Guest essay by James McCown
Oxford economists Felix Pretis and David Hendry (henceforth Pretis), published a critical paper, with a very patronizing and sanctimonious tone, in 2013 in Earth System Dynamics to comment on earlier research by Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor (2012), (henceforth Beenstock) in the same journal. Amazingly, they didn’t bother to note that their criticisms, if accurate, also invalidate the results of previous researchers who support the AGW theory.
Beenstock’s research concerns the issue of whether or not there is a statistical relation between the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases (GHG), and atmospheric temperatures, using advanced statistical methods that were developed by economists. There have been a number of researchers who have previously used this methodology to discern a relation between the GHGs and temperature, including both climatologists and economists. The latter include James Stock at Harvard, one of the foremost experts at time series econometrics.
Beenstock’s paper was in response to earlier papers by pro-AGW researchers Stern and Kaufman (2000), Kaufman and Stern (2002), Kaufman, Kauppi and Stock (2006), and Liu and Rodriguez (2005), and several others, who claimed to have found an equilibrium relation between radiative forcing from GHGs and atmospheric temperatures. The main contribution of Beenstock was to show that there cannot be an equilibrium relation between temperatures that are integrated of order one, I(1), and GHGs integrated of order 2, I(2), unless they are polynomially cointegrated. And Beenstock show they are not polynomially cointegrated.
Beenstock’s conclusion (from their abstract) is:
…greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated, and the perceived relationship between these variables is a spurious regression phenomenon.
Pretis criticize Beenstock’s use of spliced data for atmospheric CO2 and N2O, and criticize them for not stating that this data comes from a variety of different sources. However, they do not criticize the previously mentioned pro-AGW researchers who used the exact same data.
Pretis criticize Beenstock for finding the time series properties of the radiative forcing of the three human-emitted GHGs to be integrated of order 2, I(2), even though the pro-AGW researchers came to the same conclusion. And they don’t bother to mention that the pro-AGW researchers also found the GHGs to be I(2).
Pretis’ comment shows dismayingly flawed logic. To give an analogy to what they have done: Suppose that Kaufman claimed to have built a house, from the foundation to the roof. Beenstock claim that Kaufman could not have done so, by proving that they never shingled the roof. Pretis reply that Beenstock are in error, because Pretis prove that the foundation was never laid. Therefore Beenstock must be wrong and Kaufman is right! The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds.
Pretis point out there is a structural break in the annual data for CO2 at 1957 (Hardly surprising since that is the point at which the data were spliced from the different sources), then they run Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) unit root tests (Said and Dickey, 1984) on the first differences of the data for the two subperiods from 1850 – 1957 and 1958 – 2011 (See Table 1 of Pretis), and conclude that the CO2 radiative forcing series cannot be I(2). However, Pretis omitted tests of the levels of the series, which would enable the researcher to determine whether the GHGs are I(1), which could potentially be cointegrated with the I(1) temperature series, as the warmist researchers have claimed.
I tested the CO2 radiative forcing for the two subperiods in levels, first differences, and second differences. I used the ADF test, and also the test by Kwiatkowski, Phillips, Schmidt, and Shin (1992) (KPSS). For the latter 1958 – 2011 period, I conclude the series is I(1), as did Pretis. However, for the earlier 1850 – 1957 period, which uses CO2 data from ice core measurements by Etheridge et al (1996), I got the following results:
| ADF with Trend & Constant | ADF D-lag | KPSS with Trend & Constant | |
| Levels | -3.496* | 2 | 0.126 |
| 1st Difference | -3.807* | 0 | 0.078 |
| 2nd Difference | -13.288** | 0 | 0.039 |
* Rejects null hypothesis of a unit root at 95% confidence
** Rejects null hypothesis of a unit root at 99% confidence
The ADF D-lag is the number of lags included in the ADF test, selected using the Schwarz criterion.
The KPSS test has the null hypothesis of stationarity with a trend and constant, versus the alternate hypothesis of a unit root. The results fail to reject the null hypothesis of stationarity at 95% confidence or higher.
The results of both tests indicate that time series of the levels of CO2 radiative forcing from 1850 to 1957 is well-modeled by a trend stationary process with no unit root. That is, I(0). An ordinary least squares regression of the series on the year gives the following relation:
RFCO2 = -9.935203+0.005346 x YEAR
where RFCO2 is the radiative forcing from the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, converted to radiative forcing using the method of Myhre et al (1998). This regression has an adjusted R-square of 0.988 and the slope coefficient has a t-statistic of 41.34.
