by Ross McKitrick
- Optimal fingerprinting is a statistical method that estimates the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the climate in the form of a regression slope coefficient.
- The larger the coefficient associated with GHGs, the bigger the implied effect on the climate system.
- In 2003 Myles Allen and Simon Tett published an influential paper in Climate Dynamics recommending the use of a method called Total Least Squares in optimal fingerprinting regression to correct a potential downward bias associated with Ordinary Least Squares
- The problem is that in most cases TLS replaces the downward bias in OLS with an upward bias that can be as large or larger
- Under special conditions TLS will yield unbiased estimates, but you can’t test if they hold
- Econometricians never use TLS because another method (Instrumental Variables) is a better solution to the problem
Introduction
The method of “optimal fingerprinting” works by regressing a vector of climate observations on a set of climate model-generated analogues (called “signals”) which selectively include or exclude GHG forcing. According to the theory behind the methodology, the coefficient associated with the GHG signal indicates the size of the effect of GHGs on the real climate. If the coefficient is greater than zero then the signal is “detected”. The larger the coefficient value, the larger is the implied effect on the real climate.
The seminal method of optimal fingerprinting was presented in a 1999 Climate Dynamics paper by Myles Allen and Simon Tett. With some modifications it has been widely used by climate scientists ever since. Last year I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that the basis for believing the method yields unbiased and significant findings was flawed. This website provides links to my paper, as well as to the Allen and Tett (1999) paper I critiqued, a non-technical summary of my argument, Myles Allen’s reply and my response, and a comment by Richard Tol.
One of the arguments Allen made in response was that the issue is now moot because the method he co-authored has been replaced by newer ones (emphasis added):
“The original framework of AT99 was superseded by the Total Least Squares approach of Allen and Stott (2003), and that in turn has been largely superseded by the regularised regression or likelihood-maximising approaches, developed entirely independently. To be a little light-hearted, it feels a bit like someone suggesting we should all stop driving because a new issue has been identified with the Model-T Ford.”
Ha ha, Model T Ford; we all drive Teslas now, aka Total Least Squares. But in 20 years of usage did any climate scientists check if TLS actually solves the problem? A few statisticians looked at it over the years and have expressed significant doubts about TLS. But once it was adopted by climatologists that was that; with few exceptions no one asked any questions.
I have just published a new paper in Climate Dynamics critiquing the use of TLS in fingerprinting applications. TLS was intended to correct a potential downward bias in OLS coefficient estimates which could understate the influence of GHG’s on the climate. While there is a legitimate argument that OLS can be biased downward, the problem is that in typical usage TLS is biased upwards, in other words it overstates the influence of GHGs. There is a special case in which TLS gives unbiased results, but a user cannot know if a data set matches those conditions. Moreover, TLS is specifically unsuitable for testing the null hypothesis in signal detection and its results ought to be confirmed using OLS.
The Errors-in-Variables Problem and the Weakness of TLS
OLS models assume that the explanatory variables in a regression are accurately measured, so the “errors” separating the dependent variable from the regression line are entirely due to randomness in the dependent variables. If the explanatory variables also contain randomness, for instance due to measurement error, OLS will typically yield biased slope estimators. In a simple model with one explanatory (x) variable and one dependent (y) variable the bias will be downward, which is called “attenuation bias.” David Giles has a nice explanation of the problem here, and you can also look at econometrics texts like Wooldridge or Davidson and MacKinnon.
The measurement problem is referred to as errors-in-variables or EIV. Since climate models yield noisy or uncertain estimates of the true climate “signals” Allen and Stott (2003) suggested the TLS method as a remedy. This is not how econometrics deals with the issue. In every econometrics textbook of which I am aware, the recommended treatment for EIV is Instrumental Variables estimation, which can be shown to yield unbiased and consistent coefficient estimates. I have never seen TLS covered in any econometrics textbook, ever. Nor have I ever seen it used in economics, or anywhere else outside of climatology except in the small literature looking at the properties of TLS estimators, primarily a 1987 book by Wayne Fuller, a 1981 article in the Annals of Statistics by Leon Gleser and a 1996 article in The American Statistician by RJ Carroll and David Ruppert.
Both Fuller and Gleser discuss the difficulty of proving that TLS (or orthogonal regression as it is more commonly called) yields unbiased and consistent estimates. The problem, as explained by Carroll and Ruppert, is that the method requires estimating more parameters than there are “sufficient statistics” in the data: or in other words, more parameters than the data can identify. Implementation of TLS therefore requires arbitrarily choosing the value of one of the parameters. Both y and x have error terms with variances needing to be estimated, and the assumption in practise is that they are equal, so only one needs to be estimated. If they happen to be equal, Gleser shows that the TLS estimate is consistent (meaning any bias goes to zero as the sample goes to infinity). If not, consistency cannot be guaranteed. In the signal detection application this means that unless model-generated signals contain random errors with exactly the same variance as the random errors in the observed climate (or if they can be rescaled to make them equal), TLS cannot be shown to yield unbiased slope coefficients.
Carroll and Ruppert also point out that TLS depends on the assumption that the regression model itself is correctly specified, in other words the regression model includes everything that explains variations in the dependent variable. OLS assumes this as well, but it is more robust to model errors. If the model omits one or more variables but they are uncorrelated with the included variables then OLS coefficients will not be biased, but if any of the omitted variables are correlated with the included variable OLS will be biased up or down depending on the sign of the correlation. With TLS, bias arises either way, whether the omitted variable is correlated with the included variables or not, but the bias is always upwards. Unless you happen to have a regression model that fully explains the dependent variable, so that in the absence of random noise every observation would lie exactly on the regression line, the default assumption should be that TLS overestimates the parameter values.
Thus TLS can, in principle, yield unbiased signal detection coefficients, but only if the climate model that generates the signals includes everything that explains the observed climate, and adds random noise to the signals with precisely the same variance as the randomness in the observed climate. Of course, if those claims were true we wouldn’t need to do signal detection regressions in the first place. If we wanted to know how GHG’s influence the climate, we could just look inside the model. Signal detection regressions are motivated by the fact that climate models are neither perfect nor complete, yet the claim that the results are unbiased presumes that they are both.
Comparing TLS and OLS in practise
To investigate how these issues affect signal detection regressions I ran simulated regressions as follows. Imagine a sample of surface temperature trends (y) from a sample of 200 locations stretching from the North Pole to the South Pole. I constructed two uncorrelated explanatory variables X1 and X2. X1 can be thought of as 200 simulated trends (or “signals”) for those locations from a model forced with anthropogenic greenhouse gases and X2 comes from a model with only natural forcings. Then I added some random noise to the X’s yielding the random variables W1 and W2. Since every regression model potentially omits at least one relevant explanatory variable I also generated two additional variables Q1 and Q2. Q1 is just an uncorrelated set of random numbers. Q2 is a set of random numbers partially correlated with X1.
Then I generated 9 versions of the dependent variable y:
Y1 = bX1 + X2/2 + v where b was set equal to 0.0, 0.5 or 1.0 and v is white noise;
YQ1 = bX1 + X2/2 + Q1 + v
and
YQ2 = bX1 + X2/2 + Q2 + v;
and in each of the latter two b was again allowed to be 0.0, 0.5 or 1.0.
I regressed each version of y on W1 and W2:
Y1 = b1 W1 + b2 W2 + e;
YQ1 = b1 W1 + b2 W2 + e
and
YQ2 = b1 W1 + b2 W2 + e.
Each time I estimated the coefficients b1 and b2 using both OLS and TLS. By construction b2 should always equal 0.5 and I didn’t focus on it. Instead I focused on b1, which should equal 0.0, 0.5 or 1.0 depending on the simulation.
The important thing to bear in mind is that a researcher doesn’t know which dependent variable he or she has used. If we assume it’s Y1 then we are assuming the regression model is correctly specified, the only problem is W1 is a noisy version of X1. If we used YQ1 that means we assume the regression model omits an uncorrelated explanatory variable and if we assume we used YQ2 that means the regression model omits a correlated explanatory variable. There is no reason to assume we only ever use Y1 in practice: wouldn’t that be nice.
I ran these 20,000 times each and looked at the distributions of b1 under OLS and TLS. I then added a couple of other wrinkles. First I reduced the variance on the noise term on the X’s, which is analogous to improving the signal-noise ratio in X. I also ran a version in which the X’s are slightly negatively correlated, to correspond to the situation in signal detection applications where the anthropogenic and natural signals are negatively correlated.
The working assumption in the signal detection field is that the OLS estimates of b1 are biased low but the TLS estimates are unbiased. In the first set of results the distributions of b1 were as follows.
OLS is in blue and TLS is in red. A solid line means the dependent variable was Y1, a dashed line means it was YQ1 and a dotted line means it was YQ2. Looking at the OLS results, attenuation bias is multiplicative so when the true value of b is zero OLS is unbiased. It remains unbiased if the model omits an independent explanatory variable but if the omitted variable is correlated with X1 (dashed line) the OLS estimate is biased upward. As the true value of b rises the OLS estimate becomes centered below the true value. In the bottom panel, dotted line, the attenuation bias and the omitted variable bias roughly cancel each other out (dotted line) but this is just a fluke, not a general rule.
The TLS results are different. First of all the distribution is much wider because TLS is less efficient. When the true value of b is zero and there are no omitted variables the distribution is centered on zero. As the true value of b goes up, all three versions of the TLS regression yield positively-biased estimates.
Positive bias matters not only because of the risk of false positives but because the coefficient magnitude itself feeds into “carbon budget” calculations. The higher the coefficient value the smaller the “allowable” carbon budget when estimating the point at which the world crosses a certain climate target. These are important calculations with very large global macroeconomic consequences so I find it disconcerting that the problem of positive bias in TLS-based fingerprinting regression results hasn’t been examined before.
For the next batch of estimates I reduced the variance of the noise on the X’s, which I call the high SNRx case.
Now OLS moves towards the true value when there is no correlated omitted variable, which makes sense because as the noise on X goes to zero we approach the case where OLS is known to be unbiased. But TLS does not have the same tendency, indeed the positive bias gets slightly worse in the omitted variables case. This is not a good property of an estimator: as an important noise component shrinks you’d expect it to converge on the true value.
Next I looked at the case when the noise on the X’s and on y is the same magnitude, which is the optimal configuration for TLS because the assumed variance ratio in the computation algorithm corresponds to the actual unobservable variance ratio. If the regression model is correctly specified TLS is unbiased. But if a variable is omitted, even an uncorrelated one, and the true value of beta is >0, TLS has an upward bias. OLS has a downward bias except when Q2 is missing, then its net bias is upward.
I examined numerous other configurations of the simulation model and discussed the question of which estimator should be preferred. The differences in results do not reflect methodological choices, they reflect different assumptions about the underlying data generating processes and if the researcher has no idea which one best describes the data set at hand, OLS is more often a preferred option than TLS, notwithstanding its known biases. Yes OLS sometimes yields a coefficient biased towards zero, but it is a known bias. TLS will typically yield a coefficient with a positive bias, and the size of the bias is difficult to predict in part because of the large variance.
Interestingly, as the true value of b goes to zero, the estimator preference unambiguously goes toward OLS because the attenuation bias goes to zero and the TLS estimator becomes undefined. This means that if we are testing the null hypothesis that b=0, in other words greenhouse forcing does not explain observed climate changes, we shouldn’t rely on TLS since if the null is true we wouldn’t use TLS, we would use OLS. Or, put another way, if a significant signal detection result depends on using TLS rather than OLS, it is not a robust result.
Next Steps
I have another study under review in which I explore in some detail the consequences of allowing the X’s to be correlated with each other. I included a preliminary look at this case in the present paper. I found that when the signals are correlated OLS still exhibits attenuation bias even when the true value of b = 0 and TLS exhibits a positive bias, but in this case the TLS bias gets large enough to risk false positives: namely an apparently “significant” value of b even when the true value is zero.
In sum I conclude that in general TLS over-corrects for attenuation bias, thereby yielding signal coefficients that are too large. It also yields extremely unstable estimates with large variances. Researchers should not rely on TLS for signal detection inferences, unless they have done the required testing (as discussed in my paper) that establishes that TLS is appropriate for the context.
Also, climate scientists should consider using Instrumental Variables as a remedy for the EIV problem, since it can be shown to yield unbiased and consistent results.
Note: when I did the page proofs the main results tables as rendered on screen looked OK, but the print version is messed up. The 1st, 7th and 13th rows should each be shifted down one row from where they are. Arrgh.
“Optimal fingerprinting is a statistical method that estimates the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the climate in the form of a regression slope coefficient.”
To understand the impact of GHGs on climate one must understand must understand the quantum mechanics of the GHG. Everything is dependent upon the underlying physics. Wavelengths have different properties, and they must be understood to understand the GHG Effect of the molecules. Ophthalmic Lasers send a laser beam through the front part of the eye without any impact at all, and then once the light reaches the retina it thermalizes. Ophthalmic Lasers are basically applied GHG Effect. CO2 only thermalizes 15 micron LWIR, that is it. 15 Microns has certain quantum properties. 1) 15 Micron won’t penetrate water 2) 15 microns is associated with a black body of temperature -80C 3) 15 microns won’t warm water, in fact it won’t even melt ice. The oceans are warming. If you can’t attribute the warming of the oceans to CO2, you can’t point the finger at CO2. In reality, La Ninas alter wind currents resulting in fewer clouds over the oceans. More incoming visible radiation warms the oceans. The accumulation of excess energy from visible radiation eventually reaches a point where the La Nina converts to a El Nino where the accumulated energy gets released. That is why the temperatures follow an oscillation, not a linear increase which is what you would get if CO2 was the real cause. BTW, this extended La Nina will likely result in a monster El Nino eventually, and it won’t have anything to do with CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
Liquid water absorbs 15 micron photons strongly. Please don’t lie.
can you please type in quotes where the previous commenter stated that liquid water did not ABSORB 15 mu photons ? he does say it doesn’t penetrate – but that I think is talking about transmission; I would appreciate you copying and pasting the EXACT words used that you object to : thanks
“3) 15 microns won’t warm water, in fact it won’t even melt ice.”
Chrism, why am I not surprised to learn that mining economists oblivious to the physics of air are unaware of the physical properties of water ?
For decades the customary heat sink or beam dump for high power infrared lasers used to cut materials has been a gently overflowing barrel of water that boils furiously where the beam enters it.
IR doesn’t penetrate very far in water but does penetrate and transfers energy into the system : the comment is misleading
Even if your point is true, all you have to do is warm the atmosphere. Then energy coming from the oceans is slowed. I don’t know how many times we have to go over this. Sun > Oceans > Atmosphere > TOA. All that has to happen is to slow the Oceans output.
Pingback: Biases in climate fingerprinting methods - News7g
Ross … Three weeks ago, I had asked if anyone had seen any chatter on the paper you posted here last year. Jim2 was kind enough to respond that he had seen only tweets. So, I’m happy to see that your paper has now gotten a response from the authors of the study you critiqued and that the dust has not settled, or been swept away. I don’t have statistical proficiency to comment intelligently on your position. However, I can see the implications, as everyone else does, and would love to see a full on debate to ‘settle’ the issues. So much at stake.
Bill: ” So much at stake.”
I couldn’t agree more!!
Last week I wrote in the “week in review”
morfu03 | May 26, 2022 at 1:04 pm:
“””
Apparently, there is an answer to R. McKitirck´s article
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
(I would have posted there, but it seems locked!?)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.10508.pdf
I would be very interested in a comment by Ross, maybe he can write another Climate ETC article also describing more recent developments?
(I can dream, right!?)
“””
And only a few days later there is a post from Ross!
Well, he does not talk about the new paper, but comments on one of the methods Allan mentioned.
Allan also mentioned two more methods
“superseded by the regularised regression or likelihood-maximising approaches”
So I guess Ross has his work laid out for him..
Thank you for doing this and also writing articles here so we can try to follow this topic, this is very interesting!!
The Chen et al. paper is unpublished, but I have provided them with detailed comments. Mostly they just restate what I already found, and then propose that if you assume away all the problems with the AT99 method it can still be used. I have encouraged them to develop some new arguments but haven’t heard anything further. As for Allen’s mention of regularized regression or maximum likelihood this is a red herring. I already talked about those methods in my paper. They are alternative ways of estimating the C matrix but they don’t fix the problem that the Gauss-Markov theorem still fails.
Dear Ross,
thank you for your answer!
“Mostly they just restate what I already found”
“if you assume away all the problems”
Hmm, nicely worded and actually very helpful! As a non-expert, you read through the papers and they DO sound similar, the facts seem the same, but the language is either critical (you) or encouraging (Chen) for the AT method.
About regularized regression or maximum likelihood:
“they don’t fix the problem that the Gauss-Markov theorem still fails”
Well, if that is true (and I only skimmed the 3 papers relevant here), you could probably add that to your article above!
In any case I really appreciate you communication in general and those clarifications for me especially!
I am mystified by people like you and Steve McIntyre that these mathematics seem come to you so easily!
Apart from this statistical perspective, I would like to point out, there is significant and well documented competition to the CO2 hypothesis by contrails.
Minnis et al 2004:
This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html
And recent observations due to Covid19:
From the current analysis, it is striking to note that the cirrus ORs in April 2020 are smaller by a range of 17 %–30 % than the values derived in the reference years in spite of the cloud thicknesses on which a cirrus cloud was defined. The same findings, although with a smaller proportion, are also seen in the observations of March 2020 (see Table 2). Our results are consistent with the previous findings that air traffic might increase the occurrence of cirrus clouds
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14573/2021/
Just to give a little overview..
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails-a-forcing-to-be-reckoned-with
Dr. McKitrick is an economist. He understands multi-variable linear regression. He understands how to create these models. He out of everyone should know that the model isn’t Temp = f(CO2), the real model is Temp = f(Log(CO2)), huge difference. He also should know that clouds are a tremendously important variable in the climate, and if you can’t model all the highly significant variables, your model will never produce valid results. Here is the most recent research on clouds. It is very simple, fewer clouds, more warming visible radiation reaching the oceans, the oceans warm, the oceans degas CO2 due to Henry’s Law. CO2 plays no part in the warming other than being an effect of warming the oceans. That is why CO2 didn’t change with the COVID driven economic slow down. Here is the could research.
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2022-0478.pdf
If Dr. McKitrick really wants to develop a great climate model, he should study the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule. Dr. Jim Steele’s video series makes a great starting point to identify the significant variables. Hint, if CO2 and LWIR of 15 microns can’t warm water, CO2 isn’t needed in any climate model.
“If Dr. McKitrick really wants to develop a great climate model, he should study the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule.
Dr. Jim Steele’s video series makes a great starting point to identify the significant variables.
Hint, if CO2 and LWIR of 15 microns can’t warm water, CO2 isn’t needed in any climate model.”
Number of great climate models published under peer review by McKitrick & Steele : 0
Number of good climate models published under peer review by McKitrick & Steele: 0
Number of bad climate models published under peer review by McKitrick & Steele: 0
Number of ugly climate models adduced and/or embraced by clueless grifters in the orbit of the Heartland Institute, Friends of Tar Sand Science, The Very Boring Policy Foundation, Australian coal publicists and ClimateBall practitioners at large:
More than enough to be statistically significant.
Excellent appeal to authority Russell.
Interesting read but a statistical correlation, however good, proves nothing. The only thing we can do is prove that a prediction is wrong. And we have no idea what climate would have done with different inputs. No-one knows what caused a specific internal variation to climate; we still don’t know much about El Ninios and La Nina’s. Statistics have clearly demonstrated that most climate predictions have been wrong and this is where we should be demanding answers from activist scientists and easily lead politicians. If a “leading” climate scientist can’t back up his claims he obviously isn’t leading and he obviously isn’t a scientist. FFS, at present an eminently qualified world expert climate scientist cannot be labelled “leading” if he or she or they don’t subscribe to the climate emergency mantra. If a journalist can’t explore an assertion properly they fail the journalist yardstick. Show no sympathy in your reaction to them and attack them – make an issue of it and give it real profile. Complex stats are not needed, just simple facts, delivered with unrelenting, gloves off, mongrel attitude. BTW and to finish my rant, dark forces are (obviously, in my opinion) trying to radically change our way of life – they are the ones who have to explain themselves, no-one else.
I would like to ask Prof. McKitrick if he has performed an analysis of the generated data, as used in this paper, using the Instrumental Variables method which he describes as superior in the introduction here.
It would be good to have a clear demonstration of the advantages of this method.
It’s on the to-do list.
Many thanks.
Those to-do lists don’t get any shorter, do they!
The latest problem is revisionism regarding the airborne fraction.
I’m seeing blatant bias & dishonesty in science. Airborne fraction not increasing, yet researchers claim sinks are decreasing.
Recent studies giving high weight to spurious studies saying land use contribution to CO2 emissions has declined dramatically recently are erroneously being used to suggest sinks are declining. More robust analyses are dismissed as outdated.
https://nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04376-4…
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/3651/2019/bg-16-3651-2019.pdf…
This theme is becoming common and is being promoted in searches. There is also the problem of recency bias, and claiming the more robust studies are out of date.
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/timeline
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrknMan/status/1531544987426607104
I am far more afraid that we cannot sustain adequate emissions than I am of climate change. Sinks are increasing faster than emissions. Previous interglacials were warmer, CO2 & CH4 did not increase despite much more thawing of permafrost & warmer oceans.
Carbon capture
https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1126891482105954304
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1987.tb04620.x
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.x
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42089891_Synergy_of_rising_nitrogen_deposition_and_atmospheric_CO2_on_land_carbon_uptake_moderately_offsets_global_warming
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.12691
https://archive.news.iupui.edu/releases/2016/02/drylands-global-greening.shtml
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-discrepancies-satellite-global-storage.html
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X2100038X
https://socratic.org/questions/why-might-aquatic-ecosystems-have-inverted-biomass-pyramids
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Thank you Prof. McKitrick for your staying power to scientifically adjudicate this. The masses owe their gratitude to those who make an honest fight to get to the unbiased truth.
Your story is well composed and easy to follow. Your paragraph that ties it all together is this:
When I try to explain to others how climate models are tested for accuracy I always point out that due to the level of unkowns and signal noise that the only validation lies in waiting an seeing in 30 to 60 years. And thus, any computer model that succeeds in being able to run is accepted and added to the mean climate projection of all the models. That always produces puzzled looks and reply of “and how much do these things cost?”
Call me crazy, but when you find a difference between observations and climate models, seems like that should be called a “Model Fingerprint” rather than a “Human Fingerprint” …
For example, the following claim is often made.
• Take a climate model that is specifically tuned to reproduce (hindcast) the past with a given set of inputs.
• Then remove some subset of the inputs.
