Water Vapour: The Big Wet Elephant In The Room

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

clip_image002

In my last two articles I examined what we know, but more importantly what we don’t know, about the three main greenhouse gases (GHG). The first examined methane (CH4) and the second CO2. The fluster of responses about data and accuracy of measurements is essentially irrelevant because combined CH4 and CO2 represent only four percent of the GHG. It didn’t matter whether Beck was right or wrong about actual CO2 measures, what was important was the degree of variability the data showed, such as with the stomata data. This variability was deliberately eliminated in other measures to achieve a smooth, with no splinters, ‘hockey stick’ because it contradicted the well-mixed scenario essential to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) agenda.

The articles about CH4 and CO2 illustrate the modus operandi of the creators and proponents of the AGW hypothesis. They designed them to prove the hypothesis rather than disproving, as is the proper scientific method. This includes selecting and adjusting the start and end points of records, ignoring those that don’t fit or worse contradict the hypothesis. There is inadequate temperature data for construction of the computer models, and there is even fewer data for every other variable. Data is created mathematically, such as the use of parameterization for temperatures. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explain parameterization as follows,

“…the technique of representing processes that cannot be explicitly resolved at the spatial or temporal resolution of the model (sub-grid scale processes) by relationships between model-resolved larger-scale variables and the area- or time- averaged effect of such subgrid scale processes.”

Figure 1 shows the current percentages of greenhouse gases as a part of total atmospheric gases. The challenge for the IPCC and its promoters was to create a different set of percentages and images for the public. This required amplifying one side, as I explained about CO2 and CH4 while downplaying the other side.

clip_image004

Figure 1 (After Heartland.org)

The first and most important device was the definition of climate change Article 1 of the UNFCCC, a treaty formalized at the “Earth Summit” in Rio in 1992, defined Climate Change as:

a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

This allowed them to limit the variables considered in their investigation, which is depicted by the forcing diagrams. Figure 2 shows those for the 2001 IPCC Report.

clip_image006

Figure 2

LOSU stands for Level of Scientific Understanding. Notice only two are rated “High” but we know that is not accurate. Stratospheric water vapour is included, but tropospheric water is not. This is interesting because the 2007 Report says,

Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.

It appears they knew little and did not have the data or the ability to resolve what was going on. The level of knowledge is the same in the 2013 AR5 Report (Figure 3). The changes are telling. Now “Long-lived greenhouse gasses” are “Well-mixed greenhouse gasses.” This is because they switched the narrative. The early story said that CO2 residency time was 100 years, but that was challenged and corrected. The new, false, narrative was that CO2 was well mixed. The “Very High” assessment doesn’t fit the increasing divergence between the CO2 level and the temperature.

clip_image008

Figure 3

The confidence level for well-mixed greenhouse gasses is now “Very high”. This is simply not possible because, as the satellite data from OCO2 shows, CO2 is clearly not a well-mixed gas. The problem is similar to the objective of the IPCC to determine human causes of climate change. It is only possible if you know how much climate changes without the human effect. You can only determine the CO2 effect if you know the effect of the predominant greenhouse gas – water vapor.

The IPCC acknowledges that water vapor is the most important and abundant greenhouse gas. In the 2007 Report they wrote

“Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

They then explain why they are going to ignore it.

However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”

The 2013 IPCC Report FAQ 8.1 responds to criticism about not including water vapour as a greenhouse. Here is the entire FAQ, which is illuminating and begs many questions. (There is no significance to the fact it is on page 666.)


 

As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change. Anthropogenic emissions of water vapour through irrigation or power plant cooling have a negligible impact on the global climate.

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater. Additional water vapour is injected into the atmosphere from anthropogenic activities, mostly through increased evaporation from irrigated crops, but also through power plant cooling, and marginally through the combustion of fossil fuel. One may therefore question why there is so much focus on CO2, and not on water vapour, as a forcing to climate change.

 

Water vapour behaves differently from CO2 in one fundamental way: it can condense and precipitate. When air with high humidity cools, some of the vapour condenses into water droplets or ice particles and precipitates. The typical residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is ten days. The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing.

 

Anthropogenic emissions do have a significant impact on water vapour in the stratosphere, which is the part of the atmosphere above about 10 km. Increased concentrations of methane (CH4) due to human activities lead to an additional source of water, through oxidation, which partly explains the observed changes in that atmospheric layer. That stratospheric water change has a radiative impact, is considered a forcing, and can be evaluated. Stratospheric concentrations of water have varied significantly in past decades. The full extent of these variations is not well understood and is probably less a forcing than a feedback process added to natural variability. The contribution of stratospheric water vapour to warming, both forcing and feedback, is much smaller than from CH4 or CO2.

 

The maximum amount of water vapour in the air is controlled by temperature. A typical column of air extending from the surface to the stratosphere in polar regions may contain only a few kilograms of water vapour per square metre, while a similar column of air in the tropics may contain up to 70 kg. With every extra degree of air temperature, the atmosphere can retain around 7% more water vapour (see upper-left insert in the FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). This increase in concentration amplifies the green- house effect, and therefore leads to more warming. This process, referred to as the water vapour feed- back, is well understood and quantified. It occurs in all models used to estimate climate change, where its strength is consistent with observations. Although an increase in atmospheric water vapour has been observed, this change is recognized as a climate feed- back (from increased atmospheric temperature) and should not be interpreted as a radiative forcing from anthropogenic emissions. Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.

clip_image010

FAQ 8.1, Figure 1 | Illustration of the water cycle and its interaction with the greenhouse effect. The upper-left insert indicates the relative increase of potential water vapour content in the air with an increase of temperature (roughly 7% per degree). The white curls illustrate evaporation, which is compensated by precipitation to close the water budget. The red arrows illustrate the outgoing infrared radiation that is partly absorbed by water vapour and other gases, a process that is one component of the greenhouse effect. The stratospheric processes are not included in this figure.


This section is so full of misstatements and false assumptions that it requires an entire column in itself, but that is not the purpose of this column. Suffice to say that this appears to be another way of presenting the already disproven positive feedback. It is also an example of, in the vernacular, having your cake and eating it too. Their argument misses the point entirely. They don’t know how much contribution human water vapour (H2O) makes because they don’t have critical information. They don’t know how much H2O humans produce, how much H2O there is in the atmosphere, or the amount H2O varies naturally. When assessing how much the energy balance is affected by greenhouse gases, the source is only an issue if you want to point an accusatory political finger. For science, the total amount of each gas and how it varies is critical. As NASA notes,

Water vapor is a critical variable for climate studies. The absorption of infrared (IR) radiation by atmospheric water vapor and its subsequent emission at lower temperatures greatly influences the radiative energy balance of the planet.

So, the questions are how much H2O is in the atmosphere and how much does it vary?

In 1996, the challenges for measuring water vapour were explained as follows.

It is very hard to quantify water vapor in the atmosphere.  Its concentration changes continually with time, location and altitude.  To measure it at the same location every day, you would need a hygrometer, which in earlier days made use of the moisture-sensitivity of a hair, and by now of for instance condensators.  A vertical profile is obtained with a weather balloon.  To get a global overview, only satellite measurements are suitable.  From a satellite, the absorption of the reflecting sunlight due to water vapor molecules is measured.  The results are pictures of global water vapor distributions and their changes.  The measurement error, however, is still about 30 to 40%.

By 2002, according to NASA, it was no better.

Finally, water vapor plays a key role in the Earth’s hydrologic cycle. Therefore, a better understanding of its role will require long-term observations of both small and large scale water vapor features, a major goal of the National Aeronautics and Space and Administration’s (NASA’s) Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) program.

But the IPCC is only interested stratospheric water vapour from CH4 as Figure 3 shows. Even here they don’t know much,

Since trend estimates from the cited literature are used here, issues such as data records of different length, potential lack of comparability among measurement methods and different trend calculation methods, add to the uncertainty in assessing trends.

If they were interested in tropospheric water vapour, they could use the total column water vapour measures from RSS.

We have merged the water vapor measurements from the many radiometers in operation since 1987, including SSM/I, SSMIS, AMSR-E and WindSat.  These data were all processed in a consistent manner using our radiative transfer model and careful instrument intercalibration.  The water vapor from these instruments are used to create a Total Precipitable Water (atmospheric water vapor) product that is best for use in climate study.

This means we have a 28-year record according to RSS and 19 years according to the IPCC. These are the people who demand a 30-year record for statistical significance.

The IPCC employed their standard amplification technique, known as the Global Warming Potential (GWP) to increase the effect of CO2 and CH4 while reducing the role of H2O. What is GWP?

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is defined as the time-integrated RF due to a pulse emission of a given component, relative to a pulse emission of an equal mass of CO2 (Figure 8.28a and formula). The GWP was presented in the First IPCC Assessment (Houghton et al., 1990), stating ‘It must be stressed that there is no universally accepted methodology for combining all the relevant factors into a single global warming potential for greenhouse gas emissions.

A search for GWP values produces a bewildering range of numbers. This prompted Gavin Schmidt, now Director of NASA GISS, to write,

The relative contributions of atmospheric long‐wave absorbers to the present‐day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change.

How does Schmidt clarify the problem? In typical circular argument using self-generated computer model data.

Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present-day and under doubled CO2. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapour is the dominant contributor (~50% of the effect), followed by clouds (~25%) and then CO2 with ~20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles.

The IPCC is less sure about what is going on. Here is what they wrote in Chapter 8 of AR5 Consider the number of values and subjectively related decisions in this supposedly scientific process (my bold).

Emission metrics such as Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) can be used to quantify and communicate the relative and absolute contributions to climate change of emissions of different substances, and of emissions from regions/countries or sources/sectors. The metric that has been used in policies is the GWP, which integrates the RF of a substance over a chosen time horizon, relative to that of CO2. The GTP is the ratio of change in global mean surface temperature at a chosen point in time from the uncertainties related to both GWP and GTP, and the relative uncertainties are larger for GTP. There are also limitations and inconsistencies related to their treatment of indirect effects and feedbacks. The values are very dependent on metric type and time horizon. The choice of metric and time horizon depends on the particular application and which aspects of climate change are considered relevant in a given context. Metrics do not define policies or goals but facilitate evaluation and implementation of multi-component policies to meet particular goals. All choices of metric contain implicit value-related judgements such as type of effect considered and weighting of effects over time.

Water vapour is the giant wet elephant in the IPCC laboratory. The definition of climate change they received allowed them to ignore anything that didn’t fit their hypothesis. As a result, the IPCC focus is on eliminating, ignoring, and creating false narratives to enhance the role of CO2. This has the effect of pushing the elephant of water vapour under water so that like an iceberg the public only see about 10 percent of the mass.

clip_image012

0 0 vote
Article Rating
427 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
October 24, 2015 6:07 pm

“Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three….”
..CO2 was supposed to increase temps a little…..which would increase humidity
It was run away global humidity that was supposed to do it..
…then someone realized that was the stupidest theory in the history of mankind
“water vapour is the dominant contributor (~50% of the effect), followed by clouds (~25%)”
….damn hard to measure the difference…got to catch it just right
Unless he’s thinking about clouds made of something else

simple-touriste
Reply to  Latitude
October 24, 2015 7:12 pm

I was already a skeptic of IPCC, esp. WG III (complete BS), WG II (ridiculous simplifications), and the whole science/politics thing. But I used to believe the AGW theory, although not definitely verified, was at least a reasonable theory based on sound science. (Anyway the controversy seemed too complex and too remote – I knew nothing about atmospheric physics and didn’t wanted to learn a lot about that.)
Then I heard they had this positive temp retroaction thing. O-M-G moment. They had a runaway device in their models. Not run-away when a limit is passed, run-away all the time… can you make a more self refuting theory?
I went to ask about that in a consensusly correct forum. I was told that my question was too intelligent for me. The question was more intelligent than my personae, a pseudonym on the Web. The question was so more intelligent than I appeared to be (I = the personae asking this very question and no other question). IOW the question was more intelligent than the person asking the question, so the question couldn’t asked by the person asking the question. I was told that I must have copied the question from elsewhere. I have been asked the definition of the words of the question.
This was from people pretending to be academics, which was probably true; there is a level of stupid only an academic can reach.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 24, 2015 8:02 pm

Your ending thought is very appropriate. There can even be a runaway effect associated with that where the academic gets dumber and dumber. See the runaway effect is real in certain cases.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 12:34 am

“there is a level of stupid only an academic can reach.”
+1000
Well said.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 1:52 am

simple-touriste,
A positive feedback doesn’t necessary include a runaway effect. As long as the overall warming CO2-temperature-CO2-temperature is less than unity, the only effect is that both CO2 and temperature increase somewhat more than without the mutual effect, here for a (small) effect for both, with and without feedback:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/feedback.jpg

Latitude
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 5:52 am

“A positive feedback doesn’t necessary include a runaway effect.”
Otherwise we would have run away global humidity every time it went from night to day, or winter to summer…
or a front passes through
…and that’s why their original theory was the stupidest one in the history of mankind
…and the same people are still at it

ferdberple
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 8:42 am

the feedback problem is equivalent to the sum of an infinite series. this can be convergent of divergent. for example,
1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 … 1/n is divergent
1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 … 1/(2^n) is convergent
in the feedback problem you have something like:
1/x + (1/x)^2 + (1/x)^3 … (1/x)^n
which offhand looks like it should converge for values of 0 <= 1/x 1.
however, if x is large, then the series quickly converges, and the feedback has little effect. It is only when x is close to 1 (or less than 1) that the feedback becomes a concern. for example:
1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 … – converges quickly – feedback contributes little
1/1.01 + (1/1.01)^2 … – converges slowly – feedback contributes a lot.
1/1 + (1/1)^2 … – diverges – infinite feedback.

ferdberple
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 8:44 am

0 <= 1/x 1.
==========
html problem
0 LE 1/x LT 1, therefore converges for x GT 1

Dahlquist
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 8:56 am

The more intelligent an academic narcissist assumes him or herself to be, places upon them an amount of ignorance in their assumption of their intellectual prowess, which sometimes restricts their ability to grant value to a question or questioner because it is beyond the academic persons ability to either understand or answer the specific question and, as a result, the question must be assumed to be a defect of the questioner in order to maintain the appearance of academic intelligence. This situation is seen more and more, and most recently in liberal academia, politics and in climate change proponents, AGWers, etc.
Make any sense? No sleep last night. But I do understand Simple-touristes point above.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 9:03 am

Positive feedback, once input is added, always runs away, you learn this in electronics, the only way to change this is for the feedback to become negative, ie it’s nonlinear. The physical earth would have evaporated all the water if it stayed positive. More nonsense from what are supposed to be climate experts.

Bart
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 11:43 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen @ October 25, 2015 at 1:52 am
“As long as the overall warming CO2-temperature-CO2-temperature is less than unity…”
It isn’t. The gain of
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)
goes to infinity at low frequency. Even if there were an ameliorating feedback that capped the gain, it would still be very large, as there is no such feedback observable in the past 57 years. As a result, the impact of CO2 on temperature must be very small.

Reply to  Bart
October 25, 2015 11:53 am

“As a result, the impact of CO2 on temperature must be very small.”
There is no net annual increase in all of the surface stations that recorded temps for a full year since 1940, falling nightly temps are slightly larger than the previous days warming, taking measurement uncertainty into account net is 0.0F + / – 0.1F.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 12:32 pm

Bart:
It isn’t. The gain of
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)
goes to infinity at low frequency.

That formula violates Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater: dCO2/dt depends of temperature in the water phase (= pCO2aq) AND the pCO2 difference with the atmosphere.
With increasing pCO2 in the atmosphere, the average pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere gets zero and thus dCO2/dt gets zero, even when still huge CO2 fluxes remain between oceans and atmosphere, but these cancel each other out…

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 12:42 pm

No, it doesn’t. It is precisely the kind of equation you would expect for a dynamic transport process in which there is a continual flow in and out, and any sustained imbalance between the flows causes a sustained change in CO2 content of the surface oceans, and hence of the atmosphere.
You have the dynamics exactly backwards. The increase in the atmosphere is because of the increase in the surface oceans. It therefore cannot be a limiting factor on itself.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 12:43 pm

Must go, again. Failure of further response is not indicative of acquiescence.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 12:53 pm

Bart:
any sustained imbalance between the flows causes a sustained change in CO2 content of the surface oceans, and hence of the atmosphere.
A little too much fantasy here: CO2 releases into / uptakes from the atmosphere are directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between ocean surface and atmosphere. If CO2 piles up in the oceans, it is released into the atmosphere, which increase restores the original in/out fluxes at a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere… It is impossible that there will be a sustained imbalance, except for a continuous increase in CO2 upwelling, which is not observed at all…

gbaikie
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 5:06 pm

— micro6500
October 25, 2015 at 9:03 am
Positive feedback, once input is added, always runs away, you learn this in electronics, the only way to change this is for the feedback to become negative, ie it’s nonlinear. The physical earth would have evaporated all the water if it stayed positive. More nonsense from what are supposed to be climate experts.–
Well, Hansen thinks this is what happened to Venus.
But such thinking is sort of like thinking one needs to explain where the Martians went to.
Or if you understand basic stuff like orbital mechanics, one could understand that Venus might not have ever had oceans like Earth- so Venus oceans didn’t disappear because they never existed in the first place. And there are other reasons why Venus may not have ever been a water planet like Earth. Such as Earth has plate tectonic activity and Venus doesn’t.

Reply to  gbaikie
October 25, 2015 5:19 pm

Hansen is a twit.
And don’t forget Venus get 25% (or 30%, don’t remember exact figure ) more solar energy input than Earth does.

gbaikie
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 6:35 pm

— micro6500
October 25, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Hansen is a twit.
And don’t forget Venus get 25% (or 30%, don’t remember exact figure ) more solar energy input than Earth does.–
Twit is nicer description than a bugger, but he was suppose to be scientist much beloved, and has written many scientific peer approved papers. And he had keen and early interest [and access, due to his position- in NASA management of a NASA bureau and later rising in management of Goddard {GSFC)}- of Venus space exploration.
Earth gets about 1360 watts per square meter above the atmosphere, and above Venus atmosphere it’s about 2700 watts per square meter. At earth surface one gets about 1150 watts of direct and indirect sunlight [with sun at zenith and clear skies]. Below Venus atmosphere at it’s surface one gets at most about 100 watts per meter of sunlight which is mostly indirect sunlight.

Reply to  gbaikie
October 25, 2015 7:38 pm

” h gets about 1360 watts per square meter above the atmosphere, and above Venus atmosphere it’s about 2700 watts per square meter. At earth surface one gets about 1150 watts of direct and indirect sunlight [with sun at zenith and clear skies]. Below Venus atmosphere at it’s surface one gets at most about 100 watts per meter of sunlight which is mostly indirect sunlight.”
If it’s not reflected directly to space, I don’t think it matters.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 26, 2015 6:27 am

Right on! simple-touriste.
The tendency with analysts (academics?) is that they know more and more about less and less and eventually know everything about nothing!

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 26, 2015 7:40 am

micro6500 October 25, 2015 at 9:03 am
Positive feedback, once input is added, always runs away, you learn this in electronics,

Take a better electronics class!
Build a Wien bridge circuit you’ll find for low values of +ve feedback you’ll get stable operation, you have to increase the overall feedback yo greater than 1 to get unstable operation.

Reply to  Phil.
October 26, 2015 8:28 am

Okay Phil, you got me, fractional positive feedback doesn’t run away.
“When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
How much is the positive feedback from water from an increase in Co2?
Isn’t a sensitivity > 2.2 by definition a gain of greater than 1?
So, I think you just proved CS has to be less than 2.2, good job Phil!

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 26, 2015 8:34 am

Bart October 25, 2015 at 11:43 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ October 25, 2015 at 1:52 am
“As long as the overall warming CO2-temperature-CO2-temperature is less than unity…”
It isn’t. The gain of
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)
goes to infinity at low frequency.

So what Bart (or is it Bartemis)? Just another reason your non-physical, curve fit model should be consigned to the junk heap.
In reality:
dCO2/dt =Fossil fuel source + Natural sources (T, CO2)- Sinks (T, Co2)
In the case of the ocean sink, T increase is negative feedback and CO2 increase is appositive feedback.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 26, 2015 9:23 am

Phil. @ October 26, 2015 at 8:34 am
I use Bartemis when commenting at places there are other Barts, so that is what I use for my WordPress account. The first time I comment, I typically use Bart, but subsequently, WordPress takes over, and you get Bartemis. In the future, I think I will just go with Bartemis from the start.
Anyway, no, you are the one living in a fantasy. Your model does not match empirical reality. You must make your theory match the data, not the data match the theory.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 26, 2015 2:13 pm

micro6500,
How much is the positive feedback from water from an increase in Co2?
Isn’t a sensitivity > 2.2 by definition a gain of greater than 1?