The CO2 radiative forcing series is very close to a straight line. Since it does not have a unit root, it cannot be cointegrated with the nonstationary temperature data for the period from 1850 to 1957. See the following graph of the series:
Kaufman and Stern (2002) give their economic justification for the nonstationary time series of global average temperatures:
…changes in radiative forcing might introduce a stochastic trend in temperature if the radiative forcing variables have a stochastic trend. This is likely because the concentrations of trace gases and sulfate aerosols are driven by anthropogenic emissions, which are determined by the stochastic trends that characterize many macroeconomic time series.
But as can be seen in the graph above, and the tests of stationarity of CO2 I have conducted for the 1850 – 1957 period, the GHG that is widely viewed by the warmists as the primary culprit has a trend-stationary process. This leads me to believe that if the CO2 concentration is accurately measured by Etheridge et al (1996), then it is more likely the result of a natural process than from industrial sources.
The editors of Earth System Dynamics did not allow Beenstock to publish a response to Pretis’s comment. Beenstock made an informal response here: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C118/2013/esdd-4-C118-2013-supplement.pdf.
The last two sentences of Beenstock’s response are telling:
The main difference between this [warmist] literature and our paper is that we do not think that greenhouse gas emissions have a long term effect on Earth’s climate. Perhaps this is why HP waited until 2013 to voice their criticisms rather than 1997 when this literature was pioneered by Stern and Kaufmann.
Pretis have opened up a can of worms through their comment, and have likely done more damage to the warmist cause than help.
Furthermore, as an economist who has done research on pre-World War II data, I am struck by something I don’t see in the above chart. If the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by burning fossil fuels, which has increased significantly during the industrial era, then why don’t we see any decrease, or at least a deceleration, during the great depression of 1929 to 1933?
The great depression had severe effects on two of the largest industrial economies: the USA and Germany. Industrial production in the USA, from 1929 to 1932, dropped by 46%. Coal production in the USA dropped from 608 million short English tons in 1929 to 359 million in 1932. In Germany, industrial production dropped by 42% from 1929 to 1932. German coal production dropped from 163 million metric tons in 1929 to 104 million in 1932.
And yet, according to Etheridge et al (1996), the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased from 307.2 ppm in 1929 to 308.9 ppm in 1933. And the concentration kept increasing every year after that until 1942. There was no deceleration in the increases. Either the theory that burning fossil fuels adds to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is flawed, or perhaps Etheridge’s estimates of the concentration of this GHG are inaccurate. I don’t know which is the case.
References
Beenstock, M., Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor (2012). Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming. Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 173–188.
Etheridge, D. M., Steele, L. P., Langenfelds, L. P., and Francey, R. J.: 1996, ‘Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmosphericCO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn’, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 4115–4128.
Liu, H. and G. Rodriguez (2006), Human activities and global warming: a cointegration analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software 20: 761 – 773.
Kaufmann, A., Kauppi, H., and Stock, J. H.: Emissions, concentrations and temperature: a time series analysis, Climatic Change, 77, 248–278, 2006.
Kaufmann, R. K. and Stern, D. I.: 2002, ‘Cointegration analysis of hemispheric temperature relations’, J. Geophys. Res. 107, D210.1029, 2000JD000174.
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., and Shin, Y.: Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root, J. Economet., 54, 159–178, 1992.
Myhre, G., Highwood, E. J., Shine, K. P., and Stordal, F.: New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2715–2718, 1998.
Pretis, F. and D. F. Hendry (2013). Comment on “Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming” by Beenstock et al. (2012) – some hazards in econometric modelling of climate change. Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 375–384.
Said, S. and Dickey, D.: Testing for unit roots in autoregressive moving average model with unknown order, Biometrika, 71, 599–607, 1984.
Stern, D. I., and R. K. Kaufmann, Detecting a global warming signal in hemispheric temperature series: A structural time series analysis, Clim. Change, 47, 411 –438, 2000.
================================================================
James McCown an economist with Toltec Group, an economic consulting practice in Oklahoma and has a PhD in economics from Ohio State. You can see some of his research here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=154208.
Willis,
Murry Salby has the entire weight and strength of AGW working to stop the publishing of his paper.
I strongly suspect that you will find his presentation compelling and extraordinary.
The link starts with an introduction in German. The presentation is in English.
This is a great piece, glad you are uncovering this kind of “selective enforcement” as I think it is one of the larger problems in climate science. (And now work, really this time.)