• If the models do worse than they did with all of the inputs, clearly the specific missing inputs must be the critical inputs …
Now, clearly this logic is a joke. Doesn’t matter which inputs you remove—the model is guaranteed to do worse without them. Pull out some of the inputs, and the model will NOT be able to reproduce the historical record.
And that says NOTHING about the chosen inputs.
Here’s an example, from the IPCC:
Well, duh … it doesn’t matter which set of forcings you leave out, you won’t get the right answer. That’s the nature of tuned models.
And that doesn’t even include the fact that “No climate model has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the” 18th century … but I digress.
Not only that, but as I showed in posts including
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/life-is-like-a-black-box-of-chocolates/
the global temperature output of climate models is nothing but a lagged, rescaled version of the “forcings” input to the models. Pull out some of the forcings, and your fit gets bad really fast … so what? That says NOTHING about the forcings, and everything about the futility of using simplistic tuned models to attempt to understand chaotic fractal systems.
w.
I am paid over 💵 $ 60 USD to 💵 $ 90 USD per hour to work online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this one I easily earned 💵 $ 21,000 USD without having any online working skills. Just try it on the support site… https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/
I am paid over 💵 $ 60 USD to 💵 $ 90 USD per hour to work online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this one I easily earned 💵 $ 21,000 USD without having any online working skills. Just try it on the support site… https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/
CO2isLife,
In their paper Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases Wijngaarden and Happer have a diagram showing CO2 effecting the spectrum in differing amounts in the neighborhood of 4 different frequencies. In the explanation of their figure 6 they indicate , for CO2, the use of 20,569 different frequencies in their evaluation.
Do you contest that their work is flawed on this account or are you writing about something different when you claim only 15 microns is relevant?
I understand, or misunderstand, your statement on the thermalizing ability of CO2 as some interaction(s) that transfers energy from CO2 to other substances at a lower frequency, coming to equilibrium with them, whereas most of the climate literature seems to be about CO2 itself (and other GH gases) retaining energy within the atmosphere or radiating it back, unchanged, to substances from which it was emitted in the first place.
Are you saying the latter idea is false, that only 1 single frequency of IR has any temperature related effect? Clearly that is not correct or my electric range, with IR emitting elements under glass, would never cook my food, nor the IR emitting space heater help during cold weather. I’m not trying to say you are ignorant of that which you write but rather that I would like some way, short of six to 8 years of concentrated study, to understand what you write.
Andy, I totally agree with Dr. Happer, as does every spectrometer. 15 Micron is a peak, but the range is 13 to 18 Micron. Every GHG Absorption chart will show CO2 absorbing 2.7, 4.3 and 15 Microns, but those are peaks, there is a range around them.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/OPTICAL-AND-MASS-SPECTROMETRY-DIAGNOSIS-OF-A-CO2-Dobrea-Mihaila/b79cb0439b7fe24b8409547aa7ee3cb1a8aa0e6e
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/vibs/co2.html
AndyHce, my comments don’t disagree with Dr. Happer, and are consistent with every GHG Absorption chart out there. Just Google Vibrational States of CO2 and it will show you the peak wavelengths. There of course is a range around them of other wavelengths, but the peak is the important one.
I am saying exactly that CO2 absorbs 15 micron LWIR, vibrates (thermalizes) and then the photon is released. The problem is, the vibration is consistent with a black body of temperature -80C. Ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR. CO2 radiation won’t even melt ice. The other wavelengths CO2 absorbs are 2.7 and 4.3, micron but earth doesn’t emit those except over volcanoes.
I think from your comment you are confusing the GHG effect which is the thermalization of specific wavelengths, vs the IR spectrum of an already hot body. If I heat CO2 to room temperature is will emit 9.5 micron LWIR, but that isn’t the GHG Effect. Once again, simply Google CO2 Vibrational States, I get the feeling that in 8 years of study you have failed to learn the basics.
“In their paper Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases Wijngaarden and Happer have a diagram showing CO2 effecting the spectrum in differing amounts in the neighborhood of 4 different frequencies. In the explanation of their figure 6 they indicate , for CO2, the use of 20,569 different frequencies in their evaluation.
Do you contest that their work is flawed on this account or are you writing about something different when you claim only 15 microns is relevant?”
AndyHce, here are over 100k lines between 13 and 18 micron…but only the ones around 15 matter. I agree with Dr. Happer.
This grpahic should clear up any confusion.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest1596532702.png
Graphic link goes to 404
Dr. McKitrick is an economist and econometrician here are a few observations for him to consider in his future modeling:
1) Temp = f(Log(co2)) not Temp = f(CO2)
2) Henry’s Law defines CO2 = f(Temp)
3) Visible Radiation warms water, not LWIR between 13 and 18 microns
4) Exogenous factors are The Urban Heat Island Effect, changing Albedo and Water Vapor, select locations what are shielded from those factors it isolate the impact of CO2 on Temperature. HInt Hot and Cold Deserts
5) Clouds over the Oceans are the most significant variables because visible radiation is what warms the oceans
6) Incorporate the quantum mechanics of the CO2 and H2O molecule into the model, it quickly becomes apparent as long as H2O exists, CO2 is irrelevant
7) Use the uncorrupted and unadjusted Daily High Values, not the average values. If CO2 traps heat, the highs have to be going higher
8) Once heat is lost, it is lost, the Atmosphere isn’t a Battery, if temperatures fall below the previous reading no warming can be attributed to CO2, it is like zero based budgeting
9) Most data sets show an oscillation, not a trend. CO2 can’t cause an oscillation, other factors must be responsible. Hint El Ninos/La Ninas, Oceans currents oscillate, CO2 doesn’t
10) The physics of CO2 are constant, CO2 used to be 7,000 PPM and didn’t cause CAGW
11) CO2 is basically constant in the short run so it can’t cause regional differentials, different areas have different trends due to location but the same CO2. Over Oceans is different from over land, the S Hemi different from N Hemi and the Poles are all different yet constant CO2
12) If each region has different trends, what one do you choose as the dependent variable? How do you weight the data sets of different regions to get a composite?
13) Over time, the global impact of CO2 backradiation is constant over the globe so CO2 should cause a parallel shift, and all different regions should show equal increases
Here is an idea to build a Climate Model from the floor up:
1) Start with Antarctica where there is no UHI, Albedo Changes and Water Vapor. That isolates the impact of CO2 and Sun on the Temperatures Temp = f(Sun, CO2)
2) Choose the next data set lower S Hemi which is largely the oceans, to the model becomes Temp = f(Sun, H2O and CO2)
3) Choose the data set that covers the large Land Masses where Temp = f(Sun, CO2, H2O, and UHI)
Lastly, it has to be proven that CO2 can warm water for any of this effort to have any worth at all. That is easily done with a 15 micron LWIR Longpass filter and a bucket of water. Shine a daylight lightbulb through that Longpass filter and point it at the bucket of water and record the temperature change. Compare that bucket of water to a control bucket of water. It literally is that easy.
Dr. JIm Steele’s videos provides all the factors you need for a solid model, and CO2 isn’t one of them.
I enjoyed this paper. I hope other analyses will be made in the future of the statistical underpinnings of other questions in climate science.
This is just the latest of several studies I’ve read recently that shine some light on assumptions made in the Grand Narrative. Each one adds more questions than answers. Individually, they don’t prove much. But they add to growing evidence that the foundation isn’t quite as solid as thought just a few years ago.
It’s playing out almost at glacial speed. Yet, there are times when I feel like I’m in the final stage of the Jenga game.
It’s taking a while but, proceeding a long faster than debunking the Piltdown Man hoax– ‘To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. ‘~Ross McKitrick
Science was embarrassed by the Piltdown Man hoax.
“Science” made the author of The Population Bomb collection of hoaxes a professor emeritus at one of the nation’s leading science universities.
I predict no “crackup” of the climate change paradigm. The entire debate is now and always has been over the alternatives to fossil fuels with a vocal, well connected group of activists pushing catastrophism in order to justify radical policy.
World governments will do what they’ve been doing for 30 years now- nod along at the rantings, sign “plans” to do the radical policies before putting them on shelves, and use natural gas until the activists come around on nuclear power.
Russia and spending-driven inflation put an end to even the modest efforts on the radical policies, so watch the next climate confab make vague promises (based on existing sales) to switch to EVs, and quietly approve more nuclear power plants.
In about 5 years, our prolific warmists will be back on sites like this saying this hooey about climate being an existential crisis was all just hippie punching, the IPCC itself has always said global warming would be well under 2 degrees (it’s been listed as the low end of the range of warming for decades). They will even come along and say they are the reason warming stopped- they’ll pretend they’ve been pro-nuke for ever and that all they ever wanted was for people to buy more Teslas.
As Philip Stott predicted, in his article on cognitive dissonance, what follows is the usual insult and crapulent b.s. campaign from the Left–now raised to a fever pitch–before the prophets of global warming alarmism all get dragged down by the stone of dead cold logic. This final howling of the AGW Heaven’s Gate cult marks a point in time that does give rise to some hope.
The Greeks are laughing – ‘Moreover, TLS is specifically unsuitable for testing the null hypothesis in signal detection and its results ought to be confirmed using OLS.’
Pingback: Biases in Climate Fingerprinting Methods – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Biases in Climate Fingerprinting Methods – Watts Up With That? - News7g
Pingback: 기후 지문 방식의 편견 – 그걸로 와트? – Blog Ciencia
Pingback: Biases in Climate Fingerprinting Methods – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Biases in Climate Fingerprinting Methods – Climate- Science.press
What is an Instrumental Variable?
An instrumental variable is a third variable introduced into regression analysis that is correlated with the predictor variable, but uncorrelated with the response variable. By using this variable, it becomes possible to estimate the true causal effect that some predictor variable has on a response variable.
https://www.statology.org/instrumental-variables/
So you have to find some metric that correlates with global temperature, but is unaffected by influences other than CO2, if CO2 is the domain of interest.
Given all the uncertainties in our highly complex climate system, how would you even begin to prove you have found such a metric?
Wait, I got that wrong. The instrumental variable has to correlate with CO2, but not global temperature. That looks to be even more difficult to find. For example, oil production might correlate with CO2, but as oil production has increased, so has the global temperature, so that’s not a good one.
Can anyone think of any candidates?
It’s a bit of a paradox because we know there has been an increase in photosynthesis (by satellite) which should offset some of the oxygen lost by burning hydrocarbons and creating the CO2. I have read that the oceans, over time, have emitted 1/2 of the oxygen we breathe. Maybe the increase in ocean dead zones (hypoxia) upsets that balance. Not to worry because it would be centuries before mammals suffocate.
Instrument record: https://www.climatelevels.org/
Nice scare tactic, Jack. However, the “dead zones” are in deeper parts of the ocean. The algae that create oxygen are in the upper 90 meters, so if the “dead zone” is due to a high concentration of nutrients, those algae would actually thrive and produce even more oxygen. Another green lie bites the dust.
My bet is CO2 correlates with Ocean Temperature. Just look at the ice core record and the CO2 lagging temperature.
Choosing instruments is a challenge. They need to be correlated with the model signals (the ghg and naturally-forced model outputs) but plausibly independent of (not determined by) the dependent variable. However they also need to be variables that doesn’t belong in the regression itself. But the technique is widely-used and the literature in econometrics is well-developed. There are tests of whether chosen instruments are valid. I’ve found some plausible candidates for instruments but the testing indicates they belong in the signal detection regression as independent explanatory variables. Which opens an enormous can of worms related to omitted variables bias.
Dr. McKitrick I have a few other Econometric issues you may want to explore.
1) Look at the Hockey Stick, there is a “Dog Leg” or 2nd Derivative Event starting right when Instrumental Data was added in 1902.
2) The Temp = f(Log(CO2)) rules out CO2 as the cause of a Positive 2nd Derivative Event (Rapid upward change in slope)
3) The various temperature sets either don’t confirm the 1902 Dog leg, or have Dog Legs at a different time
4) The W/M^2 backradiation of CO2 is a constant across the globe, so if CO2 causes a change, it should cause a parallel shift in all graphs, if it causes a dog leg, it should cause a dog leg everywhere
5) The Hockey Stick suffers from Heteroscedasticity
6) The Climate Models may suffer from Multi-collinearity with Temp = f(Log(CO2) and CO2 = f(Temp), CO2 = f(growing season length), CO2 = f(photosynthesis of green coverage), CO2 = f(Sun), CO2 = f(Precipitation/Clouds). The variation of CO2 is seasonal, and many seasonal factors should be included in a climate model that impact CO2
7) How can CO2 and its constant W/M^2 cause different slopes in the temperature increase dependent upon region?
8) Why when you isolate locations isolated from the UHI Effect, Changing Albedo and Water Vapor do you get no warming? Basically locations identified to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature show no warming (Antarctica)
9) Why isn’t Antarctica and other deserts warming? Why can I find hundreds of stations that show now warming?
10) Identify a way to tease out the Change in Temperature for a change in W/M^2 of 15 Micron LWIR. I don’t think anyone has done that. Remember different wavelengths result in different warming effects. Visible radiation warms the oceans. Study how an Ophthalmic Laser works to understand how material that are transparent to a wavelength won’t warm, materials that absorb the wavelength thermalize the EM Radiation.
11) If you identify locations that show no warming over the past 100 or so years, you will see they appear to show an oscillation. My bet is that oscillation will correspond with the ocean cycles
12) Why didn’t CO2 decrease with the economic slowdown caused by COVID? Hint: The oceans control CO2, not economic activity.
13) Try to explain why all the CMIP Models are wrong. Hint They use CO2 as the most significant variable.
14) Have you ever simply run Stepwise Regression to allow the computer to tell you what really drives the climate? My bet is CO2 will be rejected by the computer as insignificant.
15) How can you have a valid econometric type climate model when data sets for the most significant variables don’t even exist (Incoming radiation reaching the oceans/Clouds)
16) In 480BC the 300 Spartan fought Xerxes at a bottle neck created by a mountain and the ocean. Today that location is 2km inland, proving that sea level have fallen dramatically from that time. CO2 was much lower.
17) Go ever to the Chemistry and Physics Department and ask them to run an experiment using a long pass filter to isolate 15 micron LWIR and shine it on a bucket of water and record the temperature change against a control bucket of water. That should have been the first step of any real science attempting to demonstrate that CO2 causes global warming. You have to first prove CO2 and its back radiation can warm water. Hint, ophthalmic lasers pass through the entire front part of the eye without harming any of the tissues. They only thermalize once they are absorbed by either the red in blood or black in pigment. Not all wavelengths warm all materials. CO2 only radiates 15 Micron LWIR in the GHG Effect model.
Dr. McKitrick I have one more idea for you regarding econometrics and statistics. Climate Science claims to be a science, yet they shun the applying the scientific method to any of their research. Here is a real scientific experiment that everyone can run.
Hypothesis: Anthropogenic CO2 causes Climate Change/Global Warming
Collect Data: Use the Iceland Ice core data for the Holocene
Analysis: Mean and Standard Deviation of the Temperature over the Industrial Age and Mean and Standard Deviation for the 10,000 years of non-Industrial age Holocene
Answer the Question: Is the Mean and Standard Deviation of the Industrial Age Statistically Different from the prior 10,000 years of the Holocene at a 95% Confidence Level?
Conclusion: You will find that it fails at almost any level of Confidence, in fact we are near the low of the temperature range for the Holocene.
Lastly, you should promote a program like Elon Musk is doing for Twitter. Make all the Climate Models Open Source and highly transparent. I’m sure that the collective mind of academia can build a better climate model than a groups of conflicted climate activists acting as scientists.
Thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of climate scientists. This post provides a good refresher on econometric issues related to the treatment of measurement uncertainty of the independent variables in a regression. In the context of climate science, what do you see as the best long-term solution to this issue? In econometrics, the use of instrumental variables is taken. However, in the case of climate science, we have a lot of simulations available from different climate models, as well as large amount of observations (satellite, instrumental, thermometer). Could estimation of the amount of measurement uncertainty given available information be viable?
Applied Green House Gas Effect: Ophthalmic Lasers
Something I noticed on the various Climate Change Blogs is that the “experts” don’t even seem to understand the basics, and when I say basics I mean the very foundation of climate change driven by the Green House Gas Effect.
To understand the GHG Effect you have to understand the Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 molecule. To make my point simply study an Ophthalmic Laser. An Ophthalmic laser penetrates the transparent tissues of the cornea, aqueous, lens, vitreous, and if it is a red laser the retina blood vessels and burns the black pigment layer, if it is a green laser it burns the retinal blood vessels. Different wavelengths interact with different molecules.
The only wavelengths associated with CO2 and the GHG Effect is 15 Micron LWIR (Range 13 to 18). Those are the only relevant wavelengths, and must be included in any conclusion that blames CO2 for climate change. If they don’t address the quantum mechanics, they didn’t reach the correct conclusion and why all the CMIP Models are garbage.
People seem to think that if you warm CO2 it emits other wavelengths which is does, but that isn’t the GHG Effect. If I take a flask of O2, N2, CO2 and warm them all to room temperature, they will all emit 9.5 micron LWIR. The key is, that isn’t the GHG effect. If you warm something it will emit LWIR associated with that temperature, but with our without CO2 any flask raised to room temperature will emit 9.5 micron LWIR.
CO2isLife | June 4, 2022 at 9:27 am
Interesting.
– “Different wavelengths interact with different molecules”
yet
” If I take a flask of O2, N2, CO2 and warm them all to room temperature, they will all emit 9.5 micron LWIR”.
and
“if you warm CO2 it emits other wavelengths”
and
” If you warm something it will emit LWIR associated with that temperature,”
–
Where to start?
Very few people here, despite our reading and attempts,really understand wavelength interactions with matter.
–
I will try this way.
–
With your flask example it is not the O2, N2, CO2 that are emitting at room temperature.
Because they cannot..
What is emitting at room temperature is the flask wall.
–
O2 and Nitrogen do not absorb infrared [* much] so they do not emit it [*much].
Proven by the fact that infrared passes through them [generally].
I think you are aware of this but promote misinformation due to your bias on CO2.
–
The room gets cold overnight. The amount and nature of the IR radiated from the flask drops matching room temperature.
Now you are wrongly claiming that the O2, N2, CO2 are radiating IR at different frequencies over quite a spectrum.
The flask is both receiving, emitting and reflecting IR at the room temperature, not the O2, N2, CO2
–
What you gloss over is the billions on billions multiplied effect of all the
GHG Effect of 15 Micron LWIR which build up and result in higher energy discharge wavelengths [called getting warmer].
–
If you pour 1 ml of gasoline into a tank for ages you will get a 3.5 liter turbocharged output.
Or putting it in reverse the heat generated at the earths surface by back radiation, the 3.5 liters after use is measured by the micro liter exhaust
angech, you are 100% right, and my example was a poor one…but the conclusion is the same. Yes those gases don’t cool by radiation, they do so through collisions…which is far far far slower than radiation. This brings up the point that out of Conduction, Convection and Radiation, Radiation is the method that cools the body FASTEST. Radiation can remove energy from the system literally at the speed of light. The point I was making was that warm bodies emit IR radiation, but that isn’t the GHG Effect. Yes, my example was wrong, the point I was making was not.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/522745/how-does-a-moderately-hot-gas-emit-radiation
“What you gloss over is the billions on billions multiplied effect of all the
GHG Effect of 15 Micron LWIR which build up and result in higher energy discharge wavelengths [called getting warmer].”
1) Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, there is no multiplication of Photons.
2) That Photon is of the energy equivalent of a black body of -80C
3) Ice emits IR of 10.5 Microns, surrounding your Coffee with Ice to collect the IR won’t warm it
Angech, you clearly understand the concepts. Why don’t you go over to the Physics or Chemistry Department and ask them to run the experiment to see if additional 15 micron LWIR can warm water. Why hasn’t anyone done that simple experiment? That to me is the first step any real science would have performed. It is as if they all simply start with the assumption that CO2 results in warming. I say prove it.
Lastly, H2O absorbs the spectrum that CO2 does, and far far far more. Apply your multiplication concept to H2O and we would have catastrophic warming each time it rains. BTW, there is no way the GHG effect can warm the air above the radiating body’s temperature. If that is the case, didn’t the earth have to warm first? What warms the earth? Incoming visible radiation.
Thanks Dr McKitrick for this research
It reminded me of Doug Keenan v Dr Julia Slingo at the Met as recorded on the Bishophill website about 11 years ago
His position as I recall was that a driftless ARIMA test was more likely to be the better test than the one used to conclude significance as to temperature change
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/31/met-office-responds-to-keenan.html
chrism,
Thank you. I revisited that 2013 bishophill link and was struck by some changes that are evident in the blog style after nearly 10 years.
The bishophill blog contained a rather higher % of informed bloggers who wrote carefully, with emphasis on the science. They were keen to debate.
Sadly, even on Dr Judith’s blog here, there is far more content that is opinion, politicised, non-scientific except for the repetition of a few old scientific facts, as if the younger generation to come will end up writing in a style more related to comic books than that of distinguished people like Lord Rutherford used. In short, the manner of conduct of scientific debate and scientific data is altering before our eyes. There is less constructive thought now and more destructive content.
I do not regard this as good. Geoff S
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
–
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
I believe you can demonstrate that using MODTRAN and removing all the GHGs from the Model. They mistake atmosphere with Green House Gasses. Angech above accidentally points this out when he corrected my example of using non-GHGs to discuss IR Radiation. Most of our atmosphere isn’t a GHG, and that atmosphere holds a lot of the energy of the atmosphere what gets transported as Angech correctly pointed out through conduction and convection NOT Radiation. Radiation is unique to the GHGs. We can thank Angech for pointing that out, and validating your point.
Thank you, CO2isLife , for your respond.
We have the by NASA the satellite measured mean temperatures at 1 bar level for gaseous planets.
Gaseous Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune at1bar level mean temperatures T1bar 165 K, 134 K, 72 K comparison.
Gaseous planets Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune average at 1bar level (satellite measured) temperatures T1bar relate (everything else equals) as their rotational spins’ (N) sixteenth root.
It happens the same exactly way as the rocky inner planets Mercury, Moon and Mars average surface temperatures, and also as the Earth with Europa average surface temperatures.
It is a demonstration of the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Please visit my site at page “JupiterSaturn165/134” where I have demonstrated the temperatures comparisons.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559910
angech may have just stumbled upon another way to debunk the CO2 Global Warming Theory. As he clearly stated above Non-GHGs don’t emit IR Radiation. Radiation however is by far the fastest way to transport energy from a system. The other two means, conduction and convection are relatively slow. If that is in fact the case, which it is, flasks of GHGs should cool FASTER than the other flasks. GHGs don’t warm the atmosphere, they speed its cooling through radiation.