That is one-way sensitivity plus its own feedback, you need to calculate the two-way sensitivity:
1°C extra gives 16 ppmv CO2 extra.
16 ppmv extra gives 2.2 * 16 / 280 = 0.126°C extra (is in fact non-linear, but so what…).
0.126°C extra gives 2 ppmv extra.
2 ppmv extra gives 2.2 * 2 / 280 = 0.0157°C extra
…..
Still far from a runaway effect, due to the (very) small effect of more CO2 on temperature…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 26, 2015 2:35 pm

That is one-way sensitivity plus its own feedback, you need to calculate the two-way sensitivity:
1°C extra gives 16 ppmv CO2 extra.
16 ppmv extra gives 2.2 * 16 / 280 = 0.126°C extra (is in fact non-linear, but so what…).
0.126°C extra gives 2 ppmv extra.
2 ppmv extra gives 2.2 * 2 / 280 = 0.0157°C extra

But then CS isn’t > 2.2C.
If a doubling with no feedback is the widely agreed ~1.1C, to get to a CS of 2.2C, that is a feed back greater than 1.
Now what it looks like you’re saying is feedback is nonlinear and actually less than a gain of 1. But it doesn’t look like you’re including the increase in WV that will in itself cause warming, which is the water feedback that causes doubling to be greater than 1.1C. You’d have to also add the increase due to water, and then add the increase in Co2 from the total warming, and so on.
The fact that the e-fold times are not the same wouldn’t matter, or feedback gain is less than 1

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 27, 2015 1:16 am

micro6500,
The gain of 2.2 was included in the calculation: that is the 2.2 in 2.2 x 16 / 280.
But 16 ppmv increase is only 16/280 of the 3.7 W/m2, thus of the ~1°C only that part increases the temperature.
Even if it was 4°C gain, still the overall gain temperature – CO2 – temperature – CO2 – temperature – …
would get smaller and smaller. That is because the effect of CO2 on temperature is quite small…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 27, 2015 3:04 am

” ould get smaller and smaller. That is because the effect of CO2 on temperature is quite small…”
Co2 by itself is 1.1C per doubling.
To get CS of 2.2C, it has an additional 1.1C from water, @2.2C will increase Co2 from beers law, plus if the 1.1C increased water 1.1C, a 1.1 C increase from water will induce an additional 1.1C plus some more from the additional Co2 from the warming, you have a positive feedback loop, a gain greater than one.
On the other hand, as you say Co2 does Hardly anything, which is supposed by surface temps, so CS is far below 2C, and compensated by negative feedback from water, ie there no AGW.

john cook
Reply to  Latitude
October 25, 2015 12:35 am

water vapour is a gaz…clouds are not…it is right to me.

richard verney
Reply to  john cook
October 25, 2015 3:16 am

But when does water vapour become clouds?
How much of the water vapour leaving the ocean by evaporation eventually becomes clouds?

Leo Smith
Reply to  john cook
October 25, 2015 4:24 am

water vapour becomes a cloud when it condenses out and or freezes into water and/or ice
Have you never been in a snowstorm or dense fog?

richard verney
Reply to  Latitude
October 25, 2015 3:15 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen October 25, 2015 at 1:52 am
In your plot what is the X and Y?
What sensitivity are you prescribing to CO2 no feedback, and what sensitivity are you prescribing to CO2 with feedback?

Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 10:17 am

Richard,
Both X and Y were randomly taken, together with a small gain for both to show that a positive feedback doesn’t necessary lead to a runaway effect. No resemblance with real life figures and that was plotted many years ago…
Meanwhile in modern control theory they seem to have changed the definition and now a slight positive feedback would already give a runaway effect, see the comment by micro6500…
The definition I used still is from the old school, as Wiki shows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 11:43 am

Ferdinand, my experience is in electronics.
“Positive feedback in economic systems can cause boom-then-bust cycles”
This is an example of positive feedback until some inflection point followed by a change of input polarity. In my previous post this was what I was referring to when I used nonlinear, as I was typing this, I realized it too was actually still positive, not nonlinear.

Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 11:45 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen @ October 25, 2015 at 10:17 am
But, your model is incorrect, as you assume CO2 responds directly to temperature, instead of its rate of change responding to temperature.

Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 12:20 pm

Bart,
CO2 did respond to temperature over the past 800,000 years, it is a transient response where dCO2/dt does respond immediately to a T change, but then slows down in ratio to the new steady state (for the oceans, which are the main driver) and its increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere…

Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 12:23 pm

Ferdinand says:
CO2 did respond to temperature…
But the real question is this: Does global temperature respond to CO2?
In other words, does a rise in CO2 cause global warming?
I’ve looked at the geological record, but I find nothing to corroborate that conjecture.

Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 12:27 pm

“…but then slows down in ratio to the new steady state …”
Only over very long periods of time. For the past 57 years, CO2 has responded with high fidelity to the relationship
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)

Brett Keane
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 7:13 pm

Right now, the Ferds are demonstrating the original example about academics and self-tying knots. (grin)

Leo Smith
Reply to  Latitude
October 25, 2015 4:22 am

Clouds are NOT made of water vapour. They are made of ice, or water.
Water vapour is transparent to most if not all optical frequencies.
IIRC the reason clouds are somewhat opaque is because of multiple internal and external reflections from the surface of droplets or ice crystals.

Reply to  Latitude
October 26, 2015 10:22 am

Latitude: “Unless he’s thinking about clouds made of something else”
Clouds of BS!

ulriclyons
October 24, 2015 6:14 pm

CO2 is relatively well mixed in the atmosphere. It’s the water vapour that is not well mixed, by altitude, by latitude, and most particularly the variability regionally in the horse latitudes.
(check “no night” and click “update”)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth/action?opt=-p&img=vapour.bmp

ulriclyons
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 24, 2015 6:21 pm

That regional WV variability has a huge effect on the amount solar near infrared reaching the Earth’s surface. With solar near infrared estimated to be around 49% of the total potential heating effect of solar irradiance.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 25, 2015 2:11 am

Not according to the latest OCO2 images.

ulriclyons
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 25, 2015 3:02 am

And what regional variation in ppm do they show?

Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 25, 2015 3:07 am

Stephen see the full scale graph here

Dahlquist
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 25, 2015 9:13 am

Finally: visualized OCO2 satellite data showing global carbon …
wattsupwiththat.com/…/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global- carbon-dioxide-concentrations/‎

ulriclyons
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 25, 2015 10:32 am

So generally around +/- 5 ppm regionally. That’s a whopping +/- 1.25%, that is very well mixed. It’s a lot better mixed by altitude than water vapour too.

October 24, 2015 6:15 pm

I remember that chart from the 2001 report very well. I also remember the IPCC procedural document that explicitly stated the scientific reports could be altered to bring them into consistency with the Summary for Policymakers. Up until then I had pretty much bought into the alarmist view and thought skeptics were more-or-less nuts; ironic that it was reading the IPCC’s own reports that started convincing me the real nuts were in the other tree.

Reply to  mstickles
October 25, 2015 6:04 am

I too remember this comment being made several times. I would very much like to find the actual text about altering the scientific reports…do you happen to have a reference for it? It is very damning evidence about the politics behind the IPCC nonsense.

October 24, 2015 6:24 pm

The rate of change in dew point is an indicator of the direction and rate of energy exchange. For example, dew or frost forms on surfaces when those surfaces radiate energy to a clear night sky with no wind. Condensation/evaporation not only probably controls the rate of energy loss to space but also may control the concentration of CO2 ejected into the upper atmosphere from tropical thunderstorms.

October 24, 2015 6:25 pm

Appreciate your candor; however, I am interested in what made you believe in AGW in the first instance – was it the media with the ever present doom and gloom; the supposed ‘scientific’ credibility of the IPCC without you performing your own due diligence?
have you ever performed this introspective analysis?

Reply to  kokoda
October 24, 2015 6:26 pm

Darn – my comment should have been posted under ‘mstickles’. My apology.

simple-touriste
Reply to  kokoda
October 24, 2015 7:41 pm

Do you believe vaccines recommended or mandated in your countred are effectives? (hint: some are mandatory in parts of the US yet have never been demonstrated to be of any use, not even talking about inherent risks)
Have you done the litterature review of the drugs your doctor gave you?
There is a reason I mention vaccines first, even critics of many drugs get quite hysterical (in some real medical sense) when it comes to vaccine skepticism.
No, most people blindly trust the “science” (*), expert reports (**), judicial conclusions (***) until the “science” hits them badly and then they reconsider.
(*) from such “credible” sources as PNAS, WHO and IARC (#), BEIR, IPCC….
(**) such a accident reports citing, in passing, credible witnesses who formally contradict the official conclusion (see crash of Concorde)
(***) in France, a judicial expert mistook a serie horrific of ritual rapes+murders (with panties of the victim in her mouth) for suicides; this expert was appointed again for a extremely high profile scientific expertise involving alleged radiation victims (in France the high profile medical cases based on scientific expertises often end nowhere)
(#) in French, IARC is CIRC, pronounced by “cirque” (circus)

Patrick
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 24, 2015 9:06 pm

I used to trust my Drs. with everything they prescribed. However, in recent years, I have been so badly affected by some drugs that I now ALWAYS ask to see a product data sheet before they write a prescription out. I then discuss the side affects and look for alternatives. I do this every time now because I have had some very nasty experiences in recent years. I even did this very recently while suffering from pneumonia.

Menicholas
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 25, 2015 5:48 pm

Doctors are not a pack of infallible super geniuses, no matter what any would have you believe.

jpatrick
October 24, 2015 6:40 pm

I wonder what the temperature of Earth would be if there were no water vapor in the atmosphere.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  jpatrick
October 24, 2015 7:21 pm

Probably similar to Mars.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 25, 2015 3:02 am

More likely no difference in mean temperature but greater differences between minimum and maximum day and night. It’s water vapour’s greater heat capacity not any back radiation bs that has an influence.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  jpatrick
October 24, 2015 7:26 pm
ferdberple
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 25, 2015 9:02 am

Dr Spencer’s article says “there would be no weather on Earth without the greenhouse effect.”
What I understand this to mean is that the atmosphere would be isothermal without GHG, consistent with the predictions of statistical thermodynamics. There would be no convection, without GHG to cool the upper atmosphere and warm the lower atmosphere.
This really is the crux of the GHG argument. If the atmospheric lapse rate is the result of GHG, and without GHG there would be no lapse rate, then we would expect warming of the surface due to GHG. This would happen because some of the energy that was in the upper atmosphere would find its way to the surface when the upper atmosphere cooled.
The question then becomes, what happens if we add more GHG. Will it increase the heating effect. Here we have a problem because the the dry air lapse rate (DALR) is stubbornly stuck at 9.8C/km. If we add more GHG, then we would need to increase the DALR to something more than 9.8C/km. But we cannot because the 9.8C/km has nothing to do with GHG.
9.8C/km is an absolute upper limit on the lapse rate induced by GHG, because it is set by gravity. No matter how much you cool the upper atmosphere it will not accelerate faster than the force of gravity, which sets the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy to 9,8C/km. Therefore there is an upper limit on how much heating GHG can contribute. And we are already at that limit.

ferdberple
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 25, 2015 9:14 am

the alternative theory is that the atmosphere would not be isothermal even without GHG. conduction predicts an isothermal atmosphere, but convection predicts that a lapse rate will develop. Since we see a lapse rate on all planets with atmospheres, this suggests that it is not atmospheric composition, rather it is the convection in the atmosphere due to differential heating that causes the lapse rate. In which case atmospheric composition will not significantly change the surface temperature.
for example, the rotating bands of wind we see on Jupiter. Are these really caused by GHG? Or are they the result of convection in the atmosphere due to differential heating combined with the rotation of Jupiter? Would there be no winds on Jupiter without GHG in the atmosphere?
I tend to suspect that Jupiter would have weather even without GHG. The temperature difference between the poles and the equator will set up a circulation due to convection, and coupled with the rotation of the planet this will set up band of wind.

Bernie
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 25, 2015 9:58 am

>> ferdberple,
Please allow me a friendly extension of your post.
I think the simplest 3d model would be a spherical blackbody with some initial, non-zero temperature, and sufficient mass to retain an atmosphere of some noble gas (implies an initial gas-phase temperature). This system would have no transfer mechanism to add heat to the gas because the ideal blackbody is not material, i.e, no mechanical contact with the gas. I think there would still be a temperature gradient in the atmosphere because of gravity-induced density gradient, but perfect symmetry would prevent convection. Now if you add a flux of incoming plane-wave energy and provide for the blackbody to be material, including properties of radiation absorption and thermal conduction, the symmetry will be broken and convection will occur at the night/day boundary. Other thermal gradients will be seen on the surface of the material blackbody because of the projection of plane-wave energy onto the sphere, so convection appears all around and not just at the night/day boundary. Still no GHG in this model, but there is wind, and thus weather.

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 31, 2015 1:39 am

Dr Spencer’s article is very interesting, but I believe he is in error (says I in trepidation!). Dr Spencer states: “Well, notice that what we are left with in this thought experiment is an atmosphere that is heated from below by the ground absorbing sunlight, but the atmosphere has no way of cooling…except in a very shallow layer right next to the ground where it can cool by conduction at night.” Dr Spenser also states: “Eventually, the atmosphere would still become ‘isothermal’, with a roughly constant temperature with height.”
His atmosphere absorbs heat at the base from heated earth surface. A parcel of heated air rises, displacing the cooler air in a column adjacent. At the top of the atmosphere (a mythical boundary between “atmosphere” and the “vacuum of space”) gravity prevents it rising further, there being no adjacent cooler air in relation to which it is buoyant. Has this parcel really no way of cooling? Dr Spencer supposes that a parcel of (warm in comparison to the 4K vacuum of space) air cannot cool. I maintain that this is a physical impossibility, until the air has cooled by expansion to match the 4K temperature of space. At this point, gravity ensures that the parcel of air will then spread out over the “top of the atmosphere”, ready to be displaced by another rising parcel of ‘warm’ air. Thus there will, by day, be a constant convective cycle of air, at differing temperatures depending on height and direction of movement, rising air slightly warmer, descending air slightly cooler.
This is NOT an “isothermal” atmosphere as Dr Spencer indicates will happen.
Dr Spencer’s thought experiment needs an atmosphere to conduct heat away from the surface, in addition to what is directly reflected, or absorbed and re-radiated. This results in a fluctuating surface temperature, increasing by day, and decreasing by night. The difference between the maximum and minimum is reduced by the thermal inertia of the atmosphere. Reduce the atmosphere and its thermal inertia decreases, with resultant amplification of the minimum/maximum temperature difference. In the limit, with no atmosphere, the day surface temperature can attain 100C and the night surface temperature can fall to -170C, with a sufficiently low planetary rotational period. These figures are quoted from “Stars and Planets”, Ian Ridpath, HarperCollins, 2nd Ed 1993, p 298, Fortunately we have no need of this “thought” experiment – we have a real, material, sister planet in our orbit with no greenhouse gases. The above temperatures are those found in practice.

ulriclyons
October 24, 2015 6:46 pm

“The contribution of stratospheric water vapour to warming, both forcing and feedback, is much smaller than from CH4 or CO2.”
Why would it be contributing to warming when it is absorbing solar near infrared?

Reply to  ulriclyons
October 24, 2015 8:09 pm

Big ass,umptions. I was wondering about that line also.

ulriclyons
Reply to  goldminor
October 24, 2015 8:27 pm

A big oversight more like.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 25, 2015 8:12 am

I believe the stratosphere is cooling. The percentage relationship of water (mostly ice) in the stratosphere is lower as water is strongly concentrated in the lower Troposphere. CO2 is virtually transparent to solar near IR as are ice and liquid water. In the following water and ice are red and blue, respectively, and water vapor is green. From the left to about 2.6 microns is solar near IR. You can see that VAPOR is what absorbs across this spectrum.comment image

ulriclyons
Reply to  gymnosperm
October 25, 2015 10:26 am

gymnosperm, that shows that water and ice absorb more the WV does.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 25, 2015 8:13 pm

Mmmm…you’re right. Been looking at too many of those inverted transmittance plots lately, Unfortunately, that difference changes the conclusion somewhat. The confusing thing is that absorption and penetration are inverse.Liquid water (and ice) are great absorbers, but that means nothing penetrates much deeper than the wavelength. What does that mean for the stratosphere? Ice crystals are pretty small. Their surfaces absorbing and reradiating act as a drag on transmittance (apart from reflectance) from the sun to the surface in the solar Near IR. That should be a net warming effect. The opposite of what I suggested.
Work fast, make mistakes. I appreciate the help.

ulriclyons
Reply to  gymnosperm
October 26, 2015 2:19 am

I don’t see how it can be a warming effect as it impedes the solar NIR to the surface.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 26, 2015 7:35 pm

Warming the stratosphere and reducing NIR to the troposphere, where absorption as vapor and liquid (clouds) predominates, as you say. Yet the troposphere is warming a bit and the stratosphere is cooling so this cannot be the predominant factor.

ulriclyons
Reply to  gymnosperm
October 27, 2015 5:14 pm

Stratospheric temperatures have fallen along with upper level water vapour, allowing more solar NIR to reach lower levels and the surface. Low level humidity has increased, so the solar NIR that is absorbed there stands a better chance of warming the surface than warming space as high altitude water vapour (ice) does.
That’s negative feedbacks to a reduction in climate forcing. Increased forcing of the climate will increase upper level water vapour and reduce NIR to the surface, again a negative feedback.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 27, 2015 9:13 pm

Sheepherder and ignoramus.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 27, 2015 9:17 pm

Whoops, infarction, that was for something else.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 27, 2015 10:00 pm

Take 2:
I don’t know the trend in stratospheric ice, so I’ll take your word for it. Certainly less of it will allow more solar NIR closer to the surface. In the troposphere it will be a mix of water in the form of clouds and vapor in the form of that invisible stuff that is neither ice nor water. You say this is increasing, but the IPCC disagrees. Not that I trust the IPCC, but the guy who rammed this into the liturgy is an honest scientist reporting what he believes and it is hugely contrary to the meme.
Not sure at what atmospheric level you mean “climate” to apply. Probably the troposphere. Negative feedback to a reduction means an increase in forcing.I am not sure how it follows that this increase in forcing increases stratospheric ice.
We’ve increased the forcing to the best of our abilities with both CO2 and water (2 molecules water for every molecule CO2 in hydrocarbon combustion).
Why isn’t it working?

ulriclyons
Reply to  gymnosperm
October 28, 2015 1:43 am

It is working, a good proportion of the surface warming since the mid 90’s is such negative feedbacks. Lower troposphere water vapour has increased, and upper trop and lower stratospheric water vapour has decreased.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 29, 2015 8:45 am

The really crappy information I have been able to find indicates a small increase in stratospheric water (called SLV in microwave sounder parlance).
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/products/h2o_product.php
The data is all gridded for making maps and it would take way too long to download all the individual years, amalgamate the data from all the cells. Can’t believe it’s so hard to get data friendly for time series analysis. No wonder nobody’s done it.

ulriclyons
Reply to  gymnosperm
October 29, 2015 4:43 pm

I’m seeing an AMO type signal with strat WV reducing since around the mid 1990’s
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n10/images_article/ngeo2236-f4.jpg
https://www.imk-asf.kit.edu/english/sat.php

gymnosperm
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 30, 2015 10:02 am

Very interesting. I may register to access their data but it seemingly only goes back to the 90’s. WVLS data should theoretically go back to the late 70’s. May ask Roy Spencer.
Surprising seasonal variation and correlations with the NH monsoon, ENSO. AMO? Why not?

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 25, 2015 8:36 am

Why would it be contributing to warming when it is absorbing solar near infrared?

