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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gareth Phillips says:
November 10, 2013 at 3:59 am
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.
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.
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.
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…
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 ?
M Courtney, November 10, 2013 at 9:05 am, says:
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.
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.
I have to say, this post is helping confirm a troubling view I have. A couple users pointed out a problem:
Patrick:
Gareth:
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:
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.
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.
Ps. That should be NOT use the site to promote extremist political views.
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.
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…
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> “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.
” 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.
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.
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]
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:
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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.