@ur momisugly willis… I still have to disagree in part. Beck lays out what you siad directly on his site, while continuing to make the case these older records discredit the modern stance on bridging pre 57 data to modern data. I got the impression guy callendar (and keeling) was key in this based on becks site, which he covers in detail. I mean its pretty obvious he makes this case when hes got a section like this… “the falsified history of co2” http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/berlin30507/berlin1e.htm
or this published paper…(I believe its published anyway) http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
“1. Introduction
A recent review of historical literature of gas analysis of air near ground has provided a different view of the evolution of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In contrast to the published literature, the review indicates that atmospheric CO2 (chemically measured since 1812) has not monotonically risen since preindustrial times but has fluctuated. The fluctuations show maxima in the order of 350 to 400 ppm that peak around 1825, 1857 and 1942 [Beck 2007]. Discussion of this variability raised the question of causes of such decadal carbon dioxide enrichment. This study gives a closer look at the data, the locations and the methods, and it considers possible causes for the observed atmospheric CO 2 variation in the northern hemisphere especially for the period 1920 to 1950. “
oh and if anyone cares, beck links the actual raw data right on the site, I linked several times.
To Doug Proctor… ratio of isotopes … that’s how you can tell which co2 came from where and how much.
@Randy & @Willis;
Stomata records also contradict the ice core records of CO2 levels pretty drastically, and seem to be more in line with Beck’s collections of historically measured data, iirc. I haven’t looked at these links in awhile, but had them noted:
CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata
The CO2 Record in Plant Fossils
And then there are the ice core CO2 issues written about by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, which I always found intriguing and worth consideration:
Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 2004
I’ve also read recently that the raw ice core data supposedly includes notably higher CO2 measurements than generally shown, but those are thrown out as outliers – I have no idea how correct, or wrong, that claim is (but would be interested if anyone knows for sure, or has links to such info handy).
Ron Voisin says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Thanks, Ron, but I’ll wait for the book … truly, is the video the only thing of his that you recommend? Has he no paper, no précis of his ideas?
Thanks for any recommendations,
w.
Dear Mr. McCown,
Thank you for the intriguing article, although I admit much of it is greek to me and I need to bone up a bit to understand it better. It’s certainly spawned a great set of interesting debate in the comment section that I’ve enjoyed reading also (thanks to everyone who commented). I was particularly stricken, however, with your comment “why don’t we see any decrease, or at least a deceleration, during the great depression of 1929 to 1933?” because I don’t think I recall ever seeing that mentioned before either. I can’t help but also wonder why there is no notable increasing during WWII years of 1939-45 when industrial production was massively increased for the war effort, along with a tremendous amount of transportation and fuel burning in the conduct of the war itself…
I admit that I have tended to ignore pre-1945 or ’50 CO2 data for the most part (with the exception of the question of just how accurate the oft quoted 280 ppm really is or isn’t), because man’s emissions really didn’t take off until around 1950 or so. But your point is really intriguing, and adds a notable question to the issue of the origin of the recent increases in CO2 levels – just how much is from our emissions versus natural sources?
I have wondered for years now if much of the CO2 increase we’ve seen isn’t from the Medieval Warm Period – after all, considering the average lag seen in the historical record is something on the order of 1200 +/- 400 years, we would be right on schedule for that. Of course, many would automatically launch into the isotopic ratio issue which supposedly “proves” that much of the increase is from fossil fuel burning – and yet I’ve seen some papers which throw even that into serious question. Then we’d also have to wonder how the lag period would work for the MWP, when we had the intervening LIA, and yet I would bet that other historic lag periods also had at least a few intervening cold periods…
So thanks again for the interesting article!
Rational Db8 says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:44 pm
Thanks, Rational. Unfortunately, these stomata are in what is perhaps the worst place for CO2 measurements, right in the middle of the greenery. Remember that trees and plants breathe in CO2 during the day, and they exhale it at night. As a result, measurements of CO2 taken from within the foliage of a plant can have a very high value. In any case, whatever it is that stomata are measuring, clearly it’s not the CO2 background measurements.
And because of this, it is not surprising that they tend to agree more with Beck …
I graphed Beck’s results, hang on …
I’m sure that you can see the problem with Beck’s list of measurements … they are measurements of the local CO2 levels, which vary all over the world, rather than measurements of the background levels. Not only that, but look at the brown colored data … it varies widely over only a few years. Clearly that has nothing to do with the background CO2 levels, and because of their large variations they are of little use in estimating what those background CO2 levels might be.
w.
re post by: rishrac says: June 25, 2014 at 9:41 pm
Are you sure of that? Is it really that well established?