To measure the amount of “warming” in/of the atmosphere ….. the temperature of the gas molecules in the atmosphere must be measured.
The temperature of the atmosphere can not be measured by measuring the amount of IR radiation flowing un-impeded through the atmosphere.
Satellites can detect and measure the amount of IR radiation flowing un-impeded through the atmosphere at different locales and different altitudes …… but they are incapable of determining the actual or original sources of the “upgoing” IR radiation.comment image

DD More
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
October 26, 2015 10:15 am

Sam CC & the deceiving Radiation Transmitted graph.
Since Stefan-Boltzmann Law (P = Aeσ T^4) contains that little T^4, power is greatly related to temperature.
So your chart visually trying to equate incomming vs outgoing radiation levels, completely misses on the intensity levels.
http://www.pveducation.org/sites/default/files/PVCDROM/Properties-of-Sunlight/Images/LOGSP.GIF
3,000 K peak is 5xE7 w/m2/wavelenght & 300 K is 12 w/m2/wavelenght.
You trying to fool us or yourself?

Reply to  ulriclyons
October 25, 2015 11:58 am

Relevant links on the contribution of stratospheric water vapor. Its effect on cooling is I think the more important point.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

ulriclyons
Reply to  gyan1
October 25, 2015 12:05 pm

Of course it causes local cooling in the atmosphere. The original point is what difference it makes to surface temperatures.

ulriclyons
Reply to  gyan1
October 25, 2015 12:23 pm

Up to 200mb is still in the troposphere too.

ulriclyons
Reply to  gyan1
October 25, 2015 4:17 pm

Upper troposphere water vapour decreasing since the mid 1990’s. That will be the warm AMO mode then, as it dries out continental interior regions.

Reply to  ulriclyons
October 25, 2015 5:12 pm

” That will be the warm AMO mode then, as it dries out continental interior regions.”
Surface station rising/falling temp difference at the regional level has distinct disturbances at differing times (years different) that I posit are the ocean cycles changing, and altering how much warm moist tropical air enters the continents. This also fits with the difference between today’s rising temp and tonight’s falling temp being negative. For a long time I did not know how that could be, I was confident on the process I used with the data, but it seemed wrong, where was the extra heat coming from, and then it dawned on me it was warm tropical air moving onto the continents where it cooled and dropped the water it carried on its way pole ward.

ulriclyons
Reply to  gyan1
October 27, 2015 5:19 pm

@ micro6500
October 25, 2015 at 5:12 pm
The larger proportion of continental interior regions will cool when wetter, as well an overall reduction in temperature variability, i.e. lower maximums and higher minimums.

Reply to  ulriclyons
October 27, 2015 9:30 pm

The larger proportion of continental interior regions will cool when wetter, as well an overall reduction in temperature variability, i.e. lower maximums and higher minimums.

It mostly depends where the air mass over head is from, I live in Ohio, sometimes we get tropical air, other times Canadian(depending on the jet stream). The difference can be 10-20F. Rain itself tends to be cooling. Also at night, frequently temps approach the dew point, and reduces the rate of cooling, but it also deposits a lot of water on the ground, only some of which evaporates the next day, the rest goes into the ground or water table.

ulriclyons
Reply to  gyan1
October 27, 2015 5:20 pm

as well *as* an… etc

October 24, 2015 6:53 pm

What about Lacis(2010) and Lacis(2013)? His point is that the difference between CO2 and H2O is that the latter condenses out of the atmosphere while the former is “long loved”. Do you have a direct response to that argument? In my own empirical study of lag plots 1958-2014 I found some indication that surface temperature lags atmospheric CO2 by about 4-7 months. Here is the link.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2679246

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Chaam Jamal
October 24, 2015 7:39 pm

The “hiatus” shows that surface temperatures lag CO2 by 18 years or more.
Besides, CO2 induced warming should be quite evident in places where water vapor is nearly absent. Can you point me to data that shows this?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 25, 2015 3:03 am

“Can you point me to data that shows this?”
Yes, the data is in the fevered minds of climate alarmists and con-artists who then put it into computer games.

Latitude
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 25, 2015 6:09 am

CO2 induced warming should be quite evident in places where water vapor is nearly absent.comment image

ferdberple
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 25, 2015 9:28 am

here we have a graph from SS. What does it show? That temperatures shoot up when CO2 is LOW and temperatures cool down when CO is HIGH. This tells me that CO2 causes cooling. Look closely. CO2 is low, temperatures increase. CO2 is high, temperatures decrease. Consistently, time and time again.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

cba
Reply to  Chaam Jamal
October 24, 2015 8:29 pm

lacis did his h2o effects using a 1 d model and always took the worst case scenario that they could come up with. for things to happen the way they (lacis & hansen) claim – Earth’s current 62% or so cloud cover is at a maximum and that either increased or decreased temperatures would result in a lower fraction. when one looks at the simple factor of h2o absolute humidity and assumes relative humidity will remain constant (an acceptable assumption) for increasing temperature, there is insufficient h2o increase to create more positive forcing/feedback than the original very small co2 increase. Only by making ridiculous assumptions like a decrease in cloud cover can one achieve anything close to the increased amount needed.

October 24, 2015 6:54 pm

“long-lived”
sorry

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
October 24, 2015 8:10 pm

You have been reading to many of Pachuari’s novels.

richard verney
October 24, 2015 7:23 pm

“However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”
///////////////////////
Really!
I always thought that the major by products of burning fossil fuels (hydro carbons) is water and CO2.
On that basis how can the IPCC claim that man does not emit copious amounts of water.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with this on a water world inhabited by carbon life forms. The by product of burning fossil fuels (ie., water and CO2) is fertiliser to such a water world and the life forms that inhabit it.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 2:14 am

1 litre of H²O for every litre of gas burned (the butane propane and petrol variety). That’s the figure I have from the back of my failing brain

richard verney
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 25, 2015 2:49 am

And we are burning a lot of those litres.
The point I was making is that it is very convenient for the IPCC to (incorrectly) claim that man emits little water vapour, since it enables the IPCC to claim that the impacts of CO2 are more important than they are. It enables the IPCC to concentrate upon CO2 rather than on the main so called ghg of water vapour.
If the reports had had to addressed water vapour and the water cycle, it would have been difficult to ‘conceal’ that CO2 is only at most a bit player. The public are unaware that the main so called ghg in the atmosphere is water vapour, and that CO2 is only about 4% of the so called ghgs in the atmosphere, and that even if man is responsible for the rise in CO2 from about 270pm to ~400 ppm, then man is responsible for only about 1.5% of the so called ghgs in the atmosphere.
The message would have been much more difficult to sell if the IPCC reports had had to address the water vapour issue, and with it the water cycle, and with all of that the absurd suggestion that water vapour is a positive feedback..

Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 25, 2015 3:06 am

“If the reports had had to addressed water vapour and the water cycle, it would have been difficult to ‘conceal’ that CO2 is only at most a bit player.”
Agreed. CO2 is at most a bit player — if in a movie it would just have a walk on as the credits ran.

gymnosperm
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 25, 2015 8:19 am

2 molecules H2O for every molecule CO2. That’s a factor of 2 off everyone’s radar. Add in the concentration of surface stations in urban high combustion areas and you suddenly have a significant UHI amplification.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 25, 2015 9:53 am

Depends of the type of fuel. In molecular releases
Coal: 1xCO2, 0x water
Oil: 1xCO2, 1x water
Gas: 1xCO2, 2x water
But still the relative quantities of the emissions and the decay rates are important:
CO2: 6% of the carbon cycle, e-fold decay rate of an excess over 50 years.
Water: 0.01% of the water cycle, e-fold decay rate of an excess only a few days.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 26, 2015 9:17 am

Ferdinand, Bituminous Coal is about C1H0.8 so you’d expect 1x CO2: 0.4xH2O

DD More
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 26, 2015 11:15 am

Sephen & Ferd,
Typical Moisture Content in Coal
Anthracite Coal : 2.8 – 16.3 weight %
Bituminous Coal : 2.2 – 15.9 weight %
Lignite Coal : 39 weight %
Wyoming Sub-bituminous = 23.8 %
PRB coal’s lower heating value is resulted from its higher moisture and oxygen content.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/classification-coal-d_164.html
http://www.boilercleaning.org/Applications/knowledgeBase/PRBcoal/PRBcoalProperty.htm
And that is dry analysis.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 26, 2015 2:23 pm

Phil. and DD More,
Thanks, didn’t take into account moisture and less quality coal…
Thus even from coal, you will have some water vapor releases. No that it makes much difference, as the decay rate of that extra water is a matter of days…

MarkW
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 6:50 am

Irrigation has brought lots of water to areas where water was scarce before.

Reply to  MarkW
October 25, 2015 9:54 am

Dr. Spencer had some (long) time ago an article about the influence of irrigation on the local temperatures in valleys. Seems to give a huge UHI effect…

Warren Latham
October 24, 2015 7:23 pm

Dear Dr. Tim Ball,
Excellent article indeed (again). Brilliant work and so very detailed.
I have just Google+1’d it and perhaps others would take the trouble to shout this from the rooftops too.
The general public don’t understand the science at all: they cannot fully grasp it because it SEEMS complicated.
They need to see SIMPLE STUFF.
The massive amount of work that you do and Craig D. Idso Ph. D. (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and Viscount Monckton plus MANY others at The Heartland Institute is thoroughly scientific, superb, well written and well presented ALL THE TIME: the work is truly appreciated by readers and commentors here and across the world at various websites.
What it needs is something along the lines of a simple, clear message aimed at the general public which says something like …
“CO2 = LIFE” (with a child’s drawing of the sun, raindrops and a smiling flower).
Kick this one around folks please: I reckon it’s time for Josh and Anthony to hit the big-time with a cartoon of the century which can be understood by anyone across the world.
The entire basis for the Global Warming nonsense is carbon-dioxide, therefore, a simple idea / CO2 cartoon / picture / sketch COULD be the very thing that “kills the cancer” – worldwide !
Just an idea of course but I’ll bet that we can all bring to mind ONE simple “picture” we’ve remembered all our lives.
Regards,
WL

Paul Westhaver
October 24, 2015 7:32 pm

Sturgis Hooper

richard verney
October 24, 2015 7:40 pm

Further to my post above, according to
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Fe-Ge/Fossil-Fuels.html
WORLD ENERGY SOURCES IN 2000
Source Percent of Energy
Petroleum 39
Natural Gas 24
Coal 24
Hydroelectric 7
Nuclear 6
I do not know what the current mix is, but coal has fallen out of favour in the developed West, and there has been a switch to gas and a slight increase in renewables. But it would be fairly safe to say that of the fuel that man burns to produce energy, the ration of hydro carbons to coal is probably 3:1.
Given that water is a by product of burning hydro carbons, it is immediately apparent that man emits a lot of water into the atmosphere.
On top of this is water used for irrigation, cooling in industrial processes (including that used in the cooling towers which are an integral part of the coal fired electricity generating stations) etc.
It appears to me that the IPCC is making a basic error in concluding that man emits little water vapour into the atmosphere. .

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  richard verney
October 24, 2015 7:51 pm

I agree. It is very apparent in urban areas like Phoenix that we add to the local %RH.

Reply to  richard verney
October 24, 2015 8:15 pm

Plus small scale usage by many billions of people who water lawns, wash cars, wash windows, etc.

Marcus
Reply to  goldminor
October 24, 2015 9:11 pm

Take a pee ???

Reply to  Marcus
October 27, 2015 2:16 pm

That is included in “etc”.

Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 2:59 am

Richard,
I did once calculate the human contribution of water to the overall cycle. That was about 0.01% (including cooling towers, not including irrigation). Because of the extreme short decay rate of water, a matter of days, the human contribution plays no role at all. CO2 has a decay rate of ~51 years, which makes that the human contribution is responsible for ~90% of the increase…

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 3:47 am

Should have refreshed before replying…
10e-4 may be ok but 51 is much too precise for the subject.

richard verney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 9:12 am

That is the same argument that you try to shoot down when someone points out that man’s emissions of CO2 compared to the total carbon cycle is only a tiny fraction of that cycle (albeit I accept that in relative terms, if the water cycle has an order of magnitude greater than the carbon cycle, then there may be a corresponding order of magnitude difference).
The fact remains that man is burning huge quantities of hydro carbons and alongside the CO2 that is produced there is as much (or more) water vapour produced.
So the issue here is quite simple, what is the radiative forcing associated with the emission of say a giga-tonne of CO2, and what radiative forcing is associated with the emission of a giga-tonne of water vapour?
And if the radiative forciang associated with the man made emission of a giga-tonne of water vapour leads to a temperature increase which will then in turn cause more evaporation, one gets the same so called water vapour feedback loop.
If one is signed up to the radiative theory of anthropogenic ghgs emissions leading to warming, one cannot ignore the amount of water vapour that man is emitting.
I would like to know why you consider the forcing associated with man made emissions of water vapour is unimportant.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 9:12 am

Rainer,
Based on the current net sink rate of ~2.15 ppmv at ~110 ppmv above steady state for the average ocean surface temperature: 110 / 2.15 = ~51 years. Seems quite linear, as a similar calculation near 2 decades ago shows a similar decay rate (55 years):
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
But should have said “slightly over 50 years”, that is more than precise enough…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 9:34 am

Richard,
The relative contribution of CO2 and water from fossil fuel burning is one difference, the e-fold decay rate of an excess CO2 or water is the main difference.
Take CO2: that is about 6% of the carbon cycle, but the e-fold decay rate is over 50 years. Thus while not extremely small at one side, its decay as an excess input is long-term and you need 110 ppmv extra in the atmosphere to get enough pressure to get rid of only halve the emitted quantities…
A CO2 doubling gives 3.7 W/m2 extra IR absorption, that is for ~280 ppmv or ~600 GtC extra. 1 GtC extra CO2 thus is good for average (linear – which is not the case) 0.006 W/m2.
Take water: that is about 0.01% of the water cycle and its e-fold decay rate is a few days. Thus not only the direct influence is negligible, its build-up in the atmosphere from human emissions is negligible too.
I have no figures for water vapor at hand, but even with a build-up of 0.05% water vapor from human emissions, the influence on the radiation balance is extremely small…

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 26, 2015 6:34 am

@ Ferdinand Engelbeen – October 25, 2015 at 9:34 am

Take CO2: that is about 6% of the carbon cycle, but the e-fold decay rate is over 50 years.

It wouldn’t matter one (1) “twit” if your per se …. “e-fold decay rate of CO2 was over 1,000 years” ….. simply because the quantity of thermal “heat” energy that is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is not additive or cumulative from one (1) day to the next, …. one (1) week to the next, ….. or one (1) year to the next, ….. but on the contrary, ……. it is here today, and gone tonight. And that CO2 has to “warm back up” each new day.
Your devotion to “science fiction” is utterly amazing.

Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
October 26, 2015 7:07 am

it is here today, and gone tonight. And that CO2 has to “warm back up” each new day.

This is exactly what the surface data shows. When it’s not infilled, homogenized and turned into made up fantasy trash.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2015 3:38 am

“Given that water is a by product of burning hydro carbons, it is immediately apparent that man emits a lot of water into the atmosphere. ”
I don’t believe that. Did you at least calculate the order of magnitude?

richard verney
Reply to  Rainer Bensch
October 25, 2015 9:53 am

“a lot” is a relative expression.
The fact is that man puts out about as much water vapour as he does CO2, therefore the amount of additional radiative forcing associated with the quantity of water vapour that man emits is more than the additional radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, since water vapour is a stronger ghg.
It follows from this that if additional radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions is a problem, it will be as much of a problem with manmade emissions of water vapour as it is with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, such that it would be inappropriate to ignore manmade emissions of water vapour.
The residency time is a different issue, but I would suggest one which is mainly relevant to the claim of locked in long term warming.
So why is the IPCC ignoring this? Well it does not really wish to look at the water cycle since it does not properly understand it, and the models do not properly model this, and the variance in clouds alone could fully explain the 20th century temperature anomaly.
The water cycle (and the way that DWLWIR interacts with the oceans where it cannot penetrate more than a few microns), is the fundamental brick wall that cAGW comes up against. So it is no surprise that the IPCC does not want to look at this issue in the detail that this cycle needs to be addressed.

SAMURAI
October 24, 2015 7:46 pm

The CAGW hypothesis entirely depends on a mythical “runaway positive feedback loop” involving a rapid increase in ocean evaporation from CO2 forcing, which multiplies the 1C of gross CO2 warming to a net 3C~5C of warming by 2100.
The problem with “runaway feedback loops” is that when the sum of feedbacks exceeds 1, outputs quickly go to infinity… To get around this, CAGW climate models arbitrarily assign negative feedbacks to manmade particulate pollution to keep temperature projections from going to infinity.
What actually seems to be occurring is that the tiny 1C of gross CO2 induced warming per doubling, is causing a slight increase in ocean evaporation, which leads to increased cloud cover, that reduces CO2’s NET warming by about 50% to generate a net warming effect of just around 0.5C by 2100…
CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis as temperature projections already exceed reality by more than 2 standard deviations for almost 20 years, which is sufficient disparity and duration for disconfirmation with high confidence…

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 24, 2015 8:20 pm

Bingo. “water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three.”
If water vapor were truly a positive feedback, the system would have made an excursion to high temperatures in ages past. It never happened.
That is the key flaw in CAGW theory.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 24, 2015 9:37 pm

Yes, Walter, that’s exactly the point.
CO2 concentrations were an order of magnitude higher than today for 100’s of millions of years and yet life thrived and the mythical “runaway feedback loop” never occurred…
Cloud cover flux is, as Willis has so elegantly shown, the control mechanism which prevents global temps from going to extremes.
During warming periods, there is increased ocean evaporation, causing more cloud cover albedo, which reflects more TSI, which mitigates warming.
During cooling periods, there is less ocean evaporation, causing less cloud cover albedo, allowing more TSI to hit earth’s surface, which mitigates the cooling…
Nature abhors its own destruction. Our very existence is evidence of this fact.

Steve Oregon
October 24, 2015 7:53 pm

IMO water vapour has always represented a fatal flaw in AGW,
Dr. Ball has made it the wooden stake in the heart of the AGW vampire.
Alarmists should be afraid, very afraid.
They went all in with their investment of hopes, dreams and aspirations into the subprime climate unicorn. The fools, fanatics and liars have no one to blame but themselves.
They could have gained the same understanding as the skeptics they tried to destroy for doing so.

October 24, 2015 7:57 pm

Thanks, Dr. Ball. A very interesting article.
Like your elephant swims in the water, water vapor swims in the troposphere.
The elephant is forced by food availability (I suppose), water vapor by winds at the surface level (that evaporation thing, that now we know we know little about it).
Of course CO2 has a base effect, the reason why Earth is not super-cold, but the present-times incremental effect? The “Climate Sensitivity”? Dr. Roy Spencer and others think it’s low, the IPCC says its high. I think the IPCC is wrong.
Only time and good measurements will tell for sure.

cba
October 24, 2015 8:38 pm

the troposphere is where convection dominates heat transfer and h2o vapor is a significant part of the convection activity. when one compares the satellite surface temps between hemispheres, N&S, one finds that despite the SH receiving more TOA insolation, the fact that the NH has most of the land surface results in average Temp differences of over 1 deg C with the NH being hotter.

October 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Dr. Ball referred to the IPCC’s document that they do not know what are the contributions of H2O and CO2 in the GH phenomenon. Of course they know but they do not want to show it, because it would destroy the image of CO2 as a strong GH gas. The most referred percentages are 60 % for H2O and 26 % for CO2 presented by Kiehl and Trenberth. These effects were calculated in the atmosphere containing only 50 % of the total water in the atmosphere. The real numbers are about 82…84 % and 9…11 %. Because the warming effect of CO2 is highly nonlinear (logarithmic), the relationship between the strengths of H2O and CO2 is about 15:1 in the present atmosphere. CO2 is not a control knob of the climate – it is water.

Marcus
Reply to  aveollila
October 24, 2015 9:15 pm

Water, as in clouds ??