Experiment:
1) IR Transparent Flask full of CO2
2) IR Transparent Flask full of O2
3) IR Transparent Flask full of N2
4) IR Transparent Flask full of Saturated H2O Vapor
Flask is made of thin Plexiglas
Warm all of them up to 100 C.
Relocate the gases to a room of temperature 18C
Record how has the gasses cool to 18C. My bet is the GHGs cool much faster than O2 and N2. Why? Because CO2 and H2O use very fast radiation to cool, and H2O releases latent heat when if condenses.
If that experiment does what I think it will show, adding CO2 to the atmosphere should actually cool the atmosphere. You could also do the above experiment using different concentrations of CO2 mixed with O2 and N2.
“If that experiment does what I think it will show”
The purpose of an experiment is to do it, not to speculate about how it might work. Assuming that the outcome of your thought experiment would be what you expect (I agree with that), I don’t see how it proves your conclusion.
Have you tried to get temperature data from commercial greenhouses which actually use CO2 to accelerate the plant growth?
True, but to formulate a Hypothesis you need to have some expectation of the outcome. If not, you would never have formulated the Hypothesis.
The whole experiment would demonstrate that the effect of the GHG Effect may not be what people expect. The atmosphere holds heat with our without GHGs. No one denies that. My point is that by adding a molecule that can’t warm the atmosphere above the temperature of the radiating body but adds radiation to the mix of thermodynamic mechanisms, that adding GHGs to the atmosphere may actually SPEED COOLING, not warming.
That is an easy experiment that I would have thought should have been run before any legislator even thought of spending trillions of $ on this wild goose chase.
Curious George | June 7, 2022
NB generally one of the most thoughtful and least over commentating commentators here!
–
” The purpose of an experiment is to do it, not to speculate about how it might work.”
–
Yet
“Assuming that the outcome of your thought experiment would be what you expect (I agree with that), I don’t see how it proves your conclusion.”
–
co2islife | June 5, 2022
Thanks for the thought experiment:
“1) IR Transparent Flask full of CO2
2) IR Transparent Flask full of O2
3) IR Transparent Flask full of N2
4) IR Transparent Flask full of Saturated H2O Vapor
Flask is made of thin Plexiglas
Warm all of them up to 100 C.
Relocate the gases to a room of temperature 18C
Record how has the gasses cool to 18C.
My bet is the GHGs cool much faster than O2 and N2.”
–
Any takers?
Presumes all gases and plastic flasks are uniform 100 C at start.
*Full is a difficult term.
depends on either equal pressure or equal moles of the gasses in an equal volume flasks?
The flasks would presumably lose heat as a function of the surface area and the heat rate loss of that plastic surface.
So on the outside the initial rate of heat loss should be the same.
The problem is what is the energy load inside each container.
If one had 2 flasks of CO2 but one had 10 times as much CO2 then I would expect the heat loss to be slower provided the plastic flask has a limit on the amount of heat that can be transferred across it.
Hence the more gas in the flask the slower it would cool down.
The pressure of course would be a lot greater
According to Avogadro’s law, at the same temperature and pressure, equal volumes of different gases contain equal number of molecules. So if we apply this to pV= nRT, pressure also becomes equal.
I think this means that the experiment is unable to confirm your bet in the way you would like it to.
No. In science we formulate hypotheses, design experiments to test those hypotheses and then update our understanding based on the outcome of those experiments.
You can’t design an experiment to test a hypothesis without considering what will happen. A competent scientist will design an experiment that is likely to give a definitive result (i.e. refute an incorrect hypothesis), so anticipating the plausible results is part of competent science. That is the one bit that co2islife did correctly (unfortunately he doesn’t understand the theory that he is trying to refute).
You ought to find out how the greenhouse effect actually works before conducting experiments. The greenhouse effect depends on the upper atmosphere (where IR can actually escape into space) being cooler than the surface (where it is largely absorbed). For your experiment to be meaningful you would need a flask several kilometers high (so that it can develop a lapse rate). You may need to apply for external funding for that! ;o)
This is climate 101 stuff. All you will be able to demonstrate with flask based experiments is that CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb and radiate IR, but that is only one component of the greenhouse effect. Your results will be consistent with those of Tyndall over 100 years ago.
Climate alarmists developed skillfully “explanations” which can not be verified experimentally. They can’t even predict a temperature of the upper atmosphere. Nor can they tell how it would change with the postulated “global warming”.
Stephen Hawking had theories about black holes that can’t be verified experimentally, what is your point?
The greenhouse effect is observationaly verified, e.g. by observations of the spectrum of outbound IR.
At least you have made it clear that you are aware that you are not addressing the standard scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect, but some willful misunderstanding of it of your own. Plus ca change…
I can see my comments are going into moderation straight away, so I’ll leave you all to your echo chamber, it is clear I am not welcome.
“The greenhouse effect is observationaly verified, e.g. by observations of the spectrum of outbound IR.” Would that be why Greta will burn?
DM,
Good to see you here explaining your point of view.
Surprised to hear about moderation here
There is a wide range of views expressed freely and sometimes off topic.
While I find problems with CO2 is life and your views on CC2 effects ( extremes) you both have the right idea on conducting experiments.
–
Would you be able to give a comment on the thought experiment of CO2 is life above or do you agree it is not practicabledue to the difficulty in specifying adequate terms?
angech wrote ” views on CC2 effects ( extremes) ”
I hardly ever talk about extremes, I rarely talk about impacts at all, generally I stick to the basic science. Perhaps you should confine yourself to what I actual said?
Curious George, thank you for demonstrating that you have no interest in discussing the science, just childish rhetoric. If you change your mind, here is something to be getting on with:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585
angech “Would you be able to give a comment on the thought experiment of CO2 is life above ”
I have already explained what is wrong with it here:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/05/31/biases-in-climate-fingerprinting-methods%ef%bf%bc/#comment-976929
“or do you agree it is not practicabledue to the difficulty in specifying adequate terms?”
The problem is nothing to do with specifying adequate terms, the problem is that flask experiments can only tell you about the radiative properties of gasses (even if you perform them well). But that is only one part of the greenhouse effect, and you need to include the other elements (if you are trying to show that increases in greenhouse gasses don’t warm the planet).
It is sad that the denizens skeptic blogs in 2022 *STILL* don’t understand how the greenhouse effect actually works.
You shift goal posts very nimbly. Still, you are building on sand. From your reference – “Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models.”
Curious George perhaps you should have read the whole of the abstract. What do you think they meant bu *previous* estimates coming from models? The point is that *their* estimate resolves that problem without using models.
“Unlike GCM-derived radiative kernels, these kernels are free from model bias in the base state, and thus ideal for diagnosing observed radiation changes”
Note the “Unlike GCM-derived”, that means they are not using models.
If you want to refute the greenhouse effect, there are direct observations of it that you have to explain.
To any here who are debating differences between modes of heat transfer involving different gases.
Here is a hypothetical. If one water-containing body like a planet has an atmosphere of (say) nitrogen and oxygen only, while another similar body has an additional gas (say carbon dioxide if you can still remember that terminology) then which planet will cool fastest on removal of the source of incoming heat?
Put another way, we often hear the expression that CO2 is the pathway to cooling from the solid surface to space. It is not often stated if it is the only or the main participant.
I have long been under the impression that gases like nitrogen and oxygen also radiate, though less quickly than CO2 does. If N2 and O2 had no radiative cooling capability, surely the planet without CO2 would stay hot?
Thank you in advance for answers. Geoff S
Geoff
“If one water-containing body like a planet has an atmosphere of (say) nitrogen and oxygen only, while another similar body has an additional gas (say carbon dioxide if you can still remember that terminology) then which planet will cool fastest on removal of the source of incoming heat?”
It is the Earth (If one water-containing body like a planet has an atmosphere of (say) nitrogen and oxygen only) since the carbon dioxide content is insignificant…
And it is the Venus (while another similar body has an additional gas (say carbon dioxide)…
then which planet will cool fastest on removal of the source of incoming heat?
:-)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #506 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #506 – Watts Up With That? - News7g
Pingback: 주간 기후 및 에너지 뉴스 검거 #506 – 그걸로 와트? – Blog Ciencia
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #506 – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #506 – Watts Up With That? - wtnzfox34.com
Pingback: Verzerrungen bei Klima-Fingerabdruck-Verfahren | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: Verzerrungen bei Klima-Fingerabdruck-Verfahren • Cottbuser Freiheit
Pingback: Verzerrungen bei Klima-Fingerabdruck-Verfahren – Aktuelle Nachrichten
Ross McKitrick, I have used OLS and TLS regressions on the same sets of data over time and find that TLS gave the higher coefficients as your simulations would predict. That was the case when I used both frequentist and Bayesian approaches in attempting to duplicate results in the paper linked below where the authors were using Emergent Constraints to determine a constrained TCR using modeled and observed global temperatures changes in the historical period. In this case the TLS method gave a lower result for TCR than OLS did by approximately 15% and was close the TCR value derived in papers by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry. The results were very nearly the same for the frequentist and Bayesian approaches used and thus the difference was between OLS and TLS. The reason for TLS giving the lower TCR is because it resulted from the TLS regression coefficient (slope) being larger than that for OLS. The authors discuss this difference and choose the OLS result without further evidence or study.
In eyeballing your simulation results, it appears that where the model is correctly specified with low signal to noise and beta is greater than zero, TLS can give an unbiased result while OLS gives a result biased low. That could explain the difference seen in the above Emergent Constraints case, but also points to finding and using an alternative method to both OLS and TLS.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/esd-11-737-2020.pdf
Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models: Femke J. M. M. Nijsse , Peter M. Cox , and Mark S. Williamson (August 17 2020).
You highlighted this Tweet at the top of this Blog.
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2021/07/how-much-does-climate-change-actually.html
A HSBC Analyst just got suspended for making similar comments.
During previous glaciations, CO2 change followed temperature change. Since about 1850 CO2 has been increasing with hardly any temperature change https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C1zOIE0po0IzFrjCW4eajDVTjEgCErS1/view?usp=sharing. Water vapor has been increasing at 1.44% per decade and can explain all of the climate change attributable to humanity. The WV increase is faster than possible from just temperature increase as shown at Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com which rules out that CO2 has caused any warming.
Pingback: Verzerrungen bei Klima-Fingerabdruck-Verfahren - FreeSpeech.international
OMG. I’m not a climate scientist and I’m pretty sure I’ve been criticized for making many of these statements. This Dr. Steele really seems to understand science, and has the ability to objectively analyze data.
https://youtu.be/tiQ6bLiWNmw
Once again, I’m not a climate scientist, and according to many on this and other blogs, not too bright. That being said, I’ve always maintained that to explain global warming, you have to explain the warming of the oceans. Well, Dr. Steele does just that, and it has nothing to do with CO2. I guess common sense and objectivity Trumps an education in Climate Science:)
https://youtu.be/tiQ6bLiWNmw
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
is based both, on precise radiative
“energy in = Φ (1-a) S” estimation and
on the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon“.
We are capable now for the THEORETICAL ESTIMATION of the planetary mean surface temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
dikranmarsupial | June 10, 2022 at 4:32 am |
angech “Would you be able to give a comment on the thought experiment of CO2 is life above ”
“It is sad that the denizens skeptic blogs in 2022 *STILL* don’t understand how the greenhouse effect actually works.”
–
DM I was referring to the flask experiment as you are a scientist I thought you might comment on that alone, not pivot to another subject.
–
Not that it matters as you agree with me that GHG play a part in the temperature that the earth system is at.
–
On the other hand you still show an intransigence to the concept of true skepticism by refusing to look at the issues involved that make people want to be skeptical of the GHG effect.
Your privilege of course.
–
CO2 levels increasing or decreasing is not related to the minimal extra input into the system due to burning fossil fuels
CO2 levels are however closely related to the temperature and ph of the oceans.
A rise in energy input into the earth system, higher solar temps or decreased albedo leads to an outpouring of CO2 into the atmosphere much higher than any fossil fuel burn.
A drop in the energy leads to a decrease in CO2 no matter how much CO2 mankind puts in.
–
You are well aware of the reason for this, the ocean containing more CO2 by several orders of magnitude mean the atmospheric level is totally dominated by the oceanic mass of CO2.
–
Noble cause, end justifies the means, save the earth by misrepresenting the facts, is very well, noble.
But bad for science and logic.
Equal in fact to those who blindside themselves to the GHG effect,
Worse because you for one, know a lot better.
Angech “DM I was referring to the flask experiment as you are a scientist I thought you might comment on that alone, not pivot to another subject.”
I was not pivoting to another subject, and I resent the accusation that I was. I was clearly referring to the flask experiment as I wrote “the problem is that FLASK EXPERIMENTS can only tell you about the radiative properties of gasses…”
“On the other hand you still show an intransigence to the concept of true skepticism by refusing to look at the issues involved that make people want to be skeptical of the GHG effect.
Your privilege of course.”
somewhat ironic as you just demonstrated that you didn’t bother to read what I wrote.
The flask experiment is fine for working out the radiative properties of gasses. It is exatcly what Foote and Tyndall did more than a century ago. However that is only one part of the greenhouse effrect, so if you want to refute the greenhouse effect you need to include those other components. I explained that in my previous posts, which you ave ignored.
You ought to know this as it has been explained to you repeatedly over at ATTPs
“It is exatcly what Foote and Tyndall did more than a century ago”
I’m not really sure they did that. I think there experiment measured conduction and convection. They never isolated the IR in an experiment like we are discussing.
In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat. His heat source was not the Sun, but radiation from a copper cube containing boiling water.
CO2 is transparent to Sunlight, so not sure how this works, and if he did shine an IR Meter on CO2 it would record -80C.
Tyndall was not, however, the first to make the climate link. That prize goes to the American Eunice Foote, who showed in 1856 using sunlight that carbon dioxide could absorb heat.
@Co2
“CO2 is transparent to Sunlight”
Yes, we *all* know that, which is why in the greenhouse effect the atmosphere absorbs IR radiated from the surface not directly from the sun. Thus Tyndall’s experiments are equivalent to those by Foote and show the same thing: greenhouse gasses absorb IR.
“Tyndall was not, however, the first to make the climate link. That prize goes to the American Eunice Foote, who showed in 1856 using sunlight that carbon dioxide could absorb heat.”
yes, that is why I mentioned both Tyndall and Foote.
“Thus Tyndall’s experiments are equivalent to those by Foote and show the same thing: greenhouse gasses absorb IR.”
I posted the experiment, please explain how that demonstrates the GHG Effect? Basically it shows that a hot object will warm the atmosphere. How did it demonstrate the GHG Effect?
” CO2 levels are however closely related to the temperature and ph of the oceans.”
Not that crap again. You know perfectly well that I have written a paper that explains how we know the rise in atmospheric CO2 is solely due to anthropogenic emissions
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef200914u
Ask Fred SInger, climate skeptics make fools of themselves by persisting in these canards,
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=3263
You have just used one of the canards he says to drop. I know this is a blog that has repeatedly promulgated this misinformation, but you should know better, having engaged in explanations of it at ATTPs.
From your published article, why does residence life matter? Isn’t it concentration that really matters? A CO2 molecule that has been airborne for 100 years has the same quantum mechanics of one that have been airborne for 10 minutes. BTW, if you are working with Dr. Essenhigh, you are in great company.
No my paper shows why Essenhigh was flat wrong about this. Residence time is irrelevant, Essenhigh claimed it was important, my paper explained his error (despite the fact that the first IPCC WG1 report had already warned not to make that mistake).
It has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics. The discussion was whether the rise in atmospheric CO2 was anthropogenic or natural. It is entirely anthropogenic and “skeptics” who claim otherwise are just displaying their ignorance and unwillingness to engage with the evidence.
“It has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.”
It has everything to do with Quantum Mechanics. The Quantum Mechanics are the very foundation of the GHG Effect. CO2 has to warm water. If it can’t, it is game over. 15 Micron won’t warm water. 1 out of every 2,500 molecules vibrating with the additional energy of a small fraction of a black body of -80 C won’t materially impact the other 2,499. That is the problem the CO2 GHG Effect theory has. That is why there are no experiment isolating the impact of CO2 on temperature exist. Every desert out there proves CO2 doesn’t cause warming. If your theory holds, explain why Antarctica and other Deserts aren’t warming with an increase in CO2. Do the laws of Physics cease to exist in the Deserts?
I remember looking at Cawley´s paper back then, in the abstract it says “””the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and therefore, the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon. “””
Which is not correct, because even with Essenhighs idea (the CO2 is naturally balanced while humans produce a huge amount of additional CO2) being correct, the first half of that sentence would be true (and the 2nd would be. It is entirely possible, that CO2 gets sequestered in the cooling parts of the oceans while the upwelling warming ocean water controlls the current level. There are many different natural sources and sinks for CO2 and this assertion above just shows a lack of understanding. For example the CO2 concentration near upwelling water at the West Coast seems clearly dominated by a natural phenomena.
Which leaves the following question:
If Cawley would have used the same parameters than Essenhigh in his 1box-model, would he have verified Essenhigh´s findings?
(I know that he didn´t in his paper, but that does not refute Essenhigh´s findings, the only way doing that would be showing that some choices are non-physical and exactly that seems to be missing in Cawley´s paper)
To me this looks like a standoff rather than “He did this I did that, he is wrong”.
And if showing “with different choices I can get very different results” is a valid critique on modeling, climate science is in deep trouble!
To any finding of any climate model a less alarming counterpart exists already.
>> No my paper shows why Essenhigh was flat wrong about this.
It is my opinion that the paper shows much less than that!
The first half of this passage from the abstract
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef200914u
“[..] the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and therefore, the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon.”
would also be true under the “Essenhigh-Assumption” that the current atmospheric CO2 level was driven by natural factors.
It only shows that if look only at a part of a system, you dont really understand whats is happening.
Moreover, all that paper seems to show is, that if you run Essenhigh´s model with other numbers, you get a different result.
That is no falsification!
Wouldn´t your method gave exactly Esenhigh´s results given you feed his number into your model?
what is entirely missing is any justification of one model over the other.
Historically, Essenhigh´s contribution seems the novel one, showing that models can support a different point of view, whereas you only seems to show that his model can also be twisted into the same old alarmist viewpoint.
You seem to hugely overstate the importance of your paper here.
Most importantly there is nothing in it contradicting Essenhigh´s point of view.
Natural sinks take up CO2 including a fraction of anthropocentric CO2, so what? They are sinks!
In the meantime Essenhigh shows that natural sources (for example the upwelling deep sea water at the West Coast of USA) are possibly responsible for a shifted near-equilibrium process.
You could start by explaning how much CO2 was transported by the Golf steam over the last lets say 150 years, including trend and uncertainty of this number over time. Or concede, you (like all of us) does not have good data on the carbon cycle over the relevant time scales and your paper does not change anything in that regards.
BTW we all know that GHGs radiate as well as absorb IR, it is climate science 101 stuff. Here is an article from SkS from 2010 discussing it
https://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html
Just to be clear:
Get flasks that are completely transparent to IR. Make them Dewar flasks to reduce losses from conduction and convection, because otherwise they are likely to be dominant. Heat the gas and see how long it takes to cool to ambient. I would expect the flask containing CO2 to cool faster than a flask filled with a non-GHG. Why? Because GHGs both absorb and radiate IR. At equilibrium the absorption and radiation will be balanced. If the gas is cooling, radiation will be greater than absorption. Note that the energy absorbed by GHG is not immediately re-radiated, it is likely to be transferred to the bulk gas via collisions, and conversely sometimes energy is transferred to GHG molecules which then radiate it away. This is all climate science 101 stuff.
Does this refute the greenhouse effect? No, of course it doesn’t. For a start, a signature of GHG warming is that the trophosphere will warm while the stratosphere cools. Why does it cool? Because there is more GHG in it to radiate energy to space. The other reason why it doesn’t refute the greenhouse effect, as I have repeatedly said is that the radiative properties of GHGs is only one component of the mechanism. Another is the thermal structure of the atmosphere. If your flask doesn’t replicate that structure (and it won’t unless it is several km high), you will not expect to see a greenhouse effect as a key element is missing.
There, despite your rudeness and unwillingness to read what I wrote, I have addressed your experiment in detail. I expect a non “intransigent” response that engages with what I have written from angech. I shan’t hold my breath though.
Hi dikranmarsupial. Please visit my site. I would like your opinion on my findings.
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
is based both, on precise radiative
“energy in = Φ (1-a) S” estimation and
on the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon“.
We are capable now for the THEORETICAL ESTIMATION of the planetary mean surface temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
dikranmarsupial, good response. Question for you:
1) H2O and CO2 absorb the same 15 Micron LWIR, it is not true that with our without CO2, the lower atmosphere already thermalizes 100% of all outgoing 15 Micron LWIR. In other words, isn’t CO2 irrelevant for the lower Troposphere up to about 3.5km?
2) The vibrational status of a CO2 molecule due to absorbing 15 Micron LWIR is consistent with -80C. Can you really materially impact the kinetic energy of th other 2,499 molecules with so little energy?
1) The lower atmosphere is irrelevant. The greenhouse effect is about energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, not absorption at the surface. It is the IR photons that do escape to space that matter. The upper atmosphere is very cold and hence dry. You need to understand the greenhouse effect before trying to refute it. If you are focusing on absorption at the surface, you are making the same mistake Angstrom did over 100 years ago (and others at the time knew he was wrong).
2) I’m not sure what you are saying. If -80C is the effective temperature of black box radiation that peaks at 15 Micron, then that is entirely irrelevant.
“The lower atmosphere is irrelevant. The greenhouse effect is about energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, not absorption at the surface. ”
Not sure I agree with that statement. Glaciers are in the Lower Troposphere, and that is what is claimed to cause the sea level to ride. If CO2 doesn’t warm the lower Troposphere, then who cares? Look at how hot the Thermosphere is.
” I’m not sure what you are saying. ”
15 Microns has a quantifiable amount of energy…and it isn’t much. For 15 micron to warm the atmosphere, it much cause 1 out of ever 2,500 molecules to vibrate enough to materially change the kinetic energy of the other 2,499. That in a nutshell is the GHG Effect. Does that even seem remotely possible? Also, take something vibrating at 18 C and collide it with something vibrating at -80 C, you dilute the energy, you don’t cumulate the amount.
DM,
Thanks for your replies.
Thanks for putting up with my intemperance.
Thank you for addressing the flask issue as well.
–
“I expect a non “intransigent” response that engages with what I have written from angech.
I shan’t hold my breath though.”
–
“You know perfectly well that I have written a paper that explains how we know the rise in atmospheric CO2 is solely due to anthropogenic emissions. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef200914u”
–
Actually I am quite happy that you are willing to share your views here.
–
Atmospheric CO2 rise due solely to anthropogenic emissions?
