November 12, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    “When we dig up and burn carbon, that is not part of a coupled process… Unlike the natural cycling, it is new carbon added to the system.”

    This is simply regurgitated narrative. There isn’t a shred of proof for it. A couple of guys thought it sounded good, and they got a couple of friends to buy into it, and so on, and so on, until it became a fundamental and widely spread assumption.

    But, it is apparent now that the planet’s carbon cycling system is a a great deal more complicated and dynamic. The evidence Salby has amassed says the narrative is wrong. The obvious dependence of CO2 on temperature says it is wrong.

    Moreover, it is completely incompatible with your preceding comment:

    “They have been proceeding for millenia in balance, and there are strong reasons for that.”

    Natural systems do not stay in balance spontaneously. Equilibria are created only when there are equally powerful forces dynamically opposing one another. I.e., when the equilibrium is disturbed, the force opposing the change pushes back harder to reestablish the equilibrium.

    When there are no opposing forces, systems tend to wander randomly, exhibiting greater and greater extremes over time. This is as fundamental as Brownian Motion. In fact, Brownian Motion is a particular manifestation of the phenomenon.

    joeldshore says:
    November 12, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    “So, let’s say I had a fountain which spits out water iat the rate of 10 gallons per minute, that water goes into the pool, down the drain at a rate of 10 gallons per minutes and then gets recycled back up to the fountain head to be emitted again. “

    The fountain analogy is facile and inapplicable. To make it vaguely applicable, you would need to include a drain.

  364. milodonharlani says: November 12, 2013 at 7:17 pm
    “Except that the fountain isn’t overflowing, despite more water being added from whatever source.”

    No, but the water in the pond is rising.

    dbstealey says: November 12, 2013 at 7:10 pm
    “the biosphere reacts to more CO2, and the fact that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic”

    Yes, the biosphere reacts:

    “The land biosphere plays a substantial role in the global carbon cycle. In the 1990s, an average of 6.4 PgC/yr (billion tons per year) were emitted from fossil fuel burning. Net carbon uptake by the land is estimated as 1.0 ± 0.8 PgC/yr (Bopp et al., 2002; Plattner et al., 2002; House et al., 2003).”

    We’re at about 10 PgC/yr now. The biosphere can’t save us. As for logarithmic, I’m not sure you know what it means. It has little effect in going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

  365. rgb.

    Nowhere do I say that rising or falling air changes its total energy content. It simply becomes cooler or warmer because KE is shifted to PE or PE to KE.

    Temperature rises with height in the stratosphere, falls in the mesosphere and rises in the thermosphere. The rise with height in stratosphere and themosphere is due to direct effects of sunlight on constituent molecules due to different chemistry in the separate layers.

    The molecules in an atmosphere will rise to a height dependent on the kinetic energy that can be induced at the surface as a result of mass, gravity and insolation as per the Gas Laws.

    There is no conflict with the laws of thermodynamics in anything I have said.

    If you can’t follow the logical implications of the above three points then there is no point me trying to address your other misunderstandings.

    Your description of the atmosphere that you think would result from the absence of GHGs appears to be some sort of halfway house between the isothermal atmosphere proposed by Roy Spencer and others and the fully convective atmosphere envisaged by me and others. I think it must fail on that basis.

  366. Interestingly the points where Nick Stokes quibbles with the comments of rgb are more significant than when he agrees with him because those quibbles overlap with points I would have made had I possessed the will to do so.

    I am content to wait until (hopefully) the obviousness and simplicity of my proposals becomes abundantly clear as a result of actual observations of atmospheric behaviour.

    The radiative theory of gases has obviously confused too many for the importance of mechanical processes to be properly appreciated for some time yet.

  367. Nick Stokes says:
    November 12, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    The “water” CO2 is rising, but shows no correlation with the “water” temperature in joeldshore’s childish analogy. There was a brief, accidental positive correlation between CO2 & temperature at points during the interval c. 1977 to 1996, but only after a period of negative correlation between c. 1944 to 1976. Before that in the 20th & late 19th centuries, flat CO2 occurred during periods of cooling, warming & flatlining (as now, although cooling appears to have set in, again despite rising CO2).

    Going back farther in time produces the same lack of correlation on most if not all time scales & specific intervals.

    IOW, CACA fails epically from the git-go. The null hypothesis has never been shown false.

  368. I should expand this point:

    “The molecules in an atmosphere will rise to a height dependent on the kinetic energy that can be induced at the surface as a result of mass, gravity and insolation as per the Gas Laws.”

    If anything other than mass gravity or insolation (such as radiative capability) affect the energy carried by molecules then they will rise higher instead of warming the surface.

    rgb did correctly pick up on one fault in my earlier point which I was aware of.

    GHGs do of course radiate equally up and down at whatever height they may be. What I mean is that they will rise to a height where the net thermal effect of energy sent out to space will match the net thermal effect of energy sent down to the surface. I had meant to make that clear by the use of the word ‘directly’ but that was obviously insufficient.

    Another point he made was that different types of molecules do not self differentiate within an atmosphere and I did deal with that in my fuller work by pointing out that the extra energy would be shared with surrounding radiatively inert molecules to affect atmospheric volume as a whole.

    It is going to take some time and some effort for those who are radiatively focused to disentangle themselves from the resultant confusion.

  369. Well Stephen as the radiative theory of greenhouse heating doesn’t even exist in a real greenhouse, and has otherwise never actually been demonstrated empirically, then yes climate science seems to be a strange oddity indeed. I mean just look at what it has done – people now think that water can magically flow against the gravitational gradient. Why might water do that? Because it is what is required for the radiative greenhouse effect. Fini. Perfect (circular, meaningless) logic. Then we have the other proposition that the atmosphere doesn’t emit by itself at all, implying it must have zero emissivity…well that’s not a greenhouse either. Maybe, since, the whole idea is about heat in the climate, then maybe it would be good to use the field of heat flow – thermodynamics – in climate science. Start with the 2 basic Laws, perhaps.

  370. milodonharlani says: November 12, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    “The “water” CO2 is rising, but shows no correlation with the “water” temperature in joeldshore’s childish analogy.”

    Temperature has no role in Joel’s excellent analogy. It simply illustrates conservation of mass, which most of the world understands without difficulty. The water level rises as new water is pumped in. It did not rise while the same water was being recycled. Not hard.

  371. Well Anomalatys, what the radiative chaps just cannot get their heads around is that the extra energy at the surface (beyond S-B) that they bang on about is just the extra kinetic energy needed to hold the weight of the atmosphere off the surface.

    The system only appears to breach S-B because being constantly recycled adiabatically between surface and atmosphere that energy is no longer available for radiative transfer.

    If one deducts that energy from the radiative equation then the surface is indeed at the temperature predicted by S-B.

    If one then proposes additional downward IR from radiative gases then that is the true breach of S-B because the surface is then too warm for radiative equilibrium unless another adjustment occurs and according to the Gas Laws that further adjustment has to be a change in volume which is the only way to return the surface temperature to that required by the S-B constant.

    If the volume change failed to make that adjustment then the surface would be permamantly too warm for S-B, energy out at top of atmosphere would always be greater than energy in and the atmosphere would eventually congeal on the ground.

    Essentially the radiative theory is illogical.

  372. Bart says: November 12, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    “The evidence Salby has amassed…”

    Where is it written?

    “Equilibria are created only when there are equally powerful forces dynamically opposing one another.”.
    Joel’s fountain is in equilibrium. I showed the balance mechanism in the two main parts of the “natural” carbon cycle. Respiration/combustion has to match photosynthesis. It can’t exceed it, and if it falls short then reduced carbon will rapidly pile up. 100 Gt/yr is a lot; even a fraction can’t just hide somewhere. And seasonal changes have to balance. You can’t have a random walk when there is mass to be conserved.

  373. Nick Stokes says:
    November 12, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    It’s an ludicrous analogy for CO2 in the atmosphere, mixing metaphors.

  374. richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2013 at 6:31 am
    david:

    In your post at November 11, 2013 at 6:19 am you assert

    Going back to the evidence that Ice Core samples present in terms of the Co2 lag against temperature rise there can be no correlation with recent times when Man has emitted huge amounts of it …

    Please define what you mean by “huge”.

    Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.

    Richard

    If that is correct then it also absorbs 34.5 molecules of CO2 from the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity, for a net uptake 0f 0.5.

  375. I am having a holiday and can see the ocean from the house’s deck
    they placed a concrete viewing seat right in front of the house for passersby on the street below to rest and enjoy the view [that I am having]
    however….. the seat is overgrown with shrubs. There is no way for any view. The shrubs stand two meter above the seat and have almost engulfed the whole seat. In fact they put another seat 20 meters further on….
    I suspect the seat was build some 10 or 20 years ago.
    In my view, there are only two reasons for the shrubbery to have increased by this much.
    1) more rainfall
    2) more carbon dioxide

    rainfall is much down [for this southern part of South Africa] the past decades
    we need in fact more rain.
    it follows that the increase in shrubbery must have been caused by the increase in carbon dioxide.

    This is just a simple lesson from nature as to why we need more carbon dioxide, not less.

  376. Friends:

    Some realities are such inconvenient truths that they enrage extreme propagandists of the AGW scare.

    At November 11, 2013 at 6:31 am I pointed out the truth that the anthropogenic CO2 emission to the air is a tiny and probably trivial addition to the natural CO2 emission to the air.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen is not an AGW supporter or propagandist but he and I disagree about what available information can indicate about behaviour of the carbon cycle. He responded to my point at November 12, 2013 at 11:20 am when he attempted to dispute my point by a surreptitious reintroduction of the silly mass balance argument.

    So, at November 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm I provided a complete rebuttal of Ferdinand’s response to my true and irrefutable point. This link jumps to that refutation
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1473590

    It is now clear that my refutation of Ferdinand’s response must have been cogent because warmunists joined the thread in attempt to support Ferdinand’s post.

    Nick Stokes (at November 12, 2013 at 5:38 pm), joeldshore (at November 12, 2013 at 7:03 pm) and Phil. (at November 12, 2013 at 9:50 pm) made posts which ONLY contained points I had refuted in my refutation of Ferdinand’s post!

    I ask onlookers to assess this by considering two things
    1.
    Please read my refutation: I have provided a link which jumps to it in this post.
    2.
    When reading the responses to my refutation, please remember that a falsehood is not converted to a truth by persistent repetition; i.e. recognise and ignore Goebbels’ ‘Big Lie’ method of propaganda.

    Richard

  377. Nick Stokes:

    Your post at November 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm continues your support of the silly ‘mass balance argument’ which has been repeatedly refuted in this thread. Your post says in total

    Bart says: November 12, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    “The evidence Salby has amassed…”

    Where is it written?

    “Equilibria are created only when there are equally powerful forces dynamically opposing one another.”.

    Joel’s fountain is in equilibrium. I showed the balance mechanism in the two main parts of the “natural” carbon cycle. Respiration/combustion has to match photosynthesis. It can’t exceed it, and if it falls short then reduced carbon will rapidly pile up. 100 Gt/yr is a lot; even a fraction can’t just hide somewhere. And seasonal changes have to balance. You can’t have a random walk when there is mass to be conserved.