Hugs
Reply to  aveollila
October 24, 2015 11:45 pm

Very intresting, can you tell some more? The percentages are unknown to me. Trenberthish numbers are not I think give good name from settled science.

kennethrichards
October 24, 2015 8:59 pm

Below are six relevant peer-reviewed papers on water vapor, feedbacks, and questionable assumptions in climate models.
Doubling CO2 by itself (no feedbacks) from 275 ppm to 550 ppm is presumed to cause a positive radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m-2, or a temperature change of about 1.2 C per convective assumptions about CO2. The primary means by which we are presumed to get dangerous warming of 3.0 C and up with CO2 doubling (after the 1.2 C of additional warmth from CO2 alone) is via runaway positive feedbacks with increasingly higher levels of water vapor. Yet there have been no observed trends in water vapor concentration in the last few decades, which is inconsistent with the models that suggest the hydrological cycle should intensify:
—–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/full#grl29301-fig-0001
Introduction: Water vapor is a principal atmospheric variable, and is a central component in both the Earth Energy Budget and the Global Water Cycle. Clouds and precipitation manifest its presence, its phase transitions are a source of energy to influence motions in the atmosphere, and its transport (e.g., atmospheric rivers can produce significant weather events. Increasing water vapor amounts in a warming climate could accelerate the global hydrologic cycle.
Conclusion: [A]t this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/#figure-viewer-grl29301-fig-0004
—–
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2068.html
The hydrological cycle is expected to intensify in response to global warming. Yet, little unequivocal evidence of such an acceleration has been found on a global scale. This holds in particular for terrestrial evaporation, the crucial return flow of water from land to atmosphere. Here we use satellite observations to reveal that continental evaporation has increased in northern latitudes, at rates consistent with expectations derived from temperature trends. However, at the global scale, the dynamics of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) have dominated the multi-decadal variability. During El Niño, limitations in terrestrial moisture supply result in vegetation water stress and reduced evaporation in eastern and central Australia, southern Africa and eastern South America. The opposite situation occurs during La Niña. Our results suggest that recent multi-year declines in global average continental evaporation reflect transitions to El Niño conditions, and are not the consequence of a persistent reorganization of the terrestrial water cycle. Future changes in continental evaporation will be determined by the response of ENSO to changes in global radiative forcing, which still remains highly uncertain.
—–
Furthermore, there is still some question as to the sign of the feedback from water vapor itself (whether + or -):
—–
http://pages.jh.edu/~dwaugh1/papers/Garfinkel_etal_2013-temptrends.pdf
In the regions where moisture is increasing, radiative heating is decreasing because water vapor is a very efficient GHG at these altitudes. In contrast, regions that are dehydrating are warmed by radiative heating because the local emissivity is decreasing. Recall that the temperatures were decreasing where water vapor was decreasing. Thus, the trend in radiative heating acts as a negative feedback on the temperature changes. In other words, the lower stratospheric temperature response to rising SSTs is opposed, but only partially, by changes in water vapor.
—–
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm
The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean — with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere. Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.
—-
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate2039.html
A study reveals that recent warming in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific ‘warm pool’ has caused a cooling near the top of the tropical troposphere above, leading to less water vapour entering the stratosphere.
—–
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1554.pdf
Climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling in function of the feedbacks (from Knutti and Hegerl [5]). Note the large uncertainty: a CO2 doubling may cause a global warming from 1 C to 10 C at equilibrium. The figure on the left explains why there exists such a large error. The GHG warming theory is based on two independent chained theories. The first theory focuses on the warming effect of a given GHG such as CO2 as it can be experimentally tested. This first theory predicts that a CO2 doubling causes a global warming of about 1 oC. The second theory, the climate positive feedback theory, attempts to calculate the overall climatic effect of a CO2 increase by assuming an enhanced warming effect due to secondary triggering of other climatic components. For example, it is supposed that an increase of CO2 causes an increase in water vapor concentration. Because H2O too is a GHG, the overall warming induced by an increase of CO2 would be due to the direct CO2 warming plus the indirect warming induced by the water vapor feedback responding to the CO2 increase. The problem with the climate positive feedback theory is that it cannot be directly tested in a lab experiment. Climate modelers evaluate the climate sensitivity to CO2 increase in their climate models, not in nature. Thus, the numerical value of this fundamental climatic component is not experimentally measured but it is theoretical evaluated with computer climate models that create virtual climate systems. It is evident that different climate models predict a different climate sensitivity to CO2, which gives rise to the huge uncertainty seen in the figure. Moreover, if the climate models are missing important mechanisms, it is evident that their predicted climate sensitivity to CO2 changes may be extremely different from the true values.

Reply to  kennethrichards
October 25, 2015 12:31 pm

Thanks for the links! I now have more ammo against dangerous warming fanatics. The lack of a strongly positive water vapor feedback is a death sentence for CAGW.

DD More
Reply to  kennethrichards
October 26, 2015 12:03 pm

Ken,
Put into perspective your 3.7 W/m-2 on an energy balance with a doubling.
In a year 3.7 W/m-2 would equate to (W = J*sec)
3.7 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 1.17E+08 Joules/m^2
So Evaporation of water is 2,500,000 J/kg.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/524/
To evaporate 1 m^3 of water with sea water specific volume @ 15 oC at 0.001009 m^3/kg for each m^3 there is an exchange of
=> 2,500,000(J/kg)/0.001009(m^3/kg) = 2,477,700,000 J/m^3 = 2.48E+09 J/m^3
1.17E+08 J/m^2 / 2.48E+09 J/m^3 = 0.05 m
Oh yea, the average yearly amount of evaporation on open ocean (non-ice) is around 1.40 m. That’s how the oceans cool.
Evaporation from the Surface of the Globe – They peg the total energy for evaporation ocean plus land at 1.26 X 10E24 or 25 percent of ‘energy in’ at the surface.
paper here – http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c07/e2-02-03-02.pdf
Radiative heat transfer at room temperature can mostly be ignored.

Reply to  DD More
October 26, 2015 12:45 pm

1.17E+08 J/m^2 / 2.48E+09 J/m^3 = 0.05 m

And how many times that did Patrica pickup and carry into Mexico?

October 24, 2015 9:18 pm

Dr Tim, I know that you have visited my blog and i presume that you have read the post https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/ about methane. CH4 does not burn or is oxidised in the atmosphere by O2. because a) it does not come up to ignition temperature and b) the concentration is below the ignition point of sustained combustion which in turn sustains ignition temperature. Combustion is part of the chemical engineering subject- reaction kinetics which is far beyond the laboratory work of chemistry. Methane can be oxidised by ozone to form methanol CH3OH which is highly soluble in water and is removed from the atmosphere by clouds and then precipitation or direct contact with water surfaces (oceans, lakes etc) by convective currents.

Reply to  cementafriend
October 25, 2015 2:52 am

cementafriend,
CH4 is thought to be oxidized by OH radicals, formed from water by UV light in the higher troposphere, not only by ozone, which is formed maximally in the lower stratosphere. Indeed for the rest removed by precipitation.

Don V
October 24, 2015 9:25 pm

IMHO Tim has hit the nail on the head with this little treatise. Water in its three phases buffers the energy (and hence) temperature of our wonderful BLUE ball by both actively absorbing (phase change) and actively transporting incident radiation up-wards and pole-wards, to even out and govern the ideal conditions for life on earth. Neither CO2 nor CH4 change phase at reasonable life-supporting temperatures, so neither can actively participate in our planet’s temperature governing processes.
However, Tim did leave out one other important fact that I think no one has explored nearly enough. As he pointed out CO2 is NOT well mixed over much of the vast surfaces of the earth. But, I also contend that CO2 is not even well mixed over short distances. Why not? Well one reason is that excess CO2 sources (eg. cities, mines, volcanoes and the ocean) and the larger CO2 sinks (forests, farms, etc) can be spread out over significant distances. In addition, a more obvious reason is that CO2 dissolves in liquid water and thus gets actively transported by water. Every time it rains a certain percentage of CO2 is scrubbed from the atmosphere proportional to the partial pressures of the gas in both its gaseous phase and its dissolved phase in water. Since water that condenses from water vapor is initially pure, it very rapidly scrubs a portion of the gaseous CO2 in the surrounding air at that local temperature. The intial condensing temp is quite cool, and carries quite a bit more CO2 downward than might normally exist in water that has equilibrated to the temp at the surface. (One can measure just how much CO2 has been scrubbed by measuring the pH of the rain, since dissolved CO2 quickly forms carbonic acid in the water.) When a thunder storm rolls through it is doing quite a good job of returning vital CO2 back down to earth to participate in the cycle of life on the surface. This local and most likely quite repeatable phenomenon is not really highlighted in any “climate studies” primarily, I believe, because the CO2 data everyone relies on is taken “above the clouds” at mountain top locations. Were the data taken along the coasts of Hawaii, local rain storm events would present too much CO2 variability to give meaningful “noise free” (ie. natural) results. If CO2 were measured at the same sites as the temperature was taken in well sighted locations, I strongly suspect one would see significantly higher natural variability than is presented by the data taken on the top of Mauna Loa. I’m quite certain that immediately AFTER an evening thunderstorm sweeps a line through an area, the CO2 blanket that supposedly would provide green house protection has been quite effectively reduced sufficiently to allow greater direct irradiation out to space than the warm humid period immediately preceding the storm.
What do you all think?

SteveF
Reply to  Don V
October 24, 2015 10:22 pm

Don V. Couldn’t agree more. The amount of carbonic acid produced as a consequence of water vapor and lightning would have to be significant given the number of lightning strikes occurring word-wide at any one time. Rainwater in equilibrium with atmospheric (gaseous) h2o and co2 from basic chemistry should have a pH of -5.6 (slightly acidic). any increase in thunderstorms, ( say to AGW ? , or any other GW mechanism) should remove increasing amounts of co2 from the atmosphere. Gaia strikes back.

Patrick
Reply to  Don V
October 24, 2015 10:46 pm

As many have stated on WUWT, indeed it *IS* water, in all it’s forms along with solar energy, that *IS* the primary driver of weather (Climate) on this rock.

Reply to  Don V
October 25, 2015 2:47 am

Don V,
I did once calculate the influence of fresh water on CO2 levels: it is negligible. CO2 is mostly released in places where water vapor is maximal. Where water condenses, you need about 400 m3 air to form 1 liter of rain. As the solubility of CO2 in fresh water at 0.0004 bar is extremely small, the CO2 change in the atmosphere where the drops are formed is not measurable.
If the rain drops on the ground and all water evaporates, releasing all CO2, that increased the air CO2 in the first meter of air, without wind mixing, with less than 1 ppmv. Again negligible.
That doesn’t mean that gigantic amounts are circulating together with the gigantic amounts of water, but in concentrations that doesn’t count…

SteveT
Reply to  Don V
October 25, 2015 4:47 am

Don V
October 24, 2015 at 9:25 pm
IMHO Tim has hit the nail on the head with this little treatise. Water in its three phases buffers the energy (and hence) temperature of our wonderful BLUE ball by both actively absorbing (phase change) and actively transporting incident radiation up-wards and pole-wards, to even out and govern the ideal conditions for life on earth. Neither CO2 nor CH4 change phase at reasonable life-supporting temperatures,
*******************************************************************************************
Maybe, but it is essential to remember that ” to even out and govern the ideal conditions for life on earth.” it is not like this.
We are not the be all and end all – the earth developed it’s climate/weather according to the laws of Physics (not to make ideal conditions for life) and we evolved afterwards in order to fit in and take advantage of what was there.
Too many people think the earth was made for us and not the other way round – if you change your point of view, our life as we know it doesn’t seem to rely on so many wonderful coincidences after all.
SteveT

Don V
Reply to  SteveT
October 25, 2015 7:40 pm

Although I don’t agree with your worldview SteveT, I also wasn’t injecting my world view into the discussion. Are you saying that the current conditions (ie. average temperature, radiant energy in/radiant energy out balance, orbital distance vs. solar radiance, etc.) aren’t ideal conditions for life (as we know it) on earth and that these conditions aren’t primarily and directly governed by the immutable physics of the vast amounts of water on our planet that has the net effect of acting as a climate governor/temperature buffer to sustain “earth life”? Or are you, in trying to inject your religious world view into this discussion, somehow also suggesting/stating that one of the life forms on this planet – man – actually has a ghost of a chance of doing ANYTHING to affect either the current weather or the future climate? . . . that man can somehow shift us out of the “sweet spot” that water’s influence currently anchors us by somehow modulating the trace life-sustaining gas CO2? Since neither CO2 nor CH4 experience phase change around this sweet spot, nor are present in anywhere near sufficient quantity, nor have anywhere near sufficient heat retaining capacity, they simply do not participate in any significant degree in the overall energy balance. IMHO wishing that man can actually influence future climate conditions is utter folly and silly pointless windmill tilting.

October 24, 2015 11:46 pm

To Marcus, Yes, but actually in many other ways. 1) Absolute water content as humidity in the atmosphere compensate small variations of GH gas concentrations, 2) clouds magnifying the effects of solar activity changes, and 3) as ocean water controlling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the very long term. For example, IPCC says that anthropogenic CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 28 % even though the direct isotope measurements show it to be about 7.7 %. The reason is that about 25 % of the atmospheric CO2 is recycled annually between the oceans and the biosphere that dilutes the anthropogenic portion of CO2 effectively..

Hugs
October 24, 2015 11:46 pm

The figure one is broken.
Literature says roughly 25 per cent of CO2 in the athmosphere is anthropogenic. The fact that anthropogenic emissions are small compared to annual natural CO2 budjet is – if I understand English proverbs right – a red herring.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Hugs
October 25, 2015 12:52 am

Hugs:
You say

richardscourtney
Reply to  Hugs
October 25, 2015 12:58 am

Hugs:
Sorry for my false post.
You say

Literature says roughly 25 per cent of CO2 in the athmosphere is anthropogenic. The fact that anthropogenic emissions are small compared to annual natural CO2 budjet is – if I understand English proverbs right – a red herring.

It cannot be true that “roughly 25 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic”. What do you think the atmospheric CO2 concentration was before humans existed?
At issue is what contribution the anthropogenic CO2 emissions make to the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And that can be modeled as being whatever percentage of the rise you want to suite your claims.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 2:34 am

Richard,
Only in your dreams…
If you have any alternative explanation of a non-human rise of CO2 (except for 10 ppmv from warming oceans) that doesn’t violate one or more observations, you may have a point. Until then…

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 5:51 am

Ferdinand:
Only in your dreams…
If you have any explanation for a human rise of CO2 that doesn’t rely on a circular argument, you may have a point. Until then…
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 9:02 am

Richard,
Human emissions are twice the measured increase in the atmosphere. If you can find a bookkeeper who can twist the figures in such a way that humans are not the cause of the increase, he can make a fortune for any firm he likes (including the mafia).
BTW, the only possible theoretical alternative by Bart violates not one or two but ALL known observations…

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 9:34 am

Ferdinand:
If you can find a bookkeeper who can twist the figures when most of the inputs and outputs are not quantified then he would soon be in jail for providing a result that fits what he wants it to be.
Oh, sorry, this not accountancy but is ‘climate science’ where making data fit what you want it to be is accepted practice.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 11:58 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen October 25, 2015 at 9:02 am
Pseudo-mass balance argument again. Pitiful.

afonzarelli
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 6:03 pm

One thing is for sure, if nature can remove as much as 47% of anthropogenic co2 on average, then there is no reason why nature couldn’t remove much closer to 100% of anthro co2 on average. Bart, it looks like i may have stepped in the mass balance cow pie here. (hoo-wee, what a smell…)

Khwarizmi
Reply to  Hugs
October 25, 2015 1:05 am

Literature (Sprenger & Kramer, 1486) says roughly 50 percent of all tempests are caused by witches.
The IPCC literature quoted here says:
===================
“However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state.
===================
Do you believe that extraordinary claim in the literature, Hugs?

Tucci78
October 25, 2015 12:33 am

Water vapour is the giant wet elephant in the IPCC laboratory. The definition of climate change they received allowed them to ignore anything that didn’t fit their hypothesis. As a result, the IPCC focus is on eliminating, ignoring, and creating false narratives to enhance the role of CO2. This has the effect of pushing the elephant of water vapour under water so that like an iceberg the public only see about 10 percent of the mass.

Yep. The authoritarians, “hot for certainty,” want their feculently simple-minded premises accepted – and their victims to submit in all regards – without question or resistance. Thus we get the demonization of anthropogenic carbon dioxide while they “blank out” acknowledgement of the other product of complete combustion: dihydrogen monoxide.

Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

— H.L. Mencken

Reply to  Tucci78
October 25, 2015 2:31 am

Tucci,
While human CO2 emissions are the cause of most of the 30% rise in CO2 over the past 165 years, thanks to a long decay rate of ~51 years, the accompanying water vapor emissions (including the lost energy in cooling water towers) is less than 0.01% of all natural water vapor and its decay rate is a matter of days. That plays zero role in the radiation balances…

Tucci78
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 3:42 am

While human CO2 emissions are the cause of most of the 30% rise in CO2 over the past 165 years, thanks to a long decay rate of ~51 years, the accompanying water vapor emissions (including the lost energy in cooling water towers) is less than 0.01% of all natural water vapor and its decay rate is a matter of days. That plays zero role in the radiation balances…

Isotopic analyses enable the determination of how much of the “rise in [atmospheric] CO2 over the past 165 years” is due to the purposeful combustion of petrochemical fuels, but precisely how much of “the accompanying water vapor emissions” can be with similar surety attributed to said combustion?
Considering how vanishingly little role anthropogenic carbon dioxide plays in the Earth’s radiation balances, if it’s allowable for our Indonesian-in-Chief to persecute us for our CO2 emissions, are not his minions and co-religionists equally justified in taxing, regulating, fining, droning and assassinating us for the water vapor we engender?
It’s true that the total mass of water vapor in the atmosphere is so great that the H2O resulting from complete petrochemicals combustion is “lost in the noise,” but how can anthropogenic water vapor be distinguished from atmospheric water vapor that’s the product of “natural emissions”? We need to know!
Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas” of indisputably greater potency than is CO2. Shouldn’t the warmunists – watermelonically determined that no sparrow shall fall except as it’s chopped into gobbets by a wind turbine and accordingly counted to their profit as a carbon credit – be pursuing each whistling teakettle and exhaled breath to keep mankind from fogging up Mother Gaia’s mirror?

Seriousness is stupidity sent to college.

— P. J. O’Rourke

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 8:57 am

Tucci,
While near the total increase of CO2 is from human emissions, the easy to determine isotopic ratio only shows how much original “human” CO2 still is in the atmosphere. That is “diluted” by the 20% seasonal exchanges of CO2 between different reservoirs. Thus isotopic changes are not sufficient to know the source.
For water it is simpler: a daily human addition of 0.01% and de decay rate of a few days means that the human accumulation of water vapor maybe average 0.03%, still negligible for the radiation balance…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 9:01 am

Ferdinand,
May I add the conclusion that always seems to be missing? Thank you:
A few decades ago many scientists were unsure whether the rise in CO2 was good or bad. Now we know.
The rise in CO2 is an unmitigated good. There is no downside, and unless you’re a plant, you can’t tell the difference between 300 ppm and 400 ppm.
This cannot be stressed enough. More CO2 is better. A lot more is a lot better.
It’s all good.  ☺

Tucci78
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 12:15 pm

While near the total increase of CO2 is from human emissions, the easy to determine isotopic ratio only shows how much original “human” CO2 still is in the atmosphere. That is “diluted” by the 20% seasonal exchanges of CO2 between different reservoirs. Thus isotopic changes are not sufficient to know the source.
For water it is simpler: a daily human addition of 0.01% and de decay rate of a few days means that the human accumulation of water vapor maybe average 0.03%, still negligible for the radiation balance…

At present – mark you: RIGHT NOW, in this wonderful ultra-progressive Age of Obozo when the Woman With One Eyebrow is being kept out of the federal prison system in order to sustain and extend his legacy – though “the total increase of [atmospheric] CO2 is from human emissions,” given that the total amount of atmospheric CO2 is fiddlin’ goddam teensy (the expression used in clinical pulmonology when we’re messing around with ABG analyses and ventilator settings is “trace gas”), such an observation begs one key question that keeps slipping out of consideration as the discussion of the climate quacks’ “settled science” is sustained without cutting to the chase by shooting the thieving, duplicitous sons of bitches to death by musketry as they deserve:
What the f— SIGNIFICANCE is there in the fact that the “near the total increase of CO2 [right now] is from human emissions” if that measured increase in a trace gas doesn’t really do dick in terms of altering the planet’s radiation balances?
It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge the evidence provided by isotopic analyses of aliquots drawn from the well-mixed atmosphere over Antarctica and Mauna Loa, and to credit the purposeful burning of coal and other petrochemical fuels for the enrichment of the Earth’s bioavailable carbon dioxide supply, but those of us with scientific literacy and moral integrity really can’t speak “thus far and no farther,” ’cause by doing so we concede to the scrabbling, prevaricating, power-grabbing, grant-fund-sucking, carbon-credit-trading, “Clean Power Plan”-foisting, EPA-metastasizing warmunist son of bitches yet more opportunity to push their frabjous Big Lie.

