AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticism

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

A 2017 peer-reviewed paper authored by physicist Dr. Hermann Harde drew considerable response upon its publication in the journal Global and Planetary Change.  Harde’s conclusion that less than 15% of the increase in CO2 concentration since the 19th century could be attributed to anthropogenic emissions was deemed unacceptable by gatekeepers of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) viewpoint.  A critical reply to the paper was consequently published, but it included assumptive errors and misrepresentations of the original points.  Harde’s exhaustive reply to the criticism has been refused publication, which has effectively silenced scientific debate on this salient topic.

 

Image Source: https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/climate-unscience

We have yet another example of AGW advocates like Gavin Schmidt running away from real scientific debates with skeptics.

After receiving appeal-to-authority pressure from Gavin Schmidt and other activists at RealClimate.org, the overseers of the Elsevier journal Global and Planetary Change have refused to allow the public to read the exhaustive response to criticisms levied against a peer-reviewed paper they originally agreed to publish.

Image Source: Harde, 2017

Critiquing Via Misrepresentation and Models

Within months after the Harde paper was published, Köhler et al. (2017), was quickly cobbled together and published in Global and Planetary Change in an attempt to “refute” the conclusions of the Harde (2017) paper.

The problem was, Köhler et al. (2017) did not accurately critique the actual points made in the original paper, but instead they devised alternative or erroneous versions of Harde’s positions and then critiqued those instead.  In other words, they used the straw man argument tactic in their “rebuttal” paper.

In an unpublished response to the Köhler “critque” paper, Harde contends that Köhler et al. also employ “ad hoc”argumentation, “circular reasoning”, the “failure of logic” inherent in the practice of “validation by consensus”, and an overall reliance on models and assumptions rather than observation.

Excerpts from the unpublished response to Köhler et al. (2017):

“Köhler et al. list the production of anthropogenic carbon from 1750 to 2010 as 518 PgC, corresponding to 1,901 Pg of CO2. Of this, about 45% is assumed to have accumulated in the atmosphere. This value, the so-called “Airborne Fraction” (AF), is ad hoc – an artifact of presuming that increased CO2 follows exclusively from anthropogenic emission. During the same period, cumulative natural emission and absorption were 100 times greater: 727.3 Pg/yr x 260 yr = 189,000 Pg. Cumulative anthropogenic CO2 was therefore less than 0.5% of total emission into the atmosphere. If the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 is arbitrarily assumed, absorption of anthropogenic CO2 follows directly. The result, however, derives from circular reasoning. It is no more reliable than the assumption upon which it is based.”
“Despite huge uncertainties, climate models are invoked to claim that absorption of anthropogenic CO2 will quickly become saturated, forcing anthropogenic CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere: ‘Uptake of anthropogenic carbon will become slower if we continue to increase anthropogenic CO2 emissions’. Like others, this claim rests upon models that are largely ad hoc. It is therefore speculative.”
[O]bserved absorption, in the record of 14C, exhibits no evidence of saturation. Climate models are even invoked to claim in which layers of the ocean carbon will accumulate and, thereby, lead to acidification. Such claims are little more than hypothetical. Observations necessary to substantiate or falsify them are nonexistent. The models upon which the claims rely are themselves grossly under-constrained.  Observations are simply too scarce to configure model parameterizations uniquely.”
“Köhler et al. present an inventory of carbon which is purported to quantify changes in the various surface and sub-surface reservoirs, thereby isolating absorption of anthropogenic CO2. To claim that extraneous systems, like the carbon content of soil, vegetation (canopy and below, as well as decomposing), the sub-surface ocean, and marine sediments, are known with even close to the precision necessary to quantify those properties globally is preposterous. … Without global observations necessary to quantify those properties, the purported inventory of changes that could be associated with absorption of anthropogenic CO2 is fanciful.”
“Köhler et al. also argue that the analogy to radiocarbon is incorrect – because, they claim, changes in the bulk inventory of CO2 would be confused with changes in tracers at minute concentration. What is confused is Köhler et al.’s interpretation. Carbon 14 is a tracer of overall carbon, which is dominated by carbon 12. 14C is therefore a tracer of atmospheric CO2. Exponential decay of 14C following elimination of the nuclear source (Fig. 1) is then a direct measure of overall absorption of CO2 – because, with the elimination of that perturbing source, the conservation law for 14C reduces to (3).”
Köhler et al. argue that the signature of absorption in 14C is corrupted by dilution via fossil fuel emission, which is mostly free of 14C (the so-called Suess effect). The claim is specious. Dilution by fossil-fuel emission that is 14C-free has negligible influence on the decay time of 14C (Appendix B).10 Far more influential is re-emission of 14C from the Earth’s surface: 14C that was recently absorbed from the atmosphere, for example, by vegetation that subsequently decomposes and re-emits that 14C along with
other CO2.”
“It should be noted that the heading of Köhler et al.’s Section 3 is misleading. We did not claim to model carbon in the complete Earth-atmosphere system. That would require a wider analysis, accounting for processes within extraneous systems and exchanges between them. Our analysis focuses upon CO2 in the atmosphere, which is controlled by the governing conservation law. Köhler et al. characterize this physical law as a flawed 1-box description – because, they claim, a single balance equation does not account for details in other reservoirs, systems that are extraneous to the atmosphere. Köhler et al.’s interpretation is confused. With the inclusion of surface fluxes eT and a, which account for influences on the atmosphere, the balance equation (1) entirely determines the evolution of CO2. Details of extraneous systems, which are largely unobservable, are then irrelevant.”
Köhler et al. claim that the ice core record of CO2 perfectly matches the modern record of actual atmospheric measurements. With respect, this claim is preposterous.”
“Köhler et al. claim that references to material which inspired our investigation but which has either been criticized provincially, on dubious merits, or has not appeared in a journal are invalid. Among the treatments invoked by Köhler et al. to discount contradictory evidence are treatments which were shown in Section 1 to be unphysical. Köhler et al.’s complaint over source is ironic, contradicting their own position. To challenge our demonstration of fundamental physics, they cite material, even casual opinion, that was published on the internet. Accordingly, Köhler et al. expect one standard for others, but another for themselves.”
Köhler et al.’s Comment is devoid of concrete analysis. Its tenor is to inundate the reader with citations, a reiteration of the IPCC catalogue. It amounts to validation by consensus, a failure of logic that has been quashed repeatedly in the history of science (see, e.g., Hawking, 1988).”

Köhler et al. Contradicted By Observed Evidence

“The observed behavior of carbon 14 demonstrates that this is not the case (Fig. 1). Its rapid decay following elimination of the perturbing nuclear source makes it clear that present absorption of CO2 is 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than that claimed by Köhler et al.”

Image Source: Harde, 2017b
The treatment of absorption is specious. Notice: Absorption of CO2 is nonzero even if CO2 concentration vanishes. CO2 is therefore removed from the atmosphere even if there is no CO2 in the atmosphere. What world such treatment describes is unclear. What is clear is that it is not the physical world. This error is fatal. Changes of CO2 relying on it cannot satisfy the conservation law which is satisfied by CO2 in the atmosphere (Fig. 1).”

