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?
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.
“””””…..Michael Larkin says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:15 am
“The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.”
For the mathematically challenged, could someone put into simple English what “the time-integral of global temperature” means? I might have intuited the right meaning, but I’m not sure……”””””
Trivial; global Temperature, computed by whatever means, is a continuous function of time; i.e. you can plot agraph of “global temperature versus time..
The area under that graph is the time integral of global temperature. Since climate variables can not be expected to all be linear with Temperature, the net effect is not the same as would be deduced by simply taking the long term average global temperature.
Nature works on instantaneous variables. Averaging is a fictional figment of human minds; nature knows nothing of averages.
“”””””……Margaret Hardman says:
November 10, 2013 at 10:15 am
I’m willing to be corrected but wasn’t the higher power that called the esteemed Lord the one and only Anthony Eden, best known now for the sheer stupidity that was the Suez Crisis…….””””””
Well the people’s encyclopedia has some opinions to that effect. BUT, I’m not any sort of expert; or even mildly knowledgeable on British Protocol, and I wouldn’t put any money down on the Prime Minister; a politician in the house of Commons, having any influence on Peers, or the Peerage. I would bet (maybe wrongly) that such calls are the prerogative of the Monarch; in this case, that would be Queen Elizabeth II in 1957 (her Coronation was 1953.)
Secondly, Peerages, and particularly Hereditary Titles, that can be passed down, are not made on the spur of the moment. They usually would reflect a good many years of service, but likely triggered by some significant event followed up by continuous service.
So I would say nyet, on a Eden / Suez inspired trigger, and look for a much earlier event; particularly, one that the Monarch would have a special affinity for.
So my money would be on The abdication of King Edward VIII, and the succession of King George VI to the throne, where Christopher’s grandfather, was a Kings Counsel, in those delicate proceedings. With WW-II rumbling in the wings; the effect of that change is incalculable; and also of great personal interest to The Queen.
Sheer conjecture on my part; but the consequences of the abdication, were of much greater import, than any Suez Canal adventurism..
Bart says
“Basically, in the frequency band relevant to the timeline since 1958, you have a response which is -20 dB/decade and -90 deg in phase, i.e., which is an integrating action. There really is no way around it.”
What ” frequency band ” do you consider relevant and why? Where do you pull your -20 dB/decade from?
All frequencies are relevant to some degree and the inter-decadal time scale is very likely an inconvenient mix of both the orthogonal and in phase components of a number of frequency components, each with its own proportion.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
There is a strong orthogonal of the circa 3.5 year periodicity, which is what the d/dt(CO2) plots reveal and I have put a figure on. That should not tempt us to fall into the same simplistic arguments that lead to the T=f(CO2) fallacy in the first place.
Matthew R Marler says:
November 11, 2013 at 9:15 pm
I think rgb needs to clarify what he means.
The words he uses are very similar to the usual description of an isothermal atmosphere whereby warmth rises and stays aloft with just a thin layer at the surface exchanging energy with the surface.
Greg Goodman says:
November 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Probably at 60 year time scale the response of the out-gassing from the mixed layer, at least , will be in phase with temp.
The problem is that the 160 years of data (50+ years of direct measurements, ice cores before that) show a steady increasing increase in CO2, only recently (in the last decade, if that holds in the next years) starting to deflect to a linear increase/year. If temperature is the cause, then we have a wavelength of over 600 years. That doesn’t show up in a frequency analyses just covering over 50 years.
From the process side: the ocean surface layer has a limited capacity and only varies with 10% (in concentration and ~ in mass) of the variation in the atmosphere. That is a matter of buffer (Revelle factor) capacity. The surface layer rapidely responds to temperature changes, and therefore is (partly) responsible (land vegetation also responds) for the high frequency changes in CO2 source/sink rate.
Thus the long term response (70+ ppmv since 1960) is from a different process than the short term response (maximum 10 ppmv for +0.6 K since 1960 according to Henry’s law). That may be either the deep ocean circulation (as Bart thinks) or the human emissions (as I think). Either way you can’t deduce the cause of the long term trend from the short term variability…
Matthew R Marler:
Thankyou for your request of a clarification from me when you write at November 11, 2013 at 4:34 pm
It is “documented” in one of our 2005 papers which I referenced above; i.e.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Richard
david:
At November 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm you ask me
No, we don’t.
CO2 in oceans is measured but the measurement sites are sparse and not over long times. Hence, the global data is only questionable estimates based on the inadequate estimates.
Indeed, almost nothing is adequately quantified in the carbon cycle. We know the variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 and other places (e.g. Estevan, Shetland Islands, etc.) for lesser periods. And we have data on fossil fuel and cement production so we know the anthropogenic CO2 emission. Other than that, everything is estimated.