I am sure we both agree there are a number of reasons for CO2 to both rise and fall unrelated to human activity.
Therefore your study refers to the fact that the CO2 rise is of the same amount that human emissions over the time period you have used have caused.
That seems a rather fortunate occurrence seeing the other causes should have produced a deviation from the expected result.
–
” CO2 levels are however closely related to the temperature and ph of the oceans.” is not crap or a canard.
It is a simple scientific fact.
–
” I know this is a blog that has repeatedly promulgated this misinformation”
–
Again, I presume, sorry, that this is your way of saying that temperature and pH of the oceans are unimportant in considering the current causes of CO2 changes.
If true then you are right to say otherwise would be misinformation.
–
Thanks also for your attempts to address my concerns at ATTP
angech,
Firstly I notice the lack of an apology for the unwarranted and facutually incorrect insults that you aimed at me.
“Atmospheric CO2 rise due solely to anthropogenic emissions?
I am sure we both agree there are a number of reasons for CO2 to both rise and fall unrelated to human activity.
Therefore your study refers to the fact that the CO2 rise is of the same amount that human emissions over the time period you have used have caused.”
No, you clearly have not read the paper. I suggest you do. There are multiple lines of evidence that show that the rise is entirely anthropogenic and that the natural environment is opposing the rise.
“That seems a rather fortunate occurrence seeing the other causes should have produced a deviation from the expected result.”
No, as my paper shows, the carbon cycles behaviour is *exactly* what would be expected to result from an increase in anthropogenic emissions.
Demonstrate that you have actually read the paper, appologise for the unwarranted insults, and THEN, I will discuss it with you.
“Again, I presume, sorry, that this is your way of saying that temperature and pH of the oceans are unimportant in considering the current causes of CO2 changes.
If true then you are right to say otherwise would be misinformation.”
Don’t put words in other peoples mouths, that is shabby rhetoric. The pH of the oceans is important, the fact that it is going up tells you that the amount of carbon in the oceans is going UP, not down, which is evidence that outgassing is not causing the atmospheric rise..
Temperature has a mild effect, but it is dominated on long timescales by anthropogenic emissions, if that were not the case, atmospheric CO2 would be rising FASTER than anthropogenic emissions rather than slower.
Read the paper, make an effort to understand, THEN ask questions.
dikranmarsupial | June 11, 2022 at 7:50 am |
angech,
“Firstly I notice the lack of an apology for the unwarranted and factually incorrect insults that you aimed at me.”
This is the easiest part of your concerns, now and in the past, to address.
I unreservedly apologise for any and all unwarranted and factually incorrect insults that I have ever aimed at you, now, or in the past, here or at any other site.
–
“you clearly have not read the paper. I suggest you do. There are multiple lines of evidence that show that the rise is entirely anthropogenic and that the natural environment is opposing the rise.Read the paper, make an effort to understand, THEN ask questions.”
Unfortunately it is too expensive.
“Demonstrate that you have actually read the paper, apologize for the unwarranted insults, and THEN, I will discuss it with you.”
You are free to set any rules you like.
You have come to a site which discusses science to engage in discussion, which I would encourage and respect you coming here
–
I could post your abstract here but then I might be accused of further shabby rhetoric when all I was trying to do was put up an explanation of what I thought your rational was without upsetting you.
Silly me…
When you replied to my comment
” CO2 levels are however closely related to the temperature and ph of the oceans.”
with your comment
dikranmarsupial | June 10, 2022 at 6:31 am
“Not that crap again.”
–
I made a presumption [yep that is legal] “I presume”, then I apologized [some people are sensitive] “sorry” about your comment [because it seemed that saying it was crap meant] “that this is your way of saying that temperature and pH of the oceans are unimportant in considering the current causes of CO2 changes”.
Imagine my surprise when you then admitted
* “The pH of the oceans is important, the fact that it is going up tells you that the amount of carbon in the oceans is going UP, not down, which is evidence that outgassing is not causing the atmospheric rise..”
and
“Temperature has a mild effect”,
Note I have left the last bit of your complete quote in because I do not want to conflate shabby rhetoric and putting words in peoples mouths with you adding that I do not include complete quotes
” but it is dominated on long timescales by anthropogenic emissions, if that were not the case, atmospheric CO2 would be rising FASTER than anthropogenic emissions rather than slower.”
–
BTW You might like to amend this comment* as I presume, sorry, that you meant that the pH of the ocean is going down [More acidic means lower not higher pH].
angech wrote
“Unfortunately it is too expensive.”
right so you told me what my paper says (incorrectly) without actually having read it?
Here is a free preprint: http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ef2011a.pdf
Let me know when you have read it (and preferably dropped the rhetoric, which is rather dull).
dikranmarsupial
In your preprint, you say, “(it is assumed that anthropogenic uptake is insignificant)”
On what do you base that claim? Have you done any calculations that you didn’t include? We know that calcining limestone accounts for at least 5-7% of the anthro’ emissions. We also know that all of our concrete dams, concrete breakwaters, reinforced concrete buildings and bridges, and concrete roads, parking lots and sidewalks, all absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they age. There are also industrial activities that extract CO2 from the atmosphere. You may well be right, but it does seem a bit cavalier to not provide evidence for your claim.
dikranmarsupial
https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-china-pollution-3d97642acbb07fca7540edca38448266
“Does this refute the greenhouse effect? No, of course it doesn’t. ”
No one denies the GHG Effect, the problem is tying warming to 15 micron LWIR. If you have room temperature atmosphere the CO2 molecule is already vibrating at a level consistent with the rest of the atmosphere. Then we are going to absorb 15 micron LWIR and it vibrates a bit more. The problem is, is that marginal amount of additional vibration enough to materially impact the other 2,499 molecules in the atmosphere? I’d say no, especially because 15 microns won’t warm the oceans. If you can’t demonstrate CO2 and 15 micron LWIR can warm the oceans, you can’t claim it causes global warming and climate change. Dr. Steele does a great job highlighting all the other possible causes of warming and climate change, and you don’t need CO2. Okum’s Razor, the most obvious explanation is most likely the best. What warms the oceans is the most likely cause, and it isn’t CO2.
dikranmarsupial | June 10, 2022 co2islife | June 5, 2022
“Get flasks that are completely transparent to IR. Make them Dewar flasks to reduce losses from conduction and convection, because otherwise they are likely to be dominant.”
“Flask is made of thin Plexiglas
Warm all of them up to 100 C.
Relocate the gases to a room of temperature 18C
Record how has the gasses cool to 18C.
My bet is the GHGs cool much faster than O2 and N2.”
Heat the gas and see how long it takes to cool to ambient.
The problem here is twofold.
One
that the plexiglass flasks had a known internal and external surface area for heat to transfer across
.Dewar flasks made of glass are double-walled vacuum-insulated containers. They are used to thermally insulate a stored product (LN2, CO2 or other coolant) from the ambient temperature. Dewar flasks consist of an inner and an outer bulb, which are fused together at the top of the neck opening.
Using them may give a better answer in terms of restricting the causes of heat loss but it does not answer the original question and the answer may not change?
Two is how all the gases are to be heated to 100C in flasks that are completely transparent to IR and thermally insulated.
Let us say that they have been over time all heated to 100C.
This means that the surface of the flasks are also at 100C internally and externally.
The heat being radiated to the room is still only that that the surface area of the flask allows.
In other words the flask can only lose the energy that its surface is radiating into the room, no matter what the content of the container in the way of GHG or non GHG gases.
The question is almost unanswerable because of the difficulty, already explained, in trying to fit like masses, pressures and temperatures into a one volume container.
Thus this answer
DM “I would expect the flask containing CO2 to cool faster than a flask filled with a non-GHG.
Why? Because GHGs both absorb and radiate IR. At equilibrium the absorption and radiation will be balanced.
If the gas is cooling, radiation will be greater than absorption. Note that the energy absorbed by GHG is not immediately re-radiated, it is likely to be transferred to the bulk gas via collisions, and conversely sometimes energy is transferred to GHG molecules which then radiate it away. This is all climate science 101 stuff.”
and co2islife | June 5, 2022 at 9:31 pm “. My bet is the GHGs cool much faster than O2 and N2. Why? Because CO2 and H2O use very fast radiation to cool, and H2O releases latent heat when if condenses.”
Both fail to take into account the actual amount of gas in each flask.
Both make the mistake of believing that more energy must leave the flask from a GHG IR radiating gas.
In reality Non GHG do not absorb or radiate IR is the same thing as GHGs both absorb and radiate IR.
Whether they radiate or not is not the issue. The issue is the heat loss from the surface of the container.
No extra energy goes out from the gases.
As they emit IR they slow down in movement and emit less IR.
The non GHG transmit collision energy to the cooling walls of the container allowing the walls to radiate that energy as IR from the outer surface.
–
NB being transparent to IR does not mean that the glass cannot cool by emitting IR
My feeling is that the answer is that similar flasks containing similar amounts of energy in the gases present inside should probably cool down at almost identical rates, GHG or not
“The non GHG transmit collision energy to the cooling walls of the container allowing the walls to radiate that energy as IR from the outer surface.”
DUH! why do you think I specified a Dewar flask to minimise conductions. If you are not going to read what is said to you and just ignore what was written there is no point talking to you.
Both GHG and non GHG will collide with the glass, and if both vessels are identical then the other factors are the same for both flask, so if they cool at different rates it will be due to other factors, such as the radiation of IR by the GHG.
I’ve wasted enough time trying to discuss this. I shall bookmark this discussion in case I am tempted to waste my time talking to you here or at ATTPs.
Planet Earth has a very thin atmosphere…
Compare the figures:
1 bar with 0,04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2 for Venus.
How much more CO2 Venus has?
Let’s calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0,04% =
and we shall have
92*96*25 = 220.800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere has compared to Earth’s.
So what we compare is 1 to 220.800 !
For someone living on the Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesn’t have any CO2 in its atmosphere.
That is why we confirm here that yes, Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect because of its very thick atmosphere, Venus has a very strong greenhouse effect.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ross McKittrick, thank you for this essay.
Ross McKittrick,
Looking forward to your work in progress producing another essay.
You are making fundamentally important points. The topic however is not often discussed in detail in the general literature, so generalist scientists like me might not have caught up with the volume and nature of the reactions you are getting. So, are others making reasoned responses with correct statistics or are are getting mainly handwaving?
The topic obliquely reminds me of my introduction to statistics, when aged 20 I was given several large sheets of paper, pencil & eraser and a book detailing how to do manual analysis of variance using Fisher’s original method. Sometimes I think that learning this way about the fundamentals is better education than selecting a program package from the computer library, for the reason that others are using the same one. Geoff S
dikranmarsupial, you clearly have access to some University Resources. Here are a few ideas for you:
1) Run a regression of CO2 vs. Temp, and publish what the R^2 is. Basically it will be 0.00. A “Science” that relies on a model with 0.00 explanatory power is a joke. CO2 is basically linear, temperatures are highly random, and if you use locations controlled for Water Vapor and the UHE Effect, you get a flat temp data set and an even lower R^2.
2) Use the ice core data from Iceland for the Holocene. What is the mean temp pre-industrial era, what is the Std Dev pre-industrial, what is the range of the Holocene. Now what is the mean of the Industrial Era, what is the Standard Deviation of the Industrial Era. Are they statistically different? Where do the current temperatures fall within the range of the Holocene?
3) If CO2 drives temperatures, why are there so many weather stations showing no warming over the past 120 years? Do the laws of physics cease to exist at those locations? What kind of science relies on denying science to make its conclusions valid?
4) Why are Troy, Thermopylae and other well known Bronze Age, Classical and Roman Era Archeological sites so far island?
5) Use a longpass filter, isolate 15 micron LWIR, shine that on a bucket of water and measure the temperature change. Compare that to a control bucket of water. What do you find? HInt, the water won’t warm with additional 15 micron LWIR.
6) Collect all the climate data for clouds, sun, UHI, water vapor, CO2 and other. Run a Stepwise Regression. What variables are significant? My bet, CO2 isn’t. Climate Science is a science that relies of a theory that every computer that can run Stepwise would reject. Either the computer is wrong or the climate scientists are wrong. I bet on the computers.
Simply apply the scientific method to the climate science data and you will reject CO2 as the cause.
” Run a regression of CO2 vs. Temp, and publish what the R^2 is. Basically it will be 0.00. ”
You are completely wrong, and you only need to look at the data to see that there is clearly an strong association between the two. See my comment on Hermann Harde’s paper at ATTPs, here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/a-harde-response/#comment-104070
Where you will find this diagram:
https://i.imgur.com/I2UkCye.png
There is very clearly a linear relationship between temperature and CO2 in the ice core data (red dots) as well as the modern data (green crosses).
You made the assertion that the R^2 is zero, do your own homework and do the analysis for yourself. If you want to prove the worlds climatologists completely wrong, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to back up your claims.
I’m not sure what you think this graph proves, but it isn’t what you think it does.
https://imgur.com/I2UkCye
I asked a very simple question, what is the R^2, I didn’t see your answer. I can’t find my spreadsheet right now, but you are right, it isn’t 0.00, but it isn’t significant. Here is a graphic that proves my point. It is Antarctica in May. CO2 goes up smoothly, temperature is very volatile and has a downtrend. If you think that regression would give an R^2 favorable to the nonsense you are promoting you simply don’t understand R^2. Also, CO2 has a Log Relationship to W/M^2, so the linear relationship everyone seems to believe in simply isn’t supported by the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule.
https://imgur.com/0PYYdsd
“Why are Troy, Thermopylae and other well known Bronze Age, Classical and Roman Era Archeological sites so far island?”
It took all of a couple of minutes to find out it is due to rive deltas silting up. Are you incapable of researching anything for yourself?
“It took all of a couple of minutes to find out it is due to rive deltas silting up. Are you incapable of researching anything for yourself?
Delta silting up? Really? Have you looked at the site? If deltas silting up was the reason there would be a flat plane of land. There isn’t that is nonsense. Even if I cede the point to you, you just destroyed the case taht CO2 is causing sea level change unless you can demonstrate that you have a way to adjust the data for silting, which you don’t.
Singer “CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2.
it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.
2011 (Essenhigh, R. H. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 2773−2784) (hereafter ES09) concludes that the relatively short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (5–15 years) establishes that the long-term (≈100 year) rise in atmospheric concentration is not due to anthropogenic emissions but is instead caused by an environmental response to rising atmospheric temperature, which is attributed in ES09 to “other natural factors”.
angech ” CO2 levels are however closely related to the temperature and ph of the oceans.”
–
The CO2 and Ph of the earth’s oceans can be looked at like this.
Imagine a flask made out of earth,
Half filled with salty water.
Then the next half to the brim with atmosphere decreasing in density.
Ignore the rather hot outer shell of the cup as the inner side is insulated and not too hot.
Consider a small heat lamp shining on the top of the cup .
The experiment today is to work out the amount of CO2 in the cup.
Not exactly Willis.
Where does the CO2 in the cup come from?
The cup obviously. How does it get into the water.
By dissolving carbonate substances in the cup wall.
How much can it dissolve?
Certain conditions apply.
The CO2 cannot leave the system.
The temperature of the water can vary from icy cold to several 100 C in parts but maintains an average temperature of 15 C, 289 K. on the surface layer of the liquid in the cup. with a surface pressure of 1 atmosphere
The liquid in the cup dissolves only some of the cup surface components at this temperature.
NaCl. MgSO4 CaCO3. trace other chemical compounds, It is just too cold to dissolve many others at 1 atmospheric pressure.
So the CO2 in the cup water like the other gases in the sea water, O2 NO2
and Argon now can go into the atmospheric component of the cup.
They are in equilibrium with the ocean and lakes and underground water currently at an average pH of 8.06 or thereabouts.
The Nitrogen and Argon were already there as they exist as gases at that temperature and pressure without having to be released from other minerals and compounds.
Originally there was no O2 as it prefers to form compounds with other chemicals at standard temp and pressure.
CO2 was abundant as it was released by volcanic activity as was H2O.
but when combined they formed an acid which reacted with other minerals to form back into carbonates.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere is dependent on only two factors.
Volcanic out gassing which slowly returns to carbonate forms if it was not renewed and the temperature of the Oceans and water systems it is in contact with at 1 atmospheric pressure.
In other words there is always a set amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of earth dependent only on the small volcanic amount and a larger component due to the pH and temperature of the oceans.
When plant life developed it did so using the CO2 athat was available in the atmosphere.
When the plants removed the CO2 [CO2 cycle] the ocean replenished the missing CO2 with dissolving more calcium and other carbonates.
This is dictated by the earth/ocean equilibrium which leads to a large amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans.
The oceans with heir gigasnytic load of CO2 feed the atmosphere with another equilibrium which in recent centuries has led to a PPM of 280 for CO2.
When more CO2 [acid] is produced by volcanoes the CO2 dissolves back into the water and then produces more carbonate on the ocean floors and wet earth subsurface.
This process is incredibly quick as the loads produced by the volcanoes are minute in comparison th the load in the sea.
Having increased human production by burning fossil fuels is treated the same way, with immense indifference by the earth ocen an smaller ocean sea equilibriae.
Angech Why quote Singer and then completely ignore what he said (note you do not address isotopic evidence anywhere in your response)?
I don’t know why you added some of the abstract of my paper onto Singer’s quote.
I have already pointed out to you that the oceans becoming more acidic (lower pH) is direct evidence that the oceans are taking up CO2 rather than degassing.
“Having increased human production by burning fossil fuels is treated the same way, with immense indifference by the earth ocen an smaller ocean sea equilibriae.”
no, that isn’t true. Read my paper, we know beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink. If this were not the case, atmospheric CO2 would be rising faster than the rate of anthropogenic emissions as both man and nature would be contributing. But that isn’t the case, it is only rising at about half the rate of anthropogenic emissions, which means that nature is a net carbon sink and is actively opposing the rise. I have pointed this out to you several times now, and you have ignored this point each time.
“It is called Henry’s Law, ”
No that is half of Henry’s law. For some reason denizens of climate skeptic blogs always forget about the other half. The other half is that the solubility of CO2 is proportional to the ratio of the partial pressure in the air and the concentration in the water. The constant of proportionality is temperature dependent. However, this means if the partial pressure in the air goes up (say because of large-scale use of fossil fuels), then the solubility of CO2 goes up even if temperatures rise.
So which wins out, the temperature sensitivity, or the increase in partial pressure. Well the fact that the oceans are becoming more acidic is an indication that the oceans are taking up carbon, not releasing it. Another indication is the fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising more slowly than anthropogenic emissions, which means that the natural environment is a net sink of carbon and hence is opposing the rise.
Of course I mentioned both of those things in the message you are replying to.
“the partial pressure in the air and the concentration in the water.”
Just what is the partial pressure change of a trace gas changing from 270 ppm to 410 ppm. My bet is Henry’s Law dwarfs the increase in partial pressure. I’m pretty sure a computer can easily demonstrate that. BTW, Henry’s Law would have the Oceans releasing CO2 until the amount gas reaches equilibrium. The big problem you have is that the economic slowdown due to COVID did nothing to alter the trend in CO2. Funny how economic activity can’t be tied to CO2, but the ocean temperatures can’t. Once again, the Climate “Scientist” simply don’t be looking for honest answers.
Angech
“Why quote Singer”?
You gave a link to his paper.
I read it and quoted, as I always do, the part that seemed relevant to me and others that seemed at odds with your interpretation.
I definitely did not “completely ignore what he said”
“I don’t know why you added some of the abstract of my paper onto Singer’s quote.”
Singer’s quote addressed the same issue in your abstract.
I wanted to put your whole abstract in to help promote discussion of it but was afraid [reluctant] to do so without asking you first.
If you are happy to append it in this post I would be most grateful .
Thank you for giving me a link to a version I can access.
I will shout you a glass of wine and a coffee if you are ever in Melbourne.
No angst towards you, we just have totally differing views on causation while both agreeing on a GHG effect and currently rising surface tempeartures. What Feynman might call axioms in common with different theories .JC and Spencer also share those axioms but again have different theories that need to be included in the lexicon along with others.
“Why quote Singer”?
You gave a link to his paper.
I read it and quoted, as I always do, the part that seemed relevant to me and others that seemed at odds with your interpretation.
Nothing in that Singer quote was at odds with my interpretation.
” I definitely did not “completely ignore what he said” ”
Angech Why quote Singer and then completely ignore what he said (note you do not address isotopic evidence anywhere in your response)?
Yes you did ignore it, you did not mention the isotopic evidence that Singer was talking about anywhere in your answer. You ignored Singer’s evidence that your position is wrong.
Sorry you have made it clear that you are not going to address any evidence that refutes your argument, so there is no point in me continuing. Here is a list of the things you have not addressed:
(i) Singers isotopic evidence
(ii) the fact that ocean acidification means the oceans are not causing the rise
(iii) the mass balance argument that shows the rise is purely anthropogenic.
100% of all Chemistry Books will claim this: “they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. ”
It is called Henry’s Law, and is well demonstrated in the Ice Core Record showing CO2 LAGGING Temperature by between 700 and 1,500 years. That is easy to test, simply run regressions of CO2 and Temp, and you will find the best regressions lag CO2 (meaning that Today’s CO2 correlated with Temp 700 years ago).
Oops, reply should have gone here:
“It is called Henry’s Law, ”
No that is half of Henry’s law. For some reason denizens of climate skeptic blogs always forget about the other half. The other half is that the solubility of CO2 is proportional to the ratio of the partial pressure in the air and the concentration in the water. The constant of proportionality is temperature dependent. However, this means if the partial pressure in the air goes up (say because of large-scale use of fossil fuels), then the solubility of CO2 goes up even if temperatures rise.
So which wins out, the temperature sensitivity, or the increase in partial pressure. Well the fact that the oceans are becoming more acidic is an indication that the oceans are taking up carbon, not releasing it. Another indication is the fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising more slowly than anthropogenic emissions, which means that the natural environment is a net sink of carbon and hence is opposing the rise.
Of course I mentioned both of those things in the message you are replying to.
angech
“The CO2 level in the atmosphere is dependent on only two factors.
Volcanic out gassing which slowly returns to carbonate forms if it was not renewed and the temperature of the Oceans and water systems it is in contact with at 1 atmospheric pressure.”
angech, the entire post is a brilliant insight. What I did is to pick a small fraction of your post as a tribute.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How many times does it need to be pointed out that the oceans becoming more acidic (lower pH) means that the oceans are taking up CO2, not outgassing. Ocean acidification rules out the oceans as the cause of the modern rise in CO2.
“How many times does it need to be pointed out that the oceans becoming more acidic (lower pH) means that the oceans are taking up CO2, not outgassing. Ocean acidification rules out the oceans as the cause of the modern rise in CO2.”
