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.
Trick said:
“Stephen who is radiative transfer challenged to eliminate his resultant confusion.”
In fact my hypothesis reconciles radiative theory with the gas laws by hiving off the surplus energy at the surface into a separate internal system energy cycle.
In doing so I also regain system observance of the S-B constant.
Radiative theory alone does neither.
It also fits observations and allows a logical extension to the world of climate shifting via changes in atmospheric circulation.
What’s not to like ?
Bart says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 13, 2013 at 11:31 am
“When you have 90 degree phase lag everywhere, you have -20 dB/decade slope in gain everywhere, and that is the response of an integral.”
And, it does not even matter if it is not actually everywhere. In any band in which you have -90 deg phase lag and -20 dB/decade slope, you are being dominated by an integration process.
The -90 deg phase lag holds very nearly perfectly across the entire data set since 1958. Hence, a legitimate model for what is happening during this time is an integral.
That does not mean that the integral relationship holds for all time, and that is the point on which Paul_K was expounding at the dialogue we had at BH.
richardscourtney says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“Any change to the equilibrium alters both the net sink and the net emission in mostly unknown ways. Those alterations are why the ‘mass balance argument’ is twaddle…”
Well, Richard, you and I and Greg and Stephen all see this and agree upon it. Dikran et al. will just have to live with that.
I’ve already explained it above but you choose to ignore it and just carry on repeating yourself.
It is possible for oceans to absorb ALL human emissions AND give out CO2 due to increasing SST. Viewed overall this would mean that oceans absorb a fraction (let’s say about half ,for example) of human emissions ie being net sink. They are less of a net sink than they would be in the absense of warming. In this way warming is the cause of the long term rise in atm CO2.
The other way this could happen is if there’s no out-gassing (which is physically incorrect) and the sinks are saturating and not able to absorb all emissions (which is questionalbe in view of the size and rapidity of the annual carbon cycle).
Greg:
Thankyou for iterating your points by providing your post at November 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm.
Unfortunately, as this thread demonstrates, AGW ‘true believers’ refuse to consider anything which does not agree with the doctrines of their cult.
Richard
Greg says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm
I am assuming this was addressed to Ferdinand.
Ferdinand has a point, which I believe is this. Assume that, at the interface between ocean and atmosphere, the relationship between partial pressures obeys Henry’s Law
CO2(atmosphere) = K * CO2(surface ocean)
K is a funtion of temperature, so you have
CO2(atmosphere) = (K0 + pK*(T-T0)) * CO2(surface ocean)
where K0 is nominal K at T0, and pK is the partial of K with respect to temperature at T0.
Ferdinand contends that pK is too small to account for the observed rise. And, he may be right. Besides, since T was increasing roughly linearly while CO2 was increasing roughly quadratically, it cannot really account for that unless the partial of the partial of K with respect to temperature were significant, which is even harder to believe.
BUT, what if now we assume upwelling waters are causing the ocean concentration to increase, so that
CO2(surface ocean) = CO2(surface ocean at time 0) + B*t = A + B*t
where A and B are constants. Assume also that temperature is increasing linearly so that
K = K0 + K1*t
Now, we have
CO2(atmosphere) = (K0 + K1*t) * (A + B*t)
Now, we have a potentially significant linear term and quadratic term, as A is large and B can be whatever we want it to be.
Moreover, when temperature stalls, we get a linear rise, and this is what has been observed. CO2 is still rising, but its rate is flat, so it is doing so approximately linearly. This, while emissions are increasing super-linearly.
“The -90 deg phase lag holds very nearly perfectly across the entire data set since 1958. Hence, a legitimate model for what is happening during this time is an integral.”
It’s not really 90 deg anyway. The only reason a fixed lag seems to fit reasonably well is because there is a fairly regular repetition of about 3.4 years. 90 deg only applies for a pure harmonic oscillation.
The actual relationship between forcing, its derivative and the output is explained in full mathematical detail here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
As I provided at November 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm
The coefficients of both in phase and orthogonal cmpts are frequency dependent so one cannot expect to see a single “90 degrees” anywhere, nor will the output (co2 in this case) be simply in-phase or orthogonal , it will be a subtly weighted mix or both.
The other way to do this is to convolute with a decaying exponential. That is the Laplace solution to the simple relaxation response. That in itself is fairly gross simplification of reality that corresponds to a single slab ocean model.
That should be good enough to explain a fair degree of what is happening though I suspect on 50 year or greater time scales at least a 2-slab will be needed, all hoping that we can stay within the simplicity of linear approximations.
I suspect I’ve gone beyond Ferdi’s rusty knowledge of maths and dinkummarsupial’s cookie jar analogies , so I’ll stop there and get back to actually trying to do the maths rather than talking about it.
