# Causality and Climate

From Climate Etc.

Guest post by Antonis Christofides, Demetris Koutsoyiannis, Christian Onof and Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz

On the chicken-and-egg problem of CO2 and temperature.

## Bare facts vs. mechanism

A car is travelling at 80 km/h, and a ray of light is travelling parallel to the car, in the same direction. Its speed relative to the Earth is 300,000 km/s. What is its speed relative to the car? Today we know that the answer “300,000 km/s minus 80 km/h” is wrong. But in 1887, people thought that it was self-evident and undisputable—after all, it’s basic logic and simple arithmetic. At that time, physicists Michelson and Morley had devised a method with sufficient accuracy to measure the small differences in the speed of light, and in an effort to discover details about its movement, they conducted one of the most famous experiments in the history of science. The results were baffling. The speed of light was constant in all directions—the direction of the Earth’s movement, the opposite direction, and the perpendicular direction. There was no explanation for that—it defied all logic.

However, we have to look at the bare facts, regardless how impossible they seem. Michelson and Morley did not feel compelled to provide an alternative theory of light, or of anything. They concluded that their results “refute Fresnel’s explanation of aberration” and that Lorentz’s theory “also fails.” Had they written “we have no idea what’s going on” it would have been the same. Making their negative results public opened the road to further research. It was a long road, and it took almost twenty years of work by distinguished scientists before arriving at the theory of relativity.

It goes without saying that this is hardly the first or the last mystery in the history of science. One that is still unsolved is the changing mass of the International Prototype of the Kilogram. Until a few years ago, the kilogram was defined as the mass of a platinum-iridium object stored in the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris. It has been found that its mass changes over time by something like 0.000005% per century, and no-one knows why exactly. That no-one knows the mechanism does not alter the fact that the mass does change.

## How a clear case of causality can become a noisy mess

Imagine a beach being hit by small waves. Once in a while, a series of noticeably larger waves arrive. There’s a port 10 km further, and ships are departing from it. We might notice that the departures of the ships are correlated to the instances of larger waves, and suspect that there could be a causal relationship.

In reality, in this case we understand the mechanism through which the ships cause the waves; but if we assume we don’t, here is how we might try to investigate: we might draw a chart like the following, where the horizontal axis is time, the orange line shows ship departures (the vertical axis showing the size of the ship) and the blue line shows sea level. If every departure was reliably followed by a temporary increase in wave height, we could conclude that the departures of the ships potentially cause the increase in wave height, especially if we noticed that the size of the ship is correlated to the size of the increase in wave height.

We say “potentially” because we can never be certain about causation. It could be that the departures and the waves both have a common cause. Even if someone was shot in the head, we can’t be certain it was the bullet that killed him—he might have suffered a stroke just before the bullet entered his brain (Agatha Christie’s Poirot has resolved several mysteries of similar type). So we can hardly be 100% certain that X causes Y. One thing is clear, however: the waves do not cause the ships to depart. The reason is that first the ship departs and later the waves hit the beach. The effect cannot precede the cause.

Even in this simple case where there’s an impulse (the departing ship) followed by a response, things can quickly get complicated. Ships could be going in many different directions, and the response would not always appear in an equal time interval after the impulse. For some impulses the response could be totally absent (e.g. for ships that depart in a direction away from the beach). The interval between departures could be smaller than the time it takes for the response to arrive, and the intertwining of impulses and responses could be confusing. Sometimes responses might appear out of the blue, without impulse (for example, there could be arriving ships that cause that, which we might not have taken into account). It might not be as easy to distinguish the wave response from the other waves if the sea is rough. Add all these factors together, and the blue line could be a big noisy mess.

And in a real world example, like in the question of whether CO₂ concentration affects the temperature, both lines can be a big noisy mess.

## Investigating potential causes

So here is the question: given two processes, how can we determine if one is a potential cause of the other? We deal with this question in two papers we published last year in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (PRSA): Revisiting causality using stochastics: 1. Theory (preprint); 2. Applications (preprint). We reviewed existing theories of causation, notably probabilistic theories, and found that all of them have considerable limitations.

For example, Granger’s theory and statistical test have already been known to be identifying correlation (for making predictions), not causation, despite the popular term “Granger causality”. What is more, they ignore the fact that processes exhibit dependence in time. Hence, formally testing hypotheses in geophysics by such tests can be inaccurate by orders of magnitude due to that dependence.

As another example, Pearl’s theories make use of causal graphs, in which the possible direction of causation is assumed to be known a priori. This implies that we already have a way of identifying causes. Moreover, insofar as those theories assume, in their use of the chain rule for conditional probabilities, that the causality links in the causal graphs are of Markovian type, their application to complex systems is problematic.

Another misconception in some of earlier studies is the aspiration that by using a statistical concept other than the correlation coefficient (e.g. a measure of information) we can detect genuine causality.

Having identified the weaknesses in existing theories and methodologies, we proceeded to develop a new method to study the question whether process X is a potential cause of process Y, or the other way round. This has several key characteristics which distinguish it from existing methods.

• Our framework is for open systems (in particular, geophysical systems), in which:
• External influences cannot be controlled or excluded.
• Only a single realization is possible—repeatability of a geophysical process is infeasible.
• Our framework is not formulated on the basis of events, but of stochastic processes. In these:
• Time runs continuously. It is not a sequence of discrete time instances.
• There is dependence in time.
• It is understood that only necessary conditions of causality can be investigated using stochastics (or other computational tools and theories)—not sufficient ones. The usefulness of this, less ambitious, objective of seeking necessary conditions lies in their ability:
• To falsify an assumed causality.
• To add statistical evidence, in an inductive context, for potential causality and its direction.

The only “hard” requirement kept from previous studies is the temporal precedence of the cause over the effect. Sometimes it can happen that causation goes both ways; for example, hens lay eggs and eggs hatch into hens (and it was Plutarch who first used the metaphor of hen and egg for this problem). Conveniently, we call such systems “potentially hen-or-egg causal”. Our method also identifies these, and also determines in these cases which of the two directions is dominant.

To deal with dependence in time, often manifested in high autocorrelation of the processes, we proposed the differencing of the time series, which substantially decreases the autocorrelation. In other words, instead of investigating the processes X and Y and find spurious results (as has been the case in several earlier studies), we study the changes thereof in time, ΔX and ΔY.

A final prominent characteristic of our method is its simplicity. It uses the data per se, rather than involved transformations thereof such as the cross- and auto-correlation functions or their Fourier transforms —the power spectra and cross-spectra. The results are thus more reliable and easier to interpret.

## Atmospheric temperature and CO₂ concentration

In our PRSA papers we implemented our method in several case studies, such as rainfall-runoff and El Niño-temperature. One of the case studies was CO₂ concentration and temperature, and this one gave strong indications that temperature is potentially the cause and CO₂ the effect, while the opposite causality direction can be excluded as violating the necessary condition of time precedence.

However, the scope of these two papers was to formulate a general methodology for the detection of causality rather than to study a specific system in detail, and the case studies were brief. With regard to the relationship between temperature and CO₂ concentration, we hadn’t gone into details as to the effect of seasonality and time scale, or the exploration of many sources of data. So in our latest paper, published a week ago in Sci (“On hens, eggs, temperatures and CO2: Causal links in Earth’s atmosphere”), we studied the issue in detail. We used CO₂ data from Mauna Loa and from the South Pole, and temperature data from various sources (our published results are for the NCAR/NCEP reanalysis, but in the previous papers we used satellite data too). We used both historical data and the outputs of climatic models. We examined time scales ranging from months to decades.

The results are clear: changes in CO₂ concentration cannot be a cause of temperature changes. On the contrary, temperature change is a potential cause of CO₂ change on all time scales. As we conclude in the paper, “All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO₂] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged  T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with  T as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).”

The math is a bit too complicated to present here. However all three papers have been reviewed extensively by referees and editors (notice in the last paper that four editors were involved as seen on the front page of the paper). The results in the earlier papers were criticized, formally by a commentary in the same journal and informally in blogs and social media. Some concerns expressed by critics, such as about lengths of time series, effect of seasonality, effect of timescale, are dealt with in this new paper. No-one has however developed any critique of the methodology.

In addition, the following graphic (taken from the graphical abstract of the paper and inserted here as a quiz) aims to make things even clearer. In this we plot the time series on the annual scale to avoid too many points. Hopefully even the annual scale of this graph (in contrast to the monthly scale we used in our detailed results) suffices to suggest that there is very little doubt as to the potential causality direction.

Do climate models faithfully represent the causality direction found in the real world data? This question is also investigated in our new paper. The reply is clearly negative: the models suggest a causality direction opposite to the one found when the real measurements are used. Thus, our methodology defines a type of data analysis that, regardless of the claims we infer about the detection of causality per se, assesses modelling performance by comparing observational data with model results. In this, it contributes in studying an epistemological problem and, in particular, it casts doubt over the widespread claims that “in silico experimentation” with climate models is the only option we have and that this can be justified by the (insufficiently validated) assumption of an “increasing realism of climate system models”.

One might think that the potential causality direction we determined is counterintuitive in the light of the well-known greenhouse effect, and that the effect of temperature on CO₂ concentration would be subtle. But no, it is quite pronounced. In fact, human emissions are only 4% of the total, natural emissions dominate, and the increase of the latter because of temperature rise is more than three times the human emissions. This it is visible in a graph we included in an Appendix to the paper.