CO2 has changed from 350 in 1994 to 380 PPM in 2010, and the pH, which is a log scale changed from 8.13 to 8.03. Without doing the math, I’m pretty sure that takes a monsterous amount of CO2. Also, 8.03 isn’t acidic. Before blaming CO2, I’d calculate out the amount of CO2 that would be required to alter the pH of the entire ocean by 0.1. The oceans are always balancing forming calcium carbonate, carbonate, and CO2. Carbonic Acid can be produced from an increase in organic life in the surface layer of the oceans.
“Large numbers of algae are likely to cause more pH fluctuations, thus it is important to control algae blooms.”
Warm water and it also changes the soliability of calcium carrbonate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate#/media/File:CaCO3-pH.gif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate#/media/File:CaCO3-Temp.gif
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Hart-2/publication/271927909/figure/fig1/AS:646089149534224@1531051065482/Solubility-of-calcium-carbonate-lime-scale-in-water-as-a-function-of-pH.png
Botom line, many things other that my SUV can be changing the pH of the oceans and climate “scientists” aren’t even looking at alternatives…except Dr. Steele.
BTW, the starting point of almost any econometric or multi-variable linear regression model would be to start with running Stepwise just to see if you are in the ball park. Has anyone bothered to do that? That is usually a starting point for any multi-variable experiment. dikranmarsupial, have you run Stepwise? If you have, please publish the results. My guess is the reason no one has published the results is because it will expose that there is no relationship between CO2 and Temp and as Dr. Steele highlights, there are far far more significant that are completely ignored by the Climate “Scientists.” If you aren’t looking for the truth, you will never find it.
Dr. Curry, Dr. Ross McKitrick is an Economist and Econometrician. He has all the power at his fingertips to debunk the CO2 drives temperature theory. You may want to ask him to view Dr. Steele’s Videos, identify the significant climate variable ESPECIALLY THE CLOUD COVER OVER THE OCEANS and Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 Molecule, and use Dry and Cold Desert Temperature Data as the Dependent Variable. Basically control for the UHI and Water Vapor when selecting the Temperature Data. UAH has data for the S. Pole which is a great data set controlled for many factors. Once he has all the significant Independent variables identified by Dr. Steele, include CO2 as an Independent Variable. Once the model is created in the computer, simply run Stepwise. It will curve fit the best model, identify the significant variables, and reject the nonsense. CO2 will certainly be one of the nonsense variables. Once again, I’m not a Climate Scientist, but I can use my common sense and I’m 1,000% sure that I know what the Stepwise Model will report, and it will reject CO2 as a significant climate variable. Please ask Dr. Ross McKitrick to either prove me right or prove me wrong. Stepwise should have been the starting point of this CO2 Drive Temperature Movement. The silence of computer scientists is deadening. They clearly aren’t looking for the answers, because the computer is a great truth/lie detector.
I frequently make comments about many weather stations showing no warming over their entire history. Do the laws of Physics cease to exist at these locations? What I found interesting is that when I combined all these data sets into an equally weighted data set, it shows an “oscillation.” CO2 doesn’t oscillate. CO2 would have driven all these data sets to new highs. Higher CO2 can’t drive a multi year decline in temperatures across the globe. Dr. Steele’s videos filled in the missing information. Then Ocean Cycles corresponds with the oscillation. Once again, I’m not a climate scientist and I could discover this…yet no Climate Scientist has? Here are the Data Sets controlled the UHI and Water Vapor, isolating the impact of CO2 on temperature. That is how real science works. Through controlled experiments. Any science that shuns the Scientific Method isn’t a real science. Here are the data sets of flat warming. I would encourage everyone to do the same research I have, and start seeking real answers and real conclusions like Dr. Steele has.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
Dr, Curry, the problem with Climate Science is that is starts with the assumption of the Government Dictated CO2 drive temperature. It assumes that is true, yet it has never been demonstrated experientially. No one denies the atmosphere holds energy, any thermometer can prove that. The real scientific question that everyone avoids is “can 1 out of ever 2,500 atmospheric molecules vibrating with the added energy of a -80 C object materially impact the thermal energy of the other 2,499 and cause material temperature change WITHOUT being able to warm water. That is Climate Change in a Nutshell, and no one in the Field of Climate Science other than a few brave souls addresses it. It is like the entire field of climate science believes the earth is flat, so they never even consider that it might be round. Every conclusion based upon a faulty foundation is bound to fail scrutiny. Many of the above comments provide an outline as to how a real science would address this issue. Once again, the starting point should be, “if CO2 causes warming, why are so many locations not warming, and why didn’t the COVID economic slowdown impact CO2 if man is the cause of the extra CO2?
Here are the flat stations. Note, CO2 should drive temperatures to new highs, and it won’t cause an oscillation. It also would cause a gradual log decay increase, not a sudden spike after 100 years of CO2 increase. You will see many charts are reaching recent highs, but that temperature spike corresponds to fewer clouds over the oceans.
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
Climate is much more a Fermi calculation than an exercise in statistical niceties. Forcing calculations using radiative transfer equations are based on 60 years of atmospheric observations. The results suggest that most modern warming is caused by changes in atmospheric gases for which the proximate cause is humanity.
‘Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W/sq. m, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W/sq. m from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W/sq. m from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W/sq. m from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W/sq. m from land use change.’ https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205006275
RIE
Forcing calculations using radiative transfer equations are based on 60 years of atmospheric observations.
Rubbish, it is all models [inaccurate ones see below] feeding into other models which use systematically tuned , not real model climate sensitivity.
GIGO.
a slight readjustment lto the study quote
“Therefore, there is* evidence that modelling groups are systematically tuning climate sensitivity or aerosol forcing to recreate observed historical warming.”
–
*[no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing and little]
–
Effective radiative forcing is admitted to be made up [tuning climate sensitivity]
“Using climatological SSTs allows for ERF to be diagnosed as the difference of top-of-atmosphere net radiative flux between
a given forcing experiment and a pre-industrial control simulation (Hansen et al., 2005).”
More tuning
“prescribing land surface temperatures is difficult in GCMs and this has not been performed in RFMIP.”
again
“Effective radiative forcing (ERF) is reserved to mean the TOA flux difference between a perturbed and control simulation with climatological SSTs and sea ice distributions and no correction for land surface temperature change,”
ie useless.
These are line by line by line radiative transfer calculations and not GCM. HITRAN has nearly 3 million ‘lines’ – the vertical sections to which Schwarzschild’s equation for radiative transfer is applied – for 39 molecules. The transfer calculations are based on observation the US Air Force collected from many different different sources since the 1960’s. This is not the temporal chaos of climate models.
To refute the numbers from LBLRTM you will have to do better than your usual wild narratives.
dikranmarsupial
You said: How many times does it need to be pointed out that the oceans becoming more acidic (lower pH) means that the oceans are taking up CO2, not outgassing. Ocean acidification rules out the oceans as the cause of the modern rise in CO2.
I’m not a scientist, but I understand your logic.
Let me ask … are you assuming that the only source of CO2 comes from the atmosphere? Could there be other sources, such as undersea volcanic venting? Could there be sources other than CO2 which could affect the decreasing pH?
“Could there be other sources, such as undersea volcanic venting? Could there be sources other than CO2 which could affect the decreasing pH?”
The concentration of dissolved CO2 is rising along with pH falling, so we know it is CO2 causing the acidification.
The oceans being the source of the rise is also ruled out by isotopic data (see Fred Singer article mentioned earlier), by mass balance considerations (see my paper mentioned earlier), and by the reduction in atmospheric oxygen.
Do you have any evidence of undersea volcanic venting having increased? It would be a bit of a coincidence if undersea volcanoes started erupting at the start of the industrial revolution and their output tracked anthropogenic emissions (the rise in CO2 has tracked anthropogenic emissions rather closely, the airborne fraction being consistently about half of cumulative anthropogenic emissions).
Thanks for your response.
No problem. This is one of the facts we know with the greatest certainty in climate science, and skeptics are only going to marginalise themselves from the discussion by being unable to accept it. It would be much better if we could focus on interesting topics where there actually is genuine uncertainty.
The concentration of dissolved CO2 is rising along with pH falling, so we know it is CO2 causing the acidification.
CO2 can come from things other than SUVs. Calcium Carbonate contains huge amounts of CO2, under seas volcanoes can release huge amounts of CO2, increasing sea life can expire huge amounts of CO2. Dead CO2 containing material have been falling to the ocean floors for hundreds of millions of years. There is plenty of CO2 in the oceans that has nothing to do with burning Fossil Fuels.
None of which you have any evidence for. As I said, isotopic evidence, the mass balance argument and the decline in atmospheric oxygen all also indicate that the rise in CO2 is not caused by ocean degassing.
You can invent mechanisms without providing any evidence all day. I suspect there are plenty here in your echo chamber that will accept it without evidence, go for it. But at the end of the day you will severely marginalise yourself outside your echo chamber by sticking to such easily refuted arguments.
DM,
Again, a proper calculation of uncertainty limits for the estimation of oceanic pH over time would be more than helpful, it is essential.
I doubt that any valid comparison like a trend can be made between pH measurements pre-2000 to post-2000, to pick a date for before and after.
Changes that some consider significant, say 0.1 pH units, are likely to be within the confidence limits. Try doing experiments in a lab, then envisage how hard it would be to get better than +/- 0.5 (“2 sigma”) in real oceanic conditions. Even the abundance of seaweed can affect your measurements. Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
“I doubt that any valid comparison like a trend can be made between pH measurements pre-2000 to post-2000, to pick a date for before and after.”
You would be wrong, see Figure 1 of Doney et al (2009). The trends in pH and dissolved COs are clearly tracking the trend in atmospheric CO2 either side of 2000.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/epdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
Doney et al (2009) is paywalled, so good luck viewing that figure. Besides the Oceans are huge and any attempt to measure the average pH of them is bound to fail. Simply not enough sample points.
jim2 If you want access to a pay-walled paper, then one thing you can do is to look up the title on Google scholar. The entry for that paper will often have a link that says something like “All 41 versions” (exactly that in this case). If you click on it you will get a list of places where you can find the paper online. Quite often there will be an openly available copy, if only a pre-print. In this case, try:
http://web-static-aws.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Ocean-acidification/more/Doney_etal_AnnRev_2009.pdf
The Doney et al paper can be found on researchgate. As far as ocean acidification is concerned – there is chemistry to fall back on. The problem with the data in Figure 1 is that it is based on one station that is in the footprint of the interdecadal Pacific oscillation.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
There is a longer analysis here
There is a longer analysis here:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/co2_time_series_aloha_11-16-2019_v6.jpg
The inter-decadal oscillation changed direction around 2010, but the pH carried on the same trajectory, which suggests it is because of the increase in atmospheric CO2 rather than the inter-decadal oscillation.
dikranmarsupial …
In one of your replies to me you said, “Do you have any evidence of undersea volcanic venting having increased? It would be a bit of a coincidence if undersea volcanoes started erupting at the start of the industrial revolution and their output tracked anthropogenic emissions (the rise in CO2 has tracked anthropogenic emissions rather closely, the airborne fraction being consistently about half of cumulative anthropogenic emissions).”
This got me interested in the actual number of undersea volcanic vents. With a quick look I found these two from the same crew:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GC004998
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967064515001459
It would seem there are thousands of vents.
I also found these two on mud volcanoes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025322700000220
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00367-003-0140-3
And also found this, which while I couldn’t open, I thought may have some interesting material. Maybe not.
Now, your reply was about increased venting and the coincidence with increasing anthropomorphic emissions. Fair enough. But with the data on undersea emissions seemingly exploding (pun intended) over the last two decades, do you think that this will/may influence your view?
Yes, there is no shortage of undersea vents. There is no evidence that they have changed their activity though and no reason to expect that. Active volcanoes produce only about 1% of the CO2 that is produced by fossil fuel emissions, so if there had been a change of that magnitude, I’m sure we would have noticed. Volcanic emissions make a big difference on a geological timescale, but not on a centennial or decadal scale.
Thanks for the quick response.
Sorry for not being clearer. I conceded the point about actual increasing undersea emissions. What stuck in my mind was that we are slowly increasing our knowledge of the obviously dynamic processes of the oceans. Absolutely fascinating stuff. So, if we assume that the venting is at a somewhat steady rate, can we assume that the out-gassing is also at a steady rate? Again, I’m not a scientist, but there would seem to be many factors affecting out-gassing, i.e. currents/oscillations, temperature, density of material, etc. What is the probability that out-gassing may occur in sync with venting?
” Absolutely fascinating stuff.” indeed it is, my main interest here is the science.
Yes, the science is complex, the basics are Henry’s law (both halves of it), ocean circulation and oceanic biota. The oceanic fluxes are much easier to understand and are reasonably well quantified. Land based processes much less so. However, the mass balance analysis I mentioned earlier rules out a natural cause of the rise with high confidence, and it is a very simply argument based only on two things, both of which we know well (i) the atmospheric concentrations and (ii) anthropogenic emissions (which is taxed/regulated, so we have good records). So there are lots of things we are uncertain about, but the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is not one of them.
dikranmarsupial:
“Yes, the science is complex, the basics are Henry’s law (both halves of it), ocean circulation and oceanic biota.”
Henry’s law doesn’t apply for atmospheric / oceanic CO2 balance.
It is the tiniest 0,04 bar CO2 partial pressure on the on average 3.000 meters deep waters!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Christos Vournas | June 13, 2022 at 3:16 pm |
dikranmarsupial:
“Yes, the science is complex, the basics are Henry’s law (both halves of it), ocean circulation and oceanic biota.”
Henry’s law doesn’t apply for atmospheric / oceanic CO2 balance.
It is the tiniest 0,04 bar CO2 partial pressure on the on average 3.000 meters deep waters!”
Correction:
It is the tiniest 0,0004 bar CO2 partial pressure on the on average 3.000 meters deep waters…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“dikranmarsupial
You said: How many times does it need to be pointed out that the oceans becoming more acidic (lower pH) means that the oceans are taking up CO2, not outgassing. Ocean acidification rules out the oceans as the cause of the modern rise in CO2.”
This quote highlights the problem with Climate Scientists. Narrow and Closed mindedness. dikranmarsupial didn’t even consider that a warming ocean due to incoming solar radiation due to fewer clouds may be increasing algae and dissolving CACO3
https://d-nb.info/1142390756/34
There are plenty of natural explanations and climate scientist don’t consider any of them…other than Dr. Steele and similar objective scientists.
“The concentration of dissolved CO2 is rising along with pH falling, so we know it is CO2 causing the acidification.”
This is a ridiculous conclusion. You know nothing of the sort. You have evidence but it is only a theory. Other sources could dominate.
NOAA and NASA disagree. Unlike you they provide evidence, when you have evidence that these other sources actually do dominate then let me know.
Dr. Curry, at the end of Dr. Steele’s videos he asks people to send him ideas for future videos. I would encourage all your readers to send him an email to cover the chemistry of the oceans and how the pH can change due to more sunlight reaching the oceans and warming them. People like dikranmarsupial automatically assume that it is due to CO2 created by man when there are plenty of other natural reasons why the pH can change with temperature. Once again, if CO2 and 15 micron can’t warm water, and the water is warming, something other than CO2 must be causing the change.
HInt, things dissolve/dissociate more rapidly when the water warms and it degasses CO2, so the oceans can degas CO2 and dissolve CaCO3 and have a lower pH. They aren’t mutually exclusive, you just have to look for the answer.
The measurement of global ocean pH is difficult. Deriving an average pH from data from decades ago is even more formidable. The +/- values that are quoted are imaginary. (My comments include experience from controlled laboratory conditions). Similar comments apply for ocean temperatures. IPCC style discussions are deception because so often real data are floating around outside these optimistic uncertainty limits.
For example, limits derived from ice core studies fail to contain uncertainties related to gains or losses from the firm/ice, which are discussed but then often minimised or ignored.
Also, comments above about oceans being CO2 sinks or sources tend to treat oceans as homogenous, neglecting that at a given time, some locations can be sinks while others are sources. Too many dynamic processes are treated more like stationary.
The whole climate change topic suffers from too many authors assuming that they can ignore or minimise mechanism that do not fit their preconceptions. There is some good science being done, but those authors are often ‘cancelled’ or criticized. Climate research is a giant, fuzzy dream world of invented stories, many of which do not merit the term ‘science’. This poor standard drags proper work down, it degrades education of youngsters and it corrodes what people understand by ‘truth’. That, it seems, is a post- normal influence and it is ugly and destructive. Geoff S
Oceans are warmed by the sun. With higher atmospheric temps heat loss is reduced. Oceans are a net carbon sink.
https://i0.wp.com/ocean-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Tome-2-Fiches-info-EN-2016-5_04.jpg
Once again, there are natural causes for the ocean pH to change. The deeper colder oceans are more acidic, and more full of carbon content. Simply altering the current can acidify the oceans. Ironically, the part of the ocean that interacts directly with the atmosphere and CO2 has the highest pH (Lowest Acidity). Also, if atmospheric CO2 determined the pH of the oceans, you would have identical pH at all locations…but you don’t. pH varies due to location and temperature of the water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#/media/File:Acidifiedupwelledwater.jpg
Robert I. Ellison | June 11, 2022 at 10:31 pm
Which statements are true?
–
“Oceans are warmed by the sun”.
Generically true.
Practically only the top layer of the oceans is warmed by the sun.
Deep layers are kept warm by pressure of the ocean above and heated at their base by the earth’s crusts temperature.
Look at 30 or 300 meters of earth in depth then at 30 kilometers.
Is the sun warming the earth at 30 Kilometers?
or at 300 meters?
or 30 meters?
–
“With higher atmospheric temps heat loss is reduced”.
Not even true.
Energy in is energy out.
heat loss as a percentage of what comes in is the same as what goes out..
Higher atmospheric temperatures means the earth and atmosphere have more energy and are losing more energy to space.
I.e. heat loss is increased.
–
“Oceans are a net carbon sink”.
Debatable.
“The CO2 level in the atmosphere is dependent on only two factors.
Volcanic out gassing which slowly returns to carbonate forms if it was not renewed and the temperature of the Oceans and water systems it is in contact with at 1 atmospheric pressure.”
The oceans have been around for 2 Billion years or more and yet the CO2 is still present.
The oceans maintain a set level of CO2 based on the amount of CO2 in solution.
This can go up and down with changes in temperature and pressure basically.
You seem to be confusing the idea of a sink [ which permanently removes a substance] with the idea of equilibrium [where a substance is kept in balance].
.
Thank you for discussing the ideas and the diagram.
““Oceans are a net carbon sink”.
Debatable.”
No angech, ocean acidification proves that it is a net sink. You have been repeatedly told that and you are still not addressing that evidence, just repeating your claims.
“You seem to be confusing the idea of a sink [ which permanently removes a substance] ”
No, that is not the definition of a sink, you are just making stuff up now.
DM
Ocean acidification is not proof of the ocean being a net sink.
The CO2 in the ocean does not come from the atmosphere.
It comes from the carbonates of the earth’s crust, whjich dissolve in water to a certain amount ata certano temperature and pressure.
This then enables CO2 to go the atmosphere regulated purely by the amount of CO2 in the ocean from the earth.
Only so much CO2 can exist in the atmosphere as the oceans massive load of CO2 permits dependent on 2 factors only. Atmospheric pressure and temperature.
Any added CO2 from volcanoes and fossil fuel burning cannot cause a rise in CO2 for any significant period of time, not even weeks.
Check re volcanic eruptions and CO2 rises at Mauna Loa in the week afterwards.
Nothing for a very obvious reason.
The concept of CO2 addition to the atmosphere causing significant change to CO2 levels sounds good from a rising temp rising CO2 perspective.
Feeding back the other way from higher levels to more acidity ignores the fact that pH if it falls, is a consequence of more dissolved CO2 from the earth, not the atmosphere.
Sinks permanently remove substances.
Your common kitchen sink removes water.
A CO2 sink removes CO2.
Pumping it back in from a pump such as the carbon cycle is a pump, not a sink.
It does not matter how acidic the water or CO2 in the sink is, the sink functions.
The CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the earth, not the air.
That is why papers have been written claiming temperature effects as the cause.
I couldn’t possibly refute this. Wouldn’t know where to start. Try this one.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
I like the idea of carbon as a thermostat over 10’s of 1,000,000’s of years – with short term – 10’s of 1000’s of years – perturbations that trigger spatiotemporal chaotic climate change.
e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/05/tipping-points-in-earths-geophysical-and-biological-systems/
That’s science commentary which is fair game. Science is usually accepted on the basis of real intellectual authority. Alarmists and contrarians alike want none of that if they want to disagree for whatever odd reasons. Each with the irrefutable climate truth. It’s building a tower of babel with very shaky science.
I have studied Earth sciences for decades because it is the most fascinating thing in the world – I don’t claim much authority. I am just curious still.
There are many intellectual challenges ahead – but climate change isn’t one them. The solution is fast, modular nuclear reactors and 21st century land and water management.
ancgech
“The CO2 in the ocean does not come from the atmosphere. It comes from the carbonates of the earth’s crust, whjich dissolve in water to a certain amount ata certano temperature and pressure.”
Citation required.
NOAA disagree https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
If your argument were true then there would be no 14C in the oceans as ocean circulation takes thousands of years to cycle water from the deep ocean and the carbon in carbonates from the Earths crust would be millions of years old and all the 14C would have decayed. However, that isn’t the case. The ocean above the thermocline has 14C, which can only have come from the atmosphere, as that is where it is produced.
“Sinks permanently remove substances.”
No, that is just your personal definition that you are using in order to avoid the science.
I’ll leave you too it, you are clearly determined to make a fool of yourself over this, despite Fred Singer’s warning. Your choice.
“Science is usually accepted on the basis of real intellectual authority”
That isn’t how science works, science is about evidence and reasoning, “intelecltual authority” doesn’t enter in to it (or at least it shouldn’t).
Public acceptance of science is another matter though. If you don’t have the skills to understand the science, you have to defer to the experts who have actually studied these things. For instance NOAA or NASA etc.
NASA and NOAA are authoritative sources. Authority rests on science. Where does he imagine evidence comes from?
FWIW both NASA and NOAA will tell you the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions not a response to increasing temperatures.
That doesn’t mean it is true. The thing that makes it true is the evidence and reasoning that they give.
For what it’s worth – they will not say that temperature driven biokinetics stopped with the industrial revolution.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
of course not, nobody disputes that, certainly not me.
Oceans are warmed to a considerable depth – well beyond the surface mixed layer – by isopycnal mixing. Which is why Argo monitors ocean heat to 2000m. I do recall something from Carl Wunch on deep ocean warming by magma. Interesting but not part of the bigger picture.