Greg says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:53 pm
“The only reason a fixed lag seems to fit reasonably well is because there is a fairly regular repetition of about 3.4 years.
No, it is pretty much 90 degrees everywhere. Every major formation, narrow or wide, falls on top of one another here in the derivative.
” 90 deg only applies for a pure harmonic oscillation. “
Yes, and no. The Fourier Transform, versus the Fourier Series, generalizes the notion of phase delay to complex signals.
Bart: “Moreover, when temperature stalls, we get a linear rise, and this is what has been observed. CO2 is still rising, but its rate is flat, so it is doing so approximately linearly. This, while emissions are increasing super-linearly.”
That is more clear with a bit of filtering. (though you may fond someone’s been messing with GISStemp).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7/plot/gistemp/from:1959/scale:0.2/offset:0.075/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7
SST is a more relevant metric for comparison to CO2. (you may want to fiddle with your scaling a little)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1959/scale:0.2/offset:0.075/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
Bart, I’ve noted your explanation but my gut reaction is that it is unnecessarily complicated and requires some rather unlikely coincidences as others have commented.
I think the longer term rise in CO2 may more easily be described as a longer time constant out-gassing reaction from deeper waters or equally the time required for excess CO2 emissions to be transferred to second ‘slab’ depths.
The mixed layer probably does not saturate, but diffusion to depths may lead to a substantial backlog.
The 800+/-600 figure for the geological lag in CO2 may be the “90 degrees” of the millennial scale changes that are recorded in ice cores. The large uncertainty may again be the fact that we should not expect a fixed time lag.
There by deeper waters I mean second slab below mixed layer not abyssal water up-welling.
Why should anyone looking at the history of the earth think there is a ‘Balance’ when it comes to the CO2 cycle? It is very obvious that there is no balance unless you also look at the entire Carbon cycle over millions of years which includes limestone, peat, coal and other solids where carbon is semi-permanently removed from the cycle. And then there is the degassing from the Earth’s interior (volcanoes, earthquakes and vents) that adds CO2 to the carbon cycle and plate tectonics that removes carbon bound as solids from the surface.
If you label mankind as not natural and his reintroducing this sequestered carbon back into the CO2 cycle as outside the ‘Mass Balance’, if you do not look at the entire Carbon cycle, that is what happens to all the carbon, but instead only look at what is happening to CO2 then you do not have mass balance because you left out so much of the cycle long term cycle.
You are toss out of the mass balance mankind’s activities of releasing the CO2 that has been gradually sucked out of the air and transformed into various solids such as:
plants==> peat ==> Coal
CO2 (g) + H2O + Ca2+ (aq) ===> CaCO3 (s) + 2 H+ (aq)(limestone)
And the other carbonate rocks such as chalk, marble, travertine, tufa, and calcite.
Therefore you either have to include mankind’s actions as ‘natural’ or quit using ‘mass balance’ you can not exclude man and also have ‘Mass Balance’ because Mankind is neither creating nor destroying carbon he is only transforming it just like all the rest of the natural processes here on earth do.
Stephen Wilde says:
The definition of an adiabatic process is one in which there is no exchange of heat, so if the parcel rises adiabatically then BY DEFINITION there is no heat exchange. What I think you are trying to say is that there is a difference between thermal energy (which is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules of an ideal gas) and the total energy. However, you are hampered by the following facts:
(1) rgb knows that the temperature, and hence, thermal energy of a rising parcel of gas decreases as it rises (under adiabatic conditions). What he disagrees with you on is the reason why.
(2) You don’t understand conservation of energy. What conservation of energy says is not that the energy of the parcel has to remain constant but rather that any change in the kinetic energy is due to work done on the parcel by all forces, both conservative and non-conservative (plus any heat absorbed by the parcel, but that is 0 under the adiabatic assumption). You have correctly identified one force, a conservative force, called gravity and have accounted for the work done by talking about the gravitational potential energy (a concept that only makes sense for conservative forces). However, there are other, nonconservative forces acting here. For example, there is the buoyant force of the surrounding gas on the parcel…and the work done by that force exactly cancels the work done by the gravitational force as long as the parcel is neutrally buoyant (and hence moves up at a constant speed). There is also the work done by the parcel when it expands as it will do as it rises through the atmosphere, due to the fact that the pressure decreases as you go up and hence the density of the parcel of gas will decrease. That is the part that you seem to be missing.