Doubting Oxygen [and Carbon] Isotopes (this is the one link I have handy on possible problems with the isotopic ‘conclusion.’)
@Willis
They’re not measuring CO2 in the plant leaf. The number of stomata vary based on average ambient CO2 levels – they are counting the stomata in the leaves, which can be done quite accurately even in fossilized leaves. This can be calibrated well against modern living foliage, unlike ice core data (we haven’t GOT any background levels from the time periods were the ice is not only already firned, but has been there for x years with more and more compression from above, etc.).
I suggest you take a read of the links I provided and associated references/citations – you might be surprised.
@Willis
Another thing you have to recall when looking at grab samples (e.g., direct chem. measurements of CO2 such as Beck collected) and the stomata data is that both are very high resolution (the direct measurements even more so than the plant stomata which are modified more slowly) versus the ice core data which is very very low resolution.
Willis,
I strongly suspect that you will find his presentation compelling and extraordinary. Very possibly the single most important piece of climate science ever.
Willis Eschenbach says: June 25, 2014 at 12:03 am
The problem is not the accuracy, it’s the contamination of the record from local sources. Look, as I said above, Ernst-Georg Beck amassed many of the measurements you are referring to, and he himself said they were not a measure of background CO2 because of local contamination. Is there some part of that you didn’t get? I’m not making this up, and it’s not “BS” in any sense. It’s the claim of the man who amassed the data. Here it is:
Ernst Beck says:
June 5, 2010 at 2:44 am
Dear Willis,
I agree, the near ground [CO2] data listed in my first paper do not reflect background data. …
So if you have a complaint about Beck’s CO2 data being “ignored”, you should go tell him that he’s wrong.
DD asks – Why didn’t you include the rest of his comment?
I agree, the near ground data listed in my first paper do not reflect background data. Meanwhile I have found additional data which reflect CO2 background at that times. ( e.g. 1890 measured on islands at Baltic Sea or 1935 measured as a vertical profile over Helsinki)
Near ground concentrations are connected to the CO2 background (or MBL) over the vertical profiles. (please see our latest paper on http://www.realCO2.de: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2_versus_windspeed-review-1-FM.pdf). We can calculate annual background averages from near ground data.
You will find a graph of historical CO2 background based on that methods and updated historical station list on http://www.realCO2.de (http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/stations.htm.)
I have also prepared a new paper on the reconstruction of the CO2 background which is in peer review.
best regards
Ernst Beck
His was not wrong, he just had his data and comments cut for some reason. What was yours?
Willis Eschenbach says: June 25, 2014 at 12:15 am
Guy Callendar seems to have been the guy who set the modern stance on these earlier measurements.
CIte? Thanks.
From – http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
180 Years accurate CO2 – Gasanalysis of Air by Chemical Methods (Short version)
Under the summary section at end.
In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180 year gave the following results:
1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2- concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338 ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known
several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in
the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420
pmm in 1942.
4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical
methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.
5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without having dealt with its chemical basis.
6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air icecores from Antarctica had been
used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the
several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere.
Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby’s work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
@Willis
From your graph, it looks like the Law dome ice core measurements of CO2 match up well with the Mauna Loa measurements. But I hope we don’t have another “hide-the-decline” episode and it turns out that the CO2 measurements from Law dome actually declined back below 300 ppm after the year 2000. LOL.
Willis,
Don’t know if you’re still there? Curious if you took in Murry Salby’s presentation. Salby, I think, provides a rigorous, quantified explanation. It runs counter to intuition. For an intuitive explanation, see: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygv83mwpytn4p65/AN%20ENGINEER%E2%80%99S%20TAKE%20ON%20MAJOR%20CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20F.53.pdf
You may likely take issue with the Major Climate Change hypothesis. However, may I point you to the treatment of CO2.
Ron, ronaldvoisin@gmail.com
Ron Voisin says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:06 am
Thanks, David, I persevere on all my threads, I’m still here.
As I said above, I don’t bother watching videos about science, they are far too engrossing and far too uncited. However, I did take a look at the document you just provided. It makes what I think is Murry Salby’s claim, that the CO2 rise is from temperature changes. For example, your citation says:
As someone who has run the numbers and looked at all the evidence, I find that a totally untenable claim. There are a couple of lines of evidence you might consider.