Atmospheric warming from greenhouse gas forcing reduces heat loss from oceans and oceans warm while the Planck feedback kicks in and ocean heat loss increases. At a point in this process energy in is transiently equal to energy out. There is, however, no strict necessity for energy in to equal energy out at all times. An energy imbalance is what causes planetary warming and cooling. Surely you have heard this before?
There is nothing debatable about oceans as a net carbon sink. Carbon in organic matter sinks into the depths and is subducted under continents to reappear eons later in an atmospheric gas. That’s why it is called a carbon cycle.
Robert I. Ellison | June 12, 2022
“Oceans are warmed to a considerable depth – well beyond the surface mixed layer – by isopycnal mixing. Which is why Argo monitors ocean heat to 2000m. I do recall something”
–
Mixing up the concept of ocean warming, the warmth of the whole ocean, with the concept of the distribution of that warmth in the ocean which has no effect on the actual warmth of the whole ocean.
If isopycnal mixing occurs did you ever stop to think that the oceans are cooled to a considerable height, up to the surface level, by rising colder currents?
–
Why give only one half of the facts?
–
Yes Carbon sinks can only go one way, otherwise theyy would not be called sinks ( NB DK)
Lower density warm water rises to the surface layer. Isopycnal mixing is the result of eddy transport of warm surface water to depth. I cannot address every single simple fact despite your accusations of half truths. The reality is that you have not studied Earth system science at the depth required for even a modicum of domain expertise.
Ocean sediment is rich in organic matter where heterotrophs. Cold, carbon rich abyssal water upwells and delivers carbon dioxide to the surface where it is released to the atmosphere. But contrary to your simple, unquantified narratives the oceanic biological pump dominates and oceans are a net carbon sink over eons.
Heterotrophs in the deep oceans consume organic matter and in the process release carbon dioxide into the water column. Below the calcium carbonate compensation point in oceans CaCO3 dissociates to form calcium oxide and carbon dioxide.
“Yes Carbon sinks can only go one way, otherwise theyy would not be called sinks ( NB DK)”
No angech, changes in solubility mean that the oceans can be both sources and sinks. This is carbon cycle 101.
Likewise land vegetation is a sink while growing and a source when dying back. Again this is carbon cycle 101 stuff.
There are a couple of recent papers on causality by Dimitris Koutsoyiannis for a formal discussion on causality that I find very entertaining and enlightening.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2021.0835
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2021.0836
I went back to his 2020 hen and egg causality (as distinct from Granger causality) paper.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83
What comes first – temperature increase or an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere? Koutsoyiannis finds that it goes in both directions – indeed with the temperature->CO2 direction dominant. Now we need to know what the recent AGW component is that causes feedbacks in CO2 emissions largely from Northern Hemisphere land areas. Is it more or less than unspecified natural temperature variability? Mind you it matters less in a spatiotemporal chaotic system where tipping points caused by small changes in the climate system are inevitable.
e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/07/soil-carbon-permanent-pasture-as-an-approach-to-co2-sequestration/
Sadly Prof. Koutsoyiannis’ paper is incorrect on the subject of the temp/co2 causality. They take the difference of the CO2 time series and that eliminates the long term increase in CO2, so their procedure can tell you nothing about the cause of the long term increase, just the cause of the variability from year to year, which we have known since the 1970s is primarily due to ENSO. This is exactly the same error Humlum et al and Salby et al.
The physical basis for a temperature caused CO2 feedback is a change in biokinetics of respiration with temperature.
http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf
The reason for using the past 40 years of data is that it is the period for which accurate data exists. It is the period of exponentially increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Kratvsov et al 2018 compared reanalysis ‘product with models. Indeed, the reconstruction of this pair of modes for regional climate indices (Fig. 3b, c) manifests as a multidecadal signal propagating across the climate index network (with certain time delays between different indices)—a so-called stadium wave (refs. 20,35,36,37)—which we will refer to as the global stadium wave (GSW) or, when referring to the global-mean temperature, Global Multidecadal Oscillation (GMO), although, once again, the oscillatory character of this phenomenon is impossible to establish due to shortness of the data record. The phasing of indices in the GSW is consistent with earlier work (ref. 20), which analysed a limited subset of the Northern Hemisphere climate indices (Supplementary Fig. 6). The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’
Some half of the warming in the past 40 years was natural.
The temperature effect is largely from marine boundary layer stratocumulus feedback to sea surface temperature in the eastern Pacific. The pattern of changing ocean and atmospheric circulation in the Global Stadium Wave is diagnostic of spatiotemporal chaos in the system.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
The cause of that is bistable open or closed cloud cells in Rayleigh–Bénard convection over oceans. Closed cells persist for longer over cooler water before raining out from the center to leave open cells.
e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
You are unfamiliar with many of these terms and concepts. Too much hanging about climate echo chambers and not enough reading actual science.
No, actually most of the variation that it is picking up is from ENSO, which affects CO2 via both temperature diver changes in respiration, but also tropical precipitation.
“You are unfamiliar with many of these terms and concepts. Too much hanging about climate echo chambers and not enough reading actual science.”
Yawn. I am a scientist. I have published papers on climate, I have also published papers on causal inference. I have analysed the data discussed by Prof. Koutsoyiannis, so I know what I am talking about.
As for the stadium wave
““The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.”
Turns out the IPCC was correct and the stadium wave theory wrong, because there was an imminent resumption in warming*
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/best/from:1980/to:2013/plot/best/from:2013
* not that there was ever statistically significant evidence for the existence of a pause (i.e. a change in the underlying rate of warming) in the first place, and the variability was always well explained already by ENSO and volcanic forcing
dik
“ Yawn. I am a scientist. I have published papers on climate,”
By chance, did you ever have the moniker “02”?
I have 2 questions.
Why do you think there are no obvious and significant signals of acceleration in these tidal gauge graphs?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=680-140
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=120-012
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9410660
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
I’m not interested in hearing this is cherry picking because I am interested in only these 4 gauges.
Second question. Why do you think the scientists at EPA failed so miserably when they predicted in 1983 10 feet of sea level rise in decades when it has been only inches?
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
Sorry, I’m not falling for that trick. Evading an inconvenient argument by trying to change the subject is as old as the hills. If you want me to discuss tide trends, first address the argument I made, either by agreeing that the IPCC were right and the stadium wave prediction was wrong, or by refuting my argument.
dik
Lol. Why am I not surprised by your answer. Translation. Those who are trapped in their equations infused bubble can’t handle observational data. Tidal gauges data are proxies for temperatures. Something is wrong with the narrative of catastrophic global warming when we know that sea levels began rising 200 years ago and the on the ground readings don’t show an acceleration required to have runaway sea level rise.
Actually – internal variability has many causes. A major one is cloud over oceans.
‘Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud
fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water
(upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.5,7’ https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4973593
It is in evidence in 20 years of CERES data – see the Norman Loeb – head of NASA’s CERES program – et al paper. The ‘pause’ was caused largely by a decadal scale blip in the state of the Pacific Ocean. Warming reasserted itself after 2016.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/rss-temp.png
The Pacific will shift to a cooler state cooling the planet as it has in the past.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png
Indeed a cool Pacific state has emerged now.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/cb/ssta/ssta.daily.current.png
How long this state will persist for is an unknown. The suggestion is that there is decadal to millennial natural variability.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
And all Mr. Marsupial can do is repeat his meme with a conviction that is at odds with the ideals of science.
CKid What part of
“. If you want me to discuss tide trends, first address the argument I made, either by agreeing that the IPCC were right and the stadium wave prediction was wrong, or by refuting my argument.”
did you not understand. I’ll happily discuss the tide gauges IF you have the manners to address what I wrote. Why should I pay attention to your arguments if you ignore mine?
Robert I. Ellison I note you have evaded the fact that the prediction of the stadium wave of a continued hiatus proved to be false. There is no chance of a productive discussion of science if you ignore the criticisms of your position and merely restate.
Spatiotemporal chaotic state changes in the Pacific tend to persist for 20 to 40 years. These patterns are part of a stadium wave in a globally coupled ocean and atmospheric flow field. Cloud feedback in the tropical and subtropical Pacific has implications for the planetary energy budget.
I’m not sure that the hiatus was more than a decadal scale blip in the warm phase that has persisted since 1976. Regardless – shifts in climate states will happen. The potential is for cool Pacific climate states to persist for centuries.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.jpg
The suggestion is that it is related to the polar annular modes through modulation of polar surface pressure in the Mansurov effect. Low solar activity spins up oceanic gyres resulting in upwelling in the eastern Pacific. The gyre hypothesis.
e.g. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Decadal-Patterns-of-Westerly-Winds%2C-Temperatures%2C-A-Oviatt-Smith/4c7e808e87991c7240015953799e79b11d53bc5a
Judith has decades of experience as an Earth scientist – Marcia Wyatt has a beautiful mind. I doubt that either of them made such categorical claims without appropriate scientific disclaimers.
The emphasis is always on relatively simple physics. Earth sdstem science has surprises in store for both sides in this interminable recapitulation of climate memes.
‘We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example. We also find regular structures on much smaller scales, like the ripples in the windblown sand, the intricate structure of animal coats, the beautiful pattern of mollusks or even in the propagation of electrical signals in the heart muscle. It is the goal of pattern formation to understand nonequilibrium systems in which the nonlinearities conspire to generate spatio-temporal structures or pattern.’ https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos
The math of spatiotemporal chaos is in it’s infancy – we are not about to get definitive answers anytime soon. Might I suggest a different approach?
‘Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science-as-knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world-directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis- (theory-) directed paradigm.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states…’ IPCC TAR 14.2.2
A globally couped flow field has been the key climate science paradigm for decades. Hence the stadium wave.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
Koutsoyianis is a giant in the field of hydrology with impressive analytical skills. . But by all means ignore the abundance of peer reviewed science I link to and rely on your own negligible authority.
*still* evading the fact that the stadium wave prediction about the continuation of the “pause” was wrong.
“Koutsoyianis is a giant in the field of hydrology with impressive analytical skills. . But by all means ignore the abundance of peer reviewed science I link to and rely on your own negligible authority.”
Science doesn’t work on authority, not Koutsoyianis nor mine. What matters is reasoning and evidence. I have given the evidence that Koutsoyianis is wrong on the carbon cycle, and I have explained why. And all you can do is a mix of argument from authority and ad-hominems about reputation (and evasion of the failure of the stadium wave prediction).
Oh for God’s sake – science is hypothesis, analysis and synthesis. Synthesis is the fun bit. Real science has authority because results are replicated – which is why we reference.
I have not evaded anything – there is a comment in moderation that surely will appear in due course. As for the ‘prediction’ extracted from a media source that I searched for and read. It was a perfectly reasonable speculation – until warming reasserted itself in 2016.
https://www.realclimate.org/images/swanson_rc_fig1.jpg
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
Koutsoyiannis is absolutely correct – increased temperature cause an increase in atmospheric CO2. It’s a biological reality that you have not addressed at all. In fact your failure to engage on any point casts a pall over your evidence, reasoning and good faith. You call referencing science an appeal to authority. I put together consilient concepts from many authoritative sources
Decadal scale variability is very real.
https://images.theconversation.com/files/155295/original/image-20170202-27295-1nd8x56.jpg
The IPCC uses models. Each of these models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have an ‘irreducible imprecision’ or ‘evolving uncertainty’ – however one wants to put it. And they are all radically different.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png
Don’t get me wrong – I love models – I was a hydrodynamic modeller for decades. The new generation of Earth system models are very exciting.
I don’t have much problem with your views. Isotopes and oxygen depletion simply suggests that we are burning fossil fuels. A trivial result. But the difference between CO2 levels now and in previous interglacials is human greenhouse gas emissions. You just miss too much to be of much interest to me – and I suppose you would call that ad hom.
“Koutsoyiannis is absolutely correct – increased temperature cause an increase in atmospheric CO2.”
Nobody disagrees with that. They are wrong to claim that there is no causality from CO2 to temperature, their method is unable to detect it because they difference the time series before they analyse it which removes the long term trend, so they can only find causes of the inter-annual variability not the trend. This is the same error made by Humlum et al, and Salby (beloved of this blog).
The reason CO2 levels are rising in the post industrial period is not temperature though, and I have presented multiple lines of evidence in my paper that demonstrates it is purely anthropogenic. The same evidence has been given in all of the IPCC WG1 reports from the first one, so it is not hard to find.
The method of Koutsoyiannis et al. is blind to that as well as their model assumes *all* variation is between temperature and CO2 and any other effect is relegated to an error term that they do not analyze (which is a pity).
” You just miss too much to be of much interest to me – and I suppose you would call that ad hom.”
Yep, one ad-hom too many.
BTW, I have discussed the temperature->CO link, that is one reason why ENSO affects CO2 levels and I have been saying that from the start, so you have misrepresented me, and dealt in ad-homs.
dik
“ I’ll happily discuss the tide gauges IF you have the manners to address what I wrote. ”
No one cares about your bizarre, home grown theories that are a dime a dozen. I gave you a simple assignment and you came up with a great big whiff that would make Tom Morris Sr proud.
“simple assignment”
LOL, I’m not your lackey – do your own homework!
If you have questions, show some genuine skepticism and go and look for the answers yourself and tell us what you find.
dik
“I’m not your lackey…”
Couldn’t prove it by me. It’s going around the campfire that you ordered a tee shirt with “Chief Lackey” printed on the back.
You are taking yourself way too seriously. You have no more insight into what will happen this century than anyone else. Look at the failed predictions on sea level rise. Catastrophic outcomes that were predicted decades ago didn’t happen. They aren’t happening in the future either.. Relax. Enjoy life.
Yawn. Boring!
I actually find science very interesting, I thought this was a science blog where people discussed that stuff. I didn’t realise it was just for echo-chamber & politically motivated trolling. My mistake ;o)
So there is a temperature=>CO2 causal link and you have arguing rubbish all along. Any increase in planetary temperature will cause at increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. And about half of warming over the past 40 years was natural. You claim that no one disagrees with the temperature=>CO2 causal link. Yet in the post industrial period it is all CO2=> temperature. It is quite odd.
‘While we occasionally use the Granger statistical test, this is not central in our approach. Rather, we place the emphasis on time directionality in the relationship, which we try to identify in the simplest possible manner, i.e., by finding the lag, positive or negative, which maximizes the cross-correlation between the two processes (see Section 4.1). We visualize our results by plots, so as to be simple, transparent, intuitive, readily understandable by the reader, and hopefully persuading. For the algorithmic-friendly reader, we also provide statistical testing results which just confirm what is directly seen in the graphs.
Another difference of our study, from most of the earlier ones, is our focus on changes, rather than
current states, in the processes we investigate. This puts the technique of process differencing in
central place in our analyses. This technique is quite natural and also powerful for studying time
directionality [30]. We note that differencing has also been used in a study by Humlum et al. [45],
which has several similarities with our study, even though it is not posed in a formal causality context,
as well as in the study by Kodra et al. [41]. However, differencing has been criticized for potentially
eliminating long-run effects and, hence, providing information only on short-run effects [42,46]. Even if
this speculation were valid, it would not invalidate the differencing technique for the following reasons:
• The short-term effects deserve to be studied, as well as the long-term ones.
• The modern instrumental records are short themselves and only allow the short-term effects to
be studied.
• For the long-term effects, the palaeo-proxies provide better indications, as already discussed above. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83/htm
But I am puzzled by your attitude. Most greenhouse gas emissions – excluding the land sector which has been losing carbon since the advent of agriculture – have happened in the past 40 years. The Mauna Loa series starts in 1960. The short term seems much more relevant. It prompts me to revisit the Ole Humlum et al paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-E-Solheim/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature/links/56e4581508ae68afa1106148/The-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature.pdf
And the most I have said is that you miss too much Earth system science to be taken seriously. If you can’t stand such modest heat – stay out of the kitchen.
dikranmarsupial | June 11, 2022 at 11:17 am |
“It is called Henry’s Law, ”
“No that is half of Henry’s law. For some reason denizens of climate skeptic blogs always forget about the other half. The other half is that the solubility of CO2 is proportional to the ratio of the partial pressure in the air and the concentration in the water. The constant of proportionality is temperature dependent. However, this means if the partial pressure in the air goes up (say because of large-scale use of fossil fuels), then the solubility of CO2 goes up even if temperatures rise.
So which wins out, the temperature sensitivity, or the increase in partial pressure. Well the fact that the oceans are becoming more acidic is an indication that the oceans are taking up carbon, not releasing it. Another indication is the fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising more slowly than anthropogenic emissions, which means that the natural environment is a net sink of carbon and hence is opposing the rise.”
Oceans is many things more than just a water -CO2 solution.
Henry’s law is only a small part in the entire complex equation of the ocean -CO2 balance.
In that equation there are many players (factors), some are stronger and others are less important.
dikranmarsupial
“So which wins out, the temperature sensitivity, or the increase in partial pressure.”
dikranmarsupial, you have asked the right question.
What I think about it is that the increase in partial pressure is not an issue.
The CO2 partial pressure is very small to play any role in the oceans acidification processes.
The CO2 rise partial pressure is even less.
Atmospheric CO2 content doesn’t play any significant role in the oceanic CO2 content.
The rise of oceanic waters temperature -yes, it is a powerful forcing in the oceanic chemistry processes…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos wrote:
“What I think about it is that the increase in partial pressure is not an issue.”
Fine, ignore the physics that doesn’t suit your pet theory.
DM
Harsh.
I really like the essence of your comment however.
Very applicable to all trains of thought here.
Except you and me of course.
And even I can be guilty.
How Climate Change Propaganda Works; Half Truths are Twice the Lie
Just look at these headline:
Man uses car to grill steaks and burgers in scorching Arizona heat
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/man-uses-car-to-grill-burgers-in-scorching-arizona-heat/1200541
Death Valley exceeds 120 F, breaking daily high records
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/death-valley-exceeds-120-f-breaking-daily-high-records/1200250
To Accuweather’s credit they never mention climate change once in their articles, but climate alarmist will use these articles to support their claim on CO2 driven climate change. This kind of heat can only be due to more incoming visible radiation. There is no way to claim this kind of sudden and extreme heat can be due to thermalizing outgoing 15 micron LWIR. Accuweather even mention that the hottest day on record was back in 1913, when CO2 was much lower. Will the alarmists care? Nope, it doesn’t fit the narrative.
The all-time record high in Death Valley is 134 F, a mark that has stood since July 10, 1913, and the weather station there holds the official record for the hottest place on Earth.
This is how Climate Change becomes a real issue, the favorable media simply won’t report any inconvenient truths. This tactic isn’t exclusive to Climate Change, it is the simply the MO of Left Wing Propagandists. This is a very disturbing example. Who could ever trust these sources? If they say one thing, you are best to believe the other. They are all in on Climate Change, and that says a lot about the credibility of Climate Science.
https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1534894840936386560?s=20&t=GfTlBLJD-8uC6j3dRRTEjA
The same cast of characters that have corrupted science, the FBI, CIA, Military, Media, Education and now they are even corrupting our Courts.
https://twitter.com/LindsayAWatts/status/1535717830972387329?s=20&t=b15y5EjF9wcIGvRcdLju5A
https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1535718427716902913?s=20&t=OEQe3hw_Ttfa7Z2qzC9VPg
Corrupting Climate Science is just one of the many fronts the Marxists are waging against America. The best way to defeat freedom and capitalism if to get it to defeat itself. Climate Change is a great weapon to use to destroy the greatest economic system the world has ever known. Why they want to turn America into N Korea is way beyond me, but some people will burn a nation to the ground so they can rule over the ashes.
Dr. Curry, I post a lot on your blog, and it triggers frequent disagreements. I think I have discovered a way for people to test the validity of my comments. I think we can all agree that the laws of Physics don’t cease to exist in certain locations. If that is the case, locations that are controlled for the UHI and Water Vapor should show an increase in high temperatures with an increase in CO2. We are told by the IPCC that Anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for most it not all temperature increase during the Industrial era.
NASA GISS has a very nice tool to identify sites with a very low BI Values.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
Tony Heller has a Tool to chart and download data for the Sites.
http://realclimatetools.com/apps/graphing/index.html?offset_x=0&offset_y=0&scale_x=1&scale_y=1&country=US&state=AL&id=USC00011084&type=TMAX&month=0&day=0&unitsF
Root Site:
http://realclimatetools.com/
One only needs to use the NASA GISS Site to identify Desert Sites with low BI Values and then go to Tony Heller’s site and verify that the High Temperatures are actually rising or falling. Also, you do apples to apples comparisons by selecting only the the month or even the day.
Here are graphs that make it easy to locate stations that show no warming on an average basis.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
As a real scientist, I want to know if I am wrong. I certainly don’t want to be spreading false climate information. Please ask your readers to prove me wrong or validate my claims. Science speaks through data, and I’ve provided the data to do that. My opinion and interpretations is irrelevant, the data speaks the truth. The data has shaped my conclusion…but I may be wrong, and open to others providing hard evidence that I am wrong.
I suggest that climate is a whole lot more complex than you imagine.
CO2isLife
Yes, you are right! I always agree with your posts.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks…and back at you with the agreement on your posts. Keep up the great work.
CO2 in the atmosphere changes with temperature – no real doubt about that. But we are burning fossil fuels – It is the one real difference between this and other interglacials.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2021-07/ClimateDashboard-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-image-20210505-1400px.jpg
Oil and gas have perhaps 20 years of reserves left. Resource rich Australia has 35 years of coal left at current production levels (Geoscience Australia). An energy transition is needed in that timeframe. So why not bite the bullet? The best technology for that is mega-factory fabricated fast neutron, modular reactors. This is not new technology – the latest models will be available off the shelf in the next decade.
Now what are the other global problems to be solved this century?
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/
Better land and water will go a long way to building prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes.
We drove by a coal plant the other day. Nothing to be seen from it but a cloud of steam. The air was clear and clean. I got no problem with coal, and we have enough for several decades while we build out nuclear.
‘A technological transformation is underway to reduce the emissions associated with coal-fired power generation.
Hundreds of new high efficiency, low emissions (HELE) coal-fired plants are in operation, under construction or planned in Europe, North America and East Asia led by China and Japan.
These plants operate at much higher temperatures and greater pressures producing reliable, base load energy while reducing CO2 emissions by up to 40 per cent and reducing all other emissions including particulates to negligible levels.’ https://www.minerals.org.au/coal/climate-change-and-low-emissions-coal-technology
There is nothing sinister about the technology. Efficiency pays for pollutant reduction.
“These plants operate at much higher temperatures and greater pressures producing reliable, base load energy while reducing CO2 emissions by up to 40 per cent “
–
If you burn coal you get CO2 .
The only way to get less CO2 emission is to not burn all the coal.
You could reduce CO2 100% by not burning the coal.
Why is this so difficult to understand
And so easy for people to misrepresent?
