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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
875 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 10, 2013 3:30 am

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.

son of mulder
November 10, 2013 3:31 am

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

Chris Wright
November 10, 2013 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

Gareth Phillips
November 10, 2013 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.

November 10, 2013 4:06 am

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.

Laws of Nature
November 10, 2013 4:06 am

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

November 10, 2013 4:06 am

“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.

Cheshirered
November 10, 2013 4:18 am

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. 🙂

AlecM
November 10, 2013 4:19 am

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.

November 10, 2013 4:21 am

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.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Greenland%20revisited%20DJA%202010/Diesendorf%20cherry%20pie/Heat%20pipes/Slide15.jpg
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.

Stephen Skinner
November 10, 2013 4:23 am

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?

Patrick
November 10, 2013 4:24 am

“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?

rogerknights
November 10, 2013 4:25 am

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.)

Paul Coppin
November 10, 2013 4:33 am

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.

Patrick
November 10, 2013 4:51 am

“Gareth Phillips says:
November 10, 2013 at 3:59 am”
Good point.

Tom in Florida
November 10, 2013 4:59 am

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.”
.

ozspeaksup
November 10, 2013 5:05 am

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:-)

November 10, 2013 5:16 am

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.

GregS
November 10, 2013 5:21 am

FWIW, here are his two presentations that he gave at the Sydney Institute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w
He is asked about ocean acidification at around 55 minutes in to the second presentation – here is a link that should take you directly to the question:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w&t=55m0s

Richard M
November 10, 2013 5:40 am

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

Patrick
November 10, 2013 5:46 am

“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?

Girma
November 10, 2013 5:55 am

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley & Anthony
Could you include the following graph in the above post that explains GMST driving the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/from:1979/normalise/plot/uah/compress:12/normalise

Girma
November 10, 2013 5:56 am

Here is the graph that shows GMST driving the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/from:1979/normalise/plot/uah/compress:12/normalise

papiertigre
November 10, 2013 6:00 am

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.

November 10, 2013 6:03 am

What is the temperature-sensitivity of CO2 solubility in seawater, compared to those of nitrogen and oxygen?

papiertigre
November 10, 2013 6:11 am

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.

Bloke down the pub
November 10, 2013 6:14 am

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

Snotrocket
November 10, 2013 6:19 am

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.

Patrick
November 10, 2013 6:29 am

“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?

FrankK
November 10, 2013 6:39 am

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”.

FrankK
November 10, 2013 6:53 am

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.

Ron Richey
November 10, 2013 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

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 7:02 am

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 !

Snotrocket
November 10, 2013 7:04 am

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.

David, UK
November 10, 2013 7:16 am

[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.

November 10, 2013 7:17 am

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.

Gareth Phillips
November 10, 2013 7:19 am

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.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 7:25 am

” 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.”
Preliminary estimations:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223

tonyb
Editor
November 10, 2013 7:28 am

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

Flamenco
November 10, 2013 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.
Apart from that, more power to your elbow.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 7:37 am

” 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.

Don Easterbrook
November 10, 2013 7:38 am

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.

Patrick
November 10, 2013 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.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 7:49 am

“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.

November 10, 2013 7:52 am

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
Over the past 50(/110) years, the match between increase in the atmosphere and human emissions is almost perfect:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
while that between temperature and increase in the atmosphere is somewhat less:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
For the derivative, we see that more clearly:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
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.

Patrick
November 10, 2013 7:52 am

“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?

Climate agnostic
November 10, 2013 7:53 am

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/

Pamela Gray
November 10, 2013 7:55 am

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

Pamela Gray
November 10, 2013 7:56 am

irradiance Pam, not radiance. Typed too fast.

Patrick
November 10, 2013 8:01 am

“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.

Patrick
November 10, 2013 8:04 am

“Climate agnostic says:
November 10, 2013 at 7:53 am”
Thank you!

rgbatduke
November 10, 2013 8:14 am

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

Snotrocket
November 10, 2013 8:26 am

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.

climatereason
Editor
November 10, 2013 8:27 am

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

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 8:28 am

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.

Flamenco
November 10, 2013 8:30 am

“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.