Actually, we not only know about it. We (at least speaking for myself) not only know about it but have actually derived the formula for the dry adiabatic lapse rate by considering a neutrally-buoyant parcel of gas rising through the atmosphere. So, in fact, we understand it way better than you do. It is subtle and I will admit that it took me some time to figure out aspects of it. (In particular, the part about the work done by the buoyant force and work done by the gravitational force is not generally discussed…People just leave out the gravitational potential energy and I was puzzled as to why until I thought it through.)
So, once again, we find ourselves in the situation where you are telling us that you understand something better than we do that we clearly understand much better than you do. This is not because we are particularly smart but just because we have the physics background and the mathematical ability to actually go through the calculations.
Greg:
In your post at November 13, 2013 at 1:25 pm you say
For the record, I point out that your suggestion of the most likely explanation of the rise is the same as we suggested as being most likely in the one of our two 2005 papers which I have repeatedly referenced in this thread.
Of course, being most likely is not the same as having been demonstrated to be true. Therefore, we wrote in that paper
and
Ferdinand has vigorously and consistently disputed this suggestion since the day we published it.
Richard
Stephen WIlde says:
We can define the surface to be whatever we want it to be (although it becomes more complex for an object such as you define, where the radiative emission is no longer all from the surface but different parts come from different heights in the atmosphere that are at different temperatures). The planet is indeed an object, and one with a definite surface, and it has to obey the laws of physics.
As is usual, you have descended into a bunch of sciencey-sounding words that are meaningless. What does it mean that part of the energy is “engaged in holding the weight of the atmosphere off the surface”? Where can you find a discussio nof this in any reputable physics textbook, let alone a claim that the emission of an object has to be reduced by an amount accounting for this?
No…It sounds made up because it is made up, and you would be hard pressed to find any physicist that wouldn’t just laugh when you made these claims. They are nonsense.
And, this comes down to the difference between myself, (& rgb, & Nick Stokes, and the rest of the physics community) and yourself: When we write down a bunch of sciencey-sounding words, we have equations to back them up. When you write down a bunch of sciencey-sounding words, it is just a bunch of sciencey-sounding words strung together with no physical model to back it up (based on known physical equations).
Gail Combs:
Many thanks for your post at November 13, 2013 at 1:36 pm which includes
Your entire post adds much clarity and provides an additional perspective to points I made in my above post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1473945
Again, thankyou.
Richard
I said:
I meant to say:
Bart says:
Ever heard of a helium balloon? More generally, you can do it by exchanging energy with your surroundings either via heat or work.
richardscourtney says: In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it.
My guess has been that it’s about half and half (to within an accuracy that would be “consistent” with your figure).
If it is diffusion that is limiting out-gassing and absorption of emissions , something close to parity of the two would seem likely.
I suppose I really should find the time to read your paper 😉
Greg says:
November 13, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“…and requires some rather unlikely coincidences as others have commented.”
I don’t see any unlikely coincidences. The sinks take out all but an insignificant fraction of human inputs, and the upwelling is strong enough that it produces the observed rise.
“I think the longer term rise in CO2 may more easily be described as a longer time constant out-gassing reaction from deeper waters…”
I think that is just a more detailed potential mechanism for producing a flow of CO2 into the surface waters such as I have described…
“… or equally the time required for excess CO2 emissions to be transferred to second ‘slab’ depths.”
Not sure what you mean by “emissions.” If human emissions, the problem is the temperature dependency. Whatever is going on, it is something which is currently rising roughly at constant rate for stable temperatures, roughly quadratically with positive curvature for rising temperatures, and in lock-step with it. Throughout this time, human emissions have been rising roughly quadratically with positive curvature.
So, we would need this transfer to be essentially constant for rising temperatures, and increasing (taking more emissions out of the surface system) for steady temperatures. That sounds very complicated. I believe William of Ockham would frown upon it.
“The large uncertainty may again be the fact that we should not expect a fixed time lag.”
Over geologic time, who knows what may happen? The entire system is changing over geologic time. The measurements themselves are so speculative, I don’t like to confer too much weight upon them. But, we don’t have to know what happens over geologic time to draw conclusions from modern observations.
oh, I’ve just realised you meant all of the 30% increase is thermal.
Bart & Richard: What is missing from your ideas of natural sources and sinks is any physics of the actual process, which is this:
(1) There is a large pool of carbon between the ocean mixed layer, the atmosphere, and the biosphere and rapid exchanges between them.
(2) There are only slow exchanges between the ocean mixed layer and the deep ocean…And, there is a new slow liberation process due to our burning of fossil fuels.
(3) When a new slug of CO2 is emitted by us into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, the rapid exchanges cause that to be quickly partitioned between the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean mixed layer. However, the process of the removal of these to the deep ocean (or other processes such as the incorporation into limestone, etc) is slow, which is why a quite steady proportion of the CO2 that has been emitted to the atmosphere by us has been building up over time (and a similar increase is noted in the ocean mixed layer due to the part that rapidly segregates into there).