The right to search for truth implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.

– Albert Einstein

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 26, 2015 1:27 am

Tucci,
As dbstealy already mentioned, while the about 30% increase in CO2 is good for ~2 W/m2 extra outgoing IR retention, that doesn’t mean that the induced warming is of any harm.
Theoretically, a doubling of CO2 will increase the earth’s temperature with around 1°C. Climate models increase that figure with a lot of – all positive – feedbacks (mainly water vapor). In reality, there are negative feedbacks at work (mainly clouds), which make that the influence of more CO2 less than expected…
Thus admitting that the CO2 rise is (near) all human doesn’t harm the main case of all skeptics: all models are wrong, as their sensitivity for 2xCO2 is far too high. Refusing to accept the obvious human cause harms the skeptic arguments more than it helps their case…

Tucci78
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 26, 2015 4:25 am

As dbstealy already mentioned, while the about 30% increase in CO2 is good for ~2 W/m2 extra outgoing IR retention, that doesn’t mean that the induced warming is of any harm.
Theoretically, a doubling of CO2 will increase the earth’s temperature with around 1°C. Climate models increase that figure with a lot of – all positive – feedbacks (mainly water vapor). In reality, there are negative feedbacks at work (mainly clouds), which make that the influence of more CO2 less than expected…

Rather than “Theoretically,” it would seem that the word to be used in climatology with regard to the warming effects of increased atmospheric CO2 really ought to be CONJECTURALLY.
For a speculative explanation (i.e., a “model”) of phenomena to reach the level of validity denoted by the term “theory,” there are criteria not yet met by the idea that “a doubling of [atmospheric] CO2 [concentrations]” would or could “increase the earth’s temperature” to any extent at all.
“A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, with no counterexample, and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts,” whereas “A theory is a hypothesis with at least one nontrivial validating datum.” (Glassman, 2007)
On the basis of evidence thus far observed and reported, it doesn’t seem possible to hold that the conjecture voiced by “the consensus in climatology” regarding “extra outgoing IR retention” which should (according to what’s known about the physical properties of atmospheric carbon dioxide) be produced by “the about 30% increase in CO2” – anthropogenic and otherwise – has attained a level of reliability above that of the hypothetical.
Might be argued that it doesn’t even rise that high.

Thus admitting that the CO2 rise is (near) all human doesn’t harm the main case of all skeptics: all models are wrong, as their sensitivity for 2xCO2 is far too high. Refusing to accept the obvious human cause harms the skeptic arguments more than it helps their case…

This is a point of discussion against which I’ve never been much inclined to contend, as the isotopic analyses of atmospheric carbon dioxide seem reliably to support the contentions of Keeling et alia as to the ancient origins of this gas fraction increase. This notwithstanding, as you’ve observed, the physical effects of this increase in an atmospheric trace gas seem neither to be significant (i.e., beyond the “wiggle room” error bars inescapable in precedent and present instrumental assessment techniques) nor adverse.
Even speculatively.
(Can enough be said about the “climate consensus” quacks’ perpetration of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi in dismissing – indeed, denying – consideration of known and decidedly non-adverse climate conditions during the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm optima?)

richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 12:46 am

Tim Ball:
Thankyou for another very fine article.
For decades I have been saying the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) hypothesis is impossible because it relies upon a water vapour feedback (WVF), and the existence of oceans demonstrates that a significant WVF does not exist. The explanation of this is as follows.
The WVF is a feedback on temperature rise induced by increased radiative forcing; i.e.
1.
increased radiative forcing raises temperature
2.
raised temperature increases evapouration of water
3.
more evapouration of water increases water vapour in the air
3.
more water vapour in the air increases radiative forcing
4.
Return to 1.
This feedback may or may not induce runaway warming depending on its strength.
Importantly, ANY increase to radiative forcing starts the loop at 1.
The Sun is a g-type star and, therefore, the Sun has increased its output over time such that radiative forcing has increased by ~20% over the time that the Earth has had an oxygen rich atmosphere.
However, the Earth has had two apparently stable conditions – glacial and interglacial – without any clear trend of increasing temperature since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
If change to radiative forcing had caused the WVF to provide significant temperature rise then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago as a result of the increase to solar forcing the Earth since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
In summation, the AGW hypothesis says an increase of 0.4% to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would be amplified by the WVF to provide significant global temperature rise, but it is known that an increase of ~20% to radiative forcing from increased solar output has not been amplified by the WVF to provide any discernible global temperature rise.
In other words, the AGW hypothesis is ludicrous nonsense.

Richard

Editor
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 25, 2015 1:18 am

There is another relevant factor. More evaporation leads to more precipitation. Studies by Wijfells and by others indicate that precipitation increases at roughly the same rate as evaporation, yet the climate models allow for only a fraction of that level of precipitation. When water evaporates at the ocean surface, it carries with it the latent heat of evaporation. When the water vapour then condenses prior to precipitating, it releases its latent heat into the atmosphere, from which a significant proportion escapes as IR to space. The whole water cycle therefore has a net cooling effect. If the water cycle was correctly increased in the models alongside the water vapour increase, then the net warming effect would be greatly reduced, and the models’ CO2 climate sensitivity would be correspondingly reduced (because, in the models, the increased water vapour is a CO2 feedback). In short, the models overestimate warming because they underestimate precipitation.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 25, 2015 1:41 am

Mike Jonas:
Yes, there are many other relevant factors but I repeat that the existence of the oceans in the present is alone sufficient to demonstrate that the AGW hypothesis is ludicrous nonsense.
As I said, the AGW hypothesis says an increase of 0.4% to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would be amplified by the WVF to provide significant global temperature rise, but it is known that an increase of ~20% to radiative forcing from increased solar output has not been amplified by the WVF to provide any discernible global temperature rise.
Richard

richard verney
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 25, 2015 2:33 am

Don’t forget that there have been times in the past when CO2 has been in the order of 8,000 ppm (some claim even higher figures, although proxy evidence must be viewed with caution). This is 5 doublings of the pre-industrial CO2 level. From this fact alone, one can immediately see that the forcing from CO2 (plus any consequential water vapour forcing consequent thereon), if any at all, must be towards the lower level of the IPCC range.
The entire claim of strong positive feedbacks is absurd however one looks at it. we would not be here today, if there were such strong positive feedback loops.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 25, 2015 3:22 am

“The entire claim of strong positive feedbacks is absurd however one looks at it. we would not be here today, if there were such strong positive feedback loops.”
Agreed. It is amazing how simple logic like your observation is just totally ignored by the alarmist climate “scientists”. It boggles the mind.
In the 70s we were looking at the long term temperature records (from proxies of course) and saw that an end to the current interglacial was the most probable event in the relative near term. This was based on the patterns of the past. We also noticed that CO2 concentrations much, much higher than the present seemed to coincided with some of the best conditions for life in the past. Why would more CO2 not be good for life now? (that plus the amount of CO2 that plant growers pump into their hot houses for optimum growth)
So, for these reasons I could never buy into the CO2 is death delusion.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 25, 2015 11:26 am

Mike Jonas,
Correctomundo. To take it one more step: global warming would cause more evaporation.
Both relative and specific humidity have been declining for decades.
Where is that increased evaporation? Where is the increased precipitation?

October 25, 2015 2:24 am

Dr. Ball,
You are very good at attributing motivation to what others say, but that only shows that you have no idea about what you are writing (or you do that by purpose):
Now “Long-lived greenhouse gasses” are “Well-mixed greenhouse gasses.” This is because they switched the narrative.
Either you don’t understand what is said, or you made that up: it is a necessary condition for being a “well-mixed greenhouse gas” that such a gas has a sufficient life time. If that isn’t the case, like for ozone in the stratosphere, then that gas will be not well mixed and for ozone the levels over the equator are a lot higher than over the poles.
The early story said that CO2 residency time was 100 years, but that was challenged and corrected.
Where in the IPCC reports was that “corrected”? As far as I know, the IPCC still uses the Bern model which shows different decay times for different reservoirs with different saturation levels, from very fast for the ocean surface to slower for the deep oceans and very slow for other reservoirs, where the last 30% should sink over very long periods.
This is simply not possible because, as the satellite data from OCO2 shows, CO2 is clearly not a well-mixed gas.
Sorry, pure nonsense. A variability of +/- 2% of full scale over the seasons, while 20% of all CO2 is going in and out of the atmosphere in a few months is damn well mixed. See that on full scale for Mauna Loa and Samoa, including all the local outliers and seasonal changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_raw_select_2008_fullscale.jpg
Further Fig, 1 shows that human CO2 is only 3,4% of the increase, while it is 3,4 (meanwhile 6%) of the cycle, but contrary to the cycle, it is one-way addition and thus the human contribution is in reality 90% of the increase, not 3,4%…
Thus while I agree that the water vapor feedback doesn’t exist and seems more a negative cloud feedback on any increase in incoming radiation, errors and motive attributions like the above don’t give much confidence to what you write…

richardscourtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 6:12 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
You say to Tim Ball,

You are very good at attributing motivation to what others say, but that only shows that you have no idea about what you are writing (or you do that by purpose):

I say to you,
You are very good at attributing motivation to what others say, but that only shows that you have no idea about what you are writing (or you do that by purpose):
‘People in glass houses’ and all that.
Richard

Marcus
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 6:35 am

The satellite images show it is not well mixed…or are you saying they are fake ???

gymnosperm
Reply to  Marcus
October 25, 2015 8:30 am

C’mon. OCO shows that it is not perfectly and instantaneously mixed. Compared to water, CO2 is very, very well mixed.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Marcus
October 25, 2015 9:57 am

gymnosperm:
You say

C’mon. OCO shows that it is not perfectly and instantaneously mixed. Compared to water, CO2 is very, very well mixed.

Thankyou for your excellent demonstration of the common warmunist trick of focusing on irrelevance and not on matters of importance.
The comparison with water vapour is irrelevant.
The lack of adequate mixing creates an excess of CO2 over a year in regions where nature cannot sequester all the locally emitted CO2 in that year. And those regions are indicators of reasons for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
OCO-2 shows that over the year sub-Sahara Africa and Siberia have greater excess CO2 than Western Europe.
sarc on/
Clearly, the CO2 from humans’ industrial activities in sub-Sahara Africa and Siberia are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2.
sarc off/
Richard

Reply to  Marcus
October 25, 2015 10:30 am

Richard,
Besides that the OCO-2 people need to address some real strange anomalies, like the extra CO2 over the NE Atlantic, where the largest CO2 sink in the oceans is measured (over many years and many thousands of measurements), even a 20 ppmv difference in levels over a year is small, as 80 ppmv CO2 gets in and out within a few months over the seasons. Thus still well mixed, not instantly mixed…
The “reasons for the rise of CO2” still is wishful thinking from your side…

richardscourtney
Reply to  Marcus
October 25, 2015 11:22 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In this sub-thread where I objected to your feigned protest at Tim Ball attributing motivation you have written

The “reasons for the rise of CO2” still is wishful thinking from your side…

I do NOT have a “side” but you do.
I point out that available data does not permit identification of the cause(s) of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 as being natural, or anthropogenic, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural effects.
You proclaim your belief that the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is the anthropogenic CO2 emission.
Richard

Reply to  Marcus
October 26, 2015 2:37 am

Richard,
If all observations point to humans as cause of the increase and all alternative explanations do fail one or more observations or even all observations (for Bart’s explanation), then I can be pretty sure that humans are the cause.
By not accepting these facts, you only show that you don’t like the implications…

Reply to  Marcus
October 26, 2015 9:27 am

“All observations” do not point to humans as the cause. You have woven a narrative in which you interpret the evidence that way, but it is a collection of “Just So” stories unmoored from basic physical principles, and fundamentally contradicted by the evidence that dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0).

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2015 12:03 pm

“…but contrary to the cycle, it is one-way addition…”
This is an assumption, but in fact, there is no constraint that demands that natural inputs and outputs balance.
The argument is naive and self-contradictory. If there were such a constraint, that would imply a regulating feedback, and growth from anthropogenic inputs would similarly be suppressed.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 25, 2015 12:47 pm

Bart:
there is no constraint that demands that natural inputs and outputs balance.
No, but the measurements show that the natural unbalance is surprisingly small: not more than +/- 1 ppmv around the trend, whatever the trend may cause.
If there were such a constraint, that would imply a regulating feedback, and growth from anthropogenic inputs would similarly be suppressed.
Except that different processes are at work: about all natural processes in the carbon cycle are temperature controlled: seasonal (ocean surface and vegetation), continuous (deep oceans), year by year variability (vegetation). Human emissions (and volcanoes) add to the pressure in the atmosphere above steady state and its decay is only possible through pressure related processes, temperature hardly plays a role there. That is mainly the case for the oceans and more limited for vegetation. The effects of temperature and pressure are quite different for different processes…

richardscourtney
Reply to  Bartemis
October 25, 2015 11:28 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
You write saying to Bart

The effects of temperature and pressure are quite different for different processes…

In light of that admission, please explain why you assume all those effects summate to zero in the absence of the anthropogenic emission.
Richard

Reply to  Bartemis
October 26, 2015 2:31 am

Richard:
In light of that admission, please explain why you assume all those effects summate to zero in the absence of the anthropogenic emission.
800,000 years of history and current knowledge: in all time frames temperature was the only driving force where CO2 simply followed temperature changes with some variable lag and ultimately balanced at the CO2 levels which are dictated by Henry’s law for the CO2 solubility in the oceans.
That is a quite slow process with lags between 50 years (MWP-LIA) and hundreds of years (deglaciations) to thousands of years (onset of glaciations).
All these processes, from seasonal via 1-3 years variability (both vegetation dominant) and long term (multi-decades to multi-millennia, ocean dominant) are entirely temperature dependent. The same temperature change ultimately gives the same CO2 change over the past 800,000 years, except for the past 165 years.
CO2 increases due to large volcanic events are completely absent in the records and the largest recent huge event, the 1991 Pinatubo – VEI 6 – didn’t even increase CO2 levels, to the contrary.
So, human emissions are the first appreciable release of vast quantities of CO2 in the past 800,000 years, where the increase in CO2 pressure in the atmosphere is the only driving force for the sink rate at an e-fold decay rate of slightly over 50 years. By far fast enough to follow the extra CO2 pressure caused by temperature changes over thousands of years, but not fast enough to cope with human emissions in short time.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 26, 2015 9:30 am

The above requires assumptions of
A) absolute faith the the ice core records, without any independent verification
B) belief that whatever happened in the past must continue forever

Reply to  Bartemis
October 26, 2015 9:33 am

continuing…
It is a fundamentally unphysical outlook. A tight equilibrium enforced for 100’s of thousands of years requires feedback regulation. Without it, CO2 would have drifted far and wide.
But, tight feedback regulation of natural inputs is fundamentally incompatible with lax response to human inputs.
You quite simply cannot have both tight and loose regulation in the real world. It just does not work like that.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 26, 2015 2:55 pm

Bart,
The influence of human emissions is measurable in ice cores, in coralline sponges, even in stomata data, the pre-bomb-tests 14C decline, 13C/12C ratio of leaves and wood,… All starting around 1850 and increasing in speed. Thus not only in ice core records, but in a lot of proxies.
Ice core records happen to be direct CO2 measurements, be it averaged over a short (less than a decade for the past 150 years) to very long period over the past 800,000 years (and confirmed over a few million years in foramins).
Thus indeed with reasons, I have confidence in ice core results.
That the past doesn’t (always) predict the future is sure, but what is sure is that the current increase of 400 ppmv is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years. All past variability was temperature induced, the current increase is certainly not temperature induced, despite your formula which violates all physical laws of solubility and response of the fluxes to an increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
There is no discrepancy between a relative slow response to increased CO2 levels: an e-fold decay rate of over 50 years can’t cope with 200 ppmv human emissions in 165 years time, but it is more than fast enough to follow the 100 ppmv increase over 5,000 years between glacial and interglacial periods…
And again, all natural carbon fluxes are tightly temperature regulated, an extra CO2 shot in the atmosphere is not removed by these processes, that is a pressure regulated process of a different order.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 26, 2015 6:18 pm

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. When natural flows are 30X or greater than the human input, nature obviously would have no trouble regulating our puny input.
You just make things up as you go along, Ferdinand. The Just-so stories you come up with may sound pleasing to you, and appear plausible to inexperienced minds. But, it is no more scientifically rigorous than explaining how the Djinn gave the camel his hump.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 27, 2015 9:45 am

Bart,
I know, you are not interested in observations, your theory based on matching two straight lines with an arbitrary factor and offset is the only truth… Even if that violates all observations, including known physics like Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater,,,

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 10:08 am

I’m not interested in your storytelling based on cherry picked observations, with which the storyline is merely vaguely consistent. You are not arguing observations. You are advocating a particular, and physically untenable, interpretation of the observations.
There are fundamental mathematical and physical laws which contradict your storyline. You do not realize it, because your math skills are poor. Anyone who has ever been snookered by the ridiculous pseudo-mass balance argument has self-identified as being unqualified to understand this system.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 11:27 am

Bart:
There are fundamental mathematical and physical laws which contradict your storyline.
That says the man who shows one formula, based on the very difficult match of the slopes of two straight lines…
I haven’t seen one case where the human emissions fail any observation or fundamental mathematical or physical laws, while your formula violates Henry’s law, a pure physical law, established in 1803 and since then confirmed by over 3 million samples, up to today…
It is physically impossible that 1°C average ocean temperature increase will give more than 16 ppmv in the atmosphere, let be 110 ppmv, without any feedback of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere on the in/out fluxes.
That you have a lot of knowledge on high-frequency processes is clear, that you have no insight in much simpler first order processes with their feedbacks (and Le Châtelier’s principle) is clear too…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 1:39 pm

“…based on the very difficult match of the slopes of two straight lines…”
Where do you see a straight line here? Where is the difficulty in the match?
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
“I haven’t seen one case where the human emissions fail any observation or fundamental mathematical or physical laws…”
They cannot add significantly, because the temperature relationship above already accounts for atmospheric CO2. The trend in temperature is causing the trend in CO2 rate of change. It cannot be otherwise, because the phase would be distorted if it weren’t. That is a fundamental mathematical and physical fact.
“… while your formula violates Henry’s law…”
It does not violate Henry’s law. As I have stated many times previously, it is precisely the kind of relationship you would expect for a dynamic transport process in which there is a continual flow in and out, and any sustained imbalance between the flows causes a sustained change in CO2 content of the surface oceans, and hence of the atmosphere. You would violate Henry’s law by claiming that a sustained increase in ocean CO2 would not cause a sustained increase in atmospheric CO2.
“It is physically impossible that 1°C average ocean temperature increase will give more than 16 ppmv in the atmosphere…”
Only if the oceans were static. The oceans are not static. Every second of every day, new waters are upwelling to the surface, and others are downwelling. Any sustained imbalance in the flow of CO2 in those waters will cause a sustained change in the CO2 content of the surface waters, and hence of the atmosphere.
The dog wags the tail, not the other way around. The oceans are the dog. The atmosphere is the tail.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 2:56 pm

Bart,
Where do you see the match between the slopes here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_der.jpg
T changes do induce CO2 changes with a lag.
dT/dt changes do induce dCO2/dt changes with a lag.
A linear increase in T gives a quasi-linear increase of CO2 and that gives zero slope in dT/dt and dCO2/dt, only a small offset.
The slope in dCO2/dt is not from temperature, but from an entire different process: the twice as high human emissions.
(BTW, I should have added “/sarc” after the word “difficult”)
The trend in temperature is causing the trend in CO2 rate of change. It cannot be otherwise, because the phase would be distorted if it weren’t.
Not at all: temperature is not causing any trend in the CO2 rate of change, only almost all of the variability and a small offset from zero. Your match of the slopes is completely bogus. If you add CO2 from two unrelated processes, of which one is temperature related and the other is pressure related, the net effect is the sum of both processes, no distortion, no phase shift.
Any sustained imbalance in the flow of CO2 in those waters will cause a sustained change in the CO2 content of the surface waters, and hence of the atmosphere.
Any sustained imbalance in flows has nothing to do with temperature, as the response of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to temperature only gives a transient change of 16 ppmv/°C at steady state. Steady state is a dynamic equilibrium, where input and output fluxes are again equal at a higher CO2 level in the case of a step in temperature. That is as dynamic as you can have.
An increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere reduces the input CO2 flux and increases the outflux, whatever the temperature or concentration changes in the oceans…
The current atmosphere is already 110 ppmv above steady state for the current weighted average ocean temperature per Henry’s law. In what direction do you think that the net CO2 flux goes?