Climate agnostic
November 10, 2013 8:32 am

“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

November 10, 2013 8:32 am

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 🙂

November 10, 2013 8:34 am

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.

November 10, 2013 8:39 am

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. Good article.
Professor Salby has been doing good science, may we listen to him!

November 10, 2013 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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
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…

November 10, 2013 8:42 am

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.

Rob Farrell
November 10, 2013 8:43 am

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.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 8:44 am

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

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 8:45 am
November 10, 2013 8:45 am

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.

Bob Weber
November 10, 2013 8:50 am

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…

November 10, 2013 9:01 am

Greg Goodman says:
November 10, 2013 at 8:45 am
The second link: http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
Thanks Greg.
The apparent link between AO, SSTs and CO2 fits my general climate description perfectly.

M Courtney
November 10, 2013 9:05 am

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.

November 10, 2013 9:09 am

Sme additional thoughts on former professor Salby’s presentation can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/11/09/thrust/

November 10, 2013 9:12 am

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
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.

Jquip
November 10, 2013 9:17 am

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.

William Astley
November 10, 2013 9:17 am

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.

November 10, 2013 9:17 am

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.

November 10, 2013 9:18 am

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.

Editor
November 10, 2013 9:20 am

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.

HankHenry
November 10, 2013 9:23 am

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.

November 10, 2013 9:27 am

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.

November 10, 2013 9:33 am

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…

November 10, 2013 9:39 am

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 ?

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 9:39 am

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.

Brandon Shollenberger
November 10, 2013 9:45 am

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.

Gareth Phillips
November 10, 2013 9:46 am

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.

Gareth Phillips
November 10, 2013 9:48 am

Ps. That should be NOT use the site to promote extremist political views.

November 10, 2013 9:59 am

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.

November 10, 2013 10:14 am

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:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2374/F1.large.jpg
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…

Margaret Hardman
November 10, 2013 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.

November 10, 2013 10:18 am

“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.

Jquip
November 10, 2013 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.

November 10, 2013 10:35 am

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 10:37 am

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 10:41 am

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.

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 10:43 am

> “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.

November 10, 2013 10:49 am

” 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.

george e. smith
November 10, 2013 10:52 am

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.

November 10, 2013 10:53 am

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]

November 10, 2013 10:53 am

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.

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 11:02 am

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.

Jeff
November 10, 2013 11:03 am

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. 🙂

Bart
November 10, 2013 11:08 am

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 11:09 am

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.

November 10, 2013 11:14 am

Here is something about the mass balance proposal:
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html
It relies on a stable natural 13C / 12C ratio amongst other things.
Most likely the natural ratio is not stable due to the large variety of different biosphere and geological processes.

Michael Larkin
November 10, 2013 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.

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 11:15 am

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.

November 10, 2013 11:16 am

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr.jpg
and what happens if the temperature increases five years later:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr_temp.jpg
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).

FrankK
November 10, 2013 11:20 am

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.

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 11:20 am

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.

November 10, 2013 11:21 am

Jeff says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:03 am
“40 years? Pah, it’s thousands I tell you. :)”
LOL.
If not millions of years Jeff, if one can calculate for that long using the Bern 2.5CC model….
https://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/permalink/669685216395310/

Jquip
November 10, 2013 11:22 am

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.)

milodonharlani
November 10, 2013 11:23 am

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.

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 11:27 am

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….?

November 10, 2013 11:30 am

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

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 11:32 am

“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….

November 10, 2013 11:36 am

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.

Stephen Richards
November 10, 2013 11:37 am

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 11:38 am

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.

November 10, 2013 11:40 am

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.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 11:46 am

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.

Gary Kerkin
November 10, 2013 11:53 am

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.

November 10, 2013 11:54 am

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.

FrankK
November 10, 2013 11:57 am

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
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.

November 10, 2013 12:03 pm

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_1960.jpg
and in 2000:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_2000.jpg
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

November 10, 2013 12:03 pm

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! 😉

November 10, 2013 12:04 pm

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/

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 12:11 pm

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 12:12 pm

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.