Image Source: Harde, 2017b

Links To The Censorship Sequence

Below is a summary of the silencing of scientific debate by the bloggers at RealClimate.org and by the overseers of the Global and Planetary Change journal.

1. The original (full) paper published in Global and Planetary Change:

“Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”

2. The RealClimate.org (blog) response is immediate.  Dr. Gavin Schmidt insists that the paper must not have been properly peer-reviewed:

“Something Harde to believe…” (Dr. Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org)

3. The Köhler et al. (2017) (full) critical response to the paper:

Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere” by H. Harde

4. Elsevier acknowledges their transgression in publishing a paper that didn’t conform to AGW dogma:

“Flawed climate science paper ‘exposed potential weaknesses’ in the peer review process”

5. Dr. Hermann Harde’s Reply (full) to criticism of his paper goes unpublished, censoring debate:

Reply to Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”

Uncensored access to the full Reply paper is available here:

Harde, 2017b, Reply to Köhler et al., 2017

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

145 responses to “AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticism”

  1. Curious George

    We live in humane times. Not a single suggestion of burning Dr. Harde together with his works.

  2. spike55

    Pity the Bern Model is so wrong,

    The planet would have LUV’D all that extra atmospheric CO2

    Unfortunately, its seems some 600ppm around the end of the century is best we can manage.

  3. SebastianH

    It’s fascinating to me that you, Kenneth, are not a bit skeptical about the extraordinary claims of Harde & Co (including Ed Berry) about our physical world. It’s just wrong, it has been shown to be wrong, yet you believe in the validity of this “reply” … why?

    Either you don’t understand why it’s problematic or you don’t care and just want to help a fellow skeptic (he even uses the very language you guys use, only with sometimes better vocabulary).

    This is just wow 😉

    1. spike55

      Sorry seb, But Kohler etal are the ones that have been shown to be WRONG

      Their AGW ideology DOES NOT match reality

      Just like all other AGW ideology DOES NOT match reality.

      1. SebastianH

        Be just little bit skeptic of what your side puts out. It would be interesting how you’d take something like this apart (or make fun of it) if you thought this was a AGW paper. Oh btw, it contains a model, maybe that helps you to be a more skeptical?

        1. spike55

          So, NOTHING as always, hey seb

          Just more mindless ranting and attention-seeking.

          Does NOT match REALITY..

          Nothing you ever say MATCHES REALITY

          You poor little fantasy troll.

    2. spike55

      Again, seb

      IF you happen to be correct, (miracles happen 1 in a million) then it is WONDERFUL that humans have so much control over the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

      Human release of sequestered CO2 will only continue to increase, there is NOTHING all your ranting and carrying on can do about that.

      So maybe the world is destined to reach 1000ppm by the end of the century. 🙂

      AND THE BIOSPHERE WILL LUV IT !!! 🙂

      And as you are well aware from your exhaustive searching, there is NO EVIDENCE that enhanced atmospheric CO2 doesn’t anything except enhance plant life.

  4. spike55
  5. AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticism | Watts Up With That?

    […] Full story at No Tricks Zone […]

  6. Denis Ables

    The computer models all assume that co2 increase is driving the temperature increase. But, since that has long since been recognized as not sufficient, they append yet another assumption – that the actual culprit is water vapor feedback causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by co2 increase.

    But,what about the MWP? There was no co2 increase during and before that period. The alarmists toss that aside by declaring that the MWP was neither global nor warmer. Where is the data?

    Data from 6,000 boreholes around the globe confirms that the MWP trend was global. The receding Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year-old forest, still in its original position. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then.

    CO2science.org has most of numerous peer-reviewed local site studies, and it’s also organized by region. Focus on the subset of studies which directly address temperature. Pick a half dozen regions around the world and select one temperature-based study from each. You will find that the sites studied invariably were warmer during the MWP then in current times.

    The laughable alarmist demand insisting that for a warming to be global it must be synchronous (meaning everywhere at the same time) would disqualify even our current warming (such as it is).

    While this does not prove that co2 has not had some impact on our current warming (such as it is), it eliminates the credibility of those “scientists” who have DENIED the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer, than now.

    1. SebastianH

      But,what about the MWP?

      The good old skeptic argument “what about past warmings?” … nope, just because it warms, it doesn’t mean it warms for the same reasons.

      The alarmists toss that aside by declaring that the MWP was neither global nor warmer. Where is the data?

      There are papers … something like this? https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Mann2009.pdf … but it’s written by Mann, so you will likely automatically refuse its content or mumble something about models, right?

      Pick a half dozen regions around the world and select one temperature-based study from each. You will find that the sites studied invariably were warmer during the MWP then in current times.

      Nope, you’ll find that sites like this one currate a subset of papers that show exactly this.

      The laughable alarmist demand insisting that for a warming to be global it must be synchronous (meaning everywhere at the same time) would disqualify even our current warming (such as it is).

      Nope, what’s laughable though is “skeptics” trying to construct counter arguments like this.

      Please refrain from imagining that you “blog scientists” have found something the experts have overlooked or are actively covering up in a great conspiracy.

      1. spike55

        So, STILL absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of CO2 warming.

        Just your continual mindless hysteria and BS.

        Just MAKE IT UP seb.

        Don’t worry about any actual measurable science.

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        cue.. seb headless-chook routine and evasion.

      2. spike55

        MWP is well supported by MULTIPLE scientific papers.

        http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php

        https://s19.postimg.cc/qdtyp46fn/MWP_global.jpg

        Even in Germany

        https://s19.postimg.cc/90joacqkz/germany_MWP.png

        Stop being a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, seb.

  7. RedM

    Thank you for this.

  8. Ferdinand Engelbeen

    Of course it is not fair to refuse a reaction of the author of an article, but I also had a lot of critique on his work when it was published. Also on the two points yellowed in the introduction:

    – The fraction of anthro CO2 is currently about 10%, based on the observed 13C/12C ratio.
    – Human contribution to the total mass increase is about 90%, not 15%.

    Dr. Harde made three fundamental errors in his original work:

    – Using the residence time, or even the decay rate of the 14C bomb tests excess, doesn’t say anything about the time needed to reduce an extra bulk CO2 injection – whatever the source – above the temperature controlled steady state of the oceans with the atmosphere.

    – Using the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as base implies a steady state of zero CO2 in the atmosphere, which is not realistic.

    – Using only natural emissions without taking into account the natural sinks violates the mass balance.

    A more complete, illustrated critique of mine on Dr. Harde’s work is here:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf

    1. spike55

      There has NOT been adequate accounting for the VAST increase in natural CO2 release due to the slight but highly beneficial warming.

    2. spike55

      Its a huge case of cognitive dissonance from the AGWers.

      They moan and wail about increased methane from warming Arctic areas,

      (methane breaks down to CO2 in the atmosphere)

      .. extra CO2 release from melting ice

      We know from ice cores that warming causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

      And they turn around and say humans are responsible for 100% of the increase.