    Firstly, as to “Where is it written?”, if you had read the thread then you would have seen my post at November 11, 2013 at 5:52 am which said

    Salby’s views of the carbon cycle reprise views published in one of our2005 papers
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

    And your assertion that “You can’t have a random walk when there is mass to be conserved” is a ludicrous oversimplification. There is no single and simple “balance mechanism” in the carbon cycle because the carbon cycle is far too complex for such oversimplification to be possible. I explain this as follows:

    The IPCC reports provide simplified descriptions of the carbon cycle. In our paper, (referenced for you in this post) we considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be:

    Short-term processes

    1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
    1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
    1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).

    2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
    2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
    2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
    2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.

    3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.

    4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.

    5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.

    Longer-term process

    6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).

    7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.

    8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.

    Natural processes that add CO2 to the system

    9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).

    10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.

    Anthropogenic processes that add CO2 to the system

    11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).

    12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).

    Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.

    At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.

    The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.

    The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate. n.b. This complicated dependence of Process 1 on the atmospheric CO2 concentration is alone sufficient to refute your silly assertion of “balance”.

    Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
    I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
    II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.

    Modelling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations. And your response is to ignore all that is not known, to apply an oversimplification to one part of the carbon cycle, and – on the basis of that – to assert,

    Respiration/combustion has to match photosynthesis. It can’t exceed it, and if it falls short then reduced carbon will rapidly pile up.

    Your assertion is complete balderdash.

    Richard

  378. richardscourtney says:
    November 13, 2013 at 1:00 am

    So, at November 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm I provided a complete rebuttal of Ferdinand’s response to my true and irrefutable point.

    Sorry Richard, but that isn’t a rebuttal. Joeldshore is completely right with his analogy: you can’t deduce the cause of an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere by only looking at the ratio of the input flows. You have to look at the whole balance. Which shows that nature is a net sink for CO2.

    It doesn’t matter at all if the natural circulation is 23 or 34 times the human input, it matters that the outputs are higher than the inputs with 0.5 times the human input. That is what changes the total carbon/CO2 content in the atmosphere, together with the one-sided human input.

    As I have repeatedly said: the seasonal changes are huge, fast and limited in capacity. That is a matter of buffer capacity: the ocean surface can’t absorb or release more than 10% of the change in the atmosphere. Thus the seasonal capacity of the ocean surface doesn’t say anything about the capacity of the deep oceans to absorb: the difference is that the oceans surface are fast and limited in capacity, while the deep oceans are slow(er) but near unlimited in capacity. That makes that besides the whole biosphere (at about 1 GtC/year), the ocean surface absorbs about 0.5 GtC/year and the difference with human emissions (9 GtC/yr emissions – 4.5 GtC/yr increase in the atmosphere – 1.5 GtC/yr in other reservoirs) of 3 GtC/yr goes into the deep oceans.

    That is what the mass balance says. There is no way to interprete that different: nature is a net sink for ~4.5 GtC/yr of CO2.

    Now the related question if human CO2 is the main cause of the increase.
    As all known observations match that conclusion, it is quite strongly supported.

    There is one pure theoretical alternative, as Bart and Salby suppose: that the natural circulation increased enormously by the temperature increase in the past 50 years ánd the sinks increased so rapidely in concert, that all the increase in the atmosphere is caused by the increase in circulation, dwarfing the human input to negligible. The problem is that such an increase violates near all observations.

    The biosphere is certainly not the cause, as that is a proven sink.
    The oceans may be the cause, but that needs a sevenfold (!) increase in emissions since 1960 from the upwelling areas and a conequent increase in sinks (still matching the 3 GtC/yr more sink than source) to match the human input and the observed increase in the atmosphere. But there is not the slightest indication that there is such an increase of upwelling-circulation-downwelling:
    – That is not observed in the pCO2 of the oceans at the upwelling places
    – That is not observed in the residence time
    – That is not observed in the 13C/12C ratio’s
    – That is not observed in the 14C/12C bomb spike decay
    – That is not observed in ice cores of any resolution over the past 800 kyrs

    Thus the alternative theory is herewith at least 5 times refuted.

  379. Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    Your post begins saying at November 13, 2013 at 2:57 am

    richardscourtney says:
    November 13, 2013 at 1:00 am

    So, at November 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm I provided a complete rebuttal of Ferdinand’s response to my true and irrefutable point.

    Sorry Richard, but that isn’t a rebuttal. Joeldshore is completely right with his analogy: you can’t deduce the cause of an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere by only looking at the ratio of the input flows. You have to look at the whole balance. Which shows that nature is a net sink for CO2.

    Ferdinand, I refuse to get into a childish ‘yes it is’ and ‘no it isn’t’ argument. People can judge the cogency of my rebuttal for themselves; this link jumps to it
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1473590
    And, as I said, it is clear that joeldshore, Nick Stokes and Phil thought my rebuttal was very cogent because they jumped in with iterations and expansions of your case which completely ignored my rebuttal of it.

    Contrary to your assertion, Joeldshore’s analogy is complete nonsense and is not applicable for several reasons; e.g. if it were “completely right” then the rise in atmospheric CO2 would equal the anthropogenic CO2 emission but they are not equal.

    That discrepancy alone is sufficient to demonstrate the ‘mass balance argument’ is plain wrong.

    And nobody disputes that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. For example, the simple fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is less than the anthropogenic CO2 emission can be said to suggest that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. But so what?

    The issue is simple. As I said in my rebuttal at November 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Of importance is whether the small anthropogenic CO2 emission is sufficient to overwhelm the ability of the existing sinks to sequester all the total CO2 emission. And – as I have repeatedly explained above – the dynamics of the seasonal variation demonstrates they can, so the year-on-year rise in atmospheric CO2 is probably an effect of changed equilibrium of the carbon cycle. Perhaps the anthropogenic emission is the cause of that altered equilibrium, but other causes are more likely.

    At issue is how the CO2 in the atmosphere would be changing in the absence of the anthropogenic CO2 emission. That depends on how and why the equilibrium of the carbon cycle is changing. And the silly ‘mass balance argument’ is wrong and is an irrelevance which distracts from consideration of the reasons for that equilibrium change. Iterating the nonsensical ‘mass balance argument’ does not make it right and does not provide it with any relevance.

    Richard

  380. tichardscourtney wrote “And nobody disputes that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. For example, the simple fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is less than the anthropogenic CO2 emission can be said to suggest that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. But so what?”

    For most, the fact that the natural environment is taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in (i.e. it is a net sink) would imply that the natural envrionment is opposing, rather than causing the rise in atmospheric CO2. To suggest otherwise seems a rather counter-intuitive use of “causing the increase”.

    For instance, if Mrs Marsupial takes more money out of our joint bank account each month than she puts in, but our balance still rises because I put more money in than I take out, it would be deeply counter-intuitive to argue that she is causing the increase in our bank balance. Yet those who agree that the natural environment is a net sink, but nevertheless is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is making a statement of just that form.

    Perhaps it would help to make your position if you could give a famailiar example where X consistently takes more Y out of Z than it puts in over some interval of time, where it would be correct to say that X is nevertheless the cause of the increase of Y in Z.

  381. dikranmarsupial:

    Firstly, and to get trivia out of the way, please don’t worry about misspelling my name: it was obviously a typo and I make worse ones all the time.

    Your post at November 13, 2013 at 4:09 am says to me

    For most, the fact that the natural environment is taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in (i.e. it is a net sink) would imply that the natural envrionment is opposing, rather than causing the rise in atmospheric CO2. To suggest otherwise seems a rather counter-intuitive use of “causing the increase”.

    And follows that with another false analogy of the ‘mass balance argument’ concerning the bank ballance of “Mrs Marsupial”.

    What is implied to “most people” is not relevant. Only what is happening in reality is relevant.

    Many natural systems vary within limits set by equilibrium conditions. For example, your heart rate increases to provide additional blood supply to your muscles when you run. But it also increases in response to e.g. fear. Can you infer that when you are running from a raging bull that your heart rate started to rise because you were later going to decide to run from the bull (it may or may not have)?

    The factors affecting change to atmospheric CO2 concentration are more varied and more complex than the factors affecting your heart rate. And they are much, much more complicated that the factors affecting the bank balance of Mrs Marsupial.

    Richard

  382. Richard, we will make very little progress if you dismiss analogies without making an attempt to discern the point they are making.

    Your analogy about heart rates is invalid because it is not in the form X takes more Y out of Z than it puts in yet X is a cause of the increase in Z and hence does not address the issue on which we differ (we seem to agree that the natural environment is a net sink, but apparently disagree on what this means, the puropose of the question is to decern where this disagreement arises).

    Please provide an example of a situation where X takes more Y out of Z than it puts in where X is the cause of the increase of Y in Z.

    I have already given a counter example of this form, where X is Mrs Marsupial, Y is money and Z is our bank account, where its is obvious that X is not the cause of the increase of Y in Z. I can give plenty of others. It would make your point very clearly if you could provide a single good example that supports your usage (just to be clear, please specify what corresponds to X, Y and Z in your analogy). If you are unable to do so, perhaps this is because you are using an unusual definition of “causes the increase”.

  383. dikranmarsupial:

    At November 13, 2013 at 5:26 am you say to me

    Richard, we will make very little progress if you dismiss analogies without making an attempt to discern the point they are making.

    Say what!?
    I did “discern the point” of your an analogy and I clearly rejected it as being wrong because the analogy is inappropriate. Indeed, I explained WHY it is inappropriate. I don’t have time to waste discussing twaddle which is so inappropriate that it deserves no consideration.

    You asked me to give an example of what I am trying to explain to you. I did.
    I gave you one of the – very many – natural systems which vary within limits constrained by equilibrium conditions. You have ignored that and instead you have demanded that I discuss your inappropriate analogy which I have rejected and you provide no consideration of the reasons I stated for my rejection!

    pffft!

    Richard

  384. You will note that I was confident enough in my position to help Richard demonstrate that I am wrong by specifying exactly how he could construct an example that would show that he was right. Sadly, rather than provising an example of that form, he provided an analogy of a different form and has now descended into abuse. It is a shame that Richard has taken that route, genuinely trying to come up with an example of that form might indicate to him why there is an apparent contradiction in saying that nature is a net sink and yet it is causing CO2 levels to rise, and allow him to make his case more clearly. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…

  385. Any dry gas below the DALR (dry lapse rate) is convectively stable. It takes energy to lift an air parcel, because it becomes cool and more dense for its level. So the lapse rate would still be maintained. A clue here is that its value is g/cp. No mention of radiative properties.

    Dear Nick,

    In general I have no problem with your corrections and additions — I was only trying to point out that if you have a non-radiative atmosphere its structure is going to be very different, and the primary difference is that the atmosphere itself cannot cool in the sense of lose heat anywhere but at the surface.

    Regarding the rest of your argument concerning things like the DALR — I’m not convinced. The DALR doesn’t mention radiative properties, it is true, but it does without question require vertical transport of air parcels — updrafts and downdrafts.