Figure A1 from Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023): Annual carbon balance in the Earth’s atmosphere in Gt C/year, based on the IPCC estimates. The balance of 5.1 Gt C/year is the annual accumulation of carbon (in the form of CO2) in the atmosphere.

Of course, several questions remain. Why does the temperature increase? And why does the temperature rise potentially cause an increase in CO₂ concentration? Is the temperature change a real cause of the CO₂ concentration change, or could they both be the result of some further causal factor? It’s not hard to speculate. Yet we briefly investigate quantitatively possible mechanisms for these causal relationship in the appendices to the paper. However, if we stick to the facts, two things are clear: (i) changes in CO₂ concentration have not been warming the planet; (ii) climate models do not reflect what the observational data tell us on this issue.

JC comment:  I find this analysis to be very interesting.  The global carbon cycle is definitely “unsettled science.”  I think what this paper shows is that CO2 is an internal feedback in the climate system, not a forcing (I think that Granger causality would reveal this?). Yes, this all depends on how we define the system, and humans and their emissions are currently acting outside of the system in most climate models and are considered as an external forcing.  Again, as emphasized in the paper, human emissions are small fraction of natural emissions so this issue of internal versus external isn’t straightforward.  By analogy, in the 1970’s climate models specified cloud cover, and hence clouds acted as an external forcing.  However, clouds vary in response to the climate, and now with interactive clouds, clouds are now correctly regarded as a feedback and not a forcing.

References

1. Koutsoyiannis, C. Onof, A. Christofides, and Z. W. Kundzewicz, Revisiting causality using stochastics: 1.Theory, Proceedings of The Royal Society A, 478 (2261), 20210835, doi:10.1098/rspa.2021.0835, 2022.
2. Koutsoyiannis, C. Onof, A. Christofides, and Z. W. Kundzewicz, Revisiting causality using stochastics: 2. Applications, Proceedings of The Royal Society A, 478 (2261), 20210836, doi:10.1098/rspa.2021.0836, 2022.

D. Koutsoyiannis, C. Onof, Z. W. Kundzewicz, and A. Christofides, On hens, eggs, temperatures and CO₂: Causal links in Earth’s atmosphere, Sci,

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Tom Halla
September 29, 2023 6:07 am

Time actually runs backwards, so of course CO2 precedes changes in temperature? That is about as testable as computer models.

Allan MacRae
September 30, 2023 12:36 am

References:
Three much-earlier papers reached similar (but not identical) conclusions – 1990, 2008, 2013 – should be added to the references.
While it is true that atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature changes (AND sea surface temperature changes):
–         that fact DOES NOT preclude that some or even most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 could be caused by human activities;
–         that fact DOES preclude that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is high and will cause dangerous global warming – it cannot – Climate Crisis Canceled.

NO EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CRISIS
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 23, 2022

“To conclude, the alleged fossil-fuel-caused Global Warming Crisis does not exist in reality. The only real, measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is improved crop yields – which are hugely beneficial.”
[excerpt]

The Catastrophic Human-made Global Warming (“CAGW”) Hypothesis is based on a false premise – it assumes that atmospheric CO2 changes drive temperature changes, which is incorrect. If CO2 was a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes, but they do NOT. Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, as proved by MacRae (Icecap.us 2008), and Humlum et al (Science, 2013). Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature that were ignored for decades.

The CAGW Hypothesis ASSUMES that the future is causing the past. The CAGW Hypothesis is disproved.

In fact, the CAGW Hypothesis has also been proved false in many other ways, but as Albert Einstein famously stated, “One would be enough.”

Allan MacRae
September 30, 2023 12:55 am
Nelson
September 29, 2023 6:29 am

Clive Granger did lots of interesting work. I studied his causality work under Jim Hamilton (Time Series Analysis) at UVA. Jim left UVA to work with Clive at UCSD. As an Econometrician ,I find much of climate science to focused on models at the expense data analysis. I hope this paper gets the attention it deserves. The people pushing the ‘ CO2 is driving a climate crisis” are doing the world a huge disservice.

Steve Case
September 29, 2023 7:13 am

“I find much of climate science to focused on models at the expense data analysis.”

_____________________________________________________________________

Models are easy to tweak, data not so much, but that’s going on too.

Nick Stokes
September 29, 2023 6:38 am

“As we conclude in the paper, “All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO₂] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).””

Another of these papers that string togther a whole lot of IRFs etc, and pay no attention to basic mass considerations. With land use change, we have put about 650 Gtons of C into the atmosphere. A total of 300 Gtons remain. So what could be the cause of that 300 Gtons? T?

Here (from here) is the graph of cumulative progress of emissions, plotted with tonnage in the air. All through the MWP, LIA, the amount of CO2 in the air didn’t change in response to those T events. The natural emissions exactly balanced the natural losses, as they must, since there was no source of new carbon. But after 1800, cumulative C exactly tracked the amount we added, with a factor of about 0.44 (airborne factor); the rest going into the sea. That is atmospheric C following our emissions, not temperature.

Steve Case
September 29, 2023 7:26 am

No reasonable person disputes that we have caused an increase in CO2 and that has caused warming. What’s in dispute is, “So What?” The claim that a warmer world is a problem is absurd.

Bellman
September 29, 2023 7:32 am

“No reasonable person disputes that we have caused an increase in CO2 and that has caused warming. ”

“changes in CO₂ concentration have not been warming the planet”

Whether the authors could be considered reasonable is another question.

Joseph Zorzin
September 29, 2023 10:45 am

Climate science is about as useful as sociology.

Richard Page
September 29, 2023 11:39 am

It does. The reason being that the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature is a correlation and, so far, not one study has ever established a causative link between them in 70 years of intensive study. This should throw the field open to honest sceptical scientists to suggest other causes but this field of study is being shut down by those with a big stake in the correlation between CO2 and temperature. The author’s are adopting a perfectly reasonable approach in exploring the correlation and all possible causes – it’s what all reasonable, honest scientists SHOULD be doing.

youcantfixstupid
September 29, 2023 1:28 pm

I generally agree with the tenor of your statement but I disagree with ‘not one study has ever established a causative link between them in 70 years of intensive study.’

Specifically, assuming the methodology of the first paper goes unrefuted and the analysis in the second (or 3rd) stands up to scrutiny, then this study ‘proves that changes in CO2 does not cause changes in temperature’. That is a ‘causative link’ as it’s at least as equally important to know what does not cause something else to occur as it does to know what does cause it to occur. If no more than to at least stop us from wasting TRILLIONS of dollars & so much human effort to combat a fallacy.

The results of this paper along with that of Pat Frank’s should be trumpeted everywhere, get everyone to know about them.

Push comes to shove the importance of this analysis cannot go understated. This is 100% proof that the Climate Cultists are leading us down a humongously dangerous, wasteful and invalid path & need to be stopped now!

Richard Page
September 29, 2023 1:54 pm

Ah it’s a slight difference of definitions here – I would consider a paper showing no connection between CO2 and temperature to be a negative correlation but not causative – I would reserve that for a paper that showed a positive, actual cause-and-effect link.

youcantfixstupid
September 29, 2023 2:14 pm

Yes I recognize the ‘difference in definition’ but without trying to come off as too egotistical my definition is the ‘scientific’ one. That is to say in science you can never 100% ‘prove’ a theory but you can 100% disprove one. And that is what this paper does.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 8:46 pm

There are dozens or distinct and separate “fact patterns” that each, by themselves, disprove, debunk, and render impossible every single detail of Warmista Dogma.
This was and has remained true from the start of the Era of Global Warming Catastrophism.
This is now more than a lie, or a mistaken belief, or a scam, hoax, hustle or fleece, and it is now beyond the stage of a mere mass delusion. In fact, it is all of the above, and has been unified into a de facto religion encompassing it all.
It has taken on a life of it’s own, and no person or group can derail it by simply jumping ship, changing their mind, and/or speaking out against it.
I have no idea what it might take to sweep aside this mountain of nonsense, or even if it can or will eventually be swept aside.
Maybe it will take a war, or a pogrom, or perhaps an actual global scale emergency of the natural disaster type.

It may be just as likely that it will evaporate at some point, as that it will metastasize into something truly horrendous, with heretics being burned at the stake, buried alive to sequester their evil carbon, or if deniers will be rounded up and tossed into volcanoes to appease the wrath of Gaia.

Just so hard to say at this point.
One thing I am fairly certain of, concepts like evidence and proof have got nothing to do with it, nor will they.

We did not get here via evidence or proof, so it is illogical to suppose those things can get us back to where we were.

Graemethecat
September 30, 2023 2:12 am

There are a few straws in the wind to suggest that the Great Climate Con is finally (finally!) reaching the end of its life. I read a lot of comments under YouTube videos on Climate Change, and in the last few months more and more of them are expressing scepticism or even outright contempt for the approved narrative. At the same time, there are fewer and fewer people defending it, and they are starting to sound less triumphalist and pompous. The tide is turning.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 6:42 am

The paper doesn’t show that CO2 lags T over the past 170 years, it only shows that CO2 variability in net sink rate (not source rate!) lags T variability with app, 6 months.

Then they apply that to longer time frames, while temperature and net sink rate are in opposite direction…

In the recent 60+ years, CO2 leads T change over periods larger than 3 years, far (+120 ppmv) beyond the normal CO2 level (~295 ppmv) for the current average ocean surface temperature…

youcantfixstupid
October 2, 2023 1:59 pm

The paper isnt’ discussing ‘lags’ its discussing causality, and in that regard its primary conclusion for the whole ‘climate change’ debate is that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature change. It also postualates that T is a ‘possible’ cause of the increase in CO2 though only to a certain %. They could have left out any statements regarding if changes in T cause a change in CO2 & their main conclusion would still be valid, a change in CO2 is not the cause of a change in T (over the last 60 years).