      DOH !!!!!

      1. SebastianH

        We know from ice cores that warming causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

        Nobody is saying that this is not the case.

        And they turn around and say humans are responsible for 100% of the increase.

        Only “skeptics” believe that CO2 concentration increases can be caused only/mostly by temperature increases and not by actually putting more CO2 into the atmosphere by means of burning stuff. Skeptics also believe that it works like putting 4% milk and 96% into a coffee cup that leaks, resulting in a mixture of 4% and 96% milk/coffee in the cup at equilibrium (Ed Berry’s version of a CO2 analogy that mirrors the Harde version).

        1. spike55

          Only moronic brains-hosed closed-minded, gullible AGW cultists believe human CO2 contributes more than about 15% of the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2.

          And yet another MORONICALLY IRRELEVANT analogy that is totally unrelated to what is happening in REALITY..

          ROFLAMO…

          You truly are into your own slap-stick comedy, little seb.
          Do you practice in front of your mirrors as you preen yourself ??

    3. Yonason

      If you are pressed for time, Ferdinand, just watch from where this begins through to the 11:00 minute mark.
      https://youtu.be/sGZqWMEpyUM?t=481

      It ain’t us humans what’s causing all the increase in atmospheric CO2. It just doesn’t add up.

      1. SebastianH

        Of course it adds up, it more than adds up. That’s the problem … apparently the ability to sink CO2 must have increased or nature now emits less CO2.

        1. spike55

          Poor seb, digging deeper and deeper..

          .. into his own BS. !!

          TOTAL lack of comprehension of physics and maths… poor seb.

          Even a MINOR change in Natural CO2 would swap human contribution.

          And the NATURAL warming would have caused a HUGE increase in NATURAL CO2 emissions.

          Listen to Salby, and try to OPEN YOUR PADDED mind, if you have the capability.

          I KNOW that you do NOT have that capability.

          Your mind is TOTALLY CLOSED TO REALITY.

          1. SebastianH

            Even a MINOR change in Natural CO2 would swap human contribution.

            I love this argument, so let’s assume a BIG change instead. Since you seem to think my math is wrong, feel free to correct it … anytime.

            So we have 96 units of natural emissions, 4 units of human emissions and apparently 98 units of absorption. We are observing an increase of roughly 2 units per year, aren’t we?

            Good, now let’s assume natures emissions changed “BIGLY”. 20 units more, but we still observed only an increase of 2 units in those years. So absorption must have increased too and since humans emitted 4 units the share is now 116 + 4 – 118 = 2.

            Correct or incorrect?

            Now what would have happened if humans didn’t emit those 4 units? Would the concentration still increase by 2 units? What do you think?

          2. spike55

            So, just more junior maths, with ZERO comprehension

            Just make up some numbers seb.. FANTASISE !!!

            “116 + 4 – 118 = 2”

            So you are saying that nature has now absorbed 118/120 of the total, correct seb?

            So its absorbed 3.9333 units out of the 4 units of human produced.

            You seem to be finally on the right path, little-mind.

            You aren’t seriously suggesting that the human CO2 is NOT absorbed in the same proportion as the total? Surly even you aren’t that dumb?

            Your basic IGNORANCE and LACK of understanding of the effect of warming on ALL biological matter is quite expected.

          3. spike55

            And in your 96 natural to 4 human CO2 example, with 98 absorbed, 98 out of a total of 100 is absorbed back by nature, so 3.92 parts of the 4 parts human CO2 is absorbed.

            Increase due to human CO2 is only 0.08 parts, and the extra absorbed makes plant-life so much happier.

          4. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Spike55,

            “So its absorbed 3.9333 units out of the 4 units of human produced.”.

            Wrong reasoning…

            The sinks do absorb 118 out of 120 inputs as mass, but that mass has not the ratio of the inputs, that has the ratio of what is in the atmosphere at that moment.

            If you start with zero human emissions and a total of 400 units in the atmosphere (A), in that year you have 116 natural units in (N) and out (S) and still 400 in the atmosphere.

            Year 1: add 4 units human CO2 (H)
            Composition A and S: 99% N, 1% H
            116 N + 4 H in; 118 S out (*); 402 A
            98% of H remains in the atmosphere.

            Year 2: add 4 H
            Compo A and S: 98%, 2% H
            116 N + 4 H in; 118 S out (*); 404 A
            96% of H remains in the atmosphere.

            ….

            In both years the entire increase is from human emissions…

            (*) Of course a small increase of 4 units will not invoke an extra sink of 2 units, that will need far more accumulation of units…

          5. spike55

            “ratio of what is in the atmosphere at that moment.”

            So even LESS than 0.06666 of human CO2 remains.

            Thanks, ferd, for clarifying that.

            You seem to think that NATURAL CO2 is not climbing with the increase carbon cycle activity.

            What a bizarre conjecture, when the carbon cycle will ALWAYS continue to increase to match the available CO2.

            Be very glad that human CO2 kicked the carbon cycle out of its lethargy, or there would be FAR less food to feed the increasing population.

          6. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Spike55,

            Again wrong reasoning:

            The part of human CO2 that is absorbed is much smaller than what remains, thus it is the latter which causes all the increase in the atmosphere…

            Further:
            The largest natural cycle is the seasonal cycle: 110 GtC CO2 in and out over the seasons. Problem for you: the cycle is entirely driven by temperature and near independent of the amount (= pressure) of CO2 (human or not) in the atmosphere:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_MLO_trend.jpg

            Despite some 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere, the amplitude of the seasonal cycle hardly increased…
            In the second period, the residual CO2 increase doubled, but human emissions also doubled and in both cases human emissions were about twice the residual CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

            It is the difference between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere which is stored in the oceans and more permanent vegetation. Still humans are responsible for near all of the increase.

            That doesn’t tell us anything about the effect of the increase: that is – in my opinion – very modest and no reason to panic.

          7. spike55

            “The part of human CO2 that is absorbed is much smaller than what remains,”

            NO, nearly ALL the human CO2 is absorbed.

            Seb-maths shows that to be the case.

            Plus there is an ever increasing contribution from natural CO2 emissions as the carbon cycle expands.

          8. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Spike55:

            Seb-maths shows that to be the case.
            Plus there is an ever increasing contribution from natural CO2 emissions as the carbon cycle expands.

            Sebastian made an error, as the composition in the sinks has not the same ratio as the natural vs. human inputs.

            Indeed the sinks expand with the human input, but that is not with 2% for 4% extra input. One need 110 ppmv extra CO2 in the atmosphere (30%) to expand the sinks with 2%. Thus most human CO2 simply accumulates in the atmosphere (as mass, not the original molecules)…

          9. spike55

            The carbon cycle dictates that the TOTAL SOURCES expand as the atmospheric CO2 increases.

            There is a VERY large increase in CO2 sources as warm areas expand.

            All that old dead carbon that dies and was frozen, can now decay properly.