–
How does a plant producing energy operate more efficiently at a higher temperature RIE.
Think about it before parroting it.
Higher temperatures require more energy to be wasted in getting to the higher temperature.
No saving there only more expense.
–
Two prime examples are nuclear fusion requiring incredible energy waste to get to a temp that cannot be maintained and then pretending that the fusion induced provides free energy for a millisecond or more.
Not to mention all the equipment , fans etc needed to reduce the aftermath of the high temperatures having to run for hours.
Some hyperbole there.
Second so called carbon storage where you burn even more CO2 to bury some of the CO2 which will just leach back out again.
No CO2 or energy saving there.
There is ample experience with HELE plants to characterise performance. You can be assured that if I quote something it is not done lightly. But I’m with Jim on this. U
… cheap and reliable energy is the goal.
As far as hyperbole is concerned – I bow to the master.
Just pointing out using higher temps to produce energy is not net energy efficient and you cannot get blood out of a stone or less CO2 using a CO2 energy source.
Buying jumbo packs may be cheaper but the amount of chips condumed increases, not stays the same.
I see the ALP is going to fix the hour long energy shortages on the east coast with lots of 10 minute lithium batteries.
The cost would equal 20 coal powered stations with months to recharge using renewables.
Crooks and donkeys
It is the difference between pulverized coal with supercritical steam turbines and steam engines.
There is still an outage at a big and aging Victorian coal powered generator. Last I heard they were aiming to get it going by tomorrow.
We are advised to switch off rather than keep equipment and electronics in standby mode.
CO2 in the atmosphere changes with temperature – no real doubt about that. But we are burning fossil fuels – It is the one real difference between this and other interglacials.
Please show me experimental evidence of that. Show me an experiment thermalizing 15 micron LWIR using 1 out of 2,500 molecules can materially impact the other 2,499 molecules. No one doubts the GHG Effect, but thermalizing LWIR of 15 microns isn’t very much warm to warm anything.
Water Vapor on the other hand absorbs a whole lot of the IR.
Oil and gas have perhaps 20 years of reserves left.
What evidence could you possibly have to support that claim?
Robert I. Ellison | June 12, 2022
CO2 in the atmosphere changes with temperature – no real doubt about that.
–
DM and many others disagree.
So how much?
If a drop in Temp of 1 degree C was to reduce the CO2 back to 280 ppm then that means all the human CO2 production at current rates for 100 years would have no effect on this.
Correct?
That is the rebuttal to DM
It’s about 20 ppm per degree C. The rest is anthropogenic. You are not very good at this are you? But keep trying.
Sorry – that wasn’t terribly helpful. It’s called a Fermi calculation – very useful very often. Back of the envelope calculations to test if you are on the right track. Engineers have an equivalent we call a sanity check.
In this the variability of atmospheric CO2 with temperature.
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_EEYnarb17Mwon7wYfBZ_V6gUQ3hwp6_tpzpPzAMVLRw.png
Robert I. Ellison | June 12, 2022
CO2 in the atmosphere changes with temperature – no real doubt about that.
If a drop in Temp of 1 degree C was to reduce the CO2 back to 280 ppm then that means all the human CO2 production at current rates for 100 years would have no effect on this.
–
Robert I. Ellison | June 13, 2022 at 8:13 pm |
It’s about 20 ppm per degree C. The rest is anthropogenic. You are not very good at this are you? But keep trying.
–
Still trying.
It cannot be 20 ppm per degree C
It has gone up 1 or 1.5 C in 170 years with a140ppm change, so it should go back down again by the same amount??
Are you saying a 1c drop changes the ppm only 20?
If so we should be 7 C warmer, anthropogenic or not.
Help
What matters is the data – paleoproxies in this case – on the change in atmospheric CO2 per degree change in planetary temp between glacials and interglacials in the past 800,000 years. There is about 100 ppm change in CO2 with a temp change of some 5 degrees.
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_EEYnarb17Mwon7wYfBZ_V6gUQ3hwp6_tpzpPzAMVLRw.png
A change in planetary temp alone can’t explain the modern era rise in CO2.
I was able to dig up my R^2 Temp and CO2 Regression spreadsheet. Using Vostok Data a simple Temp and CO2 Regression with Temp as the dependent variable gives an R^2 of 0.745. The Max R^2 is 0.77 when you lag CO2 by 900 to 1100 years in 100 year steps. That is a decent R^2, but because of Henry’s Law the model suffers from Multi-Collinearity where CO2 is a function of Temperature, so you would expect a relatively high R^2, but it doesn’t prove the point Climate Alarmists claim it does. The Pre-Industrial High Temp is over 3 degrees higher than the Industrial Era. To address the problem of CO2 being a function of Temp, one could use a shorter time period with more granular data. You can do that by using the UAH Data. I haven’t done that, but I’m sure the R^2 will be far lower than the Ice Core Relationship, and if you use the data from sites controlled for the UHI and Water Vapor, I’m sure you will get an R^2 close to zero. Anything regresses against a constant 0.00 should give you an R^2 close to zero.
co2islife
“1) Run a regression of CO2 vs. Temp, and publish what the R^2 is. Basically it will be 0.00. A “Science” that relies on a model with 0.00 explanatory power is a joke. ”
also co2islife
“That is a decent R^2, but because of Henry’s Law the model suffers from Multi-Collinearity where CO2 is a function of Temperature, so you would expect a relatively high R^2,”
Funny you didn’t expect it before doing the analysis!
more co2islfie
“but it doesn’t prove the point Climate Alarmists claim it does”
climate science doesn’t say the correlation proves anything, they use physics instead.
The R^2 for modern climate is even higher,
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/05/05/correlation-between-co2-climate-forcing-and-temperature/
Wow!!! This is outright fraud. Read this analysis and ask yourself is there any logical reason a natural phenomenon would somehow base itself upon 280 level of CO2? Really
The R^2 for modern climate is even higher,
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/05/05/correlation-between-co2-climate-forcing-and-temperature/
I’ve pointed out a thousand times that the problem the Climate Alarmists have is the the W/M^2 shows a log decay with in increase in CO2. The more CO2 adds less and less W/M^2, and it doesn’t regress with the temperatures. The above “research” takes CO2 and divides by 280, and they turn a log decay to an log increase. That is insane. They literally invert the real relationship. Simply go to MODTRAN and map it out yourself. Add more CO2 and watch the W/M^2 decay. They literally manipulate the data to totally misrepresent the relationship. If this is what counts are real climate science and this is how they defend this nonsensical “forcing” concept it is a pure fraud. This garbage will never survive cross examination, and you will never be able so support such nonsense with an actual experiment.
Not sure about this comment. I was pretty aware of the issue as my numerous references of Henry’s Law demonstrate. My point is that it isn’t easy to tease out the CO2 due to man or due to warming the oceans. I do know the economic slowdown due to COVID didn’t put a dent in CO2. That is a real problems who claim Man is the cause of higher CO2.
“That is a decent R^2, but because of Henry’s Law the model suffers from Multi-Collinearity where CO2 is a function of Temperature, so you would expect a relatively high R^2,”
Funny you didn’t expect it before doing the analysis!
Rising CO2 levels with higher temps is a feedback. The problem of what caused the warming – natural variability or anthropogenic warming – remains unresolved.
Rising CO2 levels with higher temps is a feedback.
Show me any experimental evidence of this “feedback.” CO2 used to be 7,000 ppm so there must not be too much “feedback.”
Once again, we are dealing with 15 micron LWIR. You don’t have much energy there. Oh, and CO2 can’t warm water. Any “feedback” done by CO2 would be multiplied by thousands by H2O.
Just repeating talking points won’t replace your lack of experimental evidence to back anything you claim.
Oceans are warmed by the sun – a warner atmosphere reduces heat loss. That CO2 flux from land and oceans increases with temperature is really not in much doubt.
CO2 is one of these skeptics zealots who repeat dodgy reasoning endlessly with not the hint of even a back of an envelope calc.
co2 and dikr –
“it isn’t easy to tease out the CO2 due to man”
Actually there is contravailing evidence: 1929-1931(30%drop in human output) and 2020 (10%) – when Arizona State University climate scientist Randall Cerveny, unaware of 1929-1931, expressed his disappointment that “We had had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel and the lack of industry [-10% drop in output] might act as a little bit of a brake. But what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not.”
The 1929-1931 30% drop in human output did not alter the languid rise of CO2 in the slightest.
This is an absolutely wonderful Climate Tool.
http://realclimatetools.com/
Go to Arizona and scroll though all their weather stations. Arizona is largely a desert so it is a natural control for the UHI and Water Vapor Effect. If you click on “Trend” you will see that many stations show a DECLINE in both the Daily High and Daily Low Temperatures. Noting in the CAGW Theory can explain how increasing by 25% or more can result in no warming and even cooling. That is the problem the Climate Alarmists face…the actual data.
No one has ever presented a valid explanation as to why so many weather stations show no warming or even cooling. They just ignore the inconvenient data.
Thanks! It is a neat tool. Is there a way to get precipitation and snow?
‘Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Nina or diminish El Nino impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/8703/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific
The 1000 pound gorilla in the room?
Playing 500 phone typing so many questions and comments for DM
Will try from home tonight.
Please all be civil, if possible, no one wins but our knowledge is improved.
Have made my points on origin and persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Always there.
Plants take it up and microorganisms put it back on a carbon cycle from what is always available.
It cannot go higher by adding more to the atmosphere because the equilibrium puts it back into the earth and sea
*It cannot go lower by taking it out of the air as the ocean has to push out the atmospheric amount demanded by partial pressure equilibrium.
It can go higher and lower only by temperature and pressure changes.
–
* this last point is one Judith might like to consider and comment on.
It certainly needs addressing by DM who seems to have listed at least 3 sets of scientists whose views on this matter (not mine) that he disagrees with, all published, all making substantial points that he disagrees with.
One disagreement OK
Two disagreements a worry
Three disagreements something not adding up to have that many disagreements.
angech
“Please all be civil, if possible”
also angech
“On the other hand you still show an intransigence to the concept of true skepticism by refusing to look at the issues involved that make people want to be skeptical of the GHG effect. Your privilege of course.”
You were the one that started the uncivil behaviour.
“It certainly needs addressing by DM”
I have already given you three lines of evidence that show your position is incorrect and you have not addressed any of them. Don’t expect me to respond any further because you have demonstrated repeatedly that you are not willing to consider the answers to your questions.
dikranmarsupial | June 14, 2022. angech
“Please all be civil, if possible”
–
Life is so unfair.
The comment was not directed to you.
Take umbrage as you will or not.
It was written in the hope that others would make your stay here more pleasant.
I am reading your article and will put up commentary addressing your article and your 3 lines of evidence shortly.
–
Going to Darwin re family matters but have 48 hours to examine your position on CO2.
Your 3 lines of evidence and to consider the answers you gave to my questions.
–
Biases in climate fingerprinting methods by Ross McKitrick
–
This is a wonderful opportunity to do a peer review on a paper even if it is a couple of years old.
The essence of this paper is to magnify and drag out the effects of rising CO2 in support of arguments on the dangers of fossil fuels by the IPCC.
I have no qualms in writing a critique since the paper itself is a critique of the work of previous climate scientists of opposite views.
As such the work should have strong foundations and clear logical supporting arguments
dikranmarsupial | June 11, 2022 On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
Abstract
A recent paper by Essenhigh1 (hereafter ES09) concludes that the relatively short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (5 − 15 years) establishes that the long term (≈ 100 year) rise in atmospheric concentration is not due to anthropogenic emissions, but is instead
caused by an environmental response to rising atmospheric temperature, attributed to “other natural factors”.
Comment. A perfectly logical way of approaching the CO2 temperature relationship. It is said that the economic and political significance of
that conclusion would be self-evident, and indeed most welcome.
Such a relationship is confirmed in comments by DM.
–
A countervailing argument is then put forward.
“Unfortunately however, the conclusion is false; it is straightforward to show, with considerable certainty, that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly
more carbon than it has emitted.
The observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon”
–
Comment.
The paper is attacked, not on the fundamental issue of the correctness of the assertions re temperature, CO2 and residence time, all admitted to be correct but on the conclusion drawn which is at odds with the IPCC demand for CO2 to be present for long periods, rising and creating climate change problems.
This bait and switch technique of “Evading an inconvenient argument by trying to change the subject is as old as the hills”
The argument is
“The carbon cycle includes exchange fluxes that constantly redistribute vast
quantities of CO2 each year between the atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial reservoirs. As a result, the residence time, which depends on the total volume of these fluxes is short.
First flaw
“Residence time is short whether the fluxes are high or low.”
Residence time is not dependent on the concentration of the gases in the atmosphere but on the rate of absorption of those gases by the particular liquid [here water] at that temperature [here, earth ranges] and pressure [here, 1 Atmosphere Earth].
If the concentration is 3 times higher but the rate of absorption and emission is the same then the residence time should not change.
This is a relatively straightforward point [I always get these wrong and stand to be corrected by DM and others]
–
“However the rate at which atmospheric concentrations rise or fall depends on the net difference between fluxes into and out of the atmosphere,”
Such fluxes being due solely due to temperature, pressure and equilibrium balances. Temp up, more out gassing.
Temperature down more uptake by water, [more acidity]
” rather than their total volume, and so the long term rise is essentially independent of the residence time”
Second flaw
How to put out the logic failure.
If the total volume is not related to the rise and fall of the atmospheric concentrations then putting more volume CO2 into the air is not a problem. as it cannot increase or decrease the atmospheric concentration.
[It also puts a rather large dint in an arguments of the IPCC and at ATTP that the residence time is very important and lasts for hundreds if not thousands of years]
–
The crunch claim.
–
“The aim of this paper is to provide an accessible explanation of why the short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely consistent with the generally accepted anthropogenic origin of the observed post-industrial rise in atmospheric concentration.”
Comment again the paper ignores ES09 which contests RIE and DM’s views on anthropogenic origin. It is not generally accepted by many scientists. To say so requires proof.
“First flaw
“Residence time is short whether the fluxes are high or low.”
Residence time is not dependent on the concentration of the gases in the atmosphere but on the rate of absorption of those gases by the particular liquid [here water] at that temperature [here, earth ranges] and pressure [here, 1 Atmosphere Earth].”
Rubbish. Look at the definition of residence time. It is the ratio of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rate at which it is taken out. So it depends on BOTH of those things. The definition is the same both in my paper and in essenhigh’s, and in the IPCC report and just about any paper on the topic.
There is no point in discussing this with you if you are just going to ignore what is actually written in the paper and make stuff up.
“Comment again the paper ignores ES09 ”
The paper is not ignoring ES09, it is pointing out why ES09 is wrong. It pays very close attention to the arguments in ES09 and finds them flawed.
“Second flaw
How to put out the logic failure.
If the total volume is not related to the rise and fall of the atmospheric concentrations then putting more volume CO2 into the air is not a problem. as it cannot increase or decrease the atmospheric concentration.”
No angech, you assert that, but it doesn’t mean it is true, no matter how often you assert it.
“The aim of this paper is to provide an accessible explanation of why the short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely consistent with the generally accepted anthropogenic origin of the observed post-industrial rise in atmospheric concentration.”
–
“It is a widely accepted and clearly stated premise in the reports published by the IPCC2,3) that the residence time (RT) CO2 is only about 5 years”
[ATTP please take note]
Hence anthropogenic emissions cannot be the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 as the residence time is short, of the order of only 4-15 years, and hence rather than accumulate in the atmosphere, anthropogenic emissions are rapidly taken up by the oceans and terrestrial biota.
[All seems to make sense]
But
The error arises due to a confusion of residence time with the adjustment time, which describes the time taken for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to substantially recover towards its original concentration following a perturbation; unlike other atmospheric gasses, the residence time and
adjustment time are not the same for carbon dioxide.
–
Flaw 3 CO2 is a unique gas that does not obey the gas laws?
“We provide intuitive arguments that demonstrate that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon and that the rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere is essentially independent of the residence time.”
Flaw 4 Intuitive or counter intuitive arguments develop but proof needs facts, not theories.
It does not seem very intuitive to say that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere therefore the residence time is not not a factor, even though true, because it is a rate of equilibrium problem , not a supply problem.
People who see higher levels of CO2 tend to think oh it must be staying there longer.
“while the residence time calculations of ES09 are correct,and could be caused by an environmental response to rising atmospheric temperature,
ES09 the conclusion , must be false.”
Flaw 5 saying it does not mean it is correct.
Global Carbon Cycle
“The surface ocean emits some 90.6 GtC yr−1 into the atmosphere, but also takes in approximately 92.2 GtC yr−1
.The net flux of -1.6 GtCyr−1 is negative,indicating that the surface ocean acts a net carbon sink”
the terrestrial biosphere is also a net sink, emitting some 121.2 GtC yr−1 each year through respiration, but taking up approximately 122.6 GtC yr−1 each year”
“20% of the total atmospheric reservoir each year;”
the flux out of the atmosphere,
The residence time is short 762/(92.2 + 122.6) ≈ 3.5 years.”
–
Good points for everyone to hang their hats on. DM does a good job of providing the necessary figure to discuss the conundrum.
–
The money point
The Recent Rise in Atmospheric CO2 is Not a Natural Phenomenon
” Like many common misunderstandings regarding the global carbon cycle, the residence time argument put forward in ES09 fails to consider the fact that natural fluxes into and out of the atmosphere are closely balanced, and hence comparatively small anthropogenic fluxes can have a substantial effect on atmospheric concentrations.”
Flaw Stating that the natural fluxes into and out of the atmosphere are closely balanced is a common misunderstanding that fails to take into account that the atmospheric concentrations are dictated by the ocean temperature and pressure. ES09 does not make this mistake.
There is only so much CO2 the atmosphere can hold, 762GT yr-1 at a temp of 15 C and 1 atmosphere of pressure.
When a large additive event occurs [think volcanoes] an active year can add 5 times as much CO2 as an inactive year but there is no sign of correlation with volcanic activity of large amounts.
Depending on cloud cover, drought and rainfall biomass can vary 10% in a single year or 12,26 Gt.
the biomass CO2 cycle is natural and dependent on the CO2 level as well as the other factors.
The Ocean uptake and out gassing though has to cope with the substantial amounts of CO2 Atmospheric and volcanoes.
While true that the CO2 additiveness is smaller, normally than human input it is still an always present additive CO2 cause.
One could make the same argument for volcanoes causing global warming [he doesn’t] for centuries to come as burning fossil fuels as the mechanism is identical. The earth copes because the gigantic amount of CO2 in the earth and the oceans buffers away almost instantly any added CO2 maintaining the levels at the 762GT yr-1 at a temp of 15 C and 1 atmosphere of pressure.or whatever the temperature changes to.
angech:
“There is only so much CO2 the atmosphere can hold, 762GT yr-1 at a temp of 15 C and 1 atmosphere of pressure.”
Exactly. It is the temperature and the TOTAL atmospheric pressure (a temp of 15 C and 1 atmosphere of pressure) on waters that matters.
Henry’s law doesn’t apply for atmospheric / oceanic CO2 balance.
There is only a tiniest 0,0004 bar CO2 partial pressure on the on average 3.000 meters deep waters…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“That the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations observed since the turn of the industrial revolution is of anthropogenic, rather than environmental origin, can be inferred from observations of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and estimates of anthropogenic emissions, using the principle of conservation of mass. These show that the environment has acted as a net sink throughout the industrial era, and hence cannot be responsible for the observed increase. Assuming that the carbon
cycle is a closed system.”
“dC/dt − Fa = Fi − Fe”
Flaw 7 Assuming that the carbon cycle is a closed system.”
Found it.
We have to think in the real world outside of the classroom.
The real world is not a flask or a Dewar bottle or a narrowly defined closed system that restricts the maths to simple formulae.
The mistake here is in neglecting the earth/ocean interface and only
considering ocean surface atmosphere equilibrium
The dC/dt is the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 and can be determined.
C = νa[CO2] is the mass of atmospheric CO2
Fa = Human emissions, Fi is ocean/terrestial emissions,Fe environmental uptake
Note DM says
“A common objection to arguments relating to the anthropogenic effect on the carbon cycle is based on the fact that the best available estimates of the individual fluxes are highly uncertain, such that the error bars on Fi and Fe are typically larger than the volume of anthropogenic emissions.”
This is not a real objection.
If the assumption is that increasing a load will increase dC/dt then any human activity, even as breath increases that load
If the human contribution is known then that is that load.
The question is however does the load matter at all .
No humans no emissions dC/dt = – Fe drops with environmental uptake
No humans no environmental uptake dC/dt= Fi other emissions
humans, no FI or Fe or equal FiFe dC/dt= all humans fault
–
But if the dC/dt changes because the oceans dC Ocean changes instead, then the whole equation is worthless.
If there are competing unlisted causes of CO2 and volcanoes are separate to biological load, then the term FI needs to specify the natural variable CO2 production that is not due to plants using the normal atmospheric CO2 and returning it to the astmosphere as biomass COP.
If the emissions go up, so does the uptake, whether the emissions are human or not. It is an equal sum equilibrium game independent of load but only dependent on pressure and temperatures.
angech:
“If the emissions go up, so does the uptake, whether the emissions are human or not. It is an equal sum equilibrium game independent of load but only dependent on pressure and temperatures.”
Yes, yes and yes!
“but only dependent on pressure and temperatures.”
As you very much correctly said above, it is dependent on the TOTAL of 1 atmosphere of pressure, and not on the CO2 tiniest partial pressure!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech:
“We have to think in the real world outside of the classroom.
The real world is not a flask or a Dewar bottle or a narrowly defined closed system that restricts the maths to simple formulae.”
Right!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“analysis that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to anthropogenic emissions. Plants exhibit a preference for the lighter 12C isotope of carbon over the heavier 13C and 14C isotopes. As a result,anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel use and deforestation have a lower 12C/13C ratio than the atmosphere. Increasing anthropogenic emissions should therefore result in a decrease in the12C/13C ratio of the atmosphere, and this is indeed what is observed”
Showing some of the CO2 in the air might be from human causation is a fantastic achievement. One could get the same result by looking at fossil fuel consumption Fa without all the maths and uncertainty. That this is causing a rise in the CO2 concentration is a totally different question.
Angech, you are engaging in a Gish Gallop ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop ). I am happy to address your points one by one, provided you engage with my responses. I have already pointed out that your first point (residence time doesn’t depend on concentration) is not true, as the definition of residence time is the amount of CO2 in the reservoir divided by the flux out of the reservoir. This is the same definition that Essenhigh uses, the IPCC uses and every paper that has been published on the subject.
So you have two choices (i) admit that your criticism was invalid or (ii) provide evidence that the residence time does not depend on concentration.