It demonstrates their conclusion holds true with periods ranging from 3 years to 16 years & is only valid for data from the last 60 years.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 8:25 pm

We are way past the point where objective scientific information is going to change anything.
Not one study, or paper, or observation, or stack of pristine historical data, will change the current trajectory of Global Warming Catastrophism (IOW, Warmista Jackassery), no matter who says it and no matter how many times we recite it all to each other.
We could have studies and papers proving what we all now to be true, stacked up to the radiating surface at the top of the atmosphere, and it will not make a hill of beans worth of difference to the true believers, who seem to know be running (ruining) everything.

Jim Gorman
September 30, 2023 4:33 am

What is going to change is big government taking over the way you live. By banning so many things, washers, dryers, cars, furnaces, etc. along with the increase in what it costs to live, politicians are quickly running out of other people’s money to spend. The ongoing process of wealth accumulation at the top end will slow down and who is going to be left holding the bag? Politicians. So sad!

damp
October 1, 2023 8:10 am

Exactly right, Nicholas. The impulse to impoverish and kill billions of people isn’t going to bow to mere facts.

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 12:55 pm

Do you have any evidence t present that proves scientifically that human CO2 has caused any warming.

We can wait. !

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 1:57 pm

“Whether the authors could be considered reasonable is another question.”

We already know that bellboys don’t know much about science, and can be relied on to make stupid non-reasoning comments.

karlomonte
September 30, 2023 7:29 am

bellboy has been increasingly snooty of late.

Jim Gorman
September 30, 2023 4:26 am

As usual you misinterpret what the study says. It simply says that, based on time, temperature increases occur prior to CO2 concentration increases.

In other words, CO2 increases would have to occur prior to temperature increases for CO2 to be the causal factor. You’ll notice that the paper also recognizes that there could be a third factor influencing both. But the basic premise is that if CO2 increases follow temperature increases, CO2 can not be the process that causes temperature increases.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 6:35 am

Jim Gorman,

The study only proves that for the short term (2-3 years) changes T changes lead CO2 changes. That is all.
Then the authors use that as “proof” that T is the cause of the 120 ppmv increase in the past 60+ years, which is entirely wrong, as the trend of CO2 has hardly anything to do with temperature, but a lot with human emissions.

The T-CO2 lag in the past 170 years is reversed: CO2 now leads T in the trends.

The 2-3 years variability is around the sink rate (not source rate!) which is increasingly negative (!) with increasing temperatures.
Thus temperature is not the cause of the increasing sink rate or by extension, of the increase in the atmosphere. CO2 pressure is en that is caused by the twice as high human emissions…

Bellman
September 30, 2023 7:08 am

“As usual you misinterpret what the study says. ”

I quoted their exact words. If that’s misrepresenting what the study says, then so are the authors.

Bellman
September 30, 2023 7:24 am

“CO2 can not be the process that causes temperature increases.”

Which is what I sais, they were saying. So why claim I’m misinterpreting it?

As to the actual substance of the paper, I’m not going to go into any detail, because it seems to be the usual nonsense I’ve argued about numerous times here.

They are just going to a lot of trouble to confirm what everyone knows – that fluctuation in temperature cause fluctuations in the rate of increase in CO2. But then draw the assumption that because small fluctuations in CO2 don’t cause small fluctuations in temperature, then it must mean increasing CO2 cannot cause the observed rise in temperatures.

BY the way, I notice you suddenly are not concerned about the uncertainties in this case. No worry about how they can detect statistical changes on data that is changing by tenths of a degree when the claimed uncertainty in global temperatur is multiple degrees

mkelly
September 29, 2023 8:30 am

I dispute it.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 8:52 pm

Apparently, it is getting easier and easier to be “no one.”

youcantfixstupid
September 29, 2023 1:09 pm

This article & the paper it discusses DIRECTLY refutes that claim…CO2 does NOT cause increased temperatures, at best it is the other way around. The ‘So what?’ is true but I’d go further & say ‘we WANT increased temperatures’, at least for long enough that we develop the technological means to leave the planet or equally as importantly, develop the technological means to survive the next ice age…you know when we’ll be fighting against a climate that is working to produce ice that will be as thick as the Empire State building!

Richard M
September 29, 2023 8:26 pm

You may not dispute it, but lots of reasonable people do and this paper supports them.

karlomonte
September 29, 2023 7:40 am

“The natural emissions exactly balanced the natural losses” — without any consideration of the uncertainties associated with these data…

MarkW
September 29, 2023 8:08 am

In climate science, there are no uncertainties. At least that’s what I’ve been told.

karlomonte
September 29, 2023 8:36 am

Its all settled.

doonman
September 29, 2023 9:23 am

Climate science has determined that increasing taxes will lower global mean temperatures. All politicians agree, so they keep passing legislation to do just that. There are no uncertainties, just time limits that keep being exceeded.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 8:56 pm

Some disagree, and although they do not do a single thing different than the true believers, it is nonetheless a fact that it is all their fault.

And really now, when the smartest teenagers and uneducated nitwits in the world glue themselves to roadways en mass to prove it, who the hell are we to ask for proof or evidence?

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:40 pm

All numbers shown without an uncertainty range are exact — by definition.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:38 pm

Only if one ignores important sources and sinks for carbon. It is difficult to believe that, when those working on trying to quantify the Carbon Cycle, they didn’ t make sure that there was at least an approximate balance before publishing their results.

AGW is Not Science
September 29, 2023 1:36 pm

Not even data, but estimates.

michael hart
September 29, 2023 7:49 am

“The natural emissions exactly balanced the natural losses, as they must…”
Neither shown or proven by your post.

“With land use change, we have put about 650 Gtons of C into the atmosphere.”
So not just fossil fuel, huh?

I still want to see the up to date Jungfraujoch and Schauinsland delta14C measurements. The last report I found was in 2013 around the time that the delta 14C should be not just returning to pre bomb-spike levels, but actually falling BELOW the pre bomb-spike levels.
That rate of decline, if any, should be telling about just how much fossil fuel CO2 is really contributing to the rise.

michael hart
September 29, 2023 7:54 am

edit: “neither shown nor proven”

Mr.
September 29, 2023 7:54 am

These phrases are the staples that appear in musings about man-made CO2 and temperatures.

It’s not very convincing is it?

Joseph Zorzin
September 29, 2023 10:49 am

I doubt Newton or Einstein ever used those words in their published work.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:43 pm

E ~ mc^2 +/-epsilon

Chrism
October 1, 2023 5:30 am

E^2 = (m c ^2)^2 + (p c)^2

is the full equation btw

hiskorr
September 29, 2023 8:08 am

“…since there was no source of new carbon…”
Please understand the difference between your thousand-year graph and the paper’s detailed investigation of the past 60 years. When a 100-year-old forest burns in a summer, that is a source of “new carbon” on their timescale.

mkelly
September 29, 2023 8:57 am

Here is Nick’s and Steve’s case for CO2 emissions cause warming.

1. The energy input to earth’s is constant.
2. The temperature of the atmosphere didn’t change for thousands of years.
3. We increased the mass of the atmosphere by gigatonnes but didn’t increase input energy.
4. As a result the temperature of a more massive atmosphere increased.

The specific heat of carbon alone is .71 J/g K. Q = Cp * m* dT would tell us how much more energy is required just to get back to original temperature.

Right-Handed Shark
September 29, 2023 9:59 am

Oh, wait:

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:46 pm

Great find! I’ll read it tonight.

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 1:05 pm

There are readings.. they got rejected

Graemethecat
September 30, 2023 2:18 am

Clearly, data-tampering and cherry-picking in Climate “Science” go right back to the very beginning.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 7:40 pm

Some of these experimental techniques could be verified by recreating them at the present time, since those researchers left detailed records of procedures, equipment, locations and methods of sampling, etc.
It would be interesting to see if those exact techniques matched the levels taken to be representative of current levels as measured at Mona Loa, etc.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 7:57 pm

I have not gotten through the whole thing on first reading yet, but this is great stuff.
Looks like actual science to me, or at least what I was always taught represented the actual execution of the scientific method.

On the other hand, it is a piss-poor effort when compared to what we are to now understand as being representative of The Science™!
I mean, I did not see a single reference to the ongoing Climate Crisis!
How the hell can anyone do The Science™ without referring back to the central organizing principle of The Science™, that we are all roasting alive as we speak? Blah blah blah about some stuff they call CO2, but not a word about deniers killing all of our children because they are not doing enough to Tackle® Climate Change™ and eliminate Carbon Pollution☠!

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 7:59 pm

Did we lose the edit button again, or is it something with my screen?

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 9:40 pm

I didn’t know that we ever got it back.

Graemethecat
September 30, 2023 2:15 am

Why has it been deleted? Edit is a very useful tool.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 9:38 pm

Probably they would not match because there is a strong, obvious increase in the seasonal range moving north from the South Pole. There probably weren’t any measurements on the top of Mauna Loa in the 19th century.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 8:13 pm

I am wondering why there is no mention of obtaining info on past CO2 levels by locating and measuring sealed vessels containing air from some known time in the past.
There must be oodles of closed up glass bulbs, bottles, cans, etc.
Any info on that?
We used to get some commentary on it from time to time, but nothing lately.