The first is that IF the ~ 100 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last century or so is almost entirely due to the ~ 1°C of warming that has also occurred, that gives us a rise of 100 ppmv / °C. The problem, of course, is that the globe swings a couple of degrees warmer and cooler each and every year … so why is there no corresponding 200 ppmv swing in the CO2??
The second is that from the ice age until now the global temperatures have warmed on the order of 5°C … but there is no sign of a corresponding 500 ppmv change in CO2.
There’re other lines evidence as well, all of which lead to the same conclusion, but that will do for now.
Best regards,
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
I do not know if the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a natural cause, or an anthropogenic cause, or a combination of anthropogenic and natural causes, but I want to know.
At June 28, 2014 at 9:25 am you say
I refer you to my above posts at June 24, 2014 at 10:26 am and June 25, 2014 at 1:45 am which are here and here.
The first of those posts includes these statements
If the carbon cycle system has been disturbed by the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age (LIA) then the answer to your question is
(a) “IF the ~ 100 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last century or so is almost entirely due to the ~ 1°C of warming that has also occurred” then it is happening as a result of the processes with long rate constants (years and decades)
and
(b) the ‘seasonal variation’ of CO2 within each year happens as a result of the processes with short rate constants (hours, days, weeks and months).
And you say
True, but that assumes the system is the same now as in the ice age. And that assumption cannot be true because the biosphere is very different. The transition from the ice age altered the carbon cycle such as to create a different carbon cycle system. It cannot be known if equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) was the same for the ice age carbon cycle system as it is for the present carbon cycle system.
As an addition, I point out that our 2005 paper referenced in my first post above said everything that Salby later said except that Salby also assessed effect of soil moisture.
I really wish there were a definitive method to determine the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Salby says it is certainly natural and Engelbeen says it is certainly anthropogenic. There is not sufficient data for either to provide an overwhelmingly convincing case.
Richard
One part of the explanation for CO2 levels in 1929-1932 would be the huge increase in Soviet coal use in this time period. It included both an intensification in the western USSR and a vast expansion of industrial capacity in the eastern parts of the country. I don’t know that it would have been enough to offset the depression declines in much of the rest of the world. And I don’t thnk that any statistical data from the USSR would be credible. I would also expect that the huge Japanese Empire (including Korea and Manchuria) might have created a partial offset.
Willis,
The first is that IF the ~ 100 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last century or so is almost entirely due to the ~ 1°C of warming that has also occurred, that gives us a rise of 100 ppmv / °C. The problem, of course, is that the globe swings a couple of degrees warmer and cooler each and every year … so why is there no corresponding 200 ppmv swing in the CO2??
This line of thinking presumes no increase of vegetative sequestering in response to elevated CO2.
I’m going to guess that you skimmed my reference, jumping to the summary. Might I ask that you read it all and comment on it all?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygv83mwpytn4p65/AN%20ENGINEER%E2%80%99S%20TAKE%20ON%20MAJOR%20CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20F.53.pdf
RonaldVoisin@gmail.com
Ron Voisin says:
June 30, 2014 at 5:39 am
Thank for your response, Ron. You seem to misunderstand the burden of proof here.
I’ve raised an objection to your claim that CO2 is rising because of temperature, and provided the calculations and details. My objection is that IF temperature changes are driving the rise in CO2, we would see huge swings in CO2, ≈ 200 ppmv, as the globe as a whole changes temperature by a couple of degrees during every year. (In fact this is a large UNDERestimation, because the Northern Hemisphere swings about 13° per year, but let’s set that aside).
You say, without the slightest sign of calculations or details, that my objection is met by a purported large increase in vegetative sequestering … sorry, but waving your hands and saying “vegetative sequestering” does not explain away a 200 ppmv annual swing that (if your theory is right) we should be seeing every year.
The estimates of the increase in vegetative sequestering since pre-industrial times are on the order of 5-10%. This is far, far from being large enough to wipe out a 200 ppmv annual swing that would result from your claimed relationship.
Now, either you can explain that or you can’t. However, as near as I can tell it doesn’t depend on whether I read your reference. Here’s the problem. I took two shots at reading it, and gave up both times. The problem is that the author keeps just throwing out bogus statements, with no citations or support, as though they were true. Here’s an example:
Now, this is total nonsense. The atmosphere is not “saturated”. The strength of the greenhouse effect depends on the number of times an average photon is absorbed on its way out to space. If we add more CO2, the photon is absorbed more often. It’s not like say muddy water, where beyond a certain point zero light gets through it. There is no re-emission of light when it’s absorbed by muddy water, but there is in the atmosphere. Almost all of the thermal IR photons are absorbed in the first kilometre of atmosphere, but despite that, photons eventually make it through the atmosphere. There are literally dozens of places on the web that explain this in great detail, along with discussions of such things as pressure broadening.