            Methane clathrates that the alarmist so love to panic about, thawed peat bogs, massive increase in the area of termite activity and carbon decay

            Stop thinking that NATURAL sources have had minimal change. They have almost certain expanded by a FAR GREATER amount than human CO2 activity.

            And as I said before. If humans really are responsible for a reasonable percentage of atmospheric CO2 increase.. the more the merrier.

            .. BRING IT ON 🙂 !!!

        2. Ferdinand Engelbeen

          Spike55:

          The carbon cycle dictates that the TOTAL SOURCES expand as the atmospheric CO2 increases.

          No way that the sources expand, the sinks expand, but the ocean part of the sources shrinks with higher CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere and there is small increase in total CO2 emitted by the decay of the increased amount of organic debris, but that can’t never be more than what is extra taken away by the same vegetation during the growing season.

          Methane and CO2 releases from the warming seabottom and melting permafrost still are minor sources. During the previous interglacial, temperatures in the circumpolar high north were 5-10 K higher than today. All permafrost was melted and trees were growing up to the Arctic Ocean, where nowadays only tundra vegetation grows. CO2 in that time: 310 ppmv. CH4: 700 ppbv. CO2 today: 410 ppmv, CH4: 1900 ppbv. That increase is not natural.

          I do agree that 1000 ppmv (as used in greenhouses) is far more beneficial for most vegetation on earth than the pre-industrial levels. But it does the sceptics case more harm than good by objecting against the human role in the CO2 increase…

          1. spike55

            WRONG AGAIN, ferd.

            Cold ocean areas that have warmed up naturally release their CO2.

            Do you really not understand that the oceans aren’t the same temperature everywhere ???

            WOW. !!!

          2. John Brown

            Mr. Ferdinand,

            John has observation.
            If nature sink 150 Giga tonne of CO2 and produce is 150 Giga tonne the ppm in the atmosphere no change.

            Now say produce goes up 160 Giga tonne and sink 160 Giga tonne also no change. PPM no telling us how much CO2 come in or go out!

            If ppm goes up we only know that produce is more than sink.

            Ken show very good information and paper. Your position very human centric, not even allowing nature to play part. Other position more careful, not saying knowing all. John think this better.

            John other observation in Mr. Ferdinand post. He says “warming seabottom”

            Where is warming? Sea bottom very special in deep sea all same temperature. Mr. Ferdinand has source John can read?

      2. Ferdinand Engelbeen

        Yonason,

        I have been in London for an earlier speach of Dr. Salby in the London Parliament. I had a lot of questions for him, but there was too little time to discuss things out. Still waiting for an open discussion with him on WUWT or anywhere else…

        For this case: what Dr. Salby doesn’t take into account is that any increase in the atmosphere above equilibrium (290 ppmv for the current sea surface temperature) increases the sinks into the cold oceans near the poles (and reduces the releases at the equator). Thus even with increased human emissions, there may be zero increase in rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere for some period.

        Natural variability in the CO2 rate of change is +/- 1.5 ppmv, while human emissions are around 4.5 ppmv/year nowadays.
        One can calculate the theoretical increase in the atmosphere from the emissions at one side and the calculated net sink rate at the other side (with a decay rate of about 50 years):
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2B.jpg
        calculations are still midst of the natural noise…

        1. Yonason

          @Ferdinand Engelbeen

          I’m afraid that you can’t assail Salby’s equations. They are solid, and involve very straightforward basic calculus similar to that used in solving problems one gets as an undergrad. And he makes few and solid assumptions, as well.

          You aren’t going to be able to persuade me he’s wrong by replacing his calculations with yours. Yours just aren’t rigorous enough. If you want to show he’s wrong, you’ll have to do it some other way, and be as painstakingly organized and detailed about it as he is. If not, you won’t get anywhere, even if you by some odd chance happen to be correct. E.g., if all Einstein had said was “Gravity works by bending space and time.” but couldn’t write down equations for it that made sense and gave the right answers, no one would have believed it. They barely did as it was. Even if he had the correct equations, but presented it in a sloppy way, his paper probably wouldn’t have been accepted, as crazy as it was to them at that time. (Some people still think he was wrong!)

          Just one point about your post above. You write that “Natural variability in the CO2 rate of change is +/- 1.5 ppmv, while human emissions are around 4.5 ppmv/year nowadays.” But we can’t separate out the contributions, because we don’t know the processes involved. Slaby’s method is so powerful because he doesn’t need to know what they are a priori to solve his equations. Since no one knows what they are, you can’t know either, and that means you’re guessing, which makes the likelihood of you’re being correct very very slim.

          Regards

          1. SebastianH

            Well, for once Yonason is right on something. You need to be able to express your findings in a way people understand.

            if all Einstein had said was “Gravity works by bending space and time.” but couldn’t write down equations for it that made sense and gave the right answers, no one would have believed it.

            But the problem here is obviously you misunderstanding the equations and mechanisms involved and seeing someone like Salby as an authority on this topic while it basically is settled science.

            Slaby’s method is so powerful because he doesn’t need to know what they are a priori to solve his equations. Since no one knows what they are, you can’t know either, and that means you’re guessing, which makes the likelihood of you’re being correct very very slim.

            The fun part here is that the established models also don’t need to know anything about nature’s emission or absorption rates. We can observe the changes in CO2 concentration and what we emit. If the change in concentration were higher than what we emit, we could not be sure, but it’s not … so it is pretty much certain, what causes the increase.

            It’s like pouring a cup of water into a bucket of water and taking only half a cup of water out of the bucket. You can very clearly attribute the water level rising to the cup of water, even though it doesn’t mean a 100% of that water is still in the bucket.

          2. spike55

            OMG, seb rants, then another mindless analogy, which shows he has basically zero comprehension of the REALIY of the situation.

            So Funny.

            “so it is pretty much certain, what causes the increase.”

            NO, your own calculations have shown that human CO2 has only contributed 0.01 out of 2 of the increase.

            I still don’t know why you are arguing that humans contribute so much. Its just mindless trolling, uisn’t it

            I mean, we KNOW human emissions will just keep on rising as the third world countries develop. So there is NOTHING your ranting can do about atmospheric CO2 levels continuing to increase.

            All you do with your rabid anti-science beliefs is cause yourself even more desperate panic..

            You will send yourself even further into the depths of manic depression.

          3. SebastianH

            NO, your own calculations have shown that human CO2 has only contributed 0.01 out of 2 of the increase.

            So you weren’t trolling to annoy me, you really mean that? Wow. And you have the audacity to call me math challenged?

            You will send yourself even further into the depths of manic depression.

            You have no idea. I’m having fun observing people like you, but sometimes I am really in awe what you come up with. I am sure professional therapists would pay you to have a chat with you.