November 10, 2013 12:14 pm

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 12:14 pm

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.

AndyG55
November 10, 2013 12:15 pm
Bart
November 10, 2013 12:15 pm

Filtering with a symmetric finite impulse response…

AndyG55
November 10, 2013 12:18 pm

ps.. at the moment.. the Cheshire cat has nothing on me :-)))

November 10, 2013 12:21 pm

On 18th April this year, Prof. Salby gave an excellent presentation in Hamburg, Germany. The full video can be accessed on YouTube via our climate blog ‘Die kalte Sonne’:
http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=10877

Juice
November 10, 2013 12:28 pm

Numptorium in Holyrood
Can’t think of something that sounds much more English than that.

November 10, 2013 12:32 pm

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 ?

November 10, 2013 12:33 pm

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.

M Courtney
November 10, 2013 12:33 pm

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.

Jimbo
November 10, 2013 12:44 pm

Gareth,
Monckton does not have power over our lives.

Peter Shaw
November 10, 2013 12:48 pm

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).

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 12:53 pm

“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.

November 10, 2013 12:59 pm

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em3.jpg
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…

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 1:09 pm

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.

wayne
November 10, 2013 1:12 pm

“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.

November 10, 2013 1:30 pm

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.

Andrew McRae
November 10, 2013 1:33 pm

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.

Jquip
November 10, 2013 1:34 pm

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.

November 10, 2013 2:16 pm

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_increase_290.jpg
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…

me
November 10, 2013 2:18 pm

It’s the cfcs what did it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24874060
[Please use a valid email address.mod.]

M Courtney
November 10, 2013 2:42 pm

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.

rogerknights
November 10, 2013 2:44 pm

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

The monarch (to his ancestor).

November 10, 2013 2:48 pm

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

jimmi_the_dalek
November 10, 2013 2:49 pm

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.

rogerknights
November 10, 2013 2:50 pm

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.

Flamenco
Reply to  rogerknights
November 10, 2013 3:56 pm

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.

donald penman
November 10, 2013 3:09 pm

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.

November 10, 2013 3:46 pm

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
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.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 4:00 pm

Vuc’ : “If in the unlikely event either Lord Monckton or Dr. Brown consider above worth of a further attention ”
I’d be interested to see that data, drop me a link comment if you would. 😉
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/about/

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 4:13 pm

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.
.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 4:19 pm

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.

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 4:26 pm

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em3.jpg
That’s good , could you post a link to the up to date emissions data?

Gliese 581 d
November 10, 2013 5:16 pm

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?

Gliese 581 d
November 10, 2013 5:19 pm

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?

TomRude
November 10, 2013 5:20 pm

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…

Bart
November 10, 2013 5:20 pm

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.

Ulric Lyons
November 10, 2013 5:21 pm

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:
http://snag.gy/Hckag.jpg

milodonharlani
November 10, 2013 5:37 pm

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.

Gliese 581 d
November 10, 2013 5:44 pm

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.

milodonharlani
November 10, 2013 5:54 pm

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?

Greg Goodman
November 10, 2013 6:18 pm

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.

papiertigre
November 10, 2013 7:03 pm

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 7:19 pm

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.

Bart
November 10, 2013 7:22 pm

“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.

November 10, 2013 7:23 pm

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.

RoHa
November 10, 2013 7:46 pm

Love the term “samizdat lecture”.

milodonharlani
November 10, 2013 7:53 pm

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.

milodonharlani
November 10, 2013 8:17 pm

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.

November 10, 2013 8:33 pm

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!!

November 10, 2013 9:11 pm

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.

Anomalatys
November 10, 2013 10:54 pm

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.

Matthew R Marler
November 10, 2013 10:58 pm

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.

Anomalatys
November 10, 2013 11:07 pm

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.

Pamela Gray
November 10, 2013 11:08 pm

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.

Greg
November 11, 2013 12:31 am

papiertigre, I think it was ” aquatic bint” and “sabre”, from memory. 😉

November 11, 2013 1:44 am

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?

Andrew McRae
November 11, 2013 1:48 am

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.