Besides for that, it seems hard to believe that hundreds of years of data and experimental evidence could be simply thrown in the trash with no one raising a peep about it, or at least no one who is paid attention to.
But that pretty much describes all of what we now call The Science™, dunnit?

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 9:30 pm

A very interesting paper that asserts that temperature is driving the CO2 levels, and that the basic assumption of supporters of the inverse relationship, is wrong assuming that the the atmospheric CO2 level was low and constant before the industrial revolution. That is, the basic claim of CO2 equilibrium existing before being disturbed by humans, is challenged with extensive data sources. It is a story similar to climatologists putting more stock in the back-casting of ocean pH with a computer model than actual measurements and discarding the empirical measurements.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 6:58 am

Sorry, but most of the old readings were made in parts of the world, completely unreliable for “background” measurements.

In 5% of the earth, over land, there are huge differences between night and day (forests), which was noticed by C.D. Keeling in the late 1940’s and therefore he was looking for places where there was the least disturbance of local influences. That was found at the South Pole and Mauna Loa.

That makes that many old measurements, although reasonable accurate (+.- 10 ppmv), show extreme changes within a day and can’t be used at all to know ancient CO2 levels.

Here my comment of the article by the late Ernst Beck, as result of many direct discussions with him in the period 2000-2010, until his untimely death:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:34 pm

Your graph leaves out what is happening in the Tundra where the temperatures are claimed to be increasing at a rate 2-3X that of the rest of the Earth; clearly, CO2 and CH4 are increasingly being released by bacteria acting on the intermediate-term sequestered vegetative matter. It also doesn’t acknowledge the increase in respiration from tree roots in the Winter, particularly in the Boreal forests of the world. We know almost nothing about what is happening in the oceans, where a recent gravimetric survey almost doubled the known number of seamounts. How many gigatons of CO2 are sequestered each year from precipitation of limey muds in the tropics, and sedimentation of calcareous plankton in shallow waters?

This looks to me like little more than cherry picking of spurious correlations.

Nick Stokes
September 29, 2023 1:08 pm

It is just a graph of total observed CO2, which includes all those things.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 8:02 pm

Observed?
For a second I thought maybe you meant to say measured, but then I remembered about the miraculous talents of St. Greta, so…never mind.
I mean, just because I nor anyone I know can “observe” it…

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 9:45 pm

No, your graph shows fossil fuel emissions and land use changes, and compares them to the atmospheric concentration.

Nick Stokes
September 30, 2023 6:46 am

Yes, and it matches very well.

Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2023 8:44 pm

But, Again, it leaves out the Tundra! How well do things match if you include everything, not just the variables you are trying to sell?

youcantfixstupid
September 29, 2023 12:59 pm

Clearly there is no amount of evidence to the contrary that will convince you to give up your cherished position.

The argument of this paper isn’t that humans aren’t contributing to an increase in CO2, the argument is that CO2 increases are driven by temperature not the other way around. Hell, even the final graph in the above article would seemingly demonstrate that ‘without human CO2 there would be no total increase’. But until or unless you refute the methodology of the first paper & the results of the 2nd (or 3rd as the case may be but whose counting…) you’re simply playing 3-card Monty with the evidence.

Perhaps your inability to see the truth is because you fail to see the obvious, though perhaps I can’t blame you entirely because it seems to be a general human failing, the obvious is…humans are NOT the center of the universe. We are NOT the masters of our domain, we are NOT ‘outside of nature’ as every article & every analysis of climate change ‘due to human cause CO2 emissions’ assumes. Just like everything else on the planet we are subject to the whims of whatever the planet wants to do.

For example I can easily make a causal link between a change in temperature ‘causing’ land use changes by humans. Perhaps you think land use changes are purely due to human decision making independent of anything the planet may do or has done. How puny and meaningless your life must be. Always thinking in terms of at most an 80 or even 100 year life span. That’s no more then a microsecond in relation to the ‘life span’ of the planet much less the universe.

When or if you see that reality then maybe, just maybe you’ll finally realize that outside of full on global nuclear war humans can only seriously negatively impact our environment at most ‘locally’ (e.g. over fishing, extinction of whales due to over hunting). And I use the term ‘negatively’ only in relation to ‘what is good for humans’, since even a global nuclear war won’t stop the planet or the universe from doing whatever the hell it wants to do.

I will leave the ‘causal link between temperature changes and land use changes (causing an increase in CO2 emissions’ as an exercise for the reader and will just paraphrase George Carlin…”The planet wanted increased CO2 for itself and didn’t know how to make it so it created humans.”

I really do hope you find real meaning in your life Nick but you might start by giving up your human hubris & realize just how small and insignificant we all are. Once you realize that you will realize it doesn’t mean you are doomed to live a small and insignificant life.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 7:08 am

The paper doesn’t prove that temperature is the main cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
The paper only proves that temperature variability is the cause of CO2 variability around the trend.

Then the authors use that conclusion (which no one disputes) to conclude that the trend itself is caused by temperature, which is completely wrong, as the variability is the sink rate (not the source rate!) of CO2 in oceans and vegetation, while temperature increases, thus with trends in opposite directions.

With that conclusion, they violate the mass balance and Henry’s law, the latter gives not more than 13 ppmv increase since the depth of the LIA.
Over the past 60+ years, the CO2 trend by far leads the T trend.

youcantfixstupid
October 2, 2023 2:15 pm

I didn’t claim it ‘proved’ that T is the main cause of the CO2 increase. In fact what is causing an increase in CO2 is not germane to their main conclusion which is that increases in CO2 are not the cause of increases in T. In that conclusion, to the extent that their papers go unrefuted this can be said to be ‘proved’. Thus it absolutely demolishes the Climate Cults whole raison d’etre.

As to any statements the paper makes regarding the causal link of increased T driving increased CO2 they say only that its a ‘possibility’ (or similar word) & only for a certain percentage of that increase. In other words they didn’t seek an answer to what is ‘the main cause’ of a CO2 increase. And that isn’t the main conclusion of their paper.

If you want to go on about what is causing a CO2 increase go right ahead but like Nick you are playing ‘3 card monty’ with the main point of the paper in respect to climate change.

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 1:03 pm

Humans release some 3%, nature releases some 97% of atmospheric CO2

Since nature takes CO2 back in, that means that basically ALL human released CO2 is absorbed into the carbon cycle.

Nick has an agw scammer’s understanding of our contribution to the massively beneficial increase in CO2.

I like that he thinks that humans have caused it, because with China, India and other developing countries ramping up CO2 output, global emissions will continue to climb..

and there is absolutely NOTHING he and his fellow anti-life CO2 haters can do about it. 🙂

Destroying Western civilisation, as is their aim, will not make one jot of difference.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 7:12 am

Humans release about 5% of all releases, nature 95%. Humans have 0% of all sinks, nature 97.5%.

Conclusion of the balance (which contains ins ánd outs!):
Humans provide 100% of the increase of 2.5% per year in the atmosphere (as mass, not the individual molecules!) and nature 0% (besides a small contribution from increased ocean surface temperatures).

For the rest no problem with your remarks…

michel
September 29, 2023 1:05 pm

I’m not sure of having fully understood their argument. I think its saying that in the last 60 years the rise in CO2 precedes the rise in temperature, and so cannot have caused it. There seems to be a subsidiary argument that causation could go the other way, the recent rise in temperature could have caused the rise in CO2.

If that is the main argument, I don’t think you have refuted it in your comment. The only way to refute it would seem to be by showing that the rise in CO2 preceded and was always followed by the rise in temperature.

You could be right in saying that the rise in CO2 has other causes than the rise in temperature. If so that would refute the subsidiary argument, or it could, depending on the parameters and possible multiple causes.

However this cannot refute their main argument. Its not important to that why CO2 rises. What matters in their argument is that it rises after temperatures rise, and the temperature rise cannot have been caused by the CO2 rise.

I never understood the similar argument years ago about the early CO2 and temperature record. If you said back in the day that the long record showed temps rising first and then CO2 rising, you would meet with a chorus of abuse, but I never understood why that objection was invalid. A different question of course, but a similarity in the basic argument.

Nick Stokes
September 29, 2023 2:29 pm

I think its saying that in the last 60 years the rise in CO2 precedes the rise in temperature, and so cannot have caused it. There seems to be a subsidiary argument that causation could go the other way, the recent rise in temperature could have caused the rise in CO2.”

They are linked. What my graph shows is that there has been a huge recent change in [CO2] which is a clear response to our emissions. It cannot be said that T caused that (as Dr K says), but also makes nonsense of the precedence argument, which I think you have the wrong way around in the quote. Temperature rise did not on any meaningful scale precede that CO2 rise. There were independent variations in T, as there always are. But the CO2 rise started in about 1850 and proceeded basically exponentially. The main modern warming has been since 1970. The main objection of people here is that CO2 rise before 1970 did not produce as much warming as it should have (aerosols).

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 3:28 pm

The main modern warming has been since 1970.”

For surface temperatures, PROVEN to be mostly from urban/airport expansion, and the erroneous methodology used to fabricate them.

The Satellite data shows warming ONLY at El Nino events.. totally natural.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence in any temperature record of warming by atmospheric CO2 in any temperature data.

Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2023 9:23 pm

People with the truth on their side do not lie, cheat, make stuff up, stifle debate, or any of that crap.
In fact the opposite is true.
Just like it is the opposite of true that “Temperature rise…(has)…not on any meaningful scale precede that CO2 rise.”

michel
September 30, 2023 1:16 am

Yes, sorry, I did get it the wrong way around, I meant to say ‘rise in temps precedes rise in CO2’.