    I have no problem with the following picture. A parcel near the surface absorbs heat from the surface. It warms, expands, experiences a positive buoyancy force and rises (displaced by cooler air moving in from laterally cooler regions). As it rises it expands further adiabatically cooling but retaining its heat. Eventually it reaches a region where it can lose its heat at constant pressure via radiation coupled via GHGs, and its density at constant pressure increases. It then becomes net negative buoyant and falls, adiabatically compressing on the way down but remaining net negative buoyancy on the way down compared to uprising warmer air that is displacing it. At the bottom it warms and the cycle starts over, self-organizing into e.g. convective rolls or more often on the surface of the rotating earth, into high (downfalling) and low (uprising) pressure centers in some loose pattern that is itself being pushed around by persistent upper level winds. Some of these patterns are as small as a patch of clouds above a warmed plowed fields. Some of them are as large as hurricanes. They are, however, predominantly driven by vertical transport, not lateral transport, because radiation maintains the temperature difference upon which the DALR depends.

    I do have a problem with a picture where the heat loss at altitude — note heat loss — does not occur. In fact, I have a hard time imagining that even polar circulation would be maintained. The air over the poles would accumulate heat just like air over all the other planetary surfaces, and there exists a simple, stable solution where the air gets warmer as one goes up. You’ll have to convince me that this obvious solution isn’t the one that would eventually be realized in a steady state, with the gradient maintained most strongly at the poles.

    rgb

  386. HenryP says:
    November 13, 2013 at 6:35 am

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

    HenryP, the net uptake by the total biosphere (land- and seaplants, microbes, insects, animals,…) is quantified as about 1 GtC/year calculated from the oxygen balance:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    The ocean surface absorbs maximum 10% of the increase in the atmosphere, that is this about 0.5 GtC/year. The rest goes into the deep oceans, as all other possible sinks for CO2 are (much) too slow.

    The sink rate in the deep oceans currently is about 3 GtC/year. Together with the 1.5 GtC/year into other reservoirs, that makes that about halve the human emissions (in quantity) are absorbed by natural sinks.
    That means that either the natural sinks can’t cope with human emissions over time (which is what all the observations say), or that the natural circulation increased enormously without leaving a trace in any observation. Which is impossible…

  387. Stephen Wilde says:

    The system only appears to breach S-B because being constantly recycled adiabatically between surface and atmosphere that energy is no longer available for radiative transfer.

    If one deducts that energy from the radiative equation then the surface is indeed at the temperature predicted by S-B.

    In other words, you don’t like the actual physical laws of the universe that have been well-verified as being correct, so you will just invent your own physical laws that have never been shown to be correct because they aren’t.

    An object emits radiative energy due to its temperature; you can’t just decide that you get to deduct some amount of energy from what it emits because that happens to suit your own prejudices.

  388. Richard S Courtney says:

    Some realities are such inconvenient truths that they enrage extreme propagandists of the AGW scare.

    It is now clear that my refutation of Ferdinand’s response must have been cogent because warmunists joined the thread in attempt to support Ferdinand’s post.

    Don’t humor yourself. We jumped in because your argument is so ridiculous. In fact, in a setting dominated by scientists, I would be happy to have you presented as a “poster child” for the AGW “skeptics” because the ludicrousness of your claims would do your cause no good whatsoever.

  389. Nick Stokes says:
    November 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    “Joel’s fountain is in equilibrium.”

    A contrived equilibrium. A fountain is an artificial device constructed specfically to do what it does. He has no leaks. He has no evaporation. He has a steady, perfect pump which pulls its energy from a perfectly regulated, outside source. It is a cartoon analogy, and it lacks any dynamic elements which respond as feedback elements.

    “Respiration/combustion has to match photosynthesis. “

    Photosynthesis is a drain, in the analogy. There is no drain in Joel’s fountain. In the drainless fountain analogy, the population of plantlife is a constant.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 13, 2013 at 2:57 am

    I thought you had given up the silly “mass balance” argument.

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 4:09 am

    “For instance, if Mrs Marsupial takes more money out of our joint bank account each month than she puts in, but our balance still rises because I put more money in than I take out, it would be deeply counter-intuitive to argue that she is causing the increase in our bank balance… Perhaps it would help to make your position if you could give a famailiar example where X consistently takes more Y out of Z than it puts in over some interval of time, where it would be correct to say that X is nevertheless the cause of the increase of Y in Z.”

    But, Mrs. Marsupial watches what you put in, and precisely takes that amount out. The increase in your bank account is wholly due to interest.

    A few months ago, you started putting more in, and were pleased to see that your account started increasing. But, it wasn’t because of you. Mrs. Marsupial took exactly that much more out. But, you missed the notification from your bank that they were increasing the rate of interest at the same time you started putting more in.

    Simple example. In this example, Mrs. Marsupial is the “sink” which expands to take out whatever you put in. The bank’s interest policy is the natural source, which puts in or takes out whatever it decides to put in or take out at any particular time.

  390. dinkummarsupial says: “For most, the fact that the natural environment is taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in (i.e. it is a net sink) would imply that the natural envrionment is opposing, rather than causing the rise in atmospheric CO2. To suggest otherwise seems a rather counter-intuitive use of “causing the increase”.”

    Most what?! Most people?

    Most people don’t have the slightest idea what a differential equation is let alone how to solve or interpret it. They might just about understand your bank account. Indeed it appears that you are part of that “most” , which is probably what you meant in the first place.

    Since most climate science seems to want to reduce everything to a linear approximation of reality, let’s start there.

    In a linear system we can analyse each component separately, holding the others constant and simply add the results to get the overall system resonse.

    If the sinks are not saturated and are sufficiently fast in reacting , which would seems to be at least possible in view of the magnitude and speed of the annual cycle, all human emissions in a year can be absorbed.

    There will be an out gassing effect if surface temperatures rise. There does not seem to be much doubt about that.

    Now when we add the two effects (in whatever proportion is appropriate) we see an absorption of emissions that is modulated by the temperature dirven out gassing.

    At times when temp driven out gassing is higher a lesser proportion of emissions will be absorbed, in cooling periods more will be absorbed. The two descriptions are not contradictory and , at least to withing the limits of the linear approximation there is nothing anomalous about the idea of out gassing and absorbing at the same time. The two effects are superimposed.

    You may find you need to take you maths beyond the level of a tive year-old buying sweeties to understand climate. The level required is not incredibly complicated but may be beyond the capacities of “most”.

  391. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 4:09 am

    For your benefit, allow me to repost my comment here.

    The net anthropogenic input is the emissions minus the portion of the natural sinks which respond to that forcing.

    Na = Ea – Una

    The net natural input is the total natural input minus the natural sinks plus that portion of the sinks which responded to human inputs.

    Nn = En – Un + Una

    Total is

    C = Nn + Na

    En – Un can be negative, yet still we can have Nn positive. And, that is why the “mass balance” argument is trivial and meaningless.

    Addendum: Una is sink capacity which exists because of the anthropogenic input. If Ea ceases, Una shrinks back to nothing. It is therefore artificial sink capacity. Nature is responsible only for Nn = En – (Un – Una). Nature is a net sink only if Nn is positive. But, solely on the basis of this mass balance argument, you have no way to determine Nn.

  392. Sorry, stumbled a bit there: Nature is a net sink only if Nn is negative.But, solely on the basis of this mass balance argument, you have no way to determine Nn.

  393. Bart, you are over-extending the analogy in order to avoid addressing the point being made.

    Just to spell it out. My deposits into the bank account represent anthropogenic emissions into the atmosphere. Mrs Marsupials deposits represent total carbon emissions into the atmosphere from ALL natural sources, and her withdrawals represent total carbon uptake by ALL natural sinks. As I represent all anthropogenic sources and Mrs Marsupial all natural sources and sinks, then you can introduce bank interest if you like but the only things left for it to represent are extraterrestrial sources and sinks and supernatural sources and sinks, take your pick!

    You can make up different analogies if you like where Mrs Marsupial are the sinks and the bank the sources, but that is not addressing the analogy that I raised, it is merely evasion on your part.

  394. Joeldshore’s fountain needs not just an ordinary drain, but one which is capable of expansion to carry away ever larger amounts of water as more is added, from whatever source. Science doesn’t know all the sinks for carbon dioxide that exist in nature, but does know that they can expand if take up more of the magic gas & sequester it again, however there may be some limit. We’re far from reaching it yet, however.

  395. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 4:09 am

    Note that, in this analogy, if we assume that the bank’s interest payments are less than what you are putting in, then you can claim that the bank and Mrs. Marsupial together are a net sink. Yet, in truth, the bank is paying you money.

    This is precisely the error you are committing in your mass balance argument. You are blaming the bank for the fact that your account is not growing as fast as you expect, but you are unaware of Mrs. Marsupial’s active role.

  396. milodonharlani says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:31 am

    “Joeldshore’s fountain needs not just an ordinary drain, but one which is capable of expansion to carry away ever larger amounts of water as more is added, from whatever source.”

    Drains generally do that. The rate of outflow is proportional to the height of the water column above the drain. So, if the fountain is at equilibrium, and you start putting in 3% of the flow of new water that is coming from an outside source, then the water level will rise 3%, and stop. Your inputs will not accumulate and overflow the fountain.

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:24 am

    Projecting much? You are guilty of every sin of which you accuse others several times over. You don’t read the counterarguments. You don’t consider for a moment your blinkered outlook may be (is) totally fallacious.

  397. Bart wrote “The net anthropogenic input is the emissions minus the portion of the natural sinks which respond to that forcing.”

    This is a rather strange definition of net anthropogenic input. To reuse my bank analogy it is a bit like saying that my net input to the bank account is my salary minus the portion of Mrs Marsupials withdrawals made in response to the deposit of my salary. So if my wife spends everything I earn, that means I have made no contribution to the bank balance?

  398. Bart @ November 13, 2013 at 9:31 am

    You are still ignoring the fact that Mrs Marsupial represents all natural sources and all natural sinks. You can include interest if you like, but it would have to represent either supernatural or extraterrestrial sources and sinks, as that is all that is left. So which is it?

  399. joeldshore says:
    November 12, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    rgb says:

    “Because it doesn’t. Adiabatic expansion and compression increase the temperature of a gas as it rises and falls, but the energy content of the parcel does not change. That’s what adiabatic means. You might want to get a book on the physics of this stuff and work through it. At no point in the derivation of the DALR does anyone ever assert that the cooling is conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. In fact, if you understood the equipartition theorem, you’d see why this is not, in fact, relevant. The gas is at all times in a near-thermal equilibrium (“quasi-static”) state. It cools for the same reason that a compressed gas quickly expanding into a vacuum cools, or why the gas in a cylinder in a Carnot cycle cools in the adiabatic leg of the cycle, and gravity has nothing to do with it.”

    I agree with the general gist of your comments to Stephen Wilde. I would especially second, “Based on your responses I can only conclude that you don’t understand physics well enough to usefully participate in model building,” although I would probably say physics AND mathematics. In fact, it may be his lack of abilities to translate physics into any sort of mathematical model with equations and look at the implications of those equations that really makes his musings an exercise in nonsense.