          4. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Yonason,

            I have a background of chemical engineering, be it that my math is completely rusty. My main job in a chemical factory was intrducing new products. With all the problems that caused. My strength was finding the cause of the problems, often much faster by eliminatong the impossibilities than by searching for the possible sources…

            Dr. Salby made an essential error by integrating temperature and declaring that was the cause of the CO2 increase. Even without any math it is clear that the integral of temperature is a meaningless, unphysical unit.
            In essence, a small, sustained offset in temperature from a base line will supply a CO2 increase until eternity without any response of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere…

            Either compare T with CO2 or the derivatives dT/dt with dCO2/dt. Not the integral of T with CO2, neither T with dCO2/dt as some others do.

            Here all the natural variability of the extremes (Pinatubo, 1998 El Niño): +/- 1.5 ppmv around a trend of about 90 ppmv:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg

            Here all the variability in the derivatives (including the δ13C changes to check the cause of the variability):
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg

            As you can see, there is a lag of CO2 after T changes in both the direct measurements and the derivatives. There is no lag between CO2 and δ13C changes, which are opposite to each other. That means that the main CO2 reaction on T changes is from vegetation, not the oceans.

            But vegetation is a small, but growing sink over periods longer than 3 years, the earth is greening. Thus not the cause of the increase.
            Neither are the oceans which show more sink than source in global seawater pCO2 sampling.

            At any moment in time, the carbon mass balance nust be obeyed. We know with reasonable accuracy human emissions and we know with high accuracy how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The difference is what nature as a whole does.

            For the current amounts, that is:

            increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural sources – total sinks.

            2 ppmv/year = 4.5 ppmv/year + X – Y
            X-Y = -2.5 ppmv/year.

            No matter if
            X = 10 ppmv/year and Y = 12.5 ppmv/year
            or
            X = 100 ppmv/year and Y = 102.5 ppmv/year
            or
            X = 1000 ppmv/year and Y = 1002.5 ppmv/year.

            How huge the exact individual natural fluxes are or how much they changed over the years is not of any interest for the balance, as we know the net total: a net sink in every year of the past 60 years and thus human emissions are the main cause of the increase.

          5. Yonason

            @Ferdinand Engelbeen 1. September 2018 at 9:55 PM

            That’s more specific – something to work with. I need to go back and look again at what he said, before I comment further. I think I know what you’re referring to, and that it doesn’t mean what you think it does, but it’s worth another look.

            Thanks

            (He has several videos, so if you could let me know which you are referring to, that would be even more helpful.)

          6. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Yonason,

            Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI
            The subject of interest starts at about 13 minutes.

            While he correctly shows that temperature changes induce the variability of the CO2 rate of change, he then integrates the CO2 rate of change, thus attributing all increase to natural CO2.

            In reality, the temperature rate of change is all variability and no trend at all, only a small offset from zero and all trend is from human emissions:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg

          7. Yonason

            @Ferdinand Engelbeen 3. September 2018 at 12:31 PM

            You write: “Even without any math it is clear that the integral of temperature is a meaningless, unphysical unit.”

            What Salby said was

            1. Temp has no effect on human emissions.
            2. Cumulative surface temp is what drives natural emissions.

            “Cumulative surface temperature” would be determined by the area under the curve of temp vs time, and that is technically an “integral.”

            And, yes, it appears to be an “unphysical” quantity, but if CO2 actually responds as if it is, then treat it as such in that case. I.e., if it can be used to calculate something, use it. There is ample engineering precedent for doing that (specific heat exchange applications, as I recall).

            Remember, the global average temperatures, and even more so the residual “anomalies” that the warmists obsess over and want to terrorize us with are also very “unphysical.” And they don’t even appear to cause anything, so using them as metrics for climate health does not appear to be justified.

          8. Yonason

            @Ferdinand

            Just one more comment on your…

            “Even without any math it is clear that the integral of temperature is a meaningless, unphysical unit.”

            Not always. It depends on what situation you are talking about, and to know that you DO have to know the math. For instance…

            PV = nRT

            At const pressure, PdV = nRdT

            Integrating that you get P(V2-V1) = nR(T2-T1), which is the relationship of temperature and pressure for an ideal gas.

            And, as I wrote, if indeed [CO2] is dependent on accumulated temperature, Salby may well be justified in “integrating,” Temp over time.

            There are times when you can integrate it and it will make sense, and there are times when you can’t. Sorry I didn’t go into that detail before, but it occurred to me I should be a bit more explicit. Lots more, but that should do.

            Brief overview.
            https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-141-modeling-and-simulation-of-dynamic-systems-fall-2006/lecture-notes/ideal_gas.pdf

          9. Yonason

            And just one more, F.E.

            Here’s his Hamburg presentation, starting at the point just before he begins the harder math, including the integration of temperature.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=youtu.be&t=648

            Looks legit to me.

            Time to move on.

          10. spike55

            “be it that my math is completely rusty.”

            And you make way too many unfounded assumptions.

            If you REALLY think that the gradual build-up of temperature/energy, due mostly to solar activity, is NOT important to natural CO2 emissions, then it really is not worth even bothering with trying to get you to accept a more realistic point of understanding.

          11. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Yonason,

            The relationship between PdV = nRdT and PV = nRT is valid as that is directly integrating at both sides of the equation.

            The T – CO2 reletionship is clear too:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
            +/- 1.5 ppmv with a lag after T around the +90 ppmv trend

            And it is clear in the relationship between the derivatives:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
            Again with a lag of dCO2 after dT.

            What gives a completely spurious correlation between the two is integrating one side and not the other side:
            There is zero lag between T variability and dCO2/dt variability, thus one can as good say that dCO2/dt causes T variability – which is of course nonsense, but the reverse is wrong too. Dr. Salby is comparing the varibility – which is true, but at the same time attributing all the CO2 increase to the increase in temperature, while comparing to the detrended trend in CO2, thus largely removing the cause of the 90 ppmv increase…

            I have posted a complete discussion about that point here:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/

          12. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Yonason,

            About his Hamburg lecture:
            The same problem: all CO2 rate of change variability is caused by temperature rate of change variability, not by temperature variability.

            There is a lag between CO2 and T variability and a lag between dCO2/dt variability and dT/dt variability. There is no lag between T variability and dCO2/dt variability, thus you can’t attribute one as cause and the other as effect.

            By integrating T, he attributes all slope of dCO2/dt to temperature, while that slope in the derivative is from the slightly quadratic increase of human emissions, followed by a similar increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and in sink capacity.
            dT/dt has no slope, only a slight offset from zero which integrated makes a more or less linear slope.

            Further, his formula is physically impossible (it violates the solubility of CO2 in seawater at different temperatures) without a negative feedback from the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.

            A small, sustained temperature step from a baseline will emit CO2 without any time or pressure limit, while in reality the increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere ends the temperature induced increase at 16 ppmv/K as seen over 800,000 years in ice cores and proxies (foramins over 2 million years)…

          13. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Kenneth,

            The 16 ppmv/K is what is what is observed over the past 800,000 years, with a lot of smoothing and lags.

            That is the absolute maximum. It is the observed change in solubility of CO2 in seawater.
            On shorter time frames it is only smaller, not larger. CO2 in ice cores is a highly reliable measurement in ancient air, as good as for CH4 and lotd of other gases and isotopes. The only drawback is that it is smoothed over 10 to 600 years, depending of the snow accumulation rate.