This is a key quote for what they claim:

The results are clear: changes in CO₂ concentration cannot be a cause of temperature changes. On the contrary, temperature change is a potential cause of CO₂ change on all time scales. As we conclude in the paper, “All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO₂] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged  T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with  T as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).”

Why is this wrong?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 7:35 am

Michel, that conclusion was based on the short term (2-3 years) variability. That indeed is true for that time frame (Pinatubo, El Niño).

The authors then use that as “proof” that CO2 lags T on longer time periods (the past 60+ years, which is proven wrong: the T increase is only good for about 10 ppmv over that time frame, while we see some 90 ppmv increase (and 160 ppmv of human emissions) in the same time frame. Thus CO2 leads T over at least the last 60+ years…
That can be seen in the first graph…

michel
October 1, 2023 2:27 pm

Thanks!

Chrism
September 30, 2023 2:06 am

… there has been a huge recent change in [CO2] which is a clear response to our emissions. It cannot be said that T caused that  NS, above

Jyrki KAUPPINEN & Pekka MALMI – do say exactly that
see
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf

they calculate 83 ppm increase per ºC
and estimate 90% of temperature change is cloud change & 10% greenhouse gas
the detail graph of 1998 El Nino T & CO2 shows temp leading a later co2 change

Nick Stokes
September 30, 2023 6:48 am

That is not a graph of ppm CO2. The quantity p_e is a residual after they have fitted some model.

karlomonte
September 30, 2023 7:41 am

Oh the irony.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 7:51 am

Chrism, something wrong with that graph:
Henry’s law gives as maximum 16 ppmv/K over multi-millennia and 3-4 ppmv/K over short (2-3 years) variations.
Have they compared ΔT with CO2 or ΔT with ΔCO2?

Anyway, if you plot both derivatives then you see that you need to increase dT/dt with about a factor3.5 to have the same amplitude in the variability:

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 7:52 am

The difference in slopes also is striking: temperature causes all variability, but is not responsible for the increase…

Chrism
September 30, 2023 9:54 pm

Yes

Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 2, 2023 7:34 am

Chrism,

No, they compared ΔT with CO2… which they may do to calculate the influence of CO2 on the temperature change, but that are different levels of the two variables, so you can’t compare the trends.
Either compare ΔT with ΔCO2 or T with CO2 to see the difference in trends…

Richard M
September 30, 2023 5:46 am

They are linked. What my graph shows is that there has been a huge recent change in [CO2] which is a clear response to our emissions.

Nope, all that you have shown is a correlation. It is truly sad you have such a poor understanding of science.

My own opinion is humans have added to the total C in the carbon cycle. So, whatever percentage that comes out to is our role in the increase in CO2. Natural warming driven primarily by oceans is responsible for the rest.

Not that CO2 levels matter all that much as they are also not responsible for any of the warming.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 9:49 pm

The seasonal ramp-up phase shows that the warmth of El Nino years increases the growth of CO2, and a decline in CO2 flux does nothing to the temperature.

scvblwxq
September 29, 2023 2:21 pm

The cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather. Cold weather causes our blood vessels to constrict to conserve heat raising blood pressure and making strokes and heart attacks more likely.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

This article from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. Increased strokes and heart attacks from cool weather are the main cause of the deaths.
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

Over the last 50 years, the Earth has received more energy from the Sun than at any other time during the past 500 years.
‘Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries’
The Astrophysical Journal, 937:84, 2022 October 1
https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10115

The climate of the Earth as a whole is still a 2.58-million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. The Earth is in a warm interglacial period that happens about every 100,000 years and lasts about 10,000 years which alternates with a cold glacial period that lasts about 90,000 years. The Earth still has around 200,000 glaciers and 11 percent of the land is permafrost. The ice age the Earth is in won’t end and the climate won’t officially change until all the natural ice melts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Permafrost covers 11% of the worlds land surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost
Glaciers cover 10% of the world’s land surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier

Chrism
September 29, 2023 10:52 pm

The paper by these qauthors looks at observed variables and concludes that changes in CO2 are following changes in T. The strong suggestion is that the effect (of T on CO2) very substantially outweighs (as observed) CO2 causing T changes – the papers detail how causality can be assessed and then apply those tests to observations – and also models – with the conclusion that models correlate only with themselves but when analysed causally are not of use.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 7:56 am

Chrism, the paper only shows that CO2 follows T on short term, but is wrong to apply that to longer term, where CO2 leads T.

The problem then is to separate the influence of natural and human influences on the T increase…

Anyway with more benefits from warming and more CO2 than problems.,,

Stephen Wilde
September 29, 2023 6:45 am

The implication being that ice core records of atmospheric CO2 are misleading.
They appear not to capture large short term variations in atmospheric CO2.
The current ideology is that CO2 in the atmosphere is very stable in the short term and on the back of that error it is supposed that contrary to all historical evidence over longer spans of time the current rise in CO2 is actually reversing the historical trends by making CO2 the cause of the temperature rise.
The entire theory is an inverted pyramid built on that underlying misinterpretation of the significance of ice core records.

Nick Stokes
September 29, 2023 6:51 am

Law dome ice core records have annual resolution over the last 2000 years.

MarkW
September 29, 2023 8:11 am

Given that it takes decades for the pores in the ice to close from the pressure of the overlying ice, annual resolution is simply impossible.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 29, 2023 8:23 am

Mark W,

Law Dome has a resolution of ~8 years for the gas age for the last 150 years (2 cores) and ~20 years for the third core for the past 2,000 years, before reaching bedrock.
Including an overlap of about 20 years (1958-1978) with the atmospheric measurements at the South Pole…

It takes only 8 and 20 years to close the pores at below 70 meters, as precipitation is 1.2 meter ice equivalent per year:

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:52 pm

My personal observation of the terminus of the glacier east of (formerly) Thule AB is that in the Summer (even 57 years ago) the surface turns in to deep, water-saturated slush that gives me pause in the belief of annual resolution that accurately reflects what was happening every year.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 8:00 am

Clyde, any melt layer in an ice core is easily detected and one takes that into account. In Law Dome no melt layers were detected, in Siple dome one in 70 years. At Vostok with an average -40 C hardly possible.

Nick’s 1 year resolution is true for the ice layers (even for Greenland down to 110 years back in time, not for the average gas age which depends of the local snow accumulation at the point of drilling.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 2, 2023 7:40 am

Sorry, 110,000 years for the ice cores in Greenland in annual resolution. And what did they find at near bedrock? a lot of vegetation debris from that time…
During the last deglaciation, the Eemian at 130,000 – 120,000 years ago, temperatures were a lot higher than today and about 1/3 of the Greenland ice was melted…

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 1:07 pm

The Vostok ice cores show that EVERY time CO2 was at a maximum, the Earth was COOLING.

Graemethecat
September 30, 2023 2:24 am

They also show that EVERY time CO2 was at a minimum, the Earth was WARMING.

For reasons I can’t understand, Stokes, Simon and the other CAGW groupies on WUWT cannot grasp the concept of causation.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 8:03 am

The discussion is not about the ice ages / interglacials, where almost everybody agrees that CO2 lags T.
The discussion is about the last 170 years and particular the last 60+ years, where the authors assume (not prove…) that CO2 lags T, but the data show the opposite…

Graemethecat
September 30, 2023 11:41 am

Since CO2 was not implicated in warming in the past, why should it be today?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 2, 2023 7:50 am

Graemethecat, that is a different question: one can’t say what the influence of CO2 was in the past, as both overlap each other during a warming episode for 4,000 of the 5,000 years.
But at the end of the Eemian, temperature dropped already to a much lower level and ice sheets started growing, while CO2 remained high. When CO2 started to drop with 40 ppmv, T and ice sheets were not clearly following (+ and -), thus indeed little effect of CO2 on T:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html

Paul S
September 29, 2023 7:09 am

In looking at the picture at the start of the article, my question is, did that rooster lay those eggs?

kalsel3294
September 29, 2023 7:25 am

Possibly fertilised them, not helping to answer the rooster or the egg question.

Rick C
September 29, 2023 10:19 am

The answer to the chicken/egg question is simple. Species evolve through mutation of genetic material. So at some point a bird that was “not a chicken” laid an egg from which hatched “a chicken”. Hence, the egg came first.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:55 pm

Maybe the first chicken was the result of trans-species surgery performed by visiting aliens. 🙂

Gunga Din
September 29, 2023 1:08 pm

And then if F’d itself to lay the second egg?

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 9:52 pm

No, obviously the aliens performed the operation on at least one hen and one rooster.

Steve Case
September 29, 2023 7:31 am

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! First chuckle of my day (-:

I had to Google “How to tell a rooster from the hen”

MarkW
September 29, 2023 8:13 am

That reminds me of the old joke about how you identify a mail plane.

Mumbles McGuirck
September 29, 2023 10:01 am

“How to tell a rooster from the hen”

The comb over.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 12:57 pm

That demonstrates how smart chickens are. The roosters don’t have any problem telling a hen from another rooster, and they don’t have access to a computer.

Tommy2b
September 29, 2023 7:32 am

Different breeds of chicken have differing amount of comb and wattles. You would need to see both the hen and rooster to determine which is which. That being said, this looks like a hen to me.

Generally roosters have larger and darker combs and wattles (hard to tell in this picture – would need to see the rooster and hen of this breed – but it looks fairly pale and small), longer and curved tailfeathers (not really visible in this picture – looks like a hen to me), and thicker legs with spurs (not visible in this picture).