    I agree with both of you, I spent a lot of time trying to educate Stephen on thermodynamics and physics of gases on a similar thread, unfortunately he just doesn’t get it. He thought that the specific gas constant was something to do with non-ideal gases, that molecules of different species rise independently to different heights depending on their KE as a result of their different molecular masses not temperature, and that the Ideal Gas Law should be replaced by one of his own devising in which the units didn’t match!

  400. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:24 am

    You are trying to constrain the argument to a simple system which behaves in the way you want. But, that simple system bears no resemblance to the actual carbon cycle. You must consider active elements which respond to the forcing.

    So, when you “prove” something relative to your contrived example, you can feel nice about it, but it has no relevance to the system we are discussing.

  401. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:38 am

    “This is a rather strange definition of net anthropogenic input.”

    No, it isn’t. If Una exists because of the anthropogenic input, and goes away when there is no anthropogenic input, then it is not natural. You cannot include it in the “natural” column of your ledger.

    “To reuse my bank analogy…”

    In your bank analogy, the bank is the only natural system. It is a net source to you, because of the interest payments. Mrs. Marsupial is the sink capacity activated by your inputs. Together, they are a net sink. But, the rest of us are interested in what the bank alone is doing.

  402. Bart says: “In your bank analogy, the bank is the only natural system.”

    No, I clearly explained that Mrs Marsupial represents the natural system. You can redefine what the components mean all you like, but it is then a different analogy, it becomes YOUR analogy not mine.

    How about a compromise analogy. My deposits to a private bank account represent anthropogenic emissions, the bank represents all natural sources and sinks, interest represents ALL natural sources bank charges represent ALL natual sinks. If I deposit $1000 a week into the account and make no withdrawals, then if the balance only rises by $500 then I can be sure that the bank has taken more out in charges than it has paid in in interest (i.e. it is a net sink). Explain in this case how the rise in the bank balance is being caused by the bank, given that the bank is taking more money out of the account than it is putting in?

    P.S. I suspect there will be an attempt to introduce bank robbers or some other additional component, but again as the bank represents ALL natural sources and sinks, the additional factor would have to represent extraterrestrial or supernatural sources and sinks. Good luck with that one.

  403. henry@ferdinand
    the paper you quote does not take into account the cooling that is taking place
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    hence the sink rate of CO2 must now be increasing…
    as explained
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1471619

    we all want to have more crops, more lawns, more trees, and whole cities that used to be desert or semi desert have been converted into green areas (Johannesburg/Pretoria/Sun City/ Las Vegas etc.etc)
    It is all happening because of the increased CO2 in the air…..and because we bring water where we want or need it.
    no wonder there is no trace…. there are no formulae to quantify all these changes? I take it you are not challenging the fact that the biosphere is booming because of the increased CO2 in the air?
    I hope you agree with me that more carbon dioxide is ok!!

  404. Nick Stokes says:

    “The biosphere can’t save us.”

    Save us from what, exactly? From a slightly warmer, more pleasant climate? Most of us don’t want to be ‘saved’ from that.

    And:

    “As for logarithmic, I’m not sure you know what it means. It has little effect in going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.”

    I know exactly what it means. It means is that your alarmism is built on a foundation of sand.

    You, dikranmarsupial and joelshore are the quinessential Chicken Littles, running around the Numptorium and shouting, “The sky is falling!!”

    But CO2 is only an acorn. There is nothing to be alarmed about. If you don’t believe me, just look out at the real world. You will see that there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening.

    It was only an acorn after all.

  405. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:59 am

    “No, I clearly explained that Mrs Marsupial represents the natural system.”

    Again, you are trying to contrive the example to achieve the result you want. But, the bank is really the only outside element.

    “Explain in this case how the rise in the bank balance is being caused by the bank, given that the bank is taking more money out of the account than it is putting in?”

    This is like that card trick kids do at summer camp. You ask the other kid to pick a suit. If the card you have slightly poking out of the deck, so you can find it and pull it out, is in those suits, you go with it. Otherwise, you tell him we’ll go with the other two. The same process repeats, suit, range of numbers or face, and so on. You progressively talk him into picking the card you have at the ready then, as kids aren’t typically all that swift on the uptake, you pull it out to his amazement.

    You are contriving an example which fits your paradigm. And, if I agree to the conclusions which result from your constraints, then you can declare victory.

    But, the real world bears no resemblance to your contrivance. The real world has active elements which respond to forcing in a feedback loop. You are doing a static analysis on a dynamic system. Then, you throw a fit because I refuse to play a game which amounts to a meaningless exercise in confirmation bias.

    Look, it is very simple:

    The net anthropogenic input is the emissions minus the portion of the natural sinks which respond to that forcing.

    Na = Ea – Una

    The net natural input is the total natural input minus the natural sinks plus that portion of the sinks which responded to human inputs.

    Nn = En – Un + Una

    Total is

    C = Nn + Na

    En – Un can be negative, yet still we can have Nn positive. And, that is why the “mass balance” argument is trivial and meaningless.

  406. I think the thing you are not getting is that Un is not a static quantity. It is composed of two components, Un = Unn + Una, where Unn is the natural response of the sinks to natural inputs. Una does not take out a portion of Un, it adds to it. It grows in order to handle the anthropogenic input, and it shrinks away when the anthropogenic input is taken away.

  407. “It grows in order to handle the anthropogenic input, and it shrinks away when the anthropogenic input is taken away.”

    I.e., this is a dynamic system.

  408. I asked “Explain in this case how the rise in the bank balance is being caused by the bank, given that the bank is taking more money out of the account than it is putting in?”

    Bart responded “This is like that card trick kids do at summer camp. You ask the other kid to pick a suit. If the card you have slightly poking out of the deck, so you can find it and pull it out, is in those suits, you go with it. Otherwise, you tell him we’ll go with the other two. The same process repeats, suit, range of numbers or face, and so on. You progressively talk him into picking the card you have at the ready then, as kids aren’t typically all that swift on the uptake, you pull it out to his amazement.”

    Which is just mode evasion and a tacit admission that he knows he can’t answer the question directly without demonstrating that he is incorrect.

    I challenged Richard to come up with an example of an everyday situation in which X consistently takes more Y out of Z than it puts in and yet X can be reasonably said to be the cause of the increase of Y in Z. I suspect that Bart can’t provide one either because to cause an increase very strongly implies adding to something, rather than subtracting from it.

  409. Joel Shore said:

    “An object emits radiative energy due to its temperature; you can’t just decide that you get to deduct some amount of energy from what it emits because that happens to suit your own prejudices.”

    You have to define ‘an object’.

    From space the top of the planet’s atmosphere is the object and not the surface. Since a portion of the energy leaving the surface gets tied up in the adiabatic exchange it never leaves from the top of the atmosphere.

    The surface radiative energy can indeed be apportioned between the adiabatic exchange between surface and atmosphere and the radiative exchange between top of atmosphere and space. Only the portion not engaged in holding the weight of the atmosphere off the surface can escape from the object as properly defined.

    The portion that fails to get out to space remains whizzing about within the atmosphere but is a consequence of the apportionment of energy and not a cause of anything.

    This may sound made up to radiative enthusiasts but would have been no surprise to anyone 50 years ago.

  410. HenryP says:
    November 13, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Cooling gives less uptake by the extratropical biosphere, where most of the recent increase is noticed. The tropics are rather in equilibrium, except with a sudden increase in temperature (the 1998 El Niño) and the subsequent drying out. But that is a temporarely influence.
    Cooling gives more uptake by the oceans. On the long term the oceans win the battle, on short term (seasons, year by year variability) vegetation is dominant.

    But in general, more CO2 gives more plant growth, be it limited (the circumstances in nature are not as ideal as in a grower’s greenhouse), and humans still (estimated) destroy more forests than they replant trees, crops and lawns…

  411. rgb thinks that a rising parcel of energy retains its heat.

    It doesn’t. It retains its energy but as it rises higher an increasingly large part of the total energy becomes potential energy (not heat) and an increasingly smaller part remains as kinetic energy (heat).

    rgb does not know the difference between heat and energy and until he does some work he will never get my points.

    Indeed the role of the adiabatic energy exchange within an atmosphere is an unknown mystery to anyone brought up on the radiative theory of gases.

    There is a lot of re-education required.

  412. dikranmarsupial:

    I take severe umbrage at your post at November 13, 2013 at 6:00 am which says in total

    You will note that I was confident enough in my position to help Richard demonstrate that I am wrong by specifying exactly how he could construct an example that would show that he was right. Sadly, rather than provising an example of that form, he provided an analogy of a different form and has now descended into abuse. It is a shame that Richard has taken that route, genuinely trying to come up with an example of that form might indicate to him why there is an apparent contradiction in saying that nature is a net sink and yet it is causing CO2 levels to rise, and allow him to make his case more clearly. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…

    I note that you keep repeating the same nonsense which has been repeatedly refuted by several people in this thread, and you refuse to consider my arguments and my explanations of why your assertions are nonsense.

    I and others have repeatedly demonstrated that you are wrong in several ways; e.g. my explanation at November 11, 2013 at 6:51 am and this link jumps to it.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1472028

    In my post at November 13, 2013 at 5:07 am I rejected your analogy and clearly explained WHY that analogy is NOT appropriate. Of course I did not provide another analogy of that ridiculous “form”: there is no reason for me to emulate your irrational behaviour and I refuse to do it. I DID “provide an analogy” which demonstrates what I am trying to get you to understand but – as you have with all evidence and all argument – you refused to consider it.

    I have NOT “descended into abuse”. I have described your behaviour in plain language.

    There is no “apparent contradiction in saying that nature is a net sink and yet it is causing CO2 levels to rise”. The “apparent contradiction” only exists in your mind, and it is because – as you have repeatedly demonstrated – you are incapable of considering anything which does not agree with your irrational belief. Several people have explained why there is no contradiction; e.g. this scenario from Stephen Wilde
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1472326

    In this thread I have repeatedly made clear explanations of my “case”, for example, this one
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1472551

    Oh well, you can lead a bigot to knowledge but you can’t get him to consider it.

    Richard

  413. ferdinand says
    and humans still (estimated) destroy more forests than they replant trees, crops and lawns…
    henry says
    quote from my source:
    About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines.

  414. richardscourtney I note that you still have not provided an analogy of the form “X consistently takes more Y out of Z than it puts in but X is the cause of the rise of Y in Z”. Any analogy that is not of this form misses the point that I was trying to make. If you can do this, then it will help me to understand your position, if you can’t do it, perhaps it will help you to understand mine.

    You write “There is no “apparent contradiction in saying that nature is a net sink and yet it is causing CO2 levels to rise”. The “apparent contradiction” only exists in your mind.” I disagree. It seems to me to be common sense to suggest that you cause something to increase by putting more in than you take out, not by taking more out than you put in. This is true of bank balances, cookies in cookie jars, water in baths, so why is atmospheric CO2 different in this respect. As I said if you could come up with an example of the format given above, that would be very helpful in making your usage clear.