This lack of adequate quantification is why so many interpretations of carbon cycle behaviour are possible; c.f. those of Bart and Ferdinand in this thread. And it is why I remain to be convinced of the cause(s) of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as e.g. measured at Mauna Loa.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
November 11, 2013 at 6:30 pm
There is more CO2 release in the tropics in El Nino episodes during less upwelling. Arctic waters have seen a lot of warming since the mid to late 1990′s. And global average surface wind speeds dropped significantly through the period of fastest warming, which has a big impact on oceanic CO2 absorption rates.
Indeed, the tropical forests cause a net release of CO2 during an El Niño, partly due to the sudden warming (more bacterial breakdown in a rather balanced CO2 budget of mature forests), partly by drying out (rain patterns changed).
On the other side, sink capacity near the poles is less directly affected by temperature and more by ice sheet cover: most waters with CO2 sinks near the edge of the ice, when freezing waters expell salts, increasing the density of the water which then sinks. I don’t know if wind speed changed that much in polar areas. It certainly does influence transfer speed in all waters, thus also at the upwelling places, thus causing less CO2 releases.
But if one looks at the year by year variability of all natural factors involved, the variability is quite modest: some +/- 2 ppmv around the trend, while human emissions are above 4 ppmv/year and the increase in the atmosphere is around 2 ppmv/year:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
That includes the huge 1998 El Niño and the 1992 Pinatubo eruption. It doesn’t look like that the variability increased over time.
That the variability is modest, despite the huge in- and outfluxes involved, may be a matter of opposite responses of different processes on short term temperature variations.
R Taylor says:
November 10, 2013 at 6:03 am
What is the temperature-sensitivity of CO2 solubility in seawater, compared to those of nitrogen and oxygen?
See http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Appendix%20B.htm
Actually the solubility of CO2 in seawater is much higher (factor ~10) than in fresh water and than oxygen and nitrogen, as CO2 reacts with the alkalinity of carbonates in seawater…
richardscourtney says: No, we don’t.
CO2 in oceans is measured but the measurement sites are sparse and not over long times. Hence, the global data is only questionable estimates based on the inadequate estimates.
Ferdi: “Thus the long term response (70+ ppmv since 1960) is from a different process than the short term response (maximum 10 ppmv for +0.6 K since 1960 according to Henry’s law). ”
So if short term (circa 60 years) of data show clearly identifiable correlation patterns that do not agree with your ‘Henry’ calculations we need to consider whether you have sufficient and representative data or whether you have an error in the calculation.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“Indeed, the tropical forests cause a net release of CO2 during an El Niño, partly due to the sudden warming (more bacterial breakdown in a rather balanced CO2 budget of mature forests), partly by drying out (rain patterns changed).
On the other side, sink capacity near the poles is less directly affected by temperature and more by ice sheet cover: most waters with CO2 sinks near the edge of the ice, when freezing waters expell salts, increasing the density of the water which then sinks. I don’t know if wind speed changed that much in polar areas. It certainly does influence transfer speed in all waters, thus also at the upwelling places, thus causing less CO2 releases.”
The higher sea surface temperature with El Nino’s would release more. Cold upwelling with La Nina’s if anything would reduce release rates due to lower SST’s, and increased surface winds would favour increased sea surface absorption of CO2.
As well as the sharp rise in Arctic SST’s, the whole north Atlantic warmed has considerably: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/6-no-atl.png
The decline in average global surface wind speed will be reducing CO2 take up, and hence raising atmospheric levels.
richardscourtney: It is “documented” in one of our 2005 papers which I referenced above; i.e.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
thank you
Ulric Lyons says:
November 12, 2013 at 3:28 am
The higher sea surface temperature with El Nino’s would release more. Cold upwelling with La Nina’s if anything would reduce release rates due to lower SST’s, and increased surface winds would favour increased sea surface absorption of CO2.
The release of CO2 is a matter of temperature ánd wind speed: without wind there is practically no CO2 release, whatever the temperature, as the diffusion of CO2 in (sea)water is very slow.
Temperature increases the pCO2 difference between the warm equatorial upwelling places and the atmosphere, but that is quite modest: 1 K of temperature increase gives 16 μatm more CO2 pressure in seawater, increasing the maximum 750 μatm to 766 μatm or the pCO2 difference with the atmosphere from 350 to 366 μatm.