Gary Pearse
September 29, 2023 8:31 am

No, but a rooster laid the hens who laid the eggs if the eggs are fertile!

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 1:00 pm

The best laid plans of roosters and men often go astray.

The Dark Lord
September 29, 2023 7:50 am

given that CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas (as the satellites have shown) any attempt to correlate temperature and CO2 levels must first start with correlated data … i.e. BOTH temperature and CO2 must be measured at each data point … using the current data (1000’s of global temperature locations and 2 CO2 measurement locations) is simply an exercise in math or statistics which provides no insight into the real world …

MarkW
September 29, 2023 8:19 am

Those satellite images are not displaying absolute CO2 concentrations. Look at the range being displayed. Having CO2 concentrations vary world wide from 415ppm to 420ppm does not prove CO2 is not a well mixed gas. In fact it proves the opposit.

kalsel3294
September 29, 2023 1:44 pm

CO2 fortunately is heavier than air given all carbon based lifeforms exist on or below the earths surface. I don’t know but would expect that CO2 in the atmosphere would tend to be displaced in low pressure weather systems by water vapour and thus concentrated at lower altitudes.

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 3:31 pm

Convective and dispersal mixing keep it fairly well mixed…but

… when you get an adiabatic inversion, the level of CO2 below the inversion can get quite high.

MarkW
September 29, 2023 8:01 am

One thing I would like to note is that it was OK for Michelson and Morley to simply demonstrate that the existing theories were wrong. There was nobody who declared that unless Michelson and Morley could come up with a better theory, people were going to ignore their work and keep using the earlier theories.

Now we come to the modern world and the demands of the climate crew.

I’ve lost track of the number of times I have been told that unless I can come up with a better theory as to how the Earth has warmed, we have to assume that CO2 caused it, and that we must do everything we can to control CO2.

I’ve also been told by quite a few warmists, that even though the ground based temperature network, especially in the past is not fit for purpose, it’s all we have, so we have to go ahead and pretend that it is usable.

Frank from NoVA
September 29, 2023 8:48 am

Excellent point, Mark. Also worth noting that CliSci frequently misstates the null hypothesis so as to place the burden of proof on its skeptics.

doonman
September 29, 2023 9:35 am

Remember, increasing taxes WILL limit global warming. It’s the only solution being promoted since limiting emissions ever since Jimmy Carter was president hasn’t worked at all. Drive 55 to save lives y’all.

MarkW
September 29, 2023 11:53 am

Raising taxes on other people makes leftists feel good about themselves. This goes double if the money raised is given to the leftists who supported the taxes.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 1:11 pm

The only thing that the 55-MPH speed limit did to conserve gas was to discourage people from taking long trips. On crowded commuter freeways, one is lucky to do 30-MPH. Typically, Detroit built cars to optimize the gas mileage at the then common speed limit of 65-MPH. After extensive experimentation, I determined that my ’65 Corvette got its optimum gas mileage (~17-MPG) at about 68-MPH. Despite its reputation as a ‘muscle car,’ Arkos Zora Duntov originally designed the Stingray as a high-performance, Grand Touring car.

John Hultquist
September 29, 2023 1:22 pm

Following Michelson and Morley, researchers went about the work of figuring out what actually happens.
With “climate” and CO2, a ClimateCult™ developed that leapt ahead of the science. Accepting AGW as an axiom allows them to refrain from actually working to solve problems – Hurricane Katrina (2005) and levee failures at New Orleans being one example.

No one seems to know how to expunge an axiom from the hive-mind.

Richard Page
September 29, 2023 2:00 pm

Bug spray. Lots of bug spray. Just sayin’.

observa
September 29, 2023 8:15 am

Climate change for sure with chickens and eggs-
Australian egg producers struggle to keep up with demand (msn.com)
Everything points to the dooming and there’s no escaping Gaia’s wrath.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 29, 2023 8:31 am

Everybody should follow the discussion at Judith’s blog, as the authors have not answered direct questions about where the human emissions disappear and what natural sources would be the cause of the temperature induced CO2 increase…
The more that both oceans and vegetation are proven net sinks for CO2.

Here an overview of my objections:

The carbon mass balance simply proves that the increase in the atmosphere is caused by humans:
Humans emit twice the amount of CO2 than what is measured as increase in the atmosphere, thus the rest gets into natural sinks, as human don’t provide much sinks.
Both oceans and vegetation are proven sinks for CO2, no matter how much CO2 they add and subtract over a year: in the past 60+ years always more sink than source.
It therefore is totally impossible that anything in nature is the source of the increase.

Any theory that violates the carbon mass balance therefore is proven wrong, including this work.

The relationship between temperature and lagging CO2 is known for many years, as good on short time (seasons and 2-3 years) as on very long time (glacial/interglacial changes).

For seasons: the ratio in change is about +/- 5 ppmv/K. mainly caused by vegetation in spring/summer and in opposite direction of the temperature changes.
For 2-3 years time frames like Pinatubo, ENSO: +/- 3-4 ppmv/K, directly proportional to temperature changes.
For centuries to multi-millennia: about 16 ppmv/K , directly proportional to long term temperature changes.

According to the theory of the authors, over the past 60+ years of accurate data: 110 ppmv/K, which is physically impossible and violates the mass balance…

Their main error: they assume that the observed lag of the CO2 sink rate (not source rate!) caused by temperature variability, with a negative slope (!) is applicable for the trend of CO2 in the atmosphere (with a positive slope)…
While the variability (+/- 1.5 ppmv for the extremes) of the CO2 increase around the trend indeed is caused by temperature variability, the 100 ppmv trend in the last 60+ years itself is almost completely caused by the twice as high human emissions.

Stephen Wilde
September 29, 2023 9:39 am

The mass balance idea is questionable.
I consider it likely that biological activity within the oceans produces CO2 with the same isotope as that produced by humans.
Increased sun into the oceans when the Earth is less cloudy would perk up the biological activity.
Henry’s Law may be being applied incorrectly. The figures suggested by Ferdinand seem to rely on a static body of water when in fact there is constant upwelling and downwelling which seems not to be taken into account.
As for the absorption of human emissions I suggest that since CO2 is heavier than air it is likely to be quickly absorbed by vegetation near the main sources of emissions. That would explain the lack of plumes of CO2 downwind of human population centres.
There are such plumes downwind of sun warmed oceans beneath the subtropical high pressure cells.

MarkW
September 29, 2023 11:58 am

The heat produced in cities causes an uplift of the atmosphere. It has been found that rain increases down wind of cities because of this uplift.

While fish may output the same isotope of CO2 that humans breath out, I fail to see how fish can output the same isotope that is found in fossil fuel deposits.

MarkW
September 29, 2023 11:59 am

According to the proxy records, CO2 starts to rise around 900 to 1000 years after temperatures rise. The Little Ice Age didn’t end until around 250 years ago.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 8:28 am

The lags are only a few months for seasonal changes, 6 months for year by year changes (Pinatubo, El Niño) some 50 years (last 1,000 years) and up to hundreds to thousands of years for ice ages…

AGW is Not Science
October 4, 2023 4:41 am

So, an echo of the Medieval Warm Period.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 8:25 am

Stephen,

The mass balance is known to very narrow limits, that is constrained by human emissions at one side (~10 +/- 0.5 GtC/year) and accurate measurements in the atmosphere (~5 +/- 0.4 GtC/year).

Even with the error margins in mind, the whole natural world is a net sink for CO2 of about 5 GtC/year. Natural variability around that figure is +/- 3 GtC for the extremes (Pinatubo, El Niño).

It doesn’t matter how much natural CO2 cycles through the atmosphere: the oceans and vegetation together absorb some 5 GtC/year. It doesn’t matter that biological activity increased or decreased from one yer to next year: in all years of the past 60+ years, nature was more sink than source.

There is no difference if you apply Henry’s law to a static ocean surface all at the same temperature (295 ppmv for current average temperature) and a dynamic ocean with extreme differences in ocean temperature and thus extreme differences in pCO2: from 750 μatm near the equator to 150 μatm near the poles: for the same (area weighted) average temperature, the same equilibrium with the atmosphere will be found.

Even if all human CO2 molecules are absorbed by the next available trees, that does prevent a natural CO2 molecule to get absorbed, thus the net result in increasing CO2 mass is exactly the same…

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 1:13 pm

… as the authors have not answered direct questions about where the human emissions disappear and what natural sources would be the cause of the temperature induced CO2 increase…

However, others have. You have not responded to them.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 8:54 am

Clyde, I may have missed some in the 270 reactions, but as humans emit twice the observed increase in the atmosphere and both oceans and vegetation are proven sinks for CO2, there simply is no room for any natural cause…

bnice2000
September 29, 2023 1:23 pm

Humans release some 4% of atmospheric CO2, Nature the rest, 96%.

Nature absorbs nearly all atmospheric CO2 as part of the carbon cycle.

Since nature cannot tell the difference between human and naturally released CO2, nature must therefore absorb nearly all the human CO2.

This implies that the very beneficial build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably mostly natural.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:00 am

bnice,

Humans release 5% of the inputs, provide 0% of the outputs.
Nature releases 95% of the inputs and 97.5% of the outputs, the difference of 2.5% remains (temporarily) in the atmosphere…

Thus humans are fully responsible for the 2.5% increase in the atmosphere.

Even if I agree that is largely beneficial, all available data show that humans are responsible for the increase…

youcantfixstupid
September 29, 2023 1:59 pm

They do not need to answer your questions because they are poorly posed. Whether or not in the total sum of CO2 emissions an increase is attributable to ‘human activity’ (of all kinds) is not germane to the question of whether CO2 emissions cause temperature increases. Their papers (if they go unrefuted) demonstrate unequivocally that CO2 has not caused the temperature increase we have experienced in the last 60 years.