  415. Phil. says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Well Phil you lost on the other thread because I took on board the points you made that were correct and then pointed out to you that if the Gas Laws could not include a term for the thermal effect of radiative gases then the only effect they could have without breaching the gas laws would be to increase atmospheric volume and height.

    What I did there was try to see whether the Gas Laws could accommodate radiative characteristics and you successfully showed me that they could not which actually suited me just fine.

    You tried to deny that with a silly comment that made someone other than me doubt your sincerity.

  416. joeldshore:

    Thankyou for the laugh you gave me with your post at November 13, 2013 at 8:52 am.

    You made no attempt to address my arguments. This is no surprise because your history of posts on WUWT demonstrates you lack the intellectual capacity to engage in a rational discussion.

    Instead, you posed your laughable ‘fountain analogy’ which displays such a complete failure to understand the subject that – when they stopped gasping at your misunderstanding of reality – others refuted so I dfid not need to.

    And your post I am replying only consists of present bluster and abuse which you hope will hide your ignorance and stupidity. They don’t.

    Richard

  417. dikranmarsupial:

    re your post at November 13, 2013 at 10:50 am.

    I and others have told you how and why your daft ‘bank analogy’ is not appropriate. And I have told you that I will not engage in a lunatic discussion of an inappropriate analogy. Live with it.

    And your ‘cookie jar analogy’ is similarly daft.

    You say you like analogies. OK. Address my ‘heart beat’ analogy which so far you have studiously avoided even to mention.

    Richard

  418. Stephen Wilde 10:30am: “The portion that fails to get out to space remains whizzing about within the atmosphere but is a consequence of the apportionment of energy and not a cause of anything. This may sound made up to radiative enthusiasts but would have been no surprise to anyone 50 years ago.”

    I see from Stephen’s post that he still has not read and comprehended Callendar 1938 which explains “the portion” getting out to space slightly decreases at surface with increase of IR active gas ppm. Since this theory was written 75 years ago and appears in modern atm. radiation text books, G.S. Callendar et. al. would certainly have been surprised 50 years ago at Stephen’s non-radiative climate hypothesis.

    Stephen 8:06pm, 8:20pm: “It is going to take some time and some effort for those who are radiatively focused to disentangle themselves from the resultant confusion…..Essentially the radiative theory is illogical.”

    No. To move towards a complete theory of climate, Stephen really needs to expend the funds and do the work necessary to study up and learn why radiative transfer in basic text book climate theory is certainly logical thru experiment and 1st principle theory. It is going to take some time for Stephen who is radiative transfer challenged to eliminate his resultant confusion.

    Stephen – you get many hints in this thread and others; it is simply too easy for you to reject all posts on this point. In my POV, you are a hobby observationalist who can’t see the sky glow in IR at night with your own eyes so write that glow off as unobserved and having no effect on surface global Tmean. Hence Stephen remains confused about that glow’s changing effects on global surface Tmean.

    • That’s a neat trick, but IR from the atmosphere doesn’t make heat flow backwards, nor do radiative transfer texts say such a thing. There’s no experimental evidence for such a thing either, particularly when real greenhouses don’t even do it.

  419. richard, please can you identify the net sink in your heat beat analogy. We both agree that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, the point where our positions diverge is after that, so any analogy that will help us to reach agreement must have a net sink that is causing something to increase as that is ithe issue where we appear to disagree.

    The sticking point (from my perspective) is whether something can be the cause of an increase by taking more out than it puts in. That seems to me to be counter intuitive, and an example or two would be very helpful.

  420. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 13, 2013 at 10:36 am

    “rgb does not know the difference between heat and energy and until he does some work he will never get my points.”

    Much as I respect your opinions, Stephen, you really must not let your emotions get the better of you. RGB is a professor of physics at a major university. I am quite sure he knows all about heat / energy. Your dispute is due to miscommunication, I think, rather than fundamental lack of knowledge of either party.

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 10:50 am

    “It seems to me to be common sense to suggest that you cause something to increase by putting more in than you take out, not by taking more out than you put in.”

    Not if what you put in is very quickly drained out again. You increase it, sure, but by a negligible level. That is why attribution all comes down to the power of the sinks.

  421. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 11:06 am

    “The sticking point (from my perspective) is whether something can be the cause of an increase by taking more out than it puts in.”

    But, nature is NOT taking out Una! Una is an expansion of sink capacity induced by Ea. If Ea goes away, so does Una.

    We are interested in En – (Un – Una). That is the portion for which nature is responsible. Not En – Un.

    This is so simple. Why can you not see it?

  422. Bart says:
    November 12, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    It always holds, Ferdinand. It’s a mathematical law, not open to negotiation. If you think it doesn’t hold, you do not understand it.

    Bart, I had to look up what the Bode diagram shows, as that was 50 years ago, but I dind’t see any reason that a 90 deg lag of process means that you must integrate.

    Any step change of temperature gives a fixed change in CO2 level, according to Henry’s law. That is as good the case for a static as for a dynamic system where upwelling and downwelling were in equilibrium before the step change.
    Any sinusoid in temperature will introduce a sinusoid in CO2 levels, with a 90 deg lag.
    Taking the derivative from T and CO2 gives dT/dt and dCO2/dt still with a 90 deg lag but both shifted back 90 deg compared to T and CO2. That makes that T and dCO2/dt are synchronized.
    The 90 deg lag between dCO2/dt and dT/dt is pure the result of a physical process where CO2 follows T.
    I don’t see why one should integrate dT/dt to obtain dCO2/dt, only because an integration would synchronize both. I don’t see any physical process reason to do that.

    And you haven’t explained the fact that the integration of T with 100% influence of T and zero from humans reduces the amplitude of the sine function of T to zero in the derivative…

    • “I don’t see why one should integrate dT/dt to obtain dCO2/dt, only because an integration would synchronize both. I don’t see any physical process reason to do that.”

      Because that’s the basic definition of total change in heat content being the driver for release or uptake of CO2. It’s a basic logical postulate. And then it is confirmed by observations, which makes it a theory. But then the consequence is that it negates the postulate that changes in CO2 is responsible for the change in heat content, given the temporal directionality of the former postulate. The change in temperature comes from somewhere else.

  423. dikranmarsupial:

    I am replying to your post addressed to me at November 13, 2013 at 11:06 am which says in total

    richard, please can you identify the net sink in your heat beat analogy. We both agree that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, the point where our positions diverge is after that, so any analogy that will help us to reach agreement must have a net sink that is causing something to increase as that is ithe issue where we appear to disagree.

    The sticking point (from my perspective) is whether something can be the cause of an increase by taking more out than it puts in. That seems to me to be counter intuitive, and an example or two would be very helpful.

    dikranmarsupial, please do at least try to not be an idiot. The point of my ‘heart beat analogy’ (n.b. heart and not heat) was that in complex systems it is not possible to make simple assessments of inputs and outputs because all the inputs and outputs vary in response to anything which alters the system equilibrium. So, THERE IS NO QUANTIFIABLE NET SINK. Any change to the equilibrium alters both the net sink and the net emission in mostly unknown ways. Those alterations are why the ‘mass balance argument’ is twaddle; as I told you, it is not possible to determine a known from two unknowns.

    And your “sticking point” is an assertion of your ignorance and your superstitious belief that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Any change to the equilibrium of the carbon cycle is likely to alter the atmospheric CO2 concentration within limits established by the possible range of the equilibrium conditions (this is like fear or running or the possibility of needing to run each being able to increase heart rate but only within the range of possible heart rates). So, the important issue is what has altered the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. The anthropogenic emission may have altered the equilibrium but there are several other possible causes of this change which are much more likely.

    Escape from your superstitious belief that the anthropogenic CO2 is the only possible cause of the change and the scales will fall from your eyes.

    Richard

  424. Bart said:

    “RGB is a professor of physics at a major university. I am quite sure he knows all about heat / energy”

    RGB previously said:

    “As it (a parcel of air) rises it expands further adiabatically cooling but retaining its heat.”

    Heat is kinetic energy registering as temperature so how can it cool without losing heat?

    What he means is that it retains its energy but as it rises an increasing proportion of that energy is held as potential energy (not heat) rather than kinetic energy (heat).

    Weird isn’t it? That error is all pervasive in those who learned the radiative theory of gases.

    Then the next key oversight is that the process is reversed when the parcel of air descends.

    And the killer conclusion is that it is the reconversion of PE to KE during descent that returns heat to the surface and NOT DWIR.

    Obvious really but so many haven’t a clue.

  425. Richard, I will ignore your insults, as they do nothing to help progress in the discussion.

    You write: “So, THERE IS NO QUANTIFIABLE NET SINK.”

    however you previously wrote

    ======================================================

    richardscourtney says:
    November 13, 2013 at 3:57 am

    And nobody disputes that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. For example, the simple fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is less than the anthropogenic CO2 emission can be said to suggest that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. But so what?”

    =====================================================

    Now there is nothing in my argument that requires the net sink to be quantified, just that the natural environment IS a net carbon sink. So, please can you clarify, is the natural environment a net carbon sink (as established by the observation that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is less than anthropogenic emissions) or is it not?

  426. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 13, 2013 at 11:31 am

    “I had to look up what the Bode diagram shows…”

    Not the Bode diagram. The Bode Phase-Gain Relationship. It is a very subtle bit of mathematical reasoning, and it says that the response of a minimum phase system must change in magnitude in proportion to the phase, at a level of approximately -20 dB/decade gain attenuation per 90 degrees of phase lag. It is important in control system design because it limits the rate of transition from passband to stop band. You cannot have the open loop gain at the 0 dB crossover frequency change too rapidly, or you will induce greater than 180 degree phase lag, which will cause instability.

    When you have 90 degree phase lag everywhere, you have -20 dB/decade slope in gain everywhere, and that is the response of an integral.

    “Any step change of temperature gives a fixed change in CO2 level…”

    Only if the CO2 level in either reservoir is not changing from an external source. When richly CO2 laden waters surface, and cause a steady rise in surface concentration, then a temperature change modulates the rate at which that newly introduced CO2 outgasses to the atmosphere.

    “The 90 deg lag between dCO2/dt and dT/dt is pure the result of a physical process where CO2 follows T.”

    Yes. And, that physical process is an integral.

    “And you haven’t explained the fact that the integration of T with 100% influence of T and zero from humans reduces the amplitude of the sine function of T to zero in the derivative…”

    If you integrate a function, and then differentiate it, the result is the original function. Always.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    November 13, 2013 at 11:35 am

    “What he means is that it retains its energy but as it rises an increasing proportion of that energy is held as potential energy (not heat) rather than kinetic energy (heat).”

    Back to you, RGB. How can you increase your potential energy without losing kinetic energy?

  427. dikranmarsupial says:
    November 13, 2013 at 11:42 am

    You really are hopeless. And very, very wrong. On an exceedling elementary level. I mean, not even close. You are off in a fantasy world.

    I have tried every way I can think to get it through to you, but you appear not even to bother reading it, as your mind is made up.