November 11, 2013 1:48 am

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

November 11, 2013 2:21 am

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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
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…

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 3:12 am

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

Greg
November 11, 2013 3:14 am

Another way to estimate the dCO2 vs SST ratio.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=623

Greg
November 11, 2013 3:23 am

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.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
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.

Greg
November 11, 2013 3:27 am

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.

November 11, 2013 3:35 am

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…

Greg
November 11, 2013 3:38 am

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.

November 11, 2013 3:38 am

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

November 11, 2013 3:43 am

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

Edim
November 11, 2013 4:17 am

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.

Vince Causey
November 11, 2013 4:28 am

“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?

Greg
November 11, 2013 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.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
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?

Chris Wright
November 11, 2013 4:31 am

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

Greg
November 11, 2013 4:46 am

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?

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 5:15 am

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:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/3_mass_balance.png
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.

Edim
November 11, 2013 5:34 am

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

November 11, 2013 5:35 am

“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.

Pat
November 11, 2013 5:37 am

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.

Pat
November 11, 2013 5:40 am

“John Whitman says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:30 am”
Totally agree!

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 5:43 am

@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.

Pat
November 11, 2013 5:52 am

“Brandon Shollenberger says:
November 10, 2013 at 9:45 am”
Well said that man!

richardscourtney
November 11, 2013 5:52 am

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
http://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
http://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

November 11, 2013 5:54 am

“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.

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 5:58 am

@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)?

papiertigre
November 11, 2013 6:02 am

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.

richardscourtney
November 11, 2013 6:03 am

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.

richardscourtney
November 11, 2013 6:09 am

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

November 11, 2013 6:13 am

dikranmarsupial says:
November 11, 2013 at 5:58 am
I’m simply pointing out a scenario whereby En-Un need not currently be negative.

david
November 11, 2013 6:19 am

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.

climatereason
Editor
November 11, 2013 6:22 am

Chris Wright
As you will know instrumental CET goes back to 1659. I have subsequently reconstructed it to 1538.
http://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
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph11.png
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

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 6:24 am

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?

richardscourtney
November 11, 2013 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

Edim
November 11, 2013 6:36 am

“@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.

richardscourtney
November 11, 2013 6:39 am

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

November 11, 2013 6:42 am

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 ?

Barry
November 11, 2013 6:49 am

“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.

richardscourtney
November 11, 2013 6:51 am

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

david
November 11, 2013 7:13 am

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,.

Anomalatys
November 11, 2013 8:03 am

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.

rgbatduke
November 11, 2013 8:08 am

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

November 11, 2013 8:09 am


I wonder how you could reconstruct CO2 if you only had data from Manoa Loa from 1950?

Anomalatys
November 11, 2013 8:20 am

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.

November 11, 2013 8:21 am

@climate reason
following my comment earlier up this thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1471268
I would expect that winter months are becoming warmer [there] due to the removal of snow which is a form of human interference with “nature”
Do your CET stations confirm this?

November 11, 2013 8:32 am

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

November 11, 2013 8:38 am

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).

Joe Born
November 11, 2013 8:40 am

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.)

November 11, 2013 8:53 am

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.

Pamela Gray
November 11, 2013 8:56 am

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?

Vince Causey
November 11, 2013 8:56 am

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.

richardscourtney
November 11, 2013 8:58 am

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

November 11, 2013 9:03 am

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.

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:04 am

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.

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 9:13 am

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.

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:14 am

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.

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:22 am

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.

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 9:23 am

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.

Brandon Shollenberger
November 11, 2013 9:27 am

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.

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:30 am

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.

Ulric Lyons
November 11, 2013 9:32 am

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.

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 9:36 am

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.

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:50 am

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.

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:53 am

“If it is 1/2, then p = 0, and Ea accounts for the entire rise.”

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:55 am

Dammit. In too much of a hurry.
En = ((p – 0.5)/(1-p))*Ea.
p can vary between 1/2 and 1.

Bart
November 11, 2013 9:56 am

But, the same conclusion holds. As p approaches 1, the portion of C due to Ea approaches zero.

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 10:02 am

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.

dikranmarsupial
November 11, 2013 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).
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.

Greg