As I indicated to Nick, you must lead an exceedingly small life if you think that humans aren’t part of nature and that our actions aren’t driven by the planet we live on.

Simply look at that last graph in the article above & observe the significant changes in what is labeled ‘natural’ (vs human) increases & decreases of CO2 during ‘modern’ times vs ‘pre-industrial’. Those demonstrate that the planet is greening significantly (as does other more direct evidence). That indicates the planet is thriving significantly & that we are being good stewards of our overall environment & helping to drive an increase in life.

So if an increase in human activity is helping to increase the amount of CO2 available for life to thrive then we should be producing even MORE not less.

What is NOT happening is that CO2 is causing the planet to warm (at least not in the last 60 years), something else is, and I for one am all for it. I do not want to live on a planet that is cooling!

If there is a Hell it isn’t hot it’s COLD, exceedingly so, ice-age cold & there is no heat anywhere. I’m from Canada, Saskatchewan, I’ve experienced bitterly cold weather, you do not want to live with that 24/7/365.

So, bring on the heat, bring on the CO2 lets make this planet a true paradise (again?).

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:05 am

I fully agree that more CO2 is beneficial, but that has nothing to do with the thesis that humans are responsible or not for the increase.

Skeptics shoot in their own foot if they use bad arguments that are proven wrong for a long time. That makes the good arguments that we have also suspect…

youcantfixstupid
October 2, 2023 2:34 pm

What is causing an increase in CO2 is not germane to the main conclusion of their paper & their paper only claims a possible causal link from increased T to an increase in CO2. It doesn’t try to claim it is the ‘only cause’, the ‘main cause’ or otherwise. So your harping on that question isn’t relevant to their paper & its main conclusion which is that an increase in CO2 is not the cause of an increase in T.

Once we get Climate Cultists to admit that truth then perhaps we can discuss what is driving an increase in CO2, and if it’s as beneficial as it seems in terms of driving an environment suitable to support increased life then maybe we’ll decide that burning fossil fuels isn’t such an evil after all. Though personally I’d like to use fossil fuels to make the cool stuff we have & use Nuclear energy to power it, there’s not much other use for Uranium & similar.

hiskorr
September 29, 2023 8:33 am

In spite of its being a very detailed comparison of very minute differences in two very large, very inaccurately measured (or calculated) numbers, this is an interesting paper. It tends to confirm, on a micro scale, what was evident on the macro scale in Gore’s Inconvenient Lie; namely, that temperature changes precede, are not driven by, CO2 changes.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 29, 2023 8:43 am

hiskorr, T changes precede CO2 changes on all time periods (at least in the last 2 million years), except for the past 170 years, where CO2 levels increase beyond what T predicts.

According to Henry’s law, for the current average ocean surface temperature, CO2 in the atmosphere should be around 295 ppmv, while we measure 315 ppmv, 120 ppmv higher.
Human emissions meanwhile were in total 200 ppmv over the same time span…

doonman
September 29, 2023 9:46 am

Wait. I was told that humans could not have emitted enough CO2 to affect global temperatures until the the late 1950’s. My calculator says that’s nowhere near 170 years ago, so you might want to recheck your data.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:08 am

The discussion is about CO2 levels, not their influence on temperature, which indeed may be only measurable after 1950. Before that, the extra CO2 levels were way too small to have a measurable influence on temperature…

MarkW
September 29, 2023 12:01 pm

I believe you meant to write that we measure 415 ppmv.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:09 am

Of course you are right! Thanks…

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 1:23 pm

You are assuming that the only thing impacting the balance, besides humans, is Henry’s Law. You are ignoring other processes such as bacterial decomposition of the organic-rich Tundra, and increased respiration from boreal tree roots as the Winters get warmer. We have no idea what is happening under the surface of the oceans, but we do know that terrestrial volcanoes are episodic. I accept that while Henry’s Law explains some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, it doesn’t explain it all. That’s why one has to look outside the box. I have, on several occasions mentioned alternative working hypotheses and you have ignored them.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:21 am

Clyde, whatever happens in the biosphere or oceans, will have an impact on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

That is measurable in the year by year variability of the CO2 sink rate around the trend: some +/- 1.5 ppmv for the extremes (Pinatubo, El Niño) around the trend with a current negative balance of -2.5 ppmv/year.

Thus the full natural cycle of all natural processes in this world is increasingly negative, thus can’t have any contribution to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if some natural stream doubled from year to year, that is more than compensated by another stream(s) that decreased.

Chrism
September 30, 2023 10:27 pm

Henry’s law only applies in equilibrium, strictly : see the paper I quoted above by Kauppinen & Malmi for a discussion of out of equilibrium analysis

ferdberple
September 29, 2023 8:41 am

mass changes over time by something like 0.000005% per century, and no-one knows why exactly
=======
Everyone on earth, including the reference weight is accelerating at 1 g.

According to relativity this is indistinguishable as to cause. Our clocks are slowing relative to the past and lengths are contracting. This affects all measurements relative to the past.

MarkW
September 29, 2023 12:04 pm

Several tons of meteorites fall on the earth every day.

Gunga Din
September 29, 2023 1:36 pm

mass changes over time by something like 0.000005% per century, and no-one knows why exactly

Better keep that quiet!
Jenny Craig might go out of business!

ferdberple
September 29, 2023 9:07 am

the increase of the latter because of temperature rise is more than three times the human emissions
=======
Good work. To me this says temp drives CO2 because it is an infinite series summing to infinity if CO2 also drives temp. Earth would have burned up long ago.

But I suspect the Climate Convinced will grab onto these numbers as proof of 3 x positve feedback.
The problem is the “three times”. Climategoofy.org will see this as proof positive that co2 drives temp

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:28 am

ferdberple,

The increase of the natural sinks is higher than the increase of the natural sources, net result: more net sinks in oceans and vegetation, thus impossible as cause of the increase in the atmosphere…
==============
There is no reason at all to have a runaway warming: as long as the sum of the two effects is modest, they only somewhat increase each other.
Here for a 10% increase both ways, ending in a 21% increase in total:

LT3
September 29, 2023 9:29 am

Atmospheric global CO2 levels are merely a proxy of global ocean temperature.

Richard M
September 30, 2023 6:04 am

Yes, that is what I have thought for many years. I do think humans may have added to the global carbon budget so have made a small contribution to the available carbon being cycled..

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:32 am

LT3,

The basic level indeed is: about 16 ppmv/K change in temperature. For the current average ocean surface temperature around 295 ppmv in the atmosphere… Currently 120 ppmv higher and therefore pushing a lot of CO2 into oceans and vegetation.

Krishna Gans
September 29, 2023 9:45 am

New Study: ‘Atmospheric CO2 Is Not The Cause Of Climate Change’ … The Next Glaciation Has Begun
CO2 “only affects a small range of long-wave re-radiation from the surface of the Earth,” and there “seems to be no connection between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the Earth.” − Harris, 2023
New research published in the MDPI journal atmosphere by Dr. Stuart A. Harris asserts past and modern climate changes are natural and not driven by variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Tom Abbott
September 30, 2023 3:19 am

The CO2 science does not seem to be settled.

But we knew that, didn’t we.

David Albert
September 29, 2023 10:03 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/29/causality-and-climate/#comment-3792373
FE
The Figure A1 above shows that the sinks are about 98% of the emissions. All emissions act essentially the same as they are just CO2. The anthropogenic portion acts the same so 98% of it flows out of the system. There is no mass balance problem here. This paper clearly supports Salby, Berry and Hardy in their first principle analysis of CO2 flow through the atmosphere and their conclusion that most of the increase is natural.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:39 am

David,

How much percent human emissions are from total emissions is not of the slightest interest. Human emissions are one-way additions of 11 GtC/year according to the figures.
Natural sources and sinks together are a net sink of -5.1 GtC/year.
Thus (near) all increase is caused by the small human emissions…

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 9:49 am

Sorry, some more comment:

Further, the supply of human emissions in average was some 2%, but the composition of what is removed is much lower in CO2 of human origin as only 25% of the total mass of CO2 is exchanged with other reservoirs. Thus only 25% per year of the first 2% is removed in next year, but a new batch with 2% human CO2 arrived and at the same time a small percentage of human CO2 from the other reservoirs also returned…

Based on the 13C/12C levels in the atmosphere, some 10% of the current atmosphere is from fossil fuels and about 6% in the surface ocean waters. Here the 13C/12C ratio as seen in ice cores/firn/air and in ocean waters (coralline sponges over the past centuries:

Ferdinand Engelbeen
September 30, 2023 10:04 am

Last part.

I have discussed Salby, Berry and Harde to no avail…

The late Dr. Salby compared T with dCO2/dt, which gives a complete wrong answer: a small jump in T, sustained over time, would give a constant extra CO2 stream unto eternity…
Compare T with CO2 or dT/dt with dCO2/dt not T with dCO2/dt.
Moreover, the integral of T is a non-existing unit.

Berry is a hopeless case: even after several exchanges, he thinks that the residence time is something fixed in nature and how fast some extra CO2 is removed and he uses that upside down, which you may do if and only if all fluxes are unidirectional, which is absolutely not the case, as the main CO2 fluxes switch direction in the different seasons,

Then Harde: also uses the residence time, which only shows how much CO2 is circulating through the atmosphere but doesn’t supply any information about the speed of removing any extra CO2 above equilibrium…

John in NZ
September 29, 2023 12:09 pm

One way of telling which is the cause and which is the effect is to look at the second derivative.