  428. dikranmarsupial:

    re your post addressed to me at November 13, 2013 at 11:42 am.

    I made no “insults” to you. None whatsoever.

    You have taken two of my statements out of context then claimed they disagree. They don’t.

    In answer to your demanding to know if I agree that “nature is a net sink for CO2″ I wrote

    And nobody disputes that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. For example, the simple fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is less than the anthropogenic CO2 emission can be said to suggest that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. But so what?”

    and in explanation of why complex systems do not behave in linear manners I wrote

    The point of my ‘heart beat analogy’ (n.b. heart and not heat) was that in complex systems it is not possible to make simple assessments of inputs and outputs because all the inputs and outputs vary in response to anything which alters the system equilibrium. So, THERE IS NO QUANTIFIABLE NET SINK. Any change to the equilibrium alters both the net sink and the net emission in mostly unknown ways. Those alterations are why the ‘mass balance argument’ is twaddle; as I told you, it is not possible to determine a known from two unknowns.

    Only someone who does not know the meaning of the word “quantifiable” could think there is a dichotomy between those two statements.

    The second of those two statements is another of my clear explanations of why your “argument” is nonsense, so I fail to understand why you yet again ask me to refute your twaddle.

    Throw off your superstitious belief because the truth will then set you free.

    Richard

  429. Trick said:

    “Stephen who is radiative transfer challenged to eliminate his resultant confusion.”

    In fact my hypothesis reconciles radiative theory with the gas laws by hiving off the surplus energy at the surface into a separate internal system energy cycle.

    In doing so I also regain system observance of the S-B constant.

    Radiative theory alone does neither.

    It also fits observations and allows a logical extension to the world of climate shifting via changes in atmospheric circulation.

    What’s not to like ?

  430. Bart says:
    November 13, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 13, 2013 at 11:31 am

    “When you have 90 degree phase lag everywhere, you have -20 dB/decade slope in gain everywhere, and that is the response of an integral.”

    And, it does not even matter if it is not actually everywhere. In any band in which you have -90 deg phase lag and -20 dB/decade slope, you are being dominated by an integration process.

    The -90 deg phase lag holds very nearly perfectly across the entire data set since 1958. Hence, a legitimate model for what is happening during this time is an integral.

    That does not mean that the integral relationship holds for all time, and that is the point on which Paul_K was expounding at the dialogue we had at BH.

  431. richardscourtney says:
    November 13, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    “Any change to the equilibrium alters both the net sink and the net emission in mostly unknown ways. Those alterations are why the ‘mass balance argument’ is twaddle…”

    Well, Richard, you and I and Greg and Stephen all see this and agree upon it. Dikran et al. will just have to live with that.

  432. I’ve already explained it above but you choose to ignore it and just carry on repeating yourself.

    It is possible for oceans to absorb ALL human emissions AND give out CO2 due to increasing SST. Viewed overall this would mean that oceans absorb a fraction (let’s say about half ,for example) of human emissions ie being net sink. They are less of a net sink than they would be in the absense of warming. In this way warming is the cause of the long term rise in atm CO2.

    The other way this could happen is if there’s no out-gassing (which is physically incorrect) and the sinks are saturating and not able to absorb all emissions (which is questionalbe in view of the size and rapidity of the annual carbon cycle).

  433. Greg:

    Thankyou for iterating your points by providing your post at November 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm.

    Unfortunately, as this thread demonstrates, AGW ‘true believers’ refuse to consider anything which does not agree with the doctrines of their cult.

    Richard

  434. Greg says:
    November 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    I am assuming this was addressed to Ferdinand.

    Ferdinand has a point, which I believe is this. Assume that, at the interface between ocean and atmosphere, the relationship between partial pressures obeys Henry’s Law

    CO2(atmosphere) = K * CO2(surface ocean)

    K is a funtion of temperature, so you have

    CO2(atmosphere) = (K0 + pK*(T-T0)) * CO2(surface ocean)

    where K0 is nominal K at T0, and pK is the partial of K with respect to temperature at T0.

    Ferdinand contends that pK is too small to account for the observed rise. And, he may be right. Besides, since T was increasing roughly linearly while CO2 was increasing roughly quadratically, it cannot really account for that unless the partial of the partial of K with respect to temperature were significant, which is even harder to believe.

    BUT, what if now we assume upwelling waters are causing the ocean concentration to increase, so that

    CO2(surface ocean) = CO2(surface ocean at time 0) + B*t = A + B*t

    where A and B are constants. Assume also that temperature is increasing linearly so that

    K = K0 + K1*t

    Now, we have

    CO2(atmosphere) = (K0 + K1*t) * (A + B*t)

    Now, we have a potentially significant linear term and quadratic term, as A is large and B can be whatever we want it to be.

    Moreover, when temperature stalls, we get a linear rise, and this is what has been observed. CO2 is still rising, but its rate is flat, so it is doing so approximately linearly. This, while emissions are increasing super-linearly.

  435. “The -90 deg phase lag holds very nearly perfectly across the entire data set since 1958. Hence, a legitimate model for what is happening during this time is an integral.”

    It’s not really 90 deg anyway. The only reason a fixed lag seems to fit reasonably well is because there is a fairly regular repetition of about 3.4 years. 90 deg only applies for a pure harmonic oscillation.

    The actual relationship between forcing, its derivative and the output is explained in full mathematical detail here:
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
    As I provided at November 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    The coefficients of both in phase and orthogonal cmpts are frequency dependent so one cannot expect to see a single “90 degrees” anywhere, nor will the output (co2 in this case) be simply in-phase or orthogonal , it will be a subtly weighted mix or both.

    The other way to do this is to convolute with a decaying exponential. That is the Laplace solution to the simple relaxation response. That in itself is fairly gross simplification of reality that corresponds to a single slab ocean model.

    That should be good enough to explain a fair degree of what is happening though I suspect on 50 year or greater time scales at least a 2-slab will be needed, all hoping that we can stay within the simplicity of linear approximations.

    I suspect I’ve gone beyond Ferdi’s rusty knowledge of maths and dinkummarsupial’s cookie jar analogies , so I’ll stop there and get back to actually trying to do the maths rather than talking about it.

  436. Greg says:
    November 13, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    “The only reason a fixed lag seems to fit reasonably well is because there is a fairly regular repetition of about 3.4 years.

    No, it is pretty much 90 degrees everywhere. Every major formation, narrow or wide, falls on top of one another here in the derivative.

    ” 90 deg only applies for a pure harmonic oscillation. “

    Yes, and no. The Fourier Transform, versus the Fourier Series, generalizes the notion of phase delay to complex signals.

  437. Bart: “Moreover, when temperature stalls, we get a linear rise, and this is what has been observed. CO2 is still rising, but its rate is flat, so it is doing so approximately linearly. This, while emissions are increasing super-linearly.”

    That is more clear with a bit of filtering. (though you may fond someone’s been messing with GISStemp).
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7/plot/gistemp/from:1959/scale:0.2/offset:0.075/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7

    SST is a more relevant metric for comparison to CO2. (you may want to fiddle with your scaling a little)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1959/scale:0.2/offset:0.075/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223

  438. Bart, I’ve noted your explanation but my gut reaction is that it is unnecessarily complicated and requires some rather unlikely coincidences as others have commented.

    I think the longer term rise in CO2 may more easily be described as a longer time constant out-gassing reaction from deeper waters or equally the time required for excess CO2 emissions to be transferred to second ‘slab’ depths.

    The mixed layer probably does not saturate, but diffusion to depths may lead to a substantial backlog.

    The 800+/-600 figure for the geological lag in CO2 may be the “90 degrees” of the millennial scale changes that are recorded in ice cores. The large uncertainty may again be the fact that we should not expect a fixed time lag.

  439. Why should anyone looking at the history of the earth think there is a ‘Balance’ when it comes to the CO2 cycle? It is very obvious that there is no balance unless you also look at the entire Carbon cycle over millions of years which includes limestone, peat, coal and other solids where carbon is semi-permanently removed from the cycle. And then there is the degassing from the Earth’s interior (volcanoes, earthquakes and vents) that adds CO2 to the carbon cycle and plate tectonics that removes carbon bound as solids from the surface.

    If you label mankind as not natural and his reintroducing this sequestered carbon back into the CO2 cycle as outside the ‘Mass Balance’, if you do not look at the entire Carbon cycle, that is what happens to all the carbon, but instead only look at what is happening to CO2 then you do not have mass balance because you left out so much of the cycle long term cycle.

    You are toss out of the mass balance mankind’s activities of releasing the CO2 that has been gradually sucked out of the air and transformed into various solids such as:
    plants==> peat ==> Coal
    CO2 (g) + H2O + Ca2+ (aq) ===> CaCO3 (s) + 2 H+ (aq)(limestone)
    And the other carbonate rocks such as chalk, marble, travertine, tufa, and calcite.

    Therefore you either have to include mankind’s actions as ‘natural’ or quit using ‘mass balance’ you can not exclude man and also have ‘Mass Balance’ because Mankind is neither creating nor destroying carbon he is only transforming it just like all the rest of the natural processes here on earth do.

  440. Stephen Wilde says:

    rgb thinks that a rising parcel of energy retains its heat.

    It doesn’t. It retains its energy

    The definition of an adiabatic process is one in which there is no exchange of heat, so if the parcel rises adiabatically then BY DEFINITION there is no heat exchange. What I think you are trying to say is that there is a difference between thermal energy (which is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules of an ideal gas) and the total energy. However, you are hampered by the following facts:

    (1) rgb knows that the temperature, and hence, thermal energy of a rising parcel of gas decreases as it rises (under adiabatic conditions). What he disagrees with you on is the reason why.

    (2) You don’t understand conservation of energy. What conservation of energy says is not that the energy of the parcel has to remain constant but rather that any change in the kinetic energy is due to work done on the parcel by all forces, both conservative and non-conservative (plus any heat absorbed by the parcel, but that is 0 under the adiabatic assumption). You have correctly identified one force, a conservative force, called gravity and have accounted for the work done by talking about the gravitational potential energy (a concept that only makes sense for conservative forces). However, there are other, nonconservative forces acting here. For example, there is the buoyant force of the surrounding gas on the parcel…and the work done by that force exactly cancels the work done by the gravitational force as long as the parcel is neutrally buoyant (and hence moves up at a constant speed). There is also the work done by the parcel when it expands as it will do as it rises through the atmosphere, due to the fact that the pressure decreases as you go up and hence the density of the parcel of gas will decrease. That is the part that you seem to be missing.

    Indeed the role of the adiabatic energy exchange within an atmosphere is an unknown mystery to anyone brought up on the radiative theory of gases.

    Actually, we not only know about it. We (at least speaking for myself) not only know about it but have actually derived the formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate by considering a neutrally-buoyant parcel of gas rising through the atmosphere. So, in fact, we understand it way better than you do. It is subtle and I will admit that it took me some time to figure out aspects of it. (In particular, the part about the work done by the buoyant force and work done by the gravitational force is not generally discussed…People just leave out the gravitational potential energy and I was puzzled as to why until I thought it through.)