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 3:23 pm

“Where do you see the match between the slopes here:”
I don’t. No match of trend. No match in phase.
That is why your model fails. The relationship is very clearly
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)
That is incontrovertible from the data. You must start from there.
It does not matter what you want the relationship to be. This is what the data tell us it is.
“Any sustained imbalance in flows has nothing to do with temperature, as the response of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to temperature only gives a transient change of 16 ppmv/°C at steady state.”
Wrong. When temperature rises, less downwells than upwells, and you get a sustained increase at the surface.
“An increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere reduces the input CO2 flux and increases the outflux…”
Only over a very long timeline. You again have the tail wagging the dog.
You are speculating on the dynamics without grounding yourself in the observations. You can come up with any flight of fancy that way. The data constrain the dynamics, and they are such that, since at least 1959
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 3:34 pm

“…reduces the input CO2 flux…”
And, BTW, no matter how high the partial pressure in the atmosphere, you cannot stop centuries old CO2 rising back up into the surface oceans. That part of the equation is so long term, you can treat it as an exogenous input.
I don’t know how much American television you have seen, but this is from a classic episode of The Lucy Show ages ago:

Lucy and Ethel have no control over the chocolates coming down the conveyor belt. But, they’ve got to wrap them as fast as they come in, or they pile up.
And, if the downwelling does not match the upwelling, CO2 is going to pile up in the surface oceans, from which it will force atmospheric levels to rise.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 3:57 pm

Bart,
That is why your model fails.
You still don’t understand it: all variability’s of T, CO2, dT/dt and dCO2/dt show the same form in variability, where CO2 lags T and dCO2/dt (must!) lag dT/dt. Because of the linear increase in slope of T, its effect on CO2 is also (almost) linear for small changes in T.
That means that dT/dt and the part of dCO2/dt caused by temperature both have zero slope
By taking the derivatives, T changes and dCO2/dt changes are synchronized. That still is directly process related, but the slope of T has nothing to do with the slope of dCO2/dt, as the latter is (near) completely flat for the part that is caused by temperature.
The match of the variability was nicely explained by Paul_K at:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/21/diary-date-murry-salby.html?currentPage=2#comments
Fourth comment by Paul_K, and further on in that discussion, gives a nice overview of the effect of a transient response of CO2 to temperature:

For the transient behaviour, I am just using a simple response function of the form:-
τ * dCO2/dt = ΔT – f(T)* ΔCO2
where ΔT and ΔCO2 are measured from an arbitrary initial equilibrium condition. This equation is based on the assumption that the process of release of solute with temperature change starts off quickly and slows down as the concentrations adjust – a commonly observed phenomenon for the transient behavior of chemical equilibration processes.

and

Note that this model is completely compatible with Henry’s Law – including the fact that for a fixed temperature change, the model does, if left alone, equilibrate at a new constant concentration value of CO2.

The “new constant concentration value” for the atmosphere in dynamic equilibrium with the oceans is 16 ppmv/°C, where the 0.6°C increase over the past 57 years was good for 10 ppmv increase. That is all. Already exceeded after 15 years in the measured CO2 increase…
The ΔCO2 in your formula is completely absent, that is where you got lost…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 4:14 pm

Bart,
Indeed have seen several of Lucy’s shows in the far past…
And, BTW, no matter how high the partial pressure in the atmosphere, you cannot stop centuries old CO2 rising back up into the surface oceans.
Your formula has only a term for temperature, an increased input from the deep ocean is quasi independent of temperature and an increase of 1°C gives no more than a 3% extra release from the sustained upwelling.
Even so, a sustained upwelling itself (for which is not the slightest indication) will increase the pCO2 in the atmosphere, which reduces the upwelling and increases the sinks, until a new steady state is reached. Here for a sustained increase of 10% in CO2 upwelling:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr.jpg
Even if you combine extra upwelling and an increase in temperature, that doesn’t matter: both effects together will give a transient response of CO2 in the atmosphere until a new steady state is reached.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 28, 2015 4:50 pm

Ferdinand,
It is very unlikely that a “steady state” is ever reached near the sea surface of the tropical oceans. CO2 that is outgassed does not remain near the surface. It rises rapidly with evaporated water vapor into the upper atmosphere in thunder clouds. Some is absorbed by cold rain but most is ejected out the top where the water freezes. I think the concentration of CO2 is being controlled by the amount of water vapor at the freeze temperature in those cloud tops. That amount is likely a function of the temperature gradient in the clouds. This is a fast process because the updraft velocity is so fast.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 28, 2015 4:54 pm

“all variability’s of T, CO2, dT/dt and dCO2/dt show the same form in variability, where CO2 lags T and dCO2/dt (must!) lag dT/dt.”
CO2 does lag T. But, it is not an arbitrary lag. It is 90 degrees in phase across the entire spectrum. Which means it is an integral relationship.
There is no alternative.
“Because of the linear increase in slope of T, its effect on CO2 is also (almost) linear for small changes in T.”
There is no such requirement. That is you imposing how you want things to be. The data contradict it. It is wrong.
“The match of the variability was nicely explained by Paul_K at:…”
Nope. You can only match it over a finite bandwidth that way. We match it over the entire spectrum here. If you had that type of response, you would have significant phase distortion at the cutoff frequency. There is none observable.
Paul, himself, was still hoping to find an out by the end of the conversation:

“Bart, I think we are generally speaking the same language. However, I have yet to convince myself that the observations cannot be explained – as Ferdinand has suggested – by the high frequency variation (and derivative) being temperature dominated and the longer period change being dominated by anthropogenic addition.”

That is where he left off. I promise you, if he continued looking, he has convinced himself by now. There is no out.
“…will increase the pCO2 in the atmosphere, which reduces the upwelling…”
The upwelling cannot be reduced. The outgassing to the atmosphere can be decreased, but the upwelling into the surface oceans cannot be reduced.
“…both effects together will give a transient response of CO2 in the atmosphere until a new steady state is reached.”
Were that the case, it would hold for anthropogenic inputs as well, and they could not drive the concentration substantially higher, either.
It is not the case. The feedback from atmospheric partial pressure is not as powerful as you imagine. In fact, it is very weak. You can essentially ignore it over the relevant timeline. Again, the ocean is the dog… no, I take that back. The ocean is the elephant. The atmosphere is just his tail.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 2:14 am

fhhaynie:
Ferdinand,
It is very unlikely that a “steady state” is ever reached near the sea surface of the tropical oceans.

Fred, “steady state” has two legs: the inputs and the outputs. The inputs at the tropical upwelling places never will cease, neither do the sink places near the poles (except if the earth stops turning around its axes…).
The steady state is about input fluxes and output fluxes. If these are in equilibrium, steady state is reached. Currently around 40 GtC/year, be it with ~3 GtC/year more output than input.
If the ocean surface temperature increases with 1 K, the pCO2 of the oceans increases with about 16 μatm, that increases the CO2 influx at the equator and decreases the outflux near the poles (each about 3%). The difference increases the pCO2 in the atmosphere. Once the atmospheric CO2 increased with 16 ppmv, the original pCO2 differences between atmosphere and ocean surfaces are restored and so are the input and output fluxes…:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
Currently we are at 110 ppmv above steady state for the current ocean surface temperature, therefore there is slightly more sink than source, which dwarfs the temperature influence…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 29, 2015 3:47 am

The assumption that the earth has some type of “dynamic equilibrium” or steady state that is being upset by anthropogenic emissions is your problem.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 3:06 am

Bart:
CO2 does lag T. But, it is not an arbitrary lag. It is 90 degrees in phase across the entire spectrum. Which means it is an integral relationship.
Agreed, but the integral is between T and CO2 (NOT dCO2/dt) in the atmosphere: not more than 4-5 ppmv/°C for the variability (caused by vegetation, which integrates negative over periods longer than 1-3 years) and up to 16 ppmv/°C for the oceans.
Over the full 57 years, that is ~10 ppmv extra or 0.18 ppmv/year offset from zero. The only “slope” you may have from the non-linearity of warming ocean waters per Henry’s law is 0.005 ppmv/year at the end of the full period. Big deal.
The integral is not between dCO2/dt and T, because the former doesn’t lag T. The integral is between dCO2/dt and dT/dt and because the latter has zero slope, dCO2/dt has zero slope too, only a slight offset from zero.
There is no such requirement. That is you imposing how you want things to be. The data contradict it. It is wrong.
Over 3 million measurements confirm that the ocean waters react quite linear to temperature. The error in non-linearity of pCO2 for a temperature change is less than 3% of the measured change for small changes.
From http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/carbondioxide/text/LMG06_8_data_report.doc
The value for Tin situ is taken to be the seawater temperature measured by the ship’s thermosalinograph at the time of pCO2 measurements. Teq is generally warmer than Tin-situ by 0.5 ~ 0.8 °C. Hence the temperature correction is normally less than 3% of pCO2 values.
If you had that type of response, you would have significant phase distortion at the cutoff frequency.
Bart, this is not a high frequency feedback process of one variable, this is the sum of many independent processes, each with their own reaction amplitude to temperature, without an appreciable feedback on temperature, all transient responses plus human emissions, which have no appreciable connection with temperature. The sum of all these processes has all the variability caused by vegetation, without any phase distortion, plus the effect of warming oceans plus the effect of human emissions.
The upwelling cannot be reduced. The outgassing to the atmosphere can be decreased, but the upwelling into the surface oceans cannot be reduced.
Sorry, lapsus: I meant the CO2 outgassing to the atmosphere (and the CO2 sink fluxes, as is clear from the graph), which is completely absent in your formula and is the main point in discussion: the increase in the atmosphere restores the CO2 fluxes at 16 ppmv/°C for a constant upwelling (mass and concentration).
Were that the case, it would hold for anthropogenic inputs as well, and they could not drive the concentration substantially higher, either.
Again, you are thinking as if all CO2 is regulated by one process Temperature did regulate CO2 in the 800,000 past and the current huge seasonal changes and the 1-3 years variability around the trend and a small increase from warming ocean surfaces.
Temperature doesn’t cope with increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, pressure does. That is a much slower process (tau of over 50 years) than short term temperature regulated processes, but much faster than the deep ocean temperature exchanges over glacial/interglacial intervals…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 9:26 am

“… the integral is between T and CO2 (NOT dCO2/dt) in the atmosphere…”
I really wonder now if you know what an integral is. dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) means that CO2 is the integral of k*(T – T0):
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)
implies
CO2 = CO2(t0) + integral(dCO2/dt) = CO2(t0) + integral(k*(T-T0))
That is the empirical observation, not open to negotiation. It implies immediately that CO2 will lag T by 90 degrees. And, conversely, if CO2 lags T by 90 degrees at all frequencies, then CO2 has an integral relationship with T.
“…not more than 4-5 ppmv/°C for the variability (caused by vegetation, which integrates negative over periods longer than 1-3 years) and up to 16 ppmv/°C for the oceans.”
Again, the relationship dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) is the empirical observation, not open to negotiation. It says, for as long as the conditions that produce this dynamic hold, CO2 will continue to rise as long as T is greater than T0.
You can claim whatever you want, but if it is inconsistent with the empirical observation, then your claim is wrong.
It is quite simple. Your claim is inconsistent with the empirical observation. It is wrong.
The medieval mathematicians insisted that the planets moved in circles about the Earth. They were just sure that it had to. But, it was contradicted by Galileo’s empirical observations. When the data contradict your hypothesis, you are wrong, and you need to rethink things.
“Over 3 million measurements confirm that the ocean waters react quite linear to temperature.”
Locally in the very short term. Over the long term, with continual flows of the THC, it reacts differently. It reacts as dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0).
“… this is not a high frequency feedback process of one variable…”
When you alter dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) to dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) – CO2/time_constant, you are defacto imposing a high pass filter on the outcome of CO2 = CO2(t0) + integral(k*(T-T0)). Were the time constant any shorter than about 10X the record length, it would cause an observable phase distortion.
There is no such observable phase distortion. That tells us that, if there is such an additional term, it has no significance over the timeline of observation, and we may take dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) as the effective dynamic over this time interval.
“I meant the CO2 outgassing to the atmosphere (and the CO2 sink fluxes, as is clear from the graph), which is completely absent in your formula and is the main point in discussion: the increase in the atmosphere restores the CO2 fluxes at 16 ppmv/°C for a constant upwelling (mass and concentration).”
Again, this is only a local, short term process. In the longer term over the entire globe, dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0). That is the non-negotiable, empirical observation.
“Again, you are thinking as if all CO2 is regulated by one process …”
Not necessarily. I am simply demanding that all sources be treated equally. There cannot be one response for natural inputs, and a different one for anthropogenic inputs. If natural inputs could not drive CO2 higher, then anthropogenic ones could not, either.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 9:43 am

fhhaynie October 29, 2015 at 3:47 am
“The assumption that the earth has some type of “dynamic equilibrium” or steady state that is being upset by anthropogenic emissions is your problem.”
Yes. They base that assumption on the twin assumptions that the ice cores produce a reliable record of CO2 in equilibrium over hundreds of years, and that condition continues to hold up to the present time.
But,
A) The ice core records are not independently verifiable over the greater part of those hundreds of years, particularly in the long ago past
B) To the extent that they are verifiable with recent measurements, it is a trivial tautology, because they calibrate the one against the other
C) There is no assurance that the conditions which might have maintained such a putative balance continue to this day
Nature, as scientists well know, is mischievous. It delights in confounding our intuition and expectations. Murry Salby has shown how the ice core record can degrade for the distant past.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods” – Albert Einstein

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 12:29 pm

Bart:
I really wonder now if you know what an integral is. dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) means that CO2 is the integral of k*(T – T0):
I really wonder if you know what a transient response is. dCO2/dt is not the integral of k*(T-T0), it is the integral of dT/dt, where the 90°. lag is. There is no lag between the variability of dCO2/dt and T, thus no integral. Moreover, your formula is only based on the arbitrary match of two slopes, not based on any physical mechanism, as the slope of dCO2/dt for the part caused by temperature is practically zero and no factor in the world can match the amplitude of the variability’s with a zero slope.
All what you did is attributing the slope in dCO2/dt to temperature, because both have a slope, while the whole slope is caused by human emissions, completely dwarfing the 10 ppmv increase caused by warming oceans per Henry’s law.
CO2 will continue to rise as long as T is greater than T0.
Again pure nonsense, that violates all observations, especially Henry’s law which says that for any increase in temperature the new steady state will go up (transiently) with not more than 16 ppmv/°C. That is all, the rest is from human emissions. Your formula doesn’t take into account the decrease of the CO2 influx and increase of CO2 outflux for the increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
When the data contradict your hypothesis, you are wrong, and you need to rethink things.
Says the man which hypothesis conflicts with all known observations…
When you alter dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) to dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) – CO2/time_constant, you are defacto imposing a high pass filter on the outcome of CO2 = CO2(t0) + integral(k*(T-T0))
Again, you see the combination of CO2 changes as one process. All the short term variability is caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation. That integrates to below zero after 1-3 years, vegetation is a net, proven sink for CO2. The transient response of CO2 from the oceans to temperature changes is positive and slower and human emissions are hardly influenced by temperature. Thus at least three independent processes influence the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. There is no influence of the oceans caused CO2 or human emissions on the frequency, timing or amplitude of the CO2 rate of change caused by vegetation. The net result is the simple sum of all three processes.
Again, this is only a local, short term process. In the longer term over the entire globe, dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0). That is the non-negotiable, empirical observation.
Where in your formula k = 4 ppmv/year today, 0.02 ppmv/year over a glacial-interglacial transition, 0.0001 ppmv/year during the Holocene, 0.12 ppmv/year for the MWP-LIA transition,… Take your pick to match the slopes. While the simple application of Henry’s law over the past 800,000 years shows 16 ppmv/°C for every period, including the current period for the oceans (and less for vegetation)…
Not necessarily. I am simply demanding that all sources be treated equally. There cannot be one response for natural inputs, and a different one for anthropogenic inputs. If natural inputs could not drive CO2 higher, then anthropogenic ones could not, either.
All sources are not equal. Short term temperature changes have a short term influence on vegetation which zeroes out, even goes negative, in 1-3 years.
Temperature changes have a slower, transient response on ocean CO2 releases at 16 ppmv/°C and then it stops per Henry’s law. Temperature did drive the glacial – interglacial transitions of 100 ppmv at a rate of 0.02 ppmv/year.
Temperature changes have hardly any influence on human emissions, neither on the decay rate of the emissions which are above the steady state level of the oceans. Current emissions are ~4.5 ppmv/year, a little faster than the influence of temperature on warming oceans over 5,000 years and the only decay of that excess is possible by pressure, not temperature.
Thus human emissions are very capable of driving CO2 levels up much faster than the oceans did in the past…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 12:49 pm

Bart:
A) The ice core records are not independently verifiable over the greater part of those hundreds of years, particularly in the long ago past
There are few other kinds of proxies available for the long ago past, but for the past 600 years we have coralline sponges which completely parallel ice core records for their 13C/12C ratio in CO2. In complete ratio with human emissions. Long enough to show the small variability until 1850 and the enormous dip thereafter.
B) To the extent that they are verifiable with recent measurements, it is a trivial tautology, because they calibrate the one against the other
Pure nonsense: ice core measurements are completely independent from any other measurements: either NDIR, GC or mass spectrometers are used for CO2 or 13C/12C ratio, both in the atmosphere (20 years overlap) or coralline sponges (600 years overlap, 2-4 years resolution in the sponges).
C) There is no assurance that the conditions which might have maintained such a putative balance continue to this day
Indeed, all what we know for sure is that the current increase of 160 ppmv and drop of 1.8 per mil δ13C is unprecedented in at least the past 800,000 years. Just by coincidence the period that humans started to release lots of CO2…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 1:04 pm

“…dCO2/dt is not the integral of k*(T-T0), it is the integral of dT/dt…”
Wrong. Data say dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0).
“There is no lag between the variability of dCO2/dt and T, thus no integral.”
Do…I…need…to…type…more…slowly? The lack of variability means
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)
which implies
CO2 = CO2(t0) + integral(k*(T-T0))
There is the integral right there.
Really, Ferdinand. This is very basic. If you do not understand it, you really should not be commenting.
“Moreover, your formula is only based on the arbitrary match of two slopes…”
Again, it is a match across the entire frequency spread, including all the variability.
“…not based on any physical mechanism…”
… that you know of. Again, you do not need to know the physical mechanism that drives a train to know you better get off the track when it is bearing down on you. You do not sit there denying the existence of any until the train crushes you under its wheels.
“All what you did is attributing the slope in dCO2/dt to temperature, because both have a slope, while the whole slope is caused by human emissions…”
The slope (or trend) AND all the variations. The slope cannot be caused by human emissions. It is already accounted for by the excellent fit with all the variations of the temperature series.
“… that violates all observations, especially Henry’s law…”
It doesn’t violate Henry’s law. Henry’s law holds for a static pool of water. The oceans are not static.
This is a dynamic flow problem. You are stuck in a static world.
“Says the man which hypothesis conflicts with all known observations…”
Doesn’t conflict with a single one, only with your interpretation of them. But, yours conflicts with the observation that dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0).
“Again, you see …”
It is not what I see. It is what you fail to see.
In order to remove the trend in dCO2/dt induced by T, so as to make room for anthropogenic forcing, you must high pass filter out the trend in T. You, or rather Nature, cannot do it without inducing significant phase distortion which is not observable.
You don’t need all this speculation on what you think ought to be happening. The data are very clear.
“While the simple application of Henry’s law…”
This isn’t a simple application, and you are misapplying Henry’s law in this dynamic, flowing system.
” Short term temperature changes have a short term influence on vegetation which zeroes out, even goes negative, in 1-3 years.”
There may be such influences, but the major long term influence produces a dynamic of the form dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0).
It’s right in front of your eyes. This
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
is no coincidence. It matches the trend. It matches the variability about the trend. It matches the whole thing.
“Temperature changes have a slower, transient response on ocean CO2 releases…”
Sorry. No. The dynamic is dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0). There is zero doubt about it. You are contradicted by the data. See above plot.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 1:35 pm