There is not only a correlation between Temp and CO2 growth. There is also a correlation between Change in Temp and Change in CO2 growth.

When the temperature increases, there is an increase in CO2 growth.

When the temperature falls, there is a fall in the CO2 growth.

Now a fall in the CO2 growth is still an increase in CO2, so it must be that temperature change is the cause.

John in NZ
September 29, 2023 12:12 pm

Temperature data from NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: Global Time Series, published November 2022, retrieved on November 19, 2022 from https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series

John in NZ
September 29, 2023 12:19 pm

I have done this comparison with 4 datasets. UAH , HadCRUT5, GISS ans NCEI. All show a good correlation between change in temp vs change in CO2 growth.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2023 1:36 pm

But, when there is a fall in the rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, there is no change in temperature.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/

John in NZ
September 29, 2023 8:14 pm

Quite so, Clyde.

Here is a graph showing a cross plot of Change in Emissions versus Change in CO2 growth. The IPCC concept of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) is predicated on the assumption that a change in emissions will result in a reduction in CO2 growth and therefore a reduction in warming. There is no such relationship

I calculated the change in emissions using World Emission Data from https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
and the change in CO2 growth data from https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_gr_mlo.txt
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html

John in NZ
September 29, 2023 8:25 pm

Oops. I just noticed that was using data from 1980 to 2022.

Here is the same graph using data from 1960 to 2022. It does not change the conclusion though.

John in NZ
September 29, 2023 8:28 pm

Oops again. Here it is.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 2, 2023 6:16 am

John,

The correlation is only for the variability around the trend temperature trend but says nothing about the cause of the trends. That is the problem with this study.

The variability of some variable is propagated in every further derivative, but the trends are not. Therefore you need to compare variable with variable or derivative with derivative of the same level, or you are fooling yourself.

Here the two trends in the derivatives. Keep in mind that the trend in human emissions is about twice the trend of CO2 in the atmosphere…

Rasmuand
September 29, 2023 12:22 pm

An amount of fossil fuels have been burnt during the industrial era and the corresponding amount of carbon dioxide have been directed to the atmosphere.
By analysis that amount of CO2 is not found in the atmosphere. Therefore the missing amount have been transferred elsewhere – to the nature.

IF the nature in the meantime also added CO2 to the atmosphere then we would find an atmospheric CO2 amount bigger than that from the corresponding fossil fuel burnt, we do not.

The mass balance is always fulfilled – the mass going in to a system also has to go out, if not then there will be an accumulation in the system :

InNatural + InFossil = Accumulation + OutNatural

We know the InFossil is bigger than Accumulation then we also know by rearranging that OutNatural is bigger than InNatural.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

David Albert
September 29, 2023 2:56 pm

The Figure A1 above shows that the sinks are about 98% of the emissions. All emissions act essentially the same as they are just CO2. The anthropogenic portion acts the same so 98% of it flows out of the system. There is no mass balance problem here. Your equation InNatural + InFossil = Accumulation + OutNatural is trivially true but contains nothing about the relative amounts or the flow rates. If the “outs” increased to be more than the “ins” would you conclude that no “fossil” was left in the atmosphere? This new paper clearly supports Salby, Berry and Hardy in their first principle analyses of CO2 flow through the atmosphere and their conclusion that most of the increase is natural.

Rasmuand
September 29, 2023 11:17 pm

”…. nothing about the relative amounts or the flow rates….”.

Yes, the natural flows are bigger than the fossil flow. The natural flows are, though, going both in to and out from the atmosphere.

During the industrial era the fossil CO2 have been lifted from one system and transferred to another system, consisting of the atmosphere and the nature.

This atmosphere and the nature then have been accumulating the amount of fossil CO2.

From atmospheric analysis we know the amount of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the the rest have been accumulated in the nature, land and ocean.

“….. If the “outs” increased to be more than the “ins” ….”

Today there is a transport from the atmosphere to the nature.

Assume that the “InFossil” is completely stopped. The nature is not aware of that because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is still at the today’s level so the CO2 transfer, from the atmosphere to the nature, will go on at the same speed as today.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

scvblwxq
September 29, 2023 2:04 pm

The Sun heats the oceans and they warm up and absorb less CO2 so more is in the atmosphere.

Over the last 50 years, the Earth has received more energy from the Sun than at any other time during the past 500 years.
‘Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries’
The Astrophysical Journal, 937:84, 2022 October 1
https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10115

Pre-industrial times were the Little Ice Age which caused millions if not billions of deaths. Even now, millions more people die each year from cold-related causes than from heat-related causes.

The cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather.

Cold weather causes our blood vessels to constrict to conserve heat raising blood pressure and making strokes and heart attacks more likely.

‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 2, 2023 5:52 am

Increase of CO2 caused by temperature: not more than 16 ppmv/K over the past 800,000 years per Henry’s law.
13 ppmv since the LIA, that is all.
135 ppmv increase since the LIA measured, can’t be natural.

R Taylor
September 29, 2023 3:16 pm

Congratulations to the authors on getting this paper published. Its finding is consistent with temperature-sensitive activity of innumerable microbes in the “decomposphere”, which has underlain the biosphere for billions of years.

Bob
September 29, 2023 3:53 pm

Very interesting.

Robert B
September 30, 2023 12:59 am

Compare the difference in global CO2 values between the same months of consecutive years with &pi; by the HadNHSST of the ninth month in.

Simon Derricutt
September 30, 2023 6:18 am

There’s around 50 times the CO2 dissolved in the ocean than there is in the atmosphere. It’s a pretty safe assumption that this is in dynamic equilibrium, and in places where the ocean is warmer than average we’ll get evolution of CO2 and in places where it’s colder CO2 will go into solution. Some ocean currents have a long timescale, of the order of 1000 years, others shorter as they move water between colder and warmer locations, as well as on the surface and in the deeps. Only the water at the surface will move towards an equilibrium of CO2 in solution with CO2 concentration in the air, depending on the surface temperature, and if the water has been deep and cold for a long time before reaching that surface, the C14 will have decayed somewhat.

If we look at the situation where there are no changes in the various ocean temperatures or currents, then a human emission of, say, 50 tons of CO2 will equilibriate after some time with around 49 tons dissolved in the ocean and an extra ton left in the air. I haven’t worked out the rate at which this will happen, but given the speed of solution seem in tests where you adjust the CO2 pressure above water (soda-stream with a bottle of CO2) it’s probably of the order of a few years, maybe less. Getting a good estimate of that rate looks a bit complex, since we need to know the rate of equilibriation at the surface and the rate of diffusion from there downwards, and the temperatures and surface conditions since they all have an effect.

What we see is that the Mauna Loa measurements of CO2 ppm go up at around half the rate of human emissions, rather than around 1/50th of the rate. The implication is that the majority of the CO2 rise is natural, and that we can’t affect it by much. The further the CO2 in the air goes out of equilibrium with that in the ocean, the faster the surface exchange will happen, so we won’t build up an accumulation of undissolved CO2 in the air. Le Châtelier’s principle should apply here, after all.

Thus either increases in natural emissions of CO2 dwarf human emissions, or the ocean temperature is rising in places more than usual, or some deep cold ocean currents are finally reaching the surface and thus releasing more CO2 than normal, or something else is happening we don’t know. It does however look like human CO2 emissions have very little effect.

Still, here we are discussing science, yet the political decisions are running on a belief, and I don’t think that many people will change that belief until it’s hit rock-bottom. On other media, I see posts from people who believe that wind and solar power are actually cheaper than any other way of getting power, and that a country can run on renewables alone if only enough wind turbines and solar panels are installed, and only then will the electricity bills go down. The evidence of Germany’s Energiewende is ignored, as is the failure to bid on the UK new wind-farms because the offered price for electricity was too low, or that repair costs for wind turbines are worrying the manufacturers. The only way out I see is for new technology to make a power source that is much cheaper and incidentally doesn’t produce CO2. Looking hopeful in a year or two.

Chrism
September 30, 2023 10:34 pm
Simon Derricutt
October 1, 2023 3:24 am

Chrism – thanks, this seems to cover what I wanted to know. The buffering effect of the ocean is pretty powerful, reducing the effect of human-caused CO2. That also means that even cutting human CO2 to zero will hardly affect the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere. The whole CAGW scare is based on bad science.

Tom Johnson
September 30, 2023 6:26 am

Humans burning fossil fuels have undeniably injected a considerable pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last century. Over that period, atmospheric CO2 has notably increased. It’s certainly easy to believe a cause-and-effect relationship.

Concurrently, methods have evolved to quantitively measure environmental air temperatures. Early on, temperature recording methods, accuracy, and resolution were quite limited. More recently, they have been more reliable.

A few scientists and many political leaders are claiming that an increase in “global temperature” over this same period (plus several more years) of 1.5C will produce a Catastrophic Global Warming Tipping Point (CGWTP) which will destroy human civilization as we know it.

For many, this CGWTP s far less easy to believe. For starters, the ability to even measure “global temperature” over this time period with sufficient accuracy, is demonstrably in doubt. As this paper shows, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and human emissions of CO2 is not fully understood. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature” is not at all well-defined, and “global temperature” itself, under dispute.

This writer is clearly not willing to compromise future generations with gross restrictions on their freedom for such crazy schemes as are proposed to severely limit CO2 emissions in the very near term.