Your author, however, not only doesn’t realize that there is a rich literature on the subject … he just claims he’s right and keeps on going.
So I’m sorry to say, Ron, that your citation is … well … let me call it far from being grounded in reality. He goes off the rails in the very first paragraph:
Say what? I don’t know anyone who is claiming that CO2 plus water vapor will lead to run-away global warming, that’s tin-foil hat thinking. He goes on to say:
From there, he goes on to make the oft-falsified claim that the rise in CO2 is a result of the change in temperature … but as I point out above, if the ~ 100 ppmv rise in CO2 is the result of the ~ 1°C rise in temperature, and we know the earth’s temperature swings by ~ 2°C every year … then where is the resulting 200 ppmv swing in CO2? Or for that matter, where is the 500 ppmv increase in CO2 due to the ≈ 5°C warming as we came out of the last ice age?
Waving your hands and saying “vegetative sequestering” and “read my reference” doesn’t explain anything. It’s up to you to show, not claim but show, that somehow every year the vegetables magically swallow the 200 ppmv annual temperature-driven increase in CO2 required by your theory, and then return it to the atmosphere again, in such a controlled manner that the CO2 levels only swing a few ppmv. And it’s up to you to show, not claim but show, that the vegetables ate the 500 ppmv increase in CO2 required by your theory at the end of the ice age.
Thanks for continuing the conversation,
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
Your post at June 30, 2014 at 9:23 am ignores all my posts including my post addressed to you at June 28, 2014 at 10:08 am.
If the carbon cycle system is slowly adjusting to an altered equilibrium then your assertion concerning “a 200 ppmv annual swing” is mistaken.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 30, 2014 at 9:33 am
Thanks, Richard. I wasn’t responding to you, I was responding to Ron. Let me move on from that to address your points. You say:
Sure, that’s possible. It’s also possible that I’ll win the lottery. IF you think that carbon cycle disturbance and change is more than a possibility, it’s YOUR responsibility to provide evidence. I admit it’s possible. The rest is up to you.
Sorry, not following that. Seasonal variation is from the plant growth cycle. Unless you think that cycle is infinitely expandable, the plants can only take in what they are taking in …
Look, Richard, if the claim that the recent CO2 rise is temperature driven were true, the sensitivity of CO2 to temperature changes is on the order of ~100 ppmv per degree C.
But the globe changes by a couple of degrees C each year, and we don’t see a 200 ppmv variation. What’s more, the globe has warmed on the order of 5°C since the ice age, but there’s no sign of a 500 ppmv change in CO2.
Now, you’re free to wave your hands and say “it’s all explained by changes in the carbon cycle” … but that is about as convincing as waving your hands and saying “it’s all explained by change in the biosphere”, or “it’s all explained by increases and decreases in plankton”. Sure, any of those are possible … but until you explain in detail how they wipe out the 200 ppmv variations expected from the “temperature roolz CO2” theory, it’s just handwaving.
Until you come up with the evidence for your claims, I fear they will meet the same fate as your comments you point to above that I didn’t respond to. I didn’t respond to them because at this point, that’s just picking a theory out of the air, there’s nothing there for me to respond to other than “carbon cycle disturbance mumble mumble”. You know me, my friend … I like facts and evidence.
All the best, thanks for the comment,
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
Willis:
Thankyou for your reply to me at June 30, 2014 at 10:47 am. You say
Been there. Done that. The refusal to acknowledge it is yours.
I refer you to my above post at June 24, 2014 at 10:26 am which is here.
I report there
Simply, the Mauna Loa data agrees with the possibility I mention and does NOT agree with the assumption that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is overloading the system: in some years almost all the anthropogenic CO2 is sequestered and in other years almost none.
The possibility of altered equilibrium fits all the observations without need for any adjustments. Parsimony suggests it is the most probable explanation.
That is NOT “hand-waving”. It is application of the scientific method.
And our paper which I cited
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
does discuss how the carbon cycle system adjusts.
Importantly, and contrary to your implication, much of the biosphere is in the oceans, most of the CO2 involved in the carbon cycle is in the deep ocean, and the ability of exchange with deep ocean is not known.
A summary of our considerations of the biosphere follows.
Richard