“…for the past 600 years we have coralline sponges which completely parallel ice core records for their 13C/12C ratio in CO2…”
Whether or no, the ratio does not confirm the CO2 level.
“…ice core measurements are completely independent from any other measurements…”
Nonsense. How else would they even match up the time?
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/icecore_zpsyp1soird.png
“…all what we know for sure is that the current increase of 160 ppmv and drop of 1.8 per mil δ13C is unprecedented in at least the past 800,000 years.”
We don’t know that at all. There is no independent confirmation.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 2:28 pm

Bart:
Do…I…need…to…type…more…slowly? The lack of variability means
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)

Based on what? The only response from your side was a reference to an article which describes the response of a high frequency signal with a huge feedback to itself. That has no resemblance of what happens with the influence of temperature on CO2 levels at all. There is hardly any feedback of CO2 on temperature, but there is an important feedback of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere on CO2 in/out fluxes caused by temperature or upwelling. That lacks completely in your formula.
This is very basic. If you do not understand it, you really should not be commenting.
Bart if you don’t understand that any change in pressure in the atmosphere does immediately influence the in/out fluxes of CO2 from/to the oceans, then I wonder what you understand of simple first order processes.
It doesn’t violate Henry’s law. Henry’s law holds for a static pool of water. The oceans are not static.
What part of “steady state” or “dynamic equilibrium” don’t you understand? Henry’s law influences both influxes and outfluxes of CO2. Any increase in the atmosphere reduces the CO2 influx and increases the CO2 outflux. At 16 ppmv increase in the atmosphere, a 1°C increase in temperature of all ocean surface waters is fully dynamically compensated. Where is that term in your formula?
The slope (or trend) AND all the variations. The slope cannot be caused by human emissions. It is already accounted for by the excellent fit with all the variations of the temperature series.
Again, only the variability. Temperature has zero influence on the slope of dCO2/dt, as a linear increase in temperature gives a quasi-linear increase in CO2, thus an almost flat trend in dCO2/dt.
Nonsense. How else would they even match up the time?
Sorry Bart, if you need to use the errors (already refuted by Etheridge e.a. in 1996) of the late Dr. Jaworowski who apparently didn’t know that there is a difference between the average gas age and that of the surrounding ice, then you simply have no arguments… Jaworowski did lookup the wrong column in the table of the Siple ice core by Neftel…
Again this whole exercise is fruitless. I have sent a full explanation of why you are wrong to Anthony as guest post. Hope that he will publish it shortly.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 2:36 pm

“Based on what?”
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
“Henry’s law influences both influxes and outfluxes of CO2.”
For a closed system in static equilibrium. When there is new CO2 coming into the oceans and exiting all the time, any imbalance in those two will cause a buildup in the oceans which will subsequently cause a buildup in the atmosphere.
“Temperature has zero influence on the slope of dCO2/dt, as a linear increase in temperature gives a quasi-linear increase in CO2, thus an almost flat trend in dCO2/dt.”
Quite evidently, you are wrong. Open your eyes.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
“…if you need to use the errors …”
It doesn’t matter if you think it is an error or not. The plain simple fact of the matter is that, you must have a method to match up the series in time. And, that matchup is, in essence, a calibration.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 2:39 pm

“For a closed system in static equilibrium. When there is new CO2 coming into the oceans and exiting all the time, any imbalance in those two will cause a buildup in the oceans which will subsequently cause a buildup in the atmosphere.”
By this, of course, I mean the surface layer of the oceans.

Joe Born
Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 2:51 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen:

I have sent a full explanation of why you are wrong to Anthony as guest post. Hope that he will publish it shortly.

I look forward to it eagerly. The real-science posts on this site have become increasing infrequent (although Patrick Moore’s recent stellar contribution has gone far toward making up for it.)

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Bart:
For a closed system in static equilibrium. When there is new CO2 coming into the oceans and exiting all the time, any imbalance in those two will cause a buildup in the oceans which will subsequently cause a buildup in the atmosphere.
Indeed you have not the slightest idea where you are talking about. At any moment of the day, CO2 is released in the tropics and taken away near the poles. That is called a dynamic system and if in equilibrium with the atmosphere, that is a dynamic equilibrium or “steady state”.
If that system is in steady state and the temperature increases or the CO2 concentration in the deep ocean upwelling increases, or both, the input flux increases and that increases the CO2 level in the atmosphere, until a new dynamic equilibrium between input and output fluxes is reached. For 1°C temperature increase that is 16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere. That is all. Nothing more. 10 ppmv in the past 57 years. Not 70 ppmv.
The same increase per Henry’s law as for a static equilibrium of a closed sample in a laboratory as for the global oceans…
Quite evidently, you are wrong. Open your eyes.
Again, the slope of dCO2/dt caused by temperature is near zero, even if all variability is explained by temperature variability.
All increase of dCO2/dt is explained by human emissions and the decay rate of slightly over 50 years for any extra CO2 shot in the atmosphere above the temperature dictated steady state:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
My match of the slopes is at least as good as yours, but without using any arbitrary factor and offset to match the slopes…
BTW, the ice core average gas age was measured by Etheridge and that did give a 20 year overlap between ice core CO2 levels and direct measurements in the atmosphere…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 5:57 pm

“For 1°C temperature increase that is 16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere. That is all. Nothing more.”
No, Ferdinand. That is what would happen if the oceans were static. In the real world, the downwelling outflow is restricted, causing a backup, and an increase in pCO2 of the surface oceans.
“Again, the slope of dCO2/dt caused by temperature is near zero, even if all variability is explained by temperature variability.”
You are obviously wrong.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
“My match of the slopes is at least as good as yours…”
No it isn’t, because you don’t match the variability. And, you do not even match the trend for the last 15 years.
“BTW, the ice core average gas age was measured by Etheridge and that did give a 20 year overlap between ice core CO2 levels and direct measurements in the atmosphere…”
Only after selecting the level of the ice to assign a particular epoch based upon matching the results. And, as the match is low information (virtually monotonic time series in both over the span of overlap), it’s not hard to get it.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 6:07 pm

“BTW, the ice core average gas age was measured by Etheridge and that did give a 20 year overlap between ice core CO2 levels and direct measurements in the atmosphere…”
Disregard my last response. I did not read closely enough.
How was the age measured? What are the 3-sigma error bars? What were the years of overlap?

Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 6:24 pm

From what I can read quickly, it looks like they can mark the years as they pass, but not actually date the gas.
This could perhaps lead to misidentifying the age by +/- a few years, I’d guess, but it is not really germane. I withdraw my point B. But, there still is
A) The ice core records are not independently verifiable over the greater part of those hundreds of years, particularly in the long ago past
C) There is no assurance that the conditions which might have maintained such a putative balance continue to this day

afonzarelli
Reply to  Bartemis
October 29, 2015 6:45 pm

Yeah, bart, and his slopes wouldn’t even be close were it not for the two obvious step rises in temperature with their corresponding step rises in the carbon growthrate (late seventies and late nineties…). I asked him if he really expected the carbon growth rate to soon rise back up to 53% of human emissions without a corresponding rise in temperature (thus keeping his gossamer correlation alive). All i heard in response were chirping crickets…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 1:09 am

Bart:
No, Ferdinand. That is what would happen if the oceans were static. In the real world, the downwelling outflow is restricted, causing a backup, and an increase in pCO2 of the surface oceans.
That only shows that you have no idea what happens in the real world: both the CO2 influxes and outfluxes are directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and ocean waters. If the pCO2 in the atmosphere increases, the CO2 influx of the oceans decreases and the outflux to the oceans increases immediately. That is a dynamic response to an increase in ocean surface temperature and thus the pCO2 of the ocean waters.
No it isn’t, because you don’t match the variability. And, you do not even match the trend for the last 15 years.
You don’t match the trend during 35 years of the 57 years if one looks at shorter periods. Temperatures go down, while CO2 rate of change goes up, reversing the amplitudes of the variability if you try to match the slopes with a negative factor.
I do match the variability and the slope: the variability is the transient response of CO2 from vegetation to temperature changes with a 90 deg. lag. The temperature derivative has no slope, neither has the CO2 derivative caused by temperature and that lags T with 90 deg. If you add the CO2 variability to the slope caused by the emissions, slope and variability match:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em7.jpg
The result is the simple sum of variability and emissions, as the “airborne fraction” of human emissions is pressure dependent while the variability is temperature dependent and these don’t influence each other.
Not summed in this plot, as dCO2/dt are monthly values and emissions are yearly values…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 1:19 am

Fonzie:
It doesn’t matter if the ratio never returns to 53%, the 53% is just coincidence, it is the result of the slightly quadratic increase of human emissions with as result a slightly quadratic increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and in sink rate. That gives a nice correlation. But that is not of the slightest interest. It does get 10% one year, 90% next year, 40% in one decade, 60% in the next decade: that is the natural variability in the sink rate. Temperature is the main driver of that variability, but there may be other factors too.
As long as the increase is less than human emissions, human emissions are responsible for (most of) the increase…

afonzarelli
Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 2:29 am

In other words, there is no correlation there…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 5:54 am

Fonzie,
Correlation between total human CO2 emissions and increase in the atmosphere: R^2 = 0.9977
Correlation between temperature and increase in the atmosphere: R^2 = 0.7727
Correlation between temperature derivative and CO2 derivative: high, but that is for the variability, about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 30, 2015 6:35 am

” Correlation between total human CO2 emissions and increase in the atmosphere: R^2 = 0.9977
Correlation between temperature and increase in the atmosphere: R^2 = 0.7727
Correlation between temperature derivative and CO2 derivative: high, but that is for the variability, about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend…”
But what would the correlation be if you presumed temp regulated co2, and not Co2 regulating temps?

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 8:26 am

micro6500:
But what would the correlation be if you presumed temp regulated co2, and not Co2 regulating temps?
The R^2 of 0.783 (I added the data of 2013) was for the influence of temperature on CO2, the opposite gives the same R^2… Some very long time ago I did work on statistics…
As correlation doesn’t show causation. In this case I would say that the causation is mostly from human emissions towards CO2 levels in the atmosphere, a little from temperature on CO2 levels and very little from increased CO2 levels on temperature.
I don’t think that CO2 levels have an influence on human emissions, but temperature may have, if it is freezing cold outside…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 30, 2015 11:13 am

As correlation doesn’t show causation. In this case I would say that the causation is mostly from human emissions towards CO2 levels in the atmosphere, a little from temperature on CO2 levels and very little from increased CO2 levels on temperature.

But, we can’t tell whether the chicken or the egg came first.
And I can show in surface data that after each year since 1940 there is no residual accumulation of surface temp, with measurement uncertainty the annual average change in daily temp is 0.0F +/-0.1F, if you don’t limit the significant digits the surface is cooling slightly more than it warms the day before over ~78 Million surface records,the only records not used are for stations that don’t collect less than 360 days of data per year.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 9:48 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen October 30, 2015 at 1:09 am
“If the pCO2 in the atmosphere increases, the CO2 influx of the oceans decreases and the outflux to the oceans increases immediately.”
The evolution of dynamic systems is just not your forte, Ferdinand. As in the case of the pseudo-mass balance hooey, you can’t seem to move beyond a static outlook.
Maybe this will help. Think of a river which splits around an island. The left side is slightly elevated relative to the right, so just a small creek (the atmosphere, in this analogy) goes around the island on that side. The main river goes to the right, and represents the oceans.
A dam is placed across the river downstream past the island. The water rises. But, this river flows very slowly (its source is, itself, a spring bubbllng up into a wide basin, and the river is virtually a lake). So, it takes many years before the water overtops the dam and reestablishes the downstream flow (this is analogous to the pCO2 of the oceans rising enough to overcome the “dam” caused by increased temperature restricting the downwelling of CO2).
The water doesn’t rise only in the river portion. It rises in the creek, too. And, until such a time as the dam can be overtopped, it rises at a constant rate.
“You don’t match the trend during 35 years of the 57 years…”
You are rationalizing, using inapplicable statistical tools to deny what is right in front of your eyes.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
“I do match the variability and the slope…”
NO YOU DO NOT. You are 90 degrees out of phase. Your purple line lags your green one, and it lags it by precisely 90 degrees of phase.
THAT IS NOT A MATCH.
Not even close.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 10:06 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen October 30, 2015 at 1:19 am
“It does get 10% one year, 90% next year, 40% in one decade, 60% in the next decade…”
Rationalization. Epicycles. Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation is that CO2 rate of change is affine with temperature. No need for wild speculation. It matches the whole time since at least 1959, no hand waving necessary.
“Correlation between temperature and increase in the atmosphere: R^2 = 0.7727”
Nonsense.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.1/integral/offset:315
R^2 = 0.96
And, that’s just by doing the fit by eyeballing.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 11:10 am

Actually, I did the computation wrong. Should have been 1 – (1-0.96)^2 = 0.998.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 12:06 pm

Bart,
You have a lively fantasy for defending your theory…
Your analogy has not the slightest resemblance with what happens with CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans, as there is no “dam” or restriction of any kind in the CO2 sinks more than was in the past: the sink rate is simply linearly proportional to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere above steady state, at least in the past 57 years: a factor 4 increase in all three: emissions, increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate.
Only dwarfed by the natural carbon cycle, if that increased a 4-fold in the same time frame. For which is not the slightest indication…
Again, it is a dynamic equilibrium: CO2 is continuously coming in and going out, directly proportional to the difference in CO2 pressure between atmosphere and ocean surfaces.
If the pCO2 of the oceans changes, either by temperature or more/less upwelling or more/less downwelling, the pCO2 of the atmosphere follows with a transient response. For 1°C temperature change that is 16 ppmv not more, not less. For changes in upwelling or downwelling, that is proportional to the change.
If you can’t (or want) to understand that, sorry, but that is not my problem, I have done my best.
NO YOU DO NOT. You are 90 degrees out of phase. Your purple line lags your green one, and it lags it by precisely 90 degrees of phase.
THAT IS NOT A MATCH.
Not even close.

It seems that you have a blind spot in your mind, or you are willfully obtuse. If you have some idea about what the meaning is of a transient response, then you should know that the response of dCO2/dt changes must lag dT/dt changes with (maximum) 90 degrees.
If you add the purple line values to the calculated result of human emissions (the red line), you have an almost perfect match between human cause of the slope + natural variability and what is observed in the atmosphere.
At least as “perfect” as your use of an arbitrary offset and factor, which has troubles to match the amplitudes of the variability if the slopes are far different, as slopes and variability are from different processes…
BTW, if some “match” in slopes is opposite for 35 of the 57 years, then your “match” is a matter of begin- and endpoint choice. Plus the fact that with a common factor you switch the amplitudes upside down if the slopes are crossing. In reality, variability and slopes are from different processes and have their own T-CO2-factor, proven independent of each other, no problem with (partially) non matching/different slopes at all…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 12:18 pm

Bart:
“Correlation between temperature and increase in the atmosphere: R^2 = 0.7727”
Nonsense.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.1/integral/offset:315
R^2 = 0.96
And, that’s just by doing the fit by eyeballing.

Nice try to trick the reader: by taking the integral of the temperature, you erase near all variability in the temperature record…
Here reality:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2.jpg

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 12:43 pm

“… as there is no “dam” or restriction of any kind in the CO2 sinks more than was in the past…”
You’re not even on the same page.
I’m not talking about sink activity. I am talking about the natural depletion of CO2 as it flows down dissolved in the downwelling waters. When temperature rises, less dissolves, and gets carried to the depths. That causes a buildup in the surface waters, and hence in the atmosphere.
“If you have some idea about what the meaning is of a transient response, then you should know that the response of dCO2/dt changes must lag dT/dt changes with (maximum) 90 degrees.”
Absolute nonsense. You can have any phase response from 0 to -infinity, and not generally linear across all frequencies.
If dCO2/dt lags dT/dt by 90 degrees across all frequencies, then it has an integral relationship with that process. Which means CO2 has an integral relationship with T, i.e.,
CO2 = CO2(t0) + integral(k*(T – T0))
There is absolutely no way around it. It is if and only if.
You do not match the phase. Your model does not match. And, the only way you can get it to match is by using the integral relationship above. And, when you do that, you have no need for human emissions to match atmospheric concentration.
We keep going around and around on this same point. You just do not know what you are talking about. And, it is irresponsible for you to represent yourself as if you do.
“…f some “match” in slopes is opposite for 35 of the 57 years,…”
A ridiculus cherry pick of low SNR few years at a time? What the hell kind of analysis is that? This is unworthy of being taken seriously.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 12:44 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen October 30, 2015 at 12:18 pm
This is idiotic. You’ve got to integrate the temperature, Ferdinand. That is the model:
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 3:56 pm

Bart:
I’m not talking about sink activity. I am talking about the natural depletion of CO2 as it flows down dissolved in the downwelling waters. When temperature rises, less dissolves, and gets carried to the depths. That causes a buildup in the surface waters, and hence in the atmosphere.
If the temperature rises, indeed less is going into the depths.
The pCO2 of the surface waters increased with 16 μatm/°C and thus the pCO2 difference between atmosphere are ocean surface decreased with 16 μatm/°C or about 3% of the pCO2 difference, thus the CO2 outflux is reduced with about 3%/°C. That causes a buildup in the atmosphere, as also the CO2 release at the upwelling side increased by about 3%/°C by the same increase in temperature.
What you don’t get or refuse to get is that with an increase of 16 μatm (~16 ppmv) in the atmosphere for 1°C temperature increase the original pressure difference is restored and thus the original in and out fluxes. That is a transient response: the initial increase is fast, but gets smaller and smaller until the new steady state is reached.
If the CO2 levels in the atmosphere do rise above the steady state level for a given temperature, by whatever cause, an overall sink activity in the oceans is created which is directly proportional to the height of the increase above the steady state. For the same reasons as for temperature changes: any change of the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere affects the ocean CO2 sources and sinks.
Absolute nonsense. You can have any phase response from 0 to -infinity, and not generally linear across all frequencies.
That only shows that you have no idea of what a transient response is. From Paul_K at the link you know:

The output response is phase-shifted relative to any sinusoidal temperature input; as response times get larger, the phase shift asymptotes to a shift of exactly pi/2. Hence, putting any realistic (i.e. long) transient response in place brings temperature exactly into phase with dCO2/dt.