That causes an increase in influx into the atmosphere of 4.5% in the first year, for the same wind speed and the same volume of upwelling. In the next years, the increase in influx causes a slight increase in pCO2 of the atmosphere, reducing the pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere and thus the influx, at the same time increasing the pCO2 difference with the polar waters and thus the outflux. With an increase of 16 μatm (= 16 ppmv) everything is again in balance:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
There are no indicattions that the THC increased in speed (to the contrary, there was some panic over a decreasing overturning) and concentrations don’t change that much between colder and warmer periods, so that is not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
See further:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml and following pages
@tonyb
thanks for your reply
I thought the soot would work……it is the black….
You did not show how you reconstructed M<L CO2 data?
Greg Goodman says:
November 12, 2013 at 3:05 am
So if short term (circa 60 years) of data show clearly identifiable correlation patterns that do not agree with your ‘Henry’ calculations we need to consider whether you have sufficient and representative data or whether you have an error in the calculation.
The short term variability of dT/dt and T both correlate with the short term variability of dCO2/dt. The only difference is that T is synchronized with dCO2/dt, while dT/dt leads dCO2/dt with 90 deg.
That T and dCO2/dt are synchronized is the result of the 90 deg lag of CO2 after T, which itself is the result of the physical process of releasing CO2 after a temperature increase, according to Henry’s law (which BTW still shows 16 ppmv/K not 16 ppmv/K/year!). That also gives that dCO2/dt lags dT/dt with 90 deg.
Thus dT/dt causes the short term variation of dCO2/dt with a 90 deg lag, while the synchronised T and dCO2/dt is an interesting feature but has no physical meaning.
In how far the underlying trend is caused by temperature and/or human emissions is a matter of debate, but the cause of the short term variability doesn’t say anything about the cause of the long term trend. That is a complete separate process, which is hardly temperature dependent and mostly pressure (difference) dependent.
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly November 11, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Just a quick addition to what you wrote.
The CO2 levels in the distant past were much much higher than they are today and nature has been able to sequester (permanently) most of that CO2 to the point we are now in a time of “Carbon Dioxide Starvation”. Plants have responded by evolving C4 and CAM systems for photosynthesis.
This says the Earth is quite capable of handling much higher levels of CO2 and the smidgen added by humans is not going to push the climate into some sort of ‘Tipping Point’ If there is any type of ‘Catastrophe’ looming it is the drop back into carbon starvation mode that accompanies the dip back into glaciation that is currently being debated.
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
This also says that “CO2 Equilibrium” is not the normal state of the earth.
Matthew R Marler says:
November 11, 2013 at 4:34 pm
richardscourtney: Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity.
Where is that documented? Not that I necessarily disbelieve you. I expect you posted or published it somewhere and I missed it.
The answer of Richard Courtney is right, but a little one-sided. There are several estimates of the carbon cycle in nature. I do use the NASA estimates with some additions:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Where about 90 GtC as CO2 is exchanged between oceans and atmosphere and 120 GtC between the biosphere and the atmosphere.
Humans emit some 9 GtC as CO2 per year. Nature releases some 210 GtC within a year, mostly in a few seasons, partly continuous from the warm equatorial ocean upwelling places. Or about 1:23.
What Richard doesn’t tell you is that nature also sinks 215 GtC as CO2 out of the atmosphere within a year, mostly in another few seasons, party continuous into the cold downwelling polar waters, while humans sink near zero carbon. Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, not a source, while human emissions are one-way additions.
Thus that nature emits 23 (34 or whatever) molecules of CO2 to the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activity is true, but completely irrelevant for the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ferdi: “The short term variability of dT/dt and T both correlate with the short term variability of dCO2/dt. The only difference is that T is synchronized with dCO2/dt, while dT/dt leads dCO2/dt with 90 deg.”
You’ve made this spurious claim once already. How about trying to justify it?
Of course there is a lagged response since there is a fairly strong 3.5 repetition once you’ve filtered out <12mo variability. If you plot sine and cosine they look similar but the correlation is zero. As your WTF.org link shows it really does not correlate as well as d/dt(CO2) , that is clear even to the naked eye.
You have knowledge of the carbon isotope content that appear useful at times but when you come out with rubbish like that it puts into doubt everything you say.
"Thus dT/dt causes the short term variation of dCO2/dt with a 90 deg lag, while the synchronised T and dCO2/dt is an interesting feature but has no physical meaning."
Yes, of course and the relationship between voltage and current in an electric circuit has no physical meaning and it's pointless trying to get information about the circuit by looking at the phase relationship of the two. Right.
M Courtney says: @ur momisugly November 11, 2013 at 1:53 pm
It has repeatedly been said that the mass balance analysis is not a model of the carbon cycle.
Which is a statement I can understand.
But please will someone tell me what the mass balance analysis is trying to do. What is the purpose of the mass balance analysis?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It’s purpose is to confuse the general public who might skim below the surface of CAGW.