    So, once again, we find ourselves in the situation where you are telling us that you understand something better than we do that we clearly understand much better than you do. This is not because we are particularly smart but just because we have the physics background and the mathematical ability to actually go through the calculations.

  441. Greg:

    In your post at November 13, 2013 at 1:25 pm you say

    I think the longer term rise in CO2 may more easily be described as a longer time constant out-gassing reaction from deeper waters or equally the time required for excess CO2 emissions to be transferred to second ‘slab’ depths.

    For the record, I point out that your suggestion of the most likely explanation of the rise is the same as we suggested as being most likely in the one of our two 2005 papers which I have repeatedly referenced in this thread.

    Of course, being most likely is not the same as having been demonstrated to be true. Therefore, we wrote in that paper

    Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium.

    and

    In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. The observed time lag of half a century is not surprising. Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle

    Ferdinand has vigorously and consistently disputed this suggestion since the day we published it.

    Richard

  442. Stephen WIlde says:

    “An object emits radiative energy due to its temperature; you can’t just decide that you get to deduct some amount of energy from what it emits because that happens to suit your own prejudices.”

    You have to define ‘an object’.

    From space the top of the planet’s atmosphere is the object and not the surface. Since a portion of the energy leaving the surface gets tied up in the adiabatic exchange it never leaves from the top of the atmosphere.

    We can define the surface to be whatever we want it to be (although it becomes more complex for an object such as you define, where the radiative emission is no longer all from the surface but different parts come from different heights in the atmosphere that are at different temperatures). The planet is indeed an object, and one with a definite surface, and it has to obey the laws of physics.

    The surface radiative energy can indeed be apportioned between the adiabatic exchange between surface and atmosphere and the radiative exchange between top of atmosphere and space. Only the portion not engaged in holding the weight of the atmosphere off the surface can escape from the object as properly defined.

    As is usual, you have descended into a bunch of sciencey-sounding words that are meaningless. What does it mean that part of the energy is “engaged in holding the weight of the atmosphere off the surface”? Where can you find a discussio nof this in any reputable physics textbook, let alone a claim that the emission of an object has to be reduced by an amount accounting for this?

    This may sound made up to radiative enthusiasts but would have been no surprise to anyone 50 years ago.

    No…It sounds made up because it is made up, and you would be hard pressed to find any physicist that wouldn’t just laugh when you made these claims. They are nonsense.

    And, this comes down to the difference between myself, (& rgb, & Nick Stokes, and the rest of the physics community) and yourself: When we write down a bunch of sciencey-sounding words, we have equations to back them up. When you write down a bunch of sciencey-sounding words, it is just a bunch of sciencey-sounding words strung together with no physical model to back it up (based on known physical equations).

  443. Gail Combs:

    Many thanks for your post at November 13, 2013 at 1:36 pm which includes

    Why should anyone looking at the history of the earth think there is a ‘Balance’ when it comes to the CO2 cycle? It is very obvious that there is no balance unless you also look at the entire Carbon cycle over millions of years which includes limestone, peat, coal and other solids where carbon is semi-permanently removed from the cycle. And then there is the degassing from the Earth’s interior (volcanoes, earthquakes and vents) that adds CO2 to the carbon cycle and plate tectonics that removes carbon bound as solids from the surface.

    Your entire post adds much clarity and provides an additional perspective to points I made in my above post at
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1473945
    Again, thankyou.

    Richard

  444. I said:

    We can define the surface to be whatever we want it to be

    I meant to say:

    We can define the object to be whatever we want it to be

  445. Bart says:

    Back to you, RGB. How can you increase your potential energy without losing kinetic energy?

    Ever heard of a helium balloon? More generally, you can do it by exchanging energy with your surroundings either via heat or work.

  446. richardscourtney says: In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it.

    My guess has been that it’s about half and half (to within an accuracy that would be “consistent” with your figure).

    If it is diffusion that is limiting out-gassing and absorption of emissions , something close to parity of the two would seem likely.

    I suppose I really should find the time to read your paper ;)

  447. Greg says:
    November 13, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    “…and requires some rather unlikely coincidences as others have commented.”

    I don’t see any unlikely coincidences. The sinks take out all but an insignificant fraction of human inputs, and the upwelling is strong enough that it produces the observed rise.

    “I think the longer term rise in CO2 may more easily be described as a longer time constant out-gassing reaction from deeper waters…”

    I think that is just a more detailed potential mechanism for producing a flow of CO2 into the surface waters such as I have described…

    “… or equally the time required for excess CO2 emissions to be transferred to second ‘slab’ depths.”

    Not sure what you mean by “emissions.” If human emissions, the problem is the temperature dependency. Whatever is going on, it is something which is currently rising roughly at constant rate for stable temperatures, roughly quadratically with positive curvature for rising temperatures, and in lock-step with it. Throughout this time, human emissions have been rising roughly quadratically with positive curvature.

    So, we would need this transfer to be essentially constant for rising temperatures, and increasing (taking more emissions out of the surface system) for steady temperatures. That sounds very complicated. I believe William of Ockham would frown upon it.

    “The large uncertainty may again be the fact that we should not expect a fixed time lag.”

    Over geologic time, who knows what may happen? The entire system is changing over geologic time. The measurements themselves are so speculative, I don’t like to confer too much weight upon them. But, we don’t have to know what happens over geologic time to draw conclusions from modern observations.

  448. Bart & Richard: What is missing from your ideas of natural sources and sinks is any physics of the actual process, which is this:

    (1) There is a large pool of carbon between the ocean mixed layer, the atmosphere, and the biosphere and rapid exchanges between them.

    (2) There are only slow exchanges between the ocean mixed layer and the deep ocean…And, there is a new slow liberation process due to our burning of fossil fuels.

    (3) When a new slug of CO2 is emitted by us into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, the rapid exchanges cause that to be quickly partitioned between the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean mixed layer. However, the process of the removal of these to the deep ocean (or other processes such as the incorporation into limestone, etc) is slow, which is why a quite steady proportion of the CO2 that has been emitted to the atmosphere by us has been building up over time (and a similar increase is noted in the ocean mixed layer due to the part that rapidly segregates into there).

    This is the picture that scientists have built up over half a century of studying this and modeling it. By divorcing the process from the underlying physics, you might be able to convince yourself that through some magical processes, the natural processes can absorb all the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere but then at exactly the same time, they have decided for some magical reason, to start emitting more CO2 in just the way (vs time) that makes it look like about 50% of our emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere while the rest are rapidly partitioning into the other reservoirs. However, this just shows the depths to which people will go to delude themselves when they don’t like what the science is telling them.

  449. “So, we would need this transfer to be essentially constant for rising temperatures, and increasing (taking more emissions out of the surface system) for steady temperatures. That sounds very complicated. ”

    Not complicated. System is out of equilibrium after 300y warming. If temp temporarily is stalled, A steady rate of change would make sense until the system starts to get nearer to equilibrium, at which point rate of out-gassing will ease.

  450. Greg says:
    November 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    “System is out of equilibrium after 300y warming. If temp temporarily is stalled, A steady rate of change would make sense until the system starts to get nearer to equilibrium, at which point rate of out-gassing will ease.”

    So, you’re not talking of human emissions then? It seems to me you are just describing potential mechanisms for surface waters to become enriched, which is the same thing I suggested, though I did not suggest details of precisely how.

  451. Greg says:
    November 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    It is possible for oceans to absorb ALL human emissions AND give out CO2 due to increasing SST. Viewed overall this would mean that oceans absorb a fraction (let’s say about half ,for example) of human emissions ie being net sink. They are less of a net sink than they would be in the absense of warming. In this way warming is the cause of the long term rise in atm CO2.

    Greg, my math indeed is completely rusty, but I have had 34 years of (chemical) process knowledge and some of it still resides in memory.

    All human emissions are to the atmosphere. Some of it may be absorbed within a minute by the next available tree (near all, as Stephen thinks), some in the cold oceans near the poles after 10 years drifting around the world. The average residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is around 5 years. But anyway, that is one-way addition in mass of CO2, regardless if the “human” CO2 stays in the atmosphere or is immediately captured, thereby preventing a “natural” molecule CO2 to be captured an therefore resides longer in the atmosphere. Thus the 9 GtC of human CO2 per year gets fully in the atmosphere as mass, not as “human” CO2 molecules. It is that increase which gives a feedback by suppressing the ocean releases and increasing the ocean uptake (as well the uptake by plants).

    Now an increase in temperature also increases CO2 in the atmosphere. According to Henry’s law of solubility, about 16 ppmv/K in equilibrium in seawater.
    For fresh water and 1 bar CO2, see:
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
    For seawater the solubility is about 10 times higher (thanks to its buffer capacity):
    http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Appendix%20B.htm

    The latter has an interesting paragraph:
    From Figure 2 it is clear that the solubility at 380 pm CO2 (today’s value) at a temperature of 20º C (5º C higher than today) is higher than the solubility at 300 ppm CO2 (the value a century ago) at a temperature of 10º C (more than 4º C lower than then). That is, even if the temperature rise were ten times greater than it actually was, there would still be no net release of CO2 from the oceans over the last century, but rather a net absorption of CO2.

    The only possibility is what Bart wrote: an increase of the carbon concentration in the upwelling seawater. But then the combination of temperature and concentration needs to provide a sevenfold increase in CO2 influx from the deep oceans since 1960 to mimic the increase of human emissions and the observed increase in the atmosphere, for which there is no indication.

    Explanation:
    – There is a near threefold increase in yearly human emissions 1960-2010.
    – There is a near 1.5 fold in rate of change/yr of CO2 in the atmosphere in the same period.
    – As the sinks don’t make a differentiation between the origin of the CO2, any increase caused by natural releases must also increase a threefold to invoke the same increase in the atmosphere as the human emissions to dwarf their influence with increased sinks (in any case, human emissions give less than 3% of the yearly sinks).
    – The estimated 150 GtC/yr overturning rate in the atmosphere thus must have been tripled to 450 GtC between 1960 and 2010.
    – As vegetation is a net sink without much change in overturning rate (as can be seen in the d13C changes over the seasons), that is not the cause of the change over the years.
    – The ocean surface has a limited uptake/release capacity, thus also not the cause of the change in throughput.
    – Rests the deep ocean overturning which need to increase from an estimated 40 GtC/year in 1960 to 290 GtC/year in 2010 to explain the increase in the amosphere with minimal human influence…

    My impression is that you, Bart and Salby look to much at the short term variability and translate that to the longer term trend, which are different, near independent processes, no matter if that is caused by deep ocean upwelling or human emissions.

  452. Greg says:
    November 13, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    It’s not so bad for the human emissions too:

    the 110-year trend in “airborne fraction” still is largely within the natural variability. And there was another period with a rather flat rate of change during a long period (excluding the 1992 Pinatubo influence): 1977-1990. Thus I don’t panic yet that the rate of change in CO2 increase will drop in the near future (except if the world economy completely colapses), whatever the temperature does…
    Here BTW the “airborne fraction” over the past 50+ years, not much difference with the 110 year trend:

  453. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 13, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    “…at the short term variability and translate that to the longer term trend, which are different, near independent processes…”

    Just for the record, if you have to integrate the short term variability in the temperature, you also have to integrate the long term trend, and this accounts for essentially all of the curvature in CO2.