If dCO2/dt lags dT/dt by 90 degrees across all frequencies, then it has an integral relationship with that process. Which means CO2 has an integral relationship with T, i.e.,
CO2 = CO2(t0) + integral(k*(T – T0))

Yes, it is an integral relationship, but a fading one: a transient response is NOT a straightforward integral as the difference with the target, a new steady state, reduces towards zero. To use Paul_K’s formula:
τ * dCO2/dt = ΔT – f(T)* ΔCO2
What you don’t accept is that the increased CO2 pressure caused by temperature in the atmosphere is a direct feedback on CO2 in and out fluxes: 16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere is enough to completely and immediately compensate for 1°C increase in temperature.
You do not match the phase. Your model does not match.
Bart are you blinded by your belief in your own only glorious formula? The phase of the purple variability in dCO2/dt(temp) caused by temperature variation is exactly the same as what is measured in the atmosphere (the blue variability dCO2(12)/dt line) and lags the green variability line of dT/dt with 90 deg. The sum of the red line dCO2/dt(emiss), caused by human emissions and dCO2/dt caused by temperature should match what happened in the atmosphere…
Unfortunately for your theory, my theory fits reality at least as good as yours, that is for dCO2/dt without a slope and all variability while human emissions are responsible for all the increase over time without much variability…
A ridiculus cherry pick of low SNR few years at a time? What the hell kind of analysis is that? This is unworthy of being taken seriously.
If more than half the time the slopes are opposite to each other and the consequence is that the amplitudes are upside down, may I than question the link between amplitudes and slopes, or not? Which BTW is proven caused by different processes…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 6:06 pm

“What you don’t get or refuse to get is that with an increase of 16 μatm (~16 ppmv) in the atmosphere for 1°C temperature increase the original pressure difference is restored and thus the original in and out fluxes.”
No, Ferdinand. We’re not talking about atmospheric pressure. We are talking about the amount of CO2 upwelling, and the amount downwelling. If the amount of the latter is less than the amount for the former, then the pCO2 of the surface oceans is going to increase.
The atmospheric concentration is going to track that change in the oceanic concentration.
You are thinking only of the effect of temperature on the relative concentration of the surface oceans and atmosphere. But, the surface oceans’ concentration is going to increase all on its own simply because it is continually getting new CO2 in from the upwelling waters, and the downwelling waters are not taking as much back down again.
“That only shows that you have no idea of what a transient response is.”
That only shows you have no idea what you are talking about. From your quote:
“…as response times get larger, the phase shift asymptotes to a shift of exactly pi/2.”
He is talking about a 1-box response. And, that asymptotic limit is the response of an integral.
“Hence, putting any realistic (i.e. long) transient response in place brings temperature exactly into phase with dCO2/dt.”
Exactly. And, since the response has to be long enough that we see 90 degree phase shift for the entire observation interval, it means that for that observation interval, there is essentially no difference between the true system response and pure integration.
“To use Paul_K’s formula:
τ * dCO2/dt = ΔT – f(T)* ΔCO2”

Using Paul’s formula and fitting it to the record means we have to make f(T) very small. This is what I have been trying to get through to you. If f(T) is significant over the time interval of observation, then you are de facto taking the result of the pure integration, and putting it through a high pass filter, and that high pass filtering operation would leave behind a very marked phase distortion.
There is no observable phase distortion. Therefore f(T) is negligible over this interval of observation, and the dynamic is equivalently
dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)
“The phase of the purple variability in dCO2/dt(temp) caused by …”
I don’t know what you are pulling here. I think you just scaled your dT/dt, then arbitrarily shifted it forward to get your dCO2/dt. There is no equivalent process in nature which can do that. You’ve got to integrate to get that phase shift across the board.
Give me precise details on exactly what you did, and I will explain to you where you are going wrong.
“If more than half the time the slopes are opposite to each other and the consequence is that the amplitudes are upside down, may I than question the link between amplitudes and slopes, or not?”
In the first place, it isn’t the “slopes”, it is the slope in trend estimates of least squares fits. Least squares fits to short intervals of noisy data. There is nothing magical about least squares fits. You can’t just feed them noise, and expect them to uncover truth. Their output is, itself, a random variable, and the shorter the interval, the lower the SNR, and the more random they become.
This is just so stupid. Look at the plot
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
It’s as perfect a match as you can hope to get with noisy data in the real world. What the hell is wrong with you? Look at the damned plot!

Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 6:36 pm

Yes, I think that is exactly what you did.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em7.jpg
The purple line is an exact duplicate of the green line, only scaled and arbitrarily shifted forward.
Not only is that arbitrary shifting verboten, but it still doesn’t match very well. In order to get the scaling to match the central peak, you don’t match hardly any of the other ripples. There is virtually no similarly between late 2000 and 2010. That is because you do not have the frequency dependent gain of the integral.
It is nowhere near as good as the fit here
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png

afonzarelli
Reply to  Bartemis
October 30, 2015 6:58 pm

Bart, ferdinand actually gave me a graph of 18 of those 35 years, ’77 – ’95… The last three or four years are are useless in comparison in that they are the pinatubo cooling years which don’t even show up in southern hemisphere data. Another eight years or so in the middle of that period, i was able to fiddle around with the trend lines and get matching slopes. That left only about half a decade at the beginning which did not match up real well (my dim recollection is that hadsst3sh was a better fit than hadcrut4sh here). As you say, perhaps just “noise” in the data…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 1:18 am

Bart:
No, Ferdinand. We’re not talking about atmospheric pressure. We are talking about the amount of CO2 upwelling, and the amount downwelling. If the amount of the latter is less than the amount for the former, then the pCO2 of the surface oceans is going to increase.
The atmospheric concentration is going to track that change in the oceanic concentration.

You are only showing that you have not the slightest idea what happens in the real world. Atmospheric pressure is the result of an unbalance, but also influences the unbalance, it is a feedback itself.
– The amounts of upwelling and downwelling is a complete separate issue of the influence of temperature, which is the subject of interest.
– Even if there is a unbalance between CO2 from upwelling and downwelling, the in/decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere will ultimately restore the unbalance, with a transient response.
– Temperature changes influence the same unbalance, but that is largely linear for a small temperature change with a very small non-linear term.
– Temperature changes are completely compensated with a 16 ppmv/°C change in the atmosphere, again with a transient response.
– The real world increase is currently 110 ppmv above the steady state for the current ocean temperature per Henry’s law.
– Both theory and real life measurements show that the oceans are a net sink for CO2, not a source.
Thus as usual, you only see what happens at one side of the balance, but forget to include the other side of the equation: the feedback…
I don’t know what you are pulling here. I think you just scaled your dT/dt, then arbitrarily shifted it forward to get your dCO2/dt. There is no equivalent process in nature which can do that. You’ve got to integrate to get that phase shift across the board.
Thanks for the insult: I did apply the rules for a transient response of CO2 to temperature changes with an ultimate response of 4-5 ppmv/°C. That shows an exact shift of 90° after temperature variability for all frequencies and zero slope after 1-3 years, as was calculated as response of tropical vegetation by Pieter Tans after an El Niño:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf from slide 11 on.
Without any arbitrary shift in slope or lag. Only an arbitrary estimate of the amplitude.
You simply integrated all influences over the full period, including human emissions and attributed them all to temperature (the same error that Dr. Salby made), while the variability is all from a process that integrates to zero after a few years, nothing to do with the overall slope.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 11:21 am

“Atmospheric pressure is the result of an unbalance, but also influences the unbalance, it is a feedback itself.”
A very weak feedback.
“– The amounts of upwelling and downwelling is a complete separate issue of the influence of temperature, which is the subject of interest.”
No it isn’t. The concentration of CO2 in the oceans which interface with the atmosphere is of critical importance. And, it is temperature dependent.
“– Even if there is a unbalance between CO2 from upwelling and downwelling, the in/decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere will ultimately restore the unbalance, with a transient response.”
Sure, ultimately. In perhaps a few hundred years. Long enough to make it immaterial to our discussion.
“– Temperature changes are completely compensated with a 16 ppmv/°C change in the atmosphere, again with a transient response.”
Nope.
“– The real world increase is currently 110 ppmv above the steady state for the current ocean temperature per Henry’s law.”
Nope. Increasing temperature causes a steady increase in surface ocean concentration due to imbalance between upwelling and downwelling.
“– Both theory and real life measurements show that the oceans are a net sink for CO2, not a source.”
Nope. We’re not going to argue the pseudo-mass balance again, are we?
“I did apply the rules for a transient response of CO2 to temperature changes…”
I see. Well, this is a neophyte error. Take for example the weighting of
1 0.7 0.7 0.7 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3-0.3 0.2 0.2 -0.2
What do the gain and phase response look like? This:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/tam_zpsu2m0z9rd.jpg
It is only near a 90 deg lag in specific regions, centered around 1.5 yr^-1, 2.3 yr^-1, 3.4 yr^-1, 4.3 yr^-1, and so on. If your input time series is dominated by such components, then you will get a vague, superficial phase match when the actual response is -90 deg everywhere.
It is a chimera. It appears to fit in your eyes because the dominant formations are at a frequency for which the response is approximately -90 deg, and your brain natually homes in on the dominant features. This is filtering via your eyes. It helps to also filter the data such that those particular formations are the main ones that get through, as the presentation appears to do. But, it doesn’t hold across the entire frequency spread and, if you look closely, you will generally find discrepancies.
Yes, you can torture the data, progressively focusing on particular frequencies, and tailoring a response that has -90 deg phase shift at more and more of the dominant features. But, it is rather contrived. Much easier just to lay down a blanket -90 deg phase lag at all frequencies. And, when you do that, you’ve got an integral.
And, bingo! When you do that, you also match the trend of the data.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png
This is not a coincidence, Ferdinand. The odds against it are astronomical. I just cannot see how you can deny the evidence right in front of you.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 11:30 am

I suspect that you will counter that there are discrepancies in my plot as well. But, keep in mind, this is related to quality of the data. The satellite data gives far better agreement:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2_zpsnp6z3jnq.jpg
All with a simple, -90 deg phase shift across the board. No contrived, complicated response which just happens to have the right phase at the dominant frequencies. And, it provides the fit with the long term trend as a bonus.
You can’t get any simpler than that. Occam’s razor comes down very firmly on my side.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 11:38 am
Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 11:48 am

afonzarelli October 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm
See RSS version at Bartemis October 31, 2015 at 11:30 am. It’s just noise. On such short term scales, it isn’t a valid criticism. With higher quality data, the non-issue goes away.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 1:37 pm

Bart,
A very weak feedback.
Come on Bart, you know better: if the temperature increases with 1°C, the pCO2 of the ocean waters increases everywhere with 16 μatm. That is all. If the pCO2 of the atmosphere increases with ~16 ppmv, the original pCO2 difference between atmosphere and ocean surface is restored everywhere and thus also the original CO2 in/out fluxes. That is damn fast response, which equilibrium for the recent temperature increase (~10 ppmv) was reached already after 15 years in the Mauna Loa record and meanwhile surpassed with over 60 ppmv. Thus currently there is a disequilibrium the other way out: more CO2 sinks in the oceans than are released…
No it isn’t. The concentration of CO2 in the oceans which interface with the atmosphere is of critical importance. And, it is temperature dependent.
Bart, either temperature is the leading factor, as your formula shows, or concentration is. If you combine them without knowledge of the readers, you are misleading them.
For a constant deep ocean upwelling (both in water mass and concentration), temperature gives 16 μatm/°C, quasi linear increase in pCO2 of the oceans.
For a 10% increase in CO2 upwelling (either mass or concentration), either the CO2 influx increases with 10% by the mass changes or the pCO2(ocean) increases with 10% by the concentration changes. Both increase the influx and thus the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, until the original extra influx is equally distributed between a reduced influx and an increased outflux caused by the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
Any parallel change in temperature will have its own parallel influence with a very small non-linear term, hardly of influence on the overall changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr_temp.jpg
Sure, ultimately. In perhaps a few hundred years. Long enough to make it immaterial to our discussion.
Already surpassed after 15 years Mauna Loa, thus very material to the discussion…
Nope. Increasing temperature causes a steady increase in surface ocean concentration due to imbalance between upwelling and downwelling.
Bart, hear yourself: you formula doesn’t say that, your formula says that for a fixed step in temperature (and a fixed deep ocean upwelling/concentration), there is a steady increase in surface ocean concentration due to a concreted imbalance between upwelling and downwelling, with zero influence of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere…
Which violates a lot of physical laws…
Nope. We’re not going to argue the pseudo-mass balance again, are we?
Not only the mass balance (and all other observations), but lots of pCO2 (and other) measurements in the ocean waters, currently over 3 million:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml
But I know, observations don’t interest you if they don’t fit your theory…
I see. Well, this is a neophyte error. Take for example the weighting of
Bart, I have no idea what you are doing, I simply followed the formula of Paul_K, who did prove that there is a 90° for all frequencies in a transient change if the response time is slow enough. I used a tau of 24 months and magically the shift was 90° for all frequencies of interest. No distortion, no other phase lags…
The only “problem” is that the CO2 variability is a little more smoothed than the original temperature variability by the integration, but even so…
For the rest, we can argue until New Year about what the discrepancies of both plots are, but the main problem for your plot is that all the variability is from a process that has zero to a negative slope in the rate of change: vegetation, which is a proven net, increasing sink for CO2 over periods of 1-3 years and over the full period from 1990 on (before 1990 it was probably a slight source of CO2 of ~0.5 GtC/year, ~0.25 ppmv/year).
Thus even if the slope is temperature caused, there is no reason at all that the same factor is involved.
By taking the integral, you mix the results of two independent processes, where you don’t even know that the slope is caused by temperature or something else (human emissions come to mind…).

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 1:46 pm

Bart:
No it isn’t. The concentration of CO2 in the oceans which interface with the atmosphere is of critical importance. And, it is temperature dependent.
Sorry, forgot to add that the surface concentration in the oceans surface would be reduced with higher ocean temperatures: for the same upwelling (concentration), a higher temperature gives a higher pCO2 and thus a higher release of CO2 towards the atmosphere and thus a lower remaining concentration in the ocean surface. Until the (un)balance is restored by the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
Unfortunately for your theory, at every place measured in the oceans, including the upwelling places, the CO2 concentration increases parallel, the atmospheric increase, despite increasing temperatures…

afonzarelli
Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 1:50 pm

Bart, i’m not an “egghead”, so much of what you and ferd are going back and forth on gets lost on me. Have you mentioned that the amplitude of your peaks and troughs matches up as well as the trends (and maybe somehow i missed it)? Ferdinand seems to think that you can fiddle around with the scale and get what ever fit you want. True, you could match trends that way, but then the peaks and troughs won’t match. (assume the temp trend was only half what it is, you would have to double the scale to make the trends fit) Of course, you may have just been extremely lucky and just so happened to have the perfect temperature trend to make it all happen…

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 3:49 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen October 31, 2015 at 1:37 pm
“…your formula says that for a fixed step in temperature (and a fixed deep ocean upwelling/concentration), there is a steady increase in surface ocean concentration due to a concreted imbalance between upwelling and downwelling, with zero influence of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere… “
With negligible influence. That is correct. But, that is not what my formula says. That is my hypothesis for producing the relationship. But, the relationship is empirically valid regardless of the mechanism.
“Not only the mass balance …, but…”
If you do not understand why the pseudo-mass balance argument is trivially wrong, you are not qualified to understand this system.
“…Paul_K, who did prove that there is a 90° for all frequencies in a transient change if the response time is slow enough…”
He didn’t prove anything. He merely stated the trivial fact that a particular type of system, that of a rational first order lag response, will do that. Tan’s response, to which you referred, is not that type of system response. As you can see in the plot above, the phase response is all over the place.
In any case, Ferdinand, here’s the catch: to get agreement across all frequencies with the temperature/CO2 data, the response time has to become very slow, indeed. So slow, that it is indistinguishable from pure integration over the observation interval since at least 1959.
“I used a tau of 24 months and magically the shift was 90° for all frequencies of interest.”
So, you did not use Tan’s weighting? Will you kindly explain what you did do? If you put it through a first order filter with a time constant of 2 years, then your phase response is -atan(4*pi*f), where f is the frequency in yr^-1. For a five year cycle, that gives you a phase shift of only -68 deg. Ten years, only -51 deg. You don’t match several major formations that way. Quite plainly, as I showed above, your reproduction sucks.
The longer you take that lag to be, the better your result is going to fit the data, and the more integral-like your response is going to become. Before long, you will be matching the variability very well, and you will also have explained the trend, without any need for human inputs.
“By taking the integral, you mix the results of two independent processes…”
You are begging the question. Fit the hypothesis to the data. Not the data to the hypothesis.
My model is quite plainly superior to yours, and it reproduces the trend as well. You are piling things higher and deeper, equivalently devising epicycles to prove that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Ferdinand Engelbeen October 31, 2015 at 1:46 pm
“… for the same upwelling (concentration), a higher temperature gives a higher pCO2 and thus a higher release of CO2 towards the atmosphere and thus a lower remaining concentration in the ocean surface.”
Which is then replenished because there is new CO2 upwelling all the time, and the amount downwelling is being decreased. This is exactly why you get a sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 for a step change in temperature.
Think of it in a series of steps in a continuous loop:
1) as you say, atmospheric CO2 increases, so ocean pCO2 decreases
2) less CO2 downwells
3) new CO2 laden waters upwell, so ocean concentration rebounds
4) atmospheric CO2 increases
5) go to step 1 and repeat
afonzarelli October 31, 2015 at 1:50 pm
“Have you mentioned that the amplitude of your peaks and troughs matches up as well as the trends…”
Yes, in Bartemis October 31, 2015 at 11:21 am above. Look for the word “bingo”.
Ferdinand says this is just a coincidence.
Really. That’s what he says.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 3:57 pm

I really should have just ignored the earlier parts, and focused on this, which gets to the heart of the problem with your outlook:
————————–
Ferdinand Engelbeen October 31, 2015 at 1:46 pm
“… for the same upwelling (concentration), a higher temperature gives a higher pCO2 and thus a higher release of CO2 towards the atmosphere and thus a lower remaining concentration in the ocean surface.”
Which is then replenished because there is new CO2 upwelling all the time, and the amount downwelling is being decreased. This is exactly why you get a sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 for a step change in temperature.
Think of it in a series of steps in a continuous loop:
1) as you say, atmospheric CO2 increases, so ocean pCO2 decreases
2) less CO2 downwells
3) new CO2 laden waters upwell, so ocean concentration rebounds
4) atmospheric CO2 increases
5) go to step 1 and repeat
—————————
Rather than just rehashing things we’ve already addressed, how about you focus on this in particular. I will take it as a given you are not acquiescing to any other of the points I raised above.
How about you do it at the end of the page, too, so we don’t have to keep scrolling up to find the beginning of the thread. Go here to continue, where I left a note.

Reply to  Bartemis
October 31, 2015 4:34 pm

Fonzie:
Ferdinand seems to think that you can fiddle around with the scale and get what ever fit you want. True, you could match trends that way, but then the peaks and troughs won’t match.
Yes you can…
Here the match of the slopes of the trend that Bart showed:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_01.jpg
Not bad at all, be it that for a full match the amplitudes of the temperature variability would be somewhat higher.
But why did Bart choose the SH temperatures? The source of the extra CO2 is certainly in the NH, as the CO2 trend in the SH lags the NH. Thus if (ocean) temperatures were the cause, the NH would be matching better:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_02.jpg
Oops, quite a difference in temperature trend. No problem, we can fix that for you:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_03.jpg
But that implies that the effect of the CO2 variability caused by temperature variability nearly halved, thus highly depends of what temperature record you use…
The timing of the variability doesn’t change, whatever (partial or global) temperature trend you take, but the factor of the amplitudes is quite different.
That the SH temperature matches the variability best is a matter of where the reaction on temperature variability is strongest. That is mainly the SH Amazon which reacts on changes in ENSO, as well for temperature as changed rain patterns (drought).
The main problem for Bart’s theory is that almost all variability is from tropical vegetation, independent of the slope in CO2 rate of change, as once that the temperature drops again, that returns to a near-neutral mature forest with zero slope, while the rest of vegetation is slightly more sink than source, thus vegetation can’t be the cause of the increase in CO2 or the CO2 rate of change, to the contrary…
Thus at least two independent processes are at work: one that causes the variability and one that causes the increase in CO2…

October 25, 2015 2:46 am

If you still believe that a back radiation based greenhouse effect exists after reading that, you’ve got rocks in your head! The so called first principles this pseudo hypothesis is based on has not one piece of basics maths behind it, let alone any detailed calculations.

October 25, 2015 2:50 am

Another fine article Dr. Ball — many thanks.
You write:
The confidence level for well-mixed greenhouse gasses is now “Very high”. This is simply not possible because, as the satellite data from OCO2 shows, CO2 is clearly not a well-mixed gas. The problem is similar to the objective of the IPCC to determine human causes of climate change. It is only possible if you know how much climate changes without the human effect. You can only determine the CO2 effect if you know the effect of the predominant greenhouse gas – water vapor.
This is spot on. As you point out, they just came up with another unfounded scenario when the “long residence time” myth was shown to be not so. And just like the residence time error, they just keep on saying “well mixed” no matter if they have any data to back it up or if they have data and it is counter to their hypothesis. They just keep on saying “well mixed” as if the words are a magic incantation.
The satellite data shows CO2 is not well mixed, and it also shows that as CO2 has gone up dramatically the average temperature of the planet has remained flat. Both of these facts should put a knife though the heart of the walking dead cAGW delusion.

daveandrews723
October 25, 2015 3:23 am

I am not a scientist and even I can understand this excellent explanation. The question I have is why do the scientists who ascribe to the catastrophic AGW theory not agree with this evidence? Are they wearing blinders because they have a social agenda that, to them, is more important than the science? The other question is how can the liberal mainstream news media be convinced that there is another side to the AGW debate? Now they look down their noses as anyone who dares to put forward a position like Dr. Ball’s. Onward and upward!! The truth will out eventually!!

Jeff Mitchell