            Temperature indications in ice from Antarctica are more discutable, as that are proxies based on water (vapor) isotope ratios from where the water evaporated and condensed to snow. Thus if anything is wrong, it is the temperature indication.

            The Vostok ice core had a resolution of about 600 years (that is a 600 years moving average), thus may have missed faster CO2 changes.
            Even so, the current 110 ppmv peak would be seen as an extra peak of at least 20 ppmv, even 800,000 years ago in any ice core of any resolution.

            The resolution of the longest Law Dome DSS core has a resolution of only 20 years and a repeatability of CO2 measurements at the same depth of the ice of 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma). That would detect a 2 ppmv “peak” sustained over 20 years or a one-year peak of 40 ppmv.
            That core indicates a pre-industrial global CO2 level of 280-285 ppmv.

            If you have any firm indication that 1 K temperature increase gives more than 16 ppmv CO2 increase, I am very interested, as that would violate the solubility of CO2 in seawater…

          14. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Kenneth,

            16 ppmv/K is the solubility change of CO2 with temperature in seawater. Observed by over 3 million seawater samples over the past centuries.

            Whatever the resolution of measurements and proxies in the past, that was the MAXIMUM change measured. Smaller to no changes are seen, as the equilibrium (especially with the deep oceans) may cost a lot of time, while temperature changes were much faster than the resolution of ice cores and proxies.

            Ice core CO2 measurements are excellent, temperatures are based on proxies, which still are under discussion.

            Nevertheless temperature can’t be the cause of the 110 ppmv CO2 rise over the past 165 years, of which 90 ppmv over the past 60 years of direct measurements. That violates the solubility of CO2 in seawater.

        2. spike55

          You keep PROVING you are maths challenged,

          Do you DENY that your own calculations show that human CO2 only contributes 0.01 of the 2ppm?

          If so, then you can’t even read your own child-maths.

          1. SebastianH

            Do you DENY that your own calculations show that human CO2 only contributes 0.01 of the 2ppm?

            You are kidding, aren’t you? Nobody can be this math-challenged.

          2. spike55

            Nobody can be this math-challenged.

            And yet you are. !!!

            Your fantasy maths clearly shows that human CO2 contributes only 0.01 parts of the 2mm/year CO2 rise

            You can’t even follow your own maths !!

            so funny 🙂

            Your maths ability is at a low-end, remedial junior high level., but your baseless ego won’t let you admit that you need help.

        3. John Brown

          Ferdinand makes mistake:

          he writes:

          “How huge the exact individual natural fluxes are or how much they changed over the years is not of any interest …”

          How does he propose nature knows how to store away all “natural” CO2 and to keep human produced CO2 in the atmosphere.

          In his example he suggests that the natural CO2 sinks are can take any amount of CO2 but only the produced from nature???

          When he suggests that nature can produce and store 1000 ppm, how come that a little more CO2 from humans is not stored? Is your breath stored or is still natural?

          THis flawed arguments from Ferdinand.

          The most likely change of concentration of CO2 comes from an imbalance of produce and sinks, which for some reasons Ferdinand wants to ignore.

          He ignores that temperature can create that imbalance.

          So yes humans produce extra CO2 but its marginal compared to what nature exhales. But if this is the reason for the increase might be doubted.

          1. SebastianH

            How does he propose nature knows how to store away all “natural” CO2 and to keep human produced CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Nature doesn’t know. That is the whole point.

            In his example he suggests that the natural CO2 sinks are can take any amount of CO2 but only the produced from nature???

            Nope, he is suggesting that it doesn’t matter how much nature emits and absorbs. We can observe what stays in the atmosphere and thus we actually know that nature can take the amount it emits plus some of the amount we emit.

            When he suggests that nature can produce and store 1000 ppm, how come that a little more CO2 from humans is not stored?

            Because we observe an increase in the concentration that is less than what we emit. If it could absorb all we emit, but somehow not the “increase” in natural emissions, then this would violate the fact that nature can not decide to only absorb human CO2.

            The most likely change of concentration of CO2 comes from an imbalance of produce and sinks, which for some reasons Ferdinand wants to ignore.

            That is the case. More CO2 gets produced than absorbed. That’s why the concentration increases. We produce enough to explain the increase.

            He ignores that temperature can create that imbalance.

            That is impossible. The temperature did not increase enough to explain it.

            So yes humans produce extra CO2 but its marginal compared to what nature exhales. But if this is the reason for the increase might be doubted.

            Marginal to what nature exhales, but about double of the yearly increase. This is really very simple math … I don’t get why skeptics go to these lengths (vodoo math?) trying to explain it away.

          2. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            John Brown,

            Nature doesn’t make any differentiation between CO2 from human or natural origin, but natural processes react different on temperature changes than on pressure changes.

            Most of the natural flows in and out are seasonal: 110 GtC in and out, countercurrent between oceans and vegetation, where vegetation wins with a net effect of +/- 10 GtC (5 ppmv) between seasons and essentially zero effect after a year when at equilibrium with the sea surface. That is the main cause of the “residence time” of about 5 years for any CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.

            If the temperature incerases, the input from the oceans increases and the sinks decrease. That gives an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            If the CO2 in the atmosphere increases (= more CO2 pressure), the input of the oceans decreases and the sinks increase.

            This makes that the CO2 increase from a temperature change ends when a new equilibrium is reached at about 16 ppmv/K, not by coincidence the change in solubility of CO2 in seawater:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg

            There was an increase in temperature since the LIA, good for 10-16 ppmv extra. The rest from the 110 ppmv increase is from the pressure increase by some 200 ppmv human emissions.

          3. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Kenneth,

            this 16 ppmv/K formula contradicts the paleoclimate CO2 record of the last 80,000 years (at least)

            Over the past 420,000 years Vostok ice core (confirmed by the more recent 800,000 years Dome C ice core):
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
            8 ppmv/K for Antarctic temperatures translates to about 16 ppmv/K for global temperatures.

            Over the past deglaciation:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/epica5.gif
            Again with a lag and some discrepanties in trends…

            The 16 ppmv/K is the observed solubility ratio in over 3 million seawater samples. In different shorter periods other influences (deep oceans, vegetation) may give a temporary deviation.

          4. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Kenneth,

            “0-700 m ocean temperatures fell by -2.5 K as CO2 rose by 20 ppm”

            Sorry, heat content 0-700 meter from 10,000 years ago? They still have troubles to get the right heat content even recently with several thousand ARGO floats.

            Moreover, only the upper 100-200 m is the “mixed” layer which is in direct contact with the atmosphere for CO2 levels ánd temperature of the atmosphere.

            Further, 6000 years ago was when humans started to settle in towns and agriculture and cattle herding got more and more important and CO2 levels started to increase instead of falling down.