    That curvature would increase beyond what is observed if you also introduced human inputs into the mix. Hence, human inputs cannot have a significant impact.

    And, what are the odds that both the slope and variability of the temperature anomaly would match dCO2/dt if they were not both producing an impact? Pretty low.

    “But then the combination of temperature and concentration needs to provide a sevenfold increase in CO2 influx from the deep oceans since 1960 to mimic the increase of human emissions and the observed increase in the atmosphere….”

    Actually, it could be 7-fold, or it could be another number. It all depends on the power of the sinks, which is fundamentally unknown.

    “… for which there is no indication.

    There is no contradictory information, either. The existing estimated inventories are based on sparse measurements and assumptions, and may not be well founded. Some assuredly are not.

  454. rgbatduke says: @ November 12, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Curiously, snow is quite rare in North Carolina, too. Snow in mid-November is scarce as hen’s teeth. And dammit, it is snowing outside, right now. I do believe that this is the earliest date with observable snowfall I’ve seen here in 40 years….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is why I moved down here. It is already below freezing again tonight. BRRrrrr

  455. richardscourtney says: @ November 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Ferdinand Engelbeen:
    …… The fact that humans don’t provide additional sinks is irrelevant to this issue.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually humans do provide sinks. The switch from wood burning to coal has allowed the trees on the east coast of the USA for example to return (as shown by the numerous stone walls through reforested areas) and for denuded Europe to again have forests.

    Now we manage our forests.
    FAO:
    …”Current scientific evidence suggests that managed and even old growth forests (of the temperate and boreal zone) sequester carbon at rates of up to 6 ton ha. These results question the paradigm that old growth forests are in equilibrium with a net carbon balance. On the other hand infrequent disturbances (fires, pest outbreaks, storms.) are triggering a sporadic, but massive return of carbon to the atmosphere”(Valentiniet al.,2000). A soil specialist has emphasized that “there is a potential for reversing some of these processes and sequestering carbon in soils in terrestrial ecosystems. The magnitude of the potential is estimated to be up to 50 to 75 percent of the historic carbon loss. Theoretically, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2can be nullified by restoration of 2 billion ha of degraded lands, which would increase their average carbon content by 1.5 ton / ha in soil and vegetation.”(Lal, 2000)….
    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac836e/AC836E03.htm

    Humans have been ‘managing forests’ since cave man days.

    …Native American’s used fire to alter the landscape and the ecology of many tree and plant communities.

    Around 8,000 BC, Native Americans began using fire to clear land so they could plant food crops, encourage the growth of berries, and expose a variety of delicious nuts. They lit circles of fire sometimes 5 miles in diameter to open the forest for travel and to force game into open areas where hunters waited patiently. Fire was also used to open the landscape, affording protection from marauding enemies.

    With only stone implements at hand, fire was the only tool that could significantly alter the landscape to their advantage. By deliberately changing the environment to fit their needs, Native Americans were shaping the landscape and ecology of forest communities that we see today. For example, frequent burnings changed densely shaded forests to sun-dappled groves of large, thick-barked trees with carpets of colorful grasses beneath. The development of savannas and prairies, intermingled with the closed canopy of less frequently burned forests, provided a brilliant shifting mosaic of rich wildlife habitats across America….
    http://forestry.about.com/library/saf/blsafire.htm

  456. Nick Stokes says: @ November 12, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    It is entirely relevant. The “natural” emissions and absorptions are coupled. They have been proceeding for millenia in balance, and there are strong reasons for that….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No.
    The “natural” emissions and absorptions have NOT been proceeding for millenia in balanceThere is plenty of evidence that refutes that statement.

    Very early on the earth went from a CO2 rich atmosphere (Iron was not oxidized) to a O2 rich, CO2 starved atmosphere culminating in the evolution of C4 and CAM photosynthesis.

    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

    Everyone seems to conveniently forget there has never been a balanced CO2 atmosphere because of the biological and chemical sequestering of the carbon.

  457. Nick Stokes says:
    November 12, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    milodonharlani says: November 12, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    “The “water” CO2 is rising, but shows no correlation with the “water” temperature in joeldshore’s childish analogy.”

    Temperature has no role in Joel’s excellent analogy. It simply illustrates conservation of mass, which most of the world understands without difficulty….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The bait and switch is looking at only CO2 in your ‘Mass Balance’ and ignoring O2 and C which are also a big part of that mass balance equation. You even go so far as to call C ‘unnatural’ or ‘manmade’

  458. Stephen Wilde 11/10 8:32am ignores theory of radiative characteristics in GHE:

    “..the greenhouse effect is a matter of mass and not radiative characteristics…”

    This is not a one off.

    ******

    Stephen Wilde 11/13 12:22pm: “What’s not to like ?”

    The fact that Stephen’s statements on radiative theory are so thoroughly confused e.g. 11/10 to 11/13:

    “…my hypothesis reconciles radiative theory with the gas laws…”

    Not as shown herein and by Callendar 1938 et. al. I’ve pointed out to Stephen on other threads that if one observes weather station data, sometimes P and T move together in same direction during 24 hour traces per gas laws and sometimes they do move oppositely in violation of gas law meaning P=density*R*T is not particularly useful on planetary atm. scale though IGL works great in the lab, planetary radio occultation experiments and hot air balloons.

    Another point, Stephen is as dug in as an Alabama tick on gas parcel PE + KE = constant however what counts in reality is gas parcel enthalpy being constant. I’ve also tried to explain this to Stephen, like others are attempting on this thread. Stephen continues ignore gas enthalpy theory. And to ignore logical radiative gas theory (suppose b/c his eyes can’t observe the atm. IR glow at night). Stephen needs to move towards a complete theory of climate for improved credibility; everyone can expend work to improve.

    • The curious thing about the lapse rate is that it is precisely calculated by the parameters relating just to thermal energy and gravitational energy. That’s for the dry value. This approach doesn’t even depend on adiabatic processes. That can’t be coincidence. Further, when you factor in the heat release due to water vapour condensation, you again precisely calculate what is observed when the air is wet. This can’t be coincidence. The equation is too simple and too fundamental to not mean something: U = mgh + mCpT. And then, it calculates the precise values you expect it to given the observation (and also when factoring latent heat to it).

      One very simple, brute-force but robust approach is to directly simulate an ideal gas in a gravitational field. Papers have been written on this in the past, back when computer power was the big thing to test out. It has been shown various places that simple Newtonian collision mechanics with a large number of particles will replicate the thermodynamic behaviour of an ideal gas. The gravitational field you can apply in this situation is just scalar, rather than central-force, and then all the particle trajectories can be calculated to machine precision. So anyway, I ran a such a program and tracked the kinetic energy, which is directly proportional to temperature, for particles at the very bottom of the gas column and those near the top. The distribution of particles at the bottom of the column was a rough Maxwellian peaking at “4”, while that for the higher altitude particles was another rough Maxwellian peaking at “2.4”. Those are just arbitrary values, but they track velocity squared which directly tracks energy which directly tracks temperature.

      When a particle bounces downward, even with a very tiny time before its next collision, it gains (even if only slightly) kinetic energy (i.e. velocity) in the downward “y-component” of its motion. Conversely if it bounces “up” after collision with another particle, it will slightly lose kinetic energy (velocity) in the upward “y-component” of its motion. If you consider two particles colliding, one has to bounce up, the other has to bounce down. (A perfectly horizontal collision can occur but is rare.) The one that bounces up has slightly less kinetic energy in its next collision at higher altitude than compared to its last collision because of gravity, while the one that bounces down has slightly more kinetic energy in its next collision at a lower altitude, because of gravity (i.e. potential converting to kinetic). U = mgh + mCpT works just fine, even when you factor in latent heat release from water to it, and ideal gas simulations based on fundamental physics replicates the existence of a lapse rate as well. There must be something wrong with the Maxwell Demon criticism. A particles bounces up, it begins losing kinetic energy; a particle bounces down, it begins gaining kinetic energy. That’s just true.

      Note that the average temperature of this column is found in the middle of the column by mathematical definition of averages, and then the bottom of the column is warmer than the average and the top is cooler. It seems the bottom of the atmosphere must naturally be warmer than the average, and his is relevant if the average temperature corresponds to the average blackbody equivalent radiant temperature.

  459. Gail Combs says: November 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    “The “natural” emissions and absorptions have NOT been proceeding for millenia in balance”

    Well, here is the last millenium. Looks pretty steady until something started in the nineteenth century. What could it be?

    “The bait and switch is looking at only CO2 in your ‘Mass Balance’ and ignoring O2 and C which are also a big part of that mass balance equation. “
    Mass balance of C is quite sufficient. We’ve put nearly 400 Gtons C in the air, and about 240Gt of that is still there (out of 780 Gt total in the air).

  460. “The distribution of particles at the bottom of the column was a rough Maxwellian peaking at “4″, while that for the higher altitude particles was another rough Maxwellian peaking at “2.4″.”

    That made no sense. The distribution of velocities for the two altitude slices were rough, but different, Maxwellians, and the mean kinetic energy had a value of “4” for the bottom slice of particles and “2.4” for the higher altitude slice particles. With a vertical distribution in kinetic energy of the particles, this implies a vertical distribution of temperature. The conditions were no inter-particle collision dampening and no energy input…just a fixed energy column of gas that was allowed to bounce around in a scalar gravitational field.

  461. Ferdinand Engelbeen says::”My impression is that you, Bart and Salby look to much at the short term variability and translate that to the longer term trend, which are different, near independent processes, no matter if that is caused by deep ocean upwelling or human emissions.”

    Have you even tried to read the link I’ve already posted you twice where I derive the full response and show the inter-relation of short term and long term change?

    The short term response is clearly dominated by dCO2 vs SST relationship which is clearly out-gassing. This same mechanism implies a long term response in phase with SST.

    What remains to be investigated is whether that long term response explains a little or most of the observed change and whether some other mechanism , like incomplete absorption of emissions needs to be invoked.

    Your “impression” is wrong because you do not read or do not understand what I have written up and presented to you.

  462. Ferdi: ” According to Henry’s law of solubility, about 16 ppmv/K in equilibrium in seawater.
    ….
    The only possibility is what Bart wrote: an increase of the carbon concentration in the upwelling seawater. ”

    No, that is not the ‘only’ possibility. Yet again you ignore what I said last time you produced your 16 micro-atm figures.

    You base you calculations on some sort of global average (in true climatology style) . As I pointed out in our discussion on the Gosta Pettersson thread on this subject, it is not the coldest or the hottest SST regions where a few tenths of a degree will make a significant difference. It is in the regions where surface conditions could be either side of sink or source. Here the degree of out-gassing is highly sensitive to the relatively small change of 16 micro-atm partial pressure.

    So it is the temperate zones where this effect will be most significant.

    This is clearly seen in Stephen Wilde’s post here:
    ht