This is the picture that scientists have built up over half a century of studying this and modeling it. By divorcing the process from the underlying physics, you might be able to convince yourself that through some magical processes, the natural processes can absorb all the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere but then at exactly the same time, they have decided for some magical reason, to start emitting more CO2 in just the way (vs time) that makes it look like about 50% of our emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere while the rest are rapidly partitioning into the other reservoirs. However, this just shows the depths to which people will go to delude themselves when they don’t like what the science is telling them.
“So, we would need this transfer to be essentially constant for rising temperatures, and increasing (taking more emissions out of the surface system) for steady temperatures. That sounds very complicated. ”
Not complicated. System is out of equilibrium after 300y warming. If temp temporarily is stalled, A steady rate of change would make sense until the system starts to get nearer to equilibrium, at which point rate of out-gassing will ease.
Greg says:
November 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“System is out of equilibrium after 300y warming. If temp temporarily is stalled, A steady rate of change would make sense until the system starts to get nearer to equilibrium, at which point rate of out-gassing will ease.”
So, you’re not talking of human emissions then? It seems to me you are just describing potential mechanisms for surface waters to become enriched, which is the same thing I suggested, though I did not suggest details of precisely how.
Greg says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm
It is possible for oceans to absorb ALL human emissions AND give out CO2 due to increasing SST. Viewed overall this would mean that oceans absorb a fraction (let’s say about half ,for example) of human emissions ie being net sink. They are less of a net sink than they would be in the absense of warming. In this way warming is the cause of the long term rise in atm CO2.
Greg, my math indeed is completely rusty, but I have had 34 years of (chemical) process knowledge and some of it still resides in memory.
All human emissions are to the atmosphere. Some of it may be absorbed within a minute by the next available tree (near all, as Stephen thinks), some in the cold oceans near the poles after 10 years drifting around the world. The average residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is around 5 years. But anyway, that is one-way addition in mass of CO2, regardless if the “human” CO2 stays in the atmosphere or is immediately captured, thereby preventing a “natural” molecule CO2 to be captured an therefore resides longer in the atmosphere. Thus the 9 GtC of human CO2 per year gets fully in the atmosphere as mass, not as “human” CO2 molecules. It is that increase which gives a feedback by suppressing the ocean releases and increasing the ocean uptake (as well the uptake by plants).
Now an increase in temperature also increases CO2 in the atmosphere. According to Henry’s law of solubility, about 16 ppmv/K in equilibrium in seawater.
For fresh water and 1 bar CO2, see:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
For seawater the solubility is about 10 times higher (thanks to its buffer capacity):
http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Appendix%20B.htm
The latter has an interesting paragraph:
From Figure 2 it is clear that the solubility at 380 pm CO2 (today’s value) at a temperature of 20º C (5º C higher than today) is higher than the solubility at 300 ppm CO2 (the value a century ago) at a temperature of 10º C (more than 4º C lower than then). That is, even if the temperature rise were ten times greater than it actually was, there would still be no net release of CO2 from the oceans over the last century, but rather a net absorption of CO2.
The only possibility is what Bart wrote: an increase of the carbon concentration in the upwelling seawater. But then the combination of temperature and concentration needs to provide a sevenfold increase in CO2 influx from the deep oceans since 1960 to mimic the increase of human emissions and the observed increase in the atmosphere, for which there is no indication.
Explanation:
– There is a near threefold increase in yearly human emissions 1960-2010.
– There is a near 1.5 fold in rate of change/yr of CO2 in the atmosphere in the same period.
– As the sinks don’t make a differentiation between the origin of the CO2, any increase caused by natural releases must also increase a threefold to invoke the same increase in the atmosphere as the human emissions to dwarf their influence with increased sinks (in any case, human emissions give less than 3% of the yearly sinks).
– The estimated 150 GtC/yr overturning rate in the atmosphere thus must have been tripled to 450 GtC between 1960 and 2010.
– As vegetation is a net sink without much change in overturning rate (as can be seen in the d13C changes over the seasons), that is not the cause of the change over the years.
– The ocean surface has a limited uptake/release capacity, thus also not the cause of the change in throughput.
– Rests the deep ocean overturning which need to increase from an estimated 40 GtC/year in 1960 to 290 GtC/year in 2010 to explain the increase in the amosphere with minimal human influence…
My impression is that you, Bart and Salby look to much at the short term variability and translate that to the longer term trend, which are different, near independent processes, no matter if that is caused by deep ocean upwelling or human emissions.