            In the previous interglacial there was over 5000 years lag between CO2 dropping and the temperature drop:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/eemian2.gif
            Where CH4 follows T changes far more direct and CO2 is far more lagged and smoothed. 5-18Oatm*5 is an indication of ice sheet volume from delta18O in N2O, don’t know the reasoning behind it, but seems a good indication for the ice sheet growth and wane, including the D.-O. events.

            Anyway, take it or leave it, the very long term T-CO2 ratio is 16 ppmv/K. That is the maximum change. On shorter time intervals the ratio is smaller and even seasonally opposite:

            -5 ppmv/K for seasonal changes (opposite to temperature)
            +4 to +5 ppmv/K for year by year variability.
            Both with a lag of a few months.

            8 ppmv/K for the MWP-LIA transition, depending of which temperature reconstruction you use (Moberg: 8 ppmv/K, MBH98: 40 ppmv/K) with a lag of about 50 years.

            16 ppmv/K for multi-millennial transitions with a lag of ~800 to several thouusands of years.

    4. John Brown

      Mr. Ferdinand,

      thanks for your answer. You also posted a link to a Whatsup blog entry. Thanks.
      There John found a link to a discussion in another blog, here: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/the-mystery-of-a-massive-2-5gt-of-co2-that-came-and-went-could-it-be-phytoplankton/#comment-1763073

      All John says to fully agree with Richard there, when he says:

      “…Ferdinand, if you were correct that the sinks were overloaded then they were overloaded by the total emission (i.e. both natural and anthropogenic). The natural pulse of CO2 from “the plant source” in 1989 – 1991 provided an addition to any overloading of the sinks. But there was no such addition to the overloading because the sinks ‘mopped-up’ that addition within three years.

      You are claiming the sinks are overloaded when humans emit CO2 but the sinks are not overloaded when nature increases its emission of CO2. That is self-contradictory unless you can suggest a mechanism which enables the sinks to discriminate which CO2 is emitted by human activity.”

      You answer here in the same way that you did back then and it is still wrong.

      Why you do not see it John does not know, but it is even more evident when you claim that 1000 ppm can go in and out of sinks naturally, but a tiny extra from humans is responsible for the rise.

      The contradiction is clearly visible.

      1. Ferdinand Engelbeen

        John Brown,

        I had a lot of discussions in the past with Richard Courtney, who is a master in word (mis)interpretation.

        OK, take the origin of the discussion, with the IPCC figures as base:

        atmospheric increase = human emissions + natural sources – total sinks

        In 1992 (Pinatubo):
        0.4 ppmv = 2.9 ppmv + X – Y
        X – Y = -2.5 ppmv
        For X = 75 ppmv, Y = 77.5 ppmv
        Increase with 0.4 ppmv totally caused by human emissions.

        In 1998 (strong El Niño):
        2.9 ppmv = 3.1 ppmv + X – Y
        X – Y = -0.2 ppmv
        For X = 75 ppmv, Y = 75.2 ppmv
        Increase with 2.9 ppmv totally caused by human emissions.

        As the increase is nearly human emissions and the 0.2 ppmv is at the border of the accuracy of the global CO2 measurements, there may be a small contribution of nature to the increase, maximum 0.2 ppmv, in that year, the only year of the 60 years of measurements.

        The whole discussion with Richard was about a side effect: why in one year there is more or less uptake than in another year, but that has not the slightest influence on the fact that human emissions were fully responsible for the CO2 increase in 59 out of 60 years of the recent period and in the El Niño year a maximum of a few tenths of a ppmv may be from nature.

        If the variability is in total sink capacity or in natural sources is only of academic interest, while Richard makes a world drama of it.

        Why does the relative small human input overwhelm the natural variability? The reason is simple: near all natural in and out fluxes are caused by seasonal temperature changes (at about 5 ppmv/ºC) and near all CO2 variability around the 90 ppmv trend is caused by temperature variability at about 4-5 ppmv/ºC. When the temperature returns to the trend (a trend of maybe 1ºC or less since the LIA), the temperature effect is over.

        Human emissions aren’t removed by temperature: even a 30% increase of CO2 over the past 60 years hardly influences the seasonal amplitude which remained about the same over the past 60 years (for 55 ppmv in and out over the seasons). Human emissions are removed by the extra pressure in the atmosphere: that reduces the ocean inputs and increases both ocean and vegetation sinks. The speed of removal is of a different order: about 5 years for the residence time, about 50 years for the removal rate.

        Thus nature makes no difference between human or natural CO2, natural processes react differently on pressure changes than on temperature changes…

        1. John Brown

          Mr. Ferdinand,

          there is not reason to discuss with you any further. You will eventually accuse me of being a master of words.

          John very proud not master of words.

          John free thinking man, sees logic issue in Ferdinand posts.
          Ferdinand long time say same thing, not worth discussing.

          Only one thing John still not understand, you say temperature effect on CO2. But not on human CO2. How comes?

          You Mr. have a good day!

          1. Yonason

            “Ferdinand long time say same thing, not worth discussing.” – John Brown

            I was beginning to wonder if anyone else noticed. :o)

          2. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            John Brown,

            Have a look at the seasonal changes in the past 60 years:

            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_MLO_trend.jpg

            The increase of 15% of CO2 in the atmosphere (whatever the source) has near zero effect on the seasonal amplitude.
            That amplitude is composed of about 30 ppmv absorbed and released by vegetation and about 25 ppmv released and absorbed by the ocean surface. Countercurrent, thus while one is absorbing, the other is releasing. In this case, vegetation wins and the net result is a seasonal amplitude of about 5 ppmv, near the same as at average 51 years ago and 19 years ago.

            All what happens is that the residual increase at the end of a full cycle doubled.
            But so did human emissions in the same periods too and these were twice the observed increase in both periods.

            How is that possible?
            Seasonal CO2 fluxes are the bulk of the CO2 fluxes between atmosphere and ocean surface/vegetation and are near entirely temperature driven. There is not a 15% increase in leaf growth with 15% more CO2 in the atmosphere or 15% more absorption by the ocean surface if it cools down in winter. Thus whatever the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, that hardly influences the largest CO2 fluxes on earth.

            What then influences the absorption of any extra CO2?
            The extra CO2 pressure makes that the permanent CO2 sources from the deep ocean upwelling release less CO2 (as the difference in CO2 pressure between warm oceans and atmosphere decreases) and pushes more CO2 into the cold sink places near the poles (and in plant stomata).

            That makes that about half human emissions are absorbed at the end of a full seasonal cycle, or about 1 and 2 ppmv only in the two periods. That is an order of magnitude less than the seasonal fluxes.

            The bulk of the natural CO2 fluxes is temperature driven en hardly influenced by CO2 pressure changes.
            The removal of any extra CO2 out of the atmosphere (whatever the source: humans, volcanoes,…) is pressure driven and hardly influenced by temperature changes…

          3. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Yonason,

            Any comment on my “spurious correlation” article at WUWT?

          4. Yonason

            @Ferdinand

            You have put a lot of effort into it, but it’s still clear as mud. Sorry. Salby’s presentation was clear, concise, and made sense. I don’t see that you have unseated his approach, that it is cumulative temperature that causes [CO2] to rise, not the [CO2] that has any detectable effect on temperature.