Ferdi: “In how far the underlying trend is caused by temperature and/or human emissions is a matter of debate, but the cause of the short term variability doesn’t say anything about the cause of the long term trend. ”
Well if all you are capable of is “debate” it probably won’t tell you anything. While exchanging ideas can be useful it is analysis , not ‘debate’ that will inform us. However, until someone takes a serious look at what information we can extract from the phase relationship between different derivatives it is premature to make bold statements about what it can and can’t tell us.
Thanks for the link to Bishops Hill article. Paul K is once person who does have a grasp on this sort of work , with who ‘debate’ may be more fruitful. Sadly BH seems to take over a day just to approve a comment.
ferdinand says
but completely irrelevant for the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
henry says
so what exactly do you say does the increase in CO2 in atmosphere do or cause?
Henry
We used the official CDIAC figures for modern times and the ‘accepted’ version of co2 which says that it rose from 280ppm pre industrial to 300ppm at the turn of the 20th century.
I remain a little sceptical of the pre industrial figure despite Ferdinand’s valiant efforts to convince me otherwise, but it is best to use the ‘official’ data then people can’t accuse me of cherry picking.
I don’t know if you saw my post on the Roy Spencer data just now. CET from 1772 after 240 years is at exactly the same anomaly as Roy’s satellite data.
tonyb
Greg Goodman says:
November 12, 2013 at 11:35 am
You’ve made this spurious claim once already. How about trying to justify it?
As Paul_K showed, there is a 90 deg. lag of changes in CO2 after changes in T for all short term frequencies, if the longer term response is slower than the slowest frequency variation. Which is certainly the case.
Thus short term variations in T cause short term variations in CO2.
When you take the derivative, you shift any sinusoid back with 90 deg. That is the same for dT/dt as for dCO2/dt. Thus still a difference of 90 deg between the two. And surprise, surprise, T and dCO2/dt are now synchronized.
Still, T changes caused CO2 changes with a 90 deg lag, thus in my humble opinion, dT/dt changes caused dCO2/dt changes with a 90 deg lag. Except if you have a physical explanation of what the synchronization of T and dCO2/dt means, without violating any physical law and/or the invoke of a third variable that needs to be synchronized all the way with the temperature (and human emissions)…
Some more background:
– The short term response of CO2 changes on T changes is about 4-5 ppmv/K (seasonal to a few years)
– The (very) long term response of CO2 changes on T changes is 8 ppmv/K (50 years to multi millennia)
– The current response is over 100 ppmv/K over the past 50 years, if really caused by temperature. But that level of increase then disappears over some longer period without leaving a trace?
– One of the Law Dome ice cores covers the past 1000 years with a resolution of ~20 years, including the MWP-LIA transition of ~0.8 K. That gives a drop of ~6 ppmv CO2 with a lag of ~50 years, sustained over a few hundred years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
The Law Dome ice cores CO2 measurents have an accuracy and repeatability of 1.3 ppmv (1 sigma) and accurately reflect the increase over the past 160 years, including a 20 years overlap (1960-1980) with direct South Pole atmospheric measurements.
A change as seen in the past 50/160 years would be seen in all ice cores of all resolution, covering 800 kyears. But it is not.
Thus in my opinion, any theory that says that human are not responsible for the current increase need a lot of proof…
BTW, have a look at the opinion of a (moderate) warmer about the cause of the short term variation:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
from sheet 11 on.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
“The release of CO2 is a matter of temperature ánd wind speed: without wind there is practically no CO2 release, whatever the temperature, as the diffusion of CO2 in (sea)water is very slow.”
My beer should stay fizzy when it warms up then as long as I keep it out of the wind eh?
The prime point I am making is that CO2 uptake by the oceans will be lower with slower surface winds globally.
“Temperature increases the pCO2 difference between the warm equatorial upwelling places and the atmosphere..”
The main upwelling at the equator is cold, it’s called a La Nina.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 12, 2013 at 10:55 am
“Thus dT/dt causes the short term variation of dCO2/dt with a 90 deg lag, while the synchronised T and dCO2/dt is an interesting feature but has no physical meaning.”
Gibberish. It’s physical meaning is that there is an integration of T into CO2. There is no avoiding it using rigorous mathematics. Look up the Bode Phase-Gain relationship – phase and gain are inextricably related in minimum phase systems. 90 deg phase lag means integration.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 12, 2013 at 12:42 pm
More gibberish. You have completely misinterpreted Paul_K’s post, as I explained over and over to you at BH, and he himself told you. He still was reticent about allying with me, but he certainly was not your ally.
Posting very spotty today. Will probably not be checking back in any time soon…