When we have reached agreement on your first criticism we can move onto the second.
Well, he has a third choice. He can be who he is, which has been to attempt to engage you in a perspective that you may not have considered.
This blog has been excellent at providing an environment for open engagement. Your comments here are a great example of that. Particularly since you’ve said nothing about Ross’ post, and yet have been treated fairly well.
“Well, he has a third choice. He can be who he is, which has been to attempt to engage you in a perspective that you may not have considered. ”
No, believe me I have heard all of these arguments many times before. Same mistakes again and again and again. Why do you think Fred Singer urges skeptics to drop them? I would rather the skeptics didn’t marginalise themselves from the discussion by clinging to these canards, but they seem to be determined…
” Particularly since you’ve said nothing about Ross’ post, and yet have been treated fairly well.”
When I don’t have anything to say, I don’t say it. I occasionally look at the recent comments and if I think I have something to say, I do.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that you’re a sharp guy. And you may be correct about ‘all these arguments’. But conversation, give and take, opens up avenues of thought we may not have considered. At the least, it challenges our own assumptions, which over time have a habit of becoming reified mostly through neglect. If I may, an example would be the carbon budget diagram you refer to. It’s nice. Professional. Looks good. But can it really capture the dynamic relationships exactly, let alone all of them? Yes, it provides you a vehicle to move on with your theory. Not unlike climate models as vehicles. But as Ross’ post shows there may be things to consider with the assumptions.
I’m just saying enjoy the conversations here. You’ve given some food for thought, and if you haven’t received any in return … not much anybody can do about that.
DM
Thank you for providing references, very helpful.
“The Gish gallop In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one’s arguments at expense of quality of said arguments”
–
I actually both ran out of steam and also felt I was being too harsh on you so stopped analysis of your paper for a while. You still have a lot of good ideas in the remainder to discuss.
I think my arguments were not a gish gallop but a compilation of the ideas and areas that you need to reconsider or address more fully.
Think of it as if an editor or reviewer sent it back to ensure your ideas are both valid and fully explained.
.
Re “two choices (i) admit that your criticism was invalid or (ii) provide evidence that the residence time does not depend on concentration.”
–
My criticisms appear to me to be valid, that is why I made them. I would not waste your time or expertise otherwise.
Obviously you feel them invalid just as you did when you in turn criticized ES09.
The point is when you publish in peer reviewed journals you must expect people to ask questions. That is only fair.
Ross McKitrick, S.Lewindowski, Gerghis and JC could confirm that.
–
. (ii) provide evidence that the residence time does not depend on concentration.”
–
How can it?
You must be using a different concept of residence time if you think that the concentration affects the residence time.
If I have 1 or a million particles in a closed box I will still have 1 or a million at any later date. Permanent residence time.
If I have 1 or a million particles in a closed box and remove the walls [total output] I have no Residence time of consequence.
If I have 1 or a million particles in a closed box which has input and out put sources then the residence time of the particle or all the particles is purely dependent on the rate of flow of particles in and out but is still the same for all particles irrespective of concentration.
–
Please explain the concept of residence time that you are referring to me so I can see where I have gone wrong?
Whoops , got it.
dikranmarsupial
“The definition of residence time is the amount of CO2 in the reservoir divided by the flux out of the reservoir. This is the same definition that Essenhigh uses, the IPCC uses and every paper that has been published on the subject.”
–
I”PCC the atmospheric residence time of the greenhouse gas – [between 5-200 years! table 1 page 38] is a highly policy relevant characteristic.Namely, emissions of a greenhouse gas that has a long atmospheric residence time is a quasi-irreversible commitment to sustained radiative forcing over decades, centuries, or millennia, before natural processes can remove the quantities emitted.”
“The IPCC actually gives a residence time of about 4 years in the 2007 AR4 WG1 report (see page 948)
The confusion arises because there are two definitions of “lifetime” that describe different aspects of the carbon cycle.
The turnover [residence] time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years ”
This implies that the IPCC actually uses 2 different residence time descriptions DM.
with a range of from 4 to 200 years .
Further the terms they use do not equate with your definition.
You say the flux out of the reservoir, they say the flux through the reservoir content.
Flux out is different to flux through as there is more CO2 being added as well as going out.
Also the term “the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it” implies a different definition of residence time to that the have given
Whoops , got it.
dikranmarsupial
“The definition of residence time is the amount of CO2 in the reservoir divided by the flux out of the reservoir. This is the same definition that Essenhigh uses, the IPCC uses and every paper that has been published on the subject.”
Essentially it is a double negative problem in English or a cancellation problem in mathematics is it not?
Since the same term is used in both the numerator and denominator they cancel out and do not effect the quality being quoted.
Using your definition which is not quite right?
Anybody else help us out here?
i.e. residence time equals amount in reservoir divided by the amount going out per unit time.
When the amount that goes out per unit time is the same amount as the amount already in there. Hence the residence time you describe is basically the flow rate time independent of the concentration, ie not related at all to the concentration at all.
I rest my case.
“Essentially it is a double negative problem in English or a cancellation problem in mathematics is it not?
Since the same term is used in both the numerator and denominator they cancel out and do not effect the quality being quoted.”
No, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the same as the rate at which it is taken out. One is an amount of something, the other is a rate, they don’t even have the same units. It is ridiculous to claim that they are the same and cancel out.
“I rest my case.”
Sorry, I have wasted enough time on this. If you just make stuff up and then defend it by saying something self-evidently wrong, it shows you will say anything to avoid admitting you are wrong.
dikranmarsupial | June 16, 2022 at 2:50 am |
“Essentially it is a double negative problem in English or a cancellation problem in mathematics is it not?
Since the same term is used in both the numerator and denominator they cancel out and do not effect the quality being quoted.”
No, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the same as the rate at which it is taken out. One is an amount of something, the other is a rate, they don’t even have the same units. It is ridiculous to claim that they are the same and cancel out.
–
Your definition of residence time is the amount of CO2 in the reservoir divided by the flux out of the reservoir.
The flux is amount of CO2 per time out of the atmosphere.
Units time and amount
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the other amount
Units amount.
Both amounts are in the same units.
The only other variable is the time.
You get the residence time by dividing one amount by the other.
The result is a time period. no areas in it at all that is why it is called a residence time, not a flux,not an amount.
Even though you contrasted two amounts to get it the units [amounts ] cancel out.
–
” If you just make stuff up and then defend it by saying something self-evidently wrong, it shows you will say anything to avoid admitting you are wrong.”
You and I are so alike, I’m a little more pigheaded and stubborn, but I’m not the one saying anything to avoid admitting I’m are wrong.”
angech “Both amounts are in the same units.”
no, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is measured in GtC (giga tons of carbon) the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere is measured in GtC per year, the units are not the same.
This discussion has reached the point of complete absurdity.
Let’s remind ourselves where angech started:
“First flaw
“Residence time is short whether the fluxes are high or low.”
Residence time is not dependent on the concentration of the gases in the atmosphere but on the rate of absorption of those gases by the particular liquid [here water] at that temperature [here, earth ranges] and pressure [here, 1 Atmosphere Earth].”
The I point out that the residence time is the ratio of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (which is proportional to it’s concentration as it is such a small fraction of the mass) divided by the rate at which it is taken out.
If I have a sweet jar with forty sweets in it and every day I pick a sweet at random and eat it and then put in a new sweet to replace it, the residence time is 40/1 i.e. 40 days. If I do the same with a jar containing 400 sweets, then on average a sweet will last ten times longer in the jar before it is consumed and replaced, i.e. the residence time will be 400 days.
This is analogeous to the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the average length of time a molecule of CO2 lasts in the atmosphere before it is replaced by the exchange fluxes.
Arguing that the residence time does not depend on the concentration of CO2 is obviously incorrect, and angech is showing that he *will* say anything to avoid admitting he is wrong, that is demonstrably what he has done.
dikranmarsupial:
“If I have a sweet jar with forty sweets in it and every day I pick a sweet at random and eat it and then put in a new sweet to replace it, the residence time is 40/1 i.e. 40 days. If I have a sweet jar with forty sweets in it and every day I pick a sweet at random and eat it and then put in a new sweet to replace it, the residence time is 40/1 i.e. 40 days. If I do the same with a jar containing 400 sweets, then on average a sweet will last ten times longer in the jar before it is consumed and replaced, i.e. the residence time will be 400 days., then on average a sweet will last ten times longer in the jar before it is consumed and replaced, i.e. the residence time will be 400 days.”
What angech tries to explain is that ” If I do the same with a jar containing 400 sweets…” it will last for 40 days too, because you cannot (in that, very much different occasion) “pick a sweet at random and eat it and then put in a new sweet to replace it, the residence time is 40/1 i.e. 40 days…
What you will do is to pick 40 sweets every day, and not a sweet every day, in the case you had a jar containing 400 sweets…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What you will do is to pick 40 sweets every day, and not a sweet every day, in the case you had a jar containing 400 sweets…”
For the carbon cycle that hypothesis doesn’t survive first contact with the data. See figure 1 of my paper. Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 has gone from 597GtC to 762 GtC, an increase of 27.6%. Over that time the flux out of the atmosphere has gone from 190.2 GtC/year to 215 GtC/year, which is only about 13%. So the flux out of the atmosphere clearly hasn’t kept up with the change in atmospheric CO2, and thus the change in atmospheric CO2 has also been a factor in the change in the residence time (from 3.13 years to 3.54 years).
Note the change in the flux is in the direction (an increase) that would bring residence time down, but it has instead gone up.
dikranmarsupial
“So the flux out of the atmosphere clearly hasn’t kept up with the change in atmospheric CO2…”
Oceans became a bit warmer… Earth experiences a global warming trend for some millennia now. It is a very slow but it is a steady orbital forced process…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I give up. The data show that you are wrong, if you can’t accept that, and need to shift the goalposts I am wasting my time.
dikranmarsupial, please correct me, if I am wrong, but what you say is that CO2 rise in Earth’s atmosphere is the cause of global warming…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“dikranmarsupial, please correct me, if I am wrong, but what you say is that CO2 rise in Earth’s atmosphere is the cause of global warming…”
I haven’t said anything about that in this discussion. I have just been explaining that we know the rise in CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. There is no point in trying to discuss radiative physics with someone that can’t accept that.
It seems to me you are just trying to change the subject to hide the fact that I showed that your assertion was incorrect and you have no answer.
“I haven’t said anything about that in this discussion.”
Why I have that impression then? Maybe you didn’t use the exact words, but you are convinced, why otherwise you mentioned about some of the scientists as skeptics?
We do not call scientists skeptics, no matter what their opinions are.
https://www.cristos-vourna.com
Dikran, I am pretty sure this ratio argument is false: “If I have a sweet jar with forty sweets in it and every day I pick a sweet at random and eat it and then put in a new sweet to replace it, the residence time is 40/1 i.e. 40 days.”
The flux is about 25% of the concentration but the estimated residence time is around 6 years.
“The flux is about 25% of the concentration but the estimated residence time is around 6 years.”
There is a fair bit of variation in estimates of residence time depending on the method by which it is estimated, the IPCC give a time of about 4 years IIRC. There are a number of other estimates here:
https://skepticalscience.com/dodgy_diagrams_1_residence_time.html
The IPCC figure of about 4 years is consistent with the estimate from the simple model given in my paper.
Also, Dikran, I cannot imagine where you are getting flux amounts to 4 significant figures, since flux is not measured. We really have no idea what the flux amount is any given year, although I am sure it varies considerably. I doubt we know it to two figures.
BTW it isn’t a “ratio argument” – that is the definition of residence time. See the glossary of the IPCC WG1 report
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf
page 1457
“Turnover time ( T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the
ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the
atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M/S.
For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In
soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.”
The terminology has varied from one report to another, but turnover time and residence time are the same thing. This is probably because of the widespread confusion between residence times and adjustment times (see the SkS article I wrote about that that I linked to in the previous comment)
Re the residence time literature I have seen a list of 20 to 30 estimates and as I recall they mostly ranged from 6 to 8 years. The math gets very hairy.
One cannot make physics by definition. The actual average residence time can be a complex function of a complex process. The literature exhibits this.
Fine, the IPCC scientists who wrote the chapter on the carbon cycle (having spent their careers studying it) and the relevant parts of the glossary are wrong.
The definition arises from the assumption that the sources and sinks don’t discriminate between molecules of CO2 and take them up at random. Obviously some sinks have modest isotopic preferences, but they don’t prefer some 12C over other 12C. If you disagree, then present the physics.
I suspect that there is more C-14 in burnt biomass than fossil fuel emissions – as in C14 in fossil fuels has decayed to a stable product – C-13 or C-12.
see: https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/isotopes/chemistry.html#:~:text=Both%2012C%20and%2013,eight%20neutrons%20in%20its%20nucleus.
Imagine several creeks draining to a water storage with a spillway. Dry season flow is essentially groundwater seepage from intermediate soil stores. The sub-catchments merge in the storage and flow over a spillway. If a farmer in on sub-catchment adopted regenerative practices increasing surface roughness and soil infiltration – dry season baseflow over the crest increases. I’m sure everyone will ultimately join our farmer in landscape restoration.
Increased flow in causes level and volume in the storage to increase until flow over the crest increases to bring about a new equilibrium. In the storage molecules from the now more profitable farm mix indiscriminately with all others and surge out to the sea. Or – to drop the allegory – the lithosphere=>atmosphere=>ocean carbon cycle.
“I cannot imagine where you are getting flux amounts to 4 significant figures, since flux is not measured.”
They are from Figure 1 in my paper which is reproduced from the IPCC WG1 report. I think I pointed that out up thread.
” We really have no idea what the flux amount is any given year, although I am sure it varies considerably. I doubt we know it to two figures.”
That is exactly why estimates of residence time from observations are so variable, they depend on the flux estimates available at the time. They have improved over the years, so it is unsurprising if modern figures are slightly different to those from papers from the 1950s and 60s. There are “Carbon Budget” papers released most years, e.g.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1917/2022/essd-14-1917-2022.html
which give the figures and their uncertainties and IIRC the details of where the data come from, so if you are interested in the uncertainties, that is the place to look.
However, the mass balance argument tells us the overall net flux to an accuracy of about 10%, which is way more than enough to know beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise rather than causing it. That skeptic blogs like this one can’t give up even this most basic fact speaks volumes.
I’m done, I am wasting my time here, if people want to believe these canards that were debunked decades ago, rather than look at topics where there is genuine interest and uncertainty (e.g. feedbacks and ECS), that is your choice and I’ll leave you all to it.
dik
You stated above that you have published papers on climate.
I would like to read the 3 papers you have published that you consider your best work.
Please provide links to those papers so I can read your work.
Read the one I have already posted as it is relevant to this discussion. If you are interested, go to google scholar and pick from my other ones (note machine learning is my field, but I’ve enjoyed applying ML methods to climate data, my best papers are in ML).
One would suspect that burning fossil fuels has an isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.
RIE.
One of the funniest comments I have read for a long time.
–
One would suspect that burning fossil fuels has an isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.
Understated, succinct, insightful and totally unexpected.
angech, it shouldn’t be “totally unexpected” it is one of the three lines of evidence that I pointed out to you refute your position.
If it is totally unexpected, it is just an admission that you have not paid attention to what was said.
dikranmarsupial
Just saw your comment to Kid. On the subject of ML/AI, have you ever come across this:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-005-9002-y
It’s not my area (ML is essentially computational statistics/probability), but according to Google scholar it is well cited, which suggests it is an interesting/useful paper. Can’t venture more than that (also behind a paywall, so only read the abstract).
The paper is interesting, as an AI researcher through investigating how a computer can become sentient asks questions that ultimately point us in the direction of why life is life. The bibliography has many great thinkers on the subject, not the least of which is Hans Jonas.
that isn’t what I am working on. I don’t think sentient computers would be a net benefit or particularly useful. There is a lot of talk about this, but it is further off than nuclear fusion as a power source, and that has been 30 years away for at least the last forty. As I said, ML is computational statistics.
I heard you the first time, ML. I’m not so sure about sentience in computers, either. What’s attractive about Di Paolo’s paper is: “I will propose to make explicit this aspect of living beings: that of adaptivity or the capacity of an organism to regulate itself with respect to the boundaries of its own viability.” He goes on with sense-making, internal/external regulation and meaningful perspective. He digs deep into what makes us us.
I would hope there are more collaborative (interdisciplinary) efforts like this in academia. Philosophy, biology and computer science. As they say in NYC … Go figure!
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-005-9002-y is an interesting demonstration of polysyllabic obfuscation of meaning and sense. Would it be too simplistic to translate that abstract as: Sentience is characterized by adaptation to the unanticipated, and a computer at this time, a programmed entity, does not satisfy that requirement.
As you all know I am the soul of patience. Daisy tells me all the time. But diknoramous has crossed a threshold common in climate zealots of supercilious disdain. Defenders of truth.
And you know I have problems with sceptics. Theirs is a tower of Babel. Defenders of idiosyncratic notions.
If I can see further said Sir Isaac – it’s because I stand on the shoulders of giants.
Defenders of science.
and snide comments from angech as well.
O.K. I can see I am no longer welcome in you echo chamber.
I was not rude to you, and stuck to the science, shame you couldn’t do the same.
Careful. you may be only stepping on the toes of giants.
I guess you would still see further than before and in less danger of being squashed
Be careful that what you ae treading on is not the throat of science.
We were given in some seminar an AGW graphic from the then freshly minted AR1. It looked reasonable. I went back to hydroclimatology of the Pacific Basin. It’s been a big part of my professional development – hydrological engineer and environmental scientist – over the years.
30 odd years later I’m thinking we can see the evolution of the stadium wave in reanalysis product surface temperature.
ah, childish insults now. Great blog this is.
the Incomplete Equation (the Planet Effective Temperature Te):
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
should be abandoned because it is very much wrong!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is founded on real world observations. The equation is derived mathematically for an ideal blackbody. Whether Earth departs from the ideal as radically as you claim is another question.
Expect an exponential increase in radiation from the planet with increasing temperature. It’s the negative Planck feedback.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law is founded on real world observations. The equation is derived mathematically for an ideal blackbody. Whether Earth departs from the ideal as radically as you claim is another question.”
Earth is a planet, like any other planet we know in solar system.
Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said anything about planets being ideal blackbodies.
What I did in my research was to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures for every known planet and moon in solar system, Earth included.
When I wrote the New equation, yes I was expecting something, but the results were successful beyond any expectations.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also:
Two planets with the same mean surface temperature can emit dramatically different amounts of energy.
Moon’s average surface temperature is Tmoon = 220 K
Mars’ average surface temperature is Tmars = 210 K
Moon’s average surface Albedo a =0,11
Mars’ average surface Albedo a =0,25
It can be demonstrated that for the same Albedo Mars and Moon would have had the same average surface temperature.
The solar flux on Moon is So =1361W/m²
The solar flux on Mars is S =586W/m²
It is obvious, that for the same average surface temperature, the emitted amounts of energy from Moon are dramatically higher than the emitted amounts of energy from Mars.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And
Two planets with very different mean surface temperatures may emit the same amounts of energy.
Earth’s average surface temperature Tearth =288K
Moon’s average surface temperature Tmoon =220K
Solar flux at Earth’s orbit is So =1361W/m²
Earth’s average surface Albedo a =0,306
Moon’s average surface Albedo a =0,11
It can be demonstrated that if Moon had Earth’s average surface Albedo then Tmoon =210K
What we observe here is a 78C the average surface temperature difference, and yet two planets (Earth and Moon) emit the same amounts of energy.
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which makes the very significant difference.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth emits more longwave energy simply because there is so much more surface area to absorb the power flux from the sun. And yet again most power flux radiated by the planet does NOT originate at the surface whatever the temperature there is.
Earth is at its Aphelion point on its orbit around the sun right now.
When comparing with the Perihelion point, which is at January 2, the solar irradiance Earth receives now is 7% less. As a result we have at the North Hemisphere much cooler summers and much warmer winters.
In 10.000 (ten thousand) years from now, Earth’s axis will be pointing at star Vega, instead of Polaris at which it points now. So in 10.000 years the Winter Solstice will occur when Earth is in Aphelion (it happens now with Earth in Perihelion).
As a result in 10.000 years we would have at the North Hemisphere much warmer summers and much cooler winters.
A shift of 7% in the Hemispheres’ insolation intensity will happen.
Instead of the Southern Hemisphere (as it happens now) with its vast oceans accumulative capacity… there would be a +7% stronger insolation on the North Hemisphere’s plethora of continental areas.
We know continents do not accumulate heat so much effectively as oceans do, thus Earth will gradually cool down, until a New Ice Age commences!
As for the current warming phase – we still receive the +7% solar energy onto Southern Hemisphere’s oceans… and oceans willingly accumulate the excess solar energy…
It happens so during the current Winter Solstices, when Earth is still tilted towards sun with its Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For God’s sake – I’m not going down yet another rabbit hole with you.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/argo-200m.jpg
There is an annual cycle in ocean heat due to less land area in the south. Runaway ice sheet growth in glacials are triggered by reduced AMOC in low NH summer insolation. This feedbacks into atmospheric CO2. Recent warming is the result human greenhouse gas emissions and cloud changes largely in the eastern Pacific.
Robert:
“Runaway ice sheet growth in glacials are triggered by reduced AMOC in low NH summer insolation. This feedbacks into atmospheric CO2. Recent warming is the result human greenhouse gas emissions and cloud changes largely in the eastern Pacific.”
Robert, you are terribly mistaken here!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On balance – I think I am far more likely to be much more right than you.
“Recent warming is the result human greenhouse gas emissions…”
But you are putting the blame for global warming on humans…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I attribute recent warming to natural variability and AGW. Both are there with little doubt
That is why you are supporting the “Planet Rotational Warming” Theory then.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s one of the 6 impossible things I try to believe before breakfast.
Have a good day, Robert!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law is founded on real world observations. The equation is derived mathematically for an ideal blackbody. Whether Earth departs from the ideal as radically as you claim is another question.”
Earth is a planet, like any other planet we know in solar system.
Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said anything about planets being ideal blackbodies.
What I did in my research was to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures for every known planet and moon in solar system, Earth included.
When I wrote the New equation, yes I was expecting something, but the results were successful beyond any expectations.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wow, the comments are sure something. Even more exiting than the article itself, keep it up guys.
This is the exact same approach I’ve been taking, and have gotten the exact same response.
For 25 years, Professor Plimer has been asking fellow scientists to provide even one study that clearly shows human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing global warming. To date, he maintains no such proof has been offered.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/scientist-reveals-how-the-new-green-religion-is-a-socialist-trojan-horse/
Perhaps if we try to see from satellites if planetary IR emissions change over time? And then replicate the result a couple of times.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
This is a report dikranmarsupial used to support the