            And so what if [CO2] rises? It’s plant food, and for most of earth’s history it’s been higher with no adverse effects. Avg., temperature has never exceeded about 22 Deg C, which is what it was during the Cambrian Explosion, at which time [CO2] was also the highest it’s ever been. Life wasn’t harmed. It thrived.

            Salby’s point, which he makes much more convincingly than you make the contrary, is that human additions of CO2 are insignificant. But even if he’s wrong, and humans are adding a lot more to the atmosphere than he says, who cares? It is certainly not worth destroying civilization by squandering precious resources in a futile effort to prevent it, because it isn’t a real problem.

            If you can put together a coherent presentation, I would like to see/read it some time. But, as John Brown says, “Ferdinand long time say same thing…”, and I agree. Your material is rambling and repetitious. You aren’t yet ready for prime time. Please don’t ask me to read any more until you are. Thanks.

          5. Ferdinand Engelbeen

            Yonason,

            I think that the problem is mainly in the format here. The same objections are repeatedly asked and the same responses put again. And my short term memory which isn’t anymore what it was 20 years ago…

            All I like – if you have the time – is that you read the article I wrote at WUWT about the spurious correlation between the increase in temperature and the increase of the CO2 rate of change, as that is the base of the tmeperature integration that Dr. Salby – and others – used.

            And there is a step by step article that shows all the observations that support the human contribution on my website:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

  9. Yonason

    THERE IS A BIAS

    “Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. ” – Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.
    https://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

  10. AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticism – Climate Collections

    […] From No Tricks Zone: AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticis… […]

  11. Yonason

    Gavin Schmidt is not known for either his veracity or tact.
    https://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/

    But, in his favor, he does have an excuse. He’s an ignoramus (that or a liar, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here).
    https://climatechangedispatch.com/special-report/3/?amp

    No, I guess that doesn’t really help, actually. I mean, you may be able to explain misinformation by incompetence, but that doesn’t make it true. Here’s more proof that Real Climate blog is a source of misinformation.
    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/

    I’ve posted on them before.
    “Real Climate” is a staged and contracted production, which wasn’t created by “scientists”, it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.”
    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Peden.pdf

    I’ll have a bit more on “Real Climate” blog later.

    1. SebastianH

      Oh dear … just clicked on one of your links:
      https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/

      And you believe sources like that one? 😉

      That is someone who sees stable conditions or cooling everywhere. I mean 3 years or 6 years periods while ignoring the bigger picture? Of course, this being from 2009 we now can only laugh about postings like this in hind sight. But you still believe in this BS … and use it trying to smear specific persons or websites.

      The irony in this is that you don’t like it when someone points out to you that your own sources a not trustworthy for several reasons. Calling it ad-hom attacks, etc …

      1. spike55

        Conditions HAVE been stable since 2001 apart from a El Nino.

        Do you have any relevant point to make seb?

        Or just more mindless brain-hosed bluster.

        I suppose you think a world wide ocean warming of 0.08ºC is somehow “significant” ROFLMAO. You live in a warped fantasy, seb.

        And its YOU that is doing the smearing and sliming, as it always is.

        You have a bigger picture which resides ONLY in your manic AGW fantasies.

        The irony is that you have basically NEVER linked to a trustworthy source, yet you STILL just “believe” the AGW BS, DESPITE your abject inability to produce one bit of evidence to support the scams most basic myth, CO2 warming.

        1. Yonason

          The warmists at the Hadley Center see things as stable or cooling.
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/image73.png
          Why does SebH give them any credibility?

          Oh, wait. They make “adjustments.” Funny how they always make the present warmer, and the past colder, that removes any hint of cooling or stability.
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/hadcrut-cool-the-past-yet-again/

          As Paul Homewood remarks there, “Some would call it fraud.” Yes. And I would be one of them.

        2. SebastianH

          The irony is that you have basically NEVER linked to a trustworthy source

          And that’s the problem with you guys. For you a trustworthy source is a tabloid or some “software expert” turned conspiracy theorist … how can anything compete with that?

          1. spike55

            DATA seb

            real DATA analysis.

            Something will NEVER understand or be CAPABLE of understanding.

            and there’s that word “conspiracy” again

            Is it part of your cult-driven mantra, seb ???

            PROVEN collusion,

            PROVEN agenda, right from your high priest’s mouths. !!

            You can’t even FACE FACTS about your own dubious AGW religion.

            And you CERTAINLY cannot support the most basic fallacy. CO2 warming.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            RUN AWAY again, little headless-chook troll. !!

  12. Bitter&twisted

    But, but I thought the science was settled?!

    1. SebastianH

      It’s at least settled that Harde and the likes are wrong. Don’t know why the skeptics community isn’t skeptic about their “findings” at all.

      1. spike55

        You have NOT given one piece of real science that backs up that point.

        And you have not given one bit of evidence that the 15% or so of human CO2 in the atmosphere has cause any warming or any change in the climate.

        You RUN AWAY from providing any such proof, because you KNOW that you just can’t produce any evidence.

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

  13. spike55

    OT, WOW…Remarkable SMB gains in Greenland this year

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/image_thumb42.png

  14. Richard

    Ferdinand says that the δ13C values (which are around -8.3) indicate that there is around 10% of human CO2 in the atmosphere. However a decrease in δ13C is not a unique signature of anthropogenic CO2. For example an increase in biogenic CO2 would decrease δ13C. I posted a short article counterpointing Skeptical Science here if anyone is interested in checking it out: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/is-co2-increase-man-made-or-natural.html

    1. Ferdinand Engelbeen

      Richard,

      Indeed there are two (and only two) main sources of low-13C on earth: fossil organics and recent organics. all the rest is inorganic and has a higher δ13C level.

      To start with: that already excludes the oceans as main source of the CO2 increase: CO2 from the oceans is between zero and +5 per mil δ13C. With the conversion at the sea surface – atmosphere and back, that did give a level of -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil in the atmosphere for thouaands of years as seen in ice cores and +4.95 +/- 0.2 per mil in surface seawater for coralline sponges at Bermuda over a few hundred years before the start of the decline from about 1850 on. See:
      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg

      Since then, δ13C levels declines to currently about -8.3 per mil. So which caused the decline: humans or vegetation? The oxygen balance shows the source:

      Burning fossil fuels uses oxygen, each fuel type with a different ratio. The biosphere produces oxygen with photosynthesis and uses oxygen when decaying or used as feed or food.
      Since about 1990, the oxygen content measurements were accurate enough (better than 1:1 million) to calculate the oxygen balance. Result: the biosphere is more sink than source. It produces more oxygen than it uses, thus it absorbs more CO2 than it releases. As it preferentially absorbs 12CO2, it leaves relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere, that should increase the δ13C level, while there is a firm decrease. The biosphere therefore is not the cause of the δ13C decline. See:
      http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

      That the biosphere is a net sink for CO2 is independently confirmed by satellites looking for chlorophyll: the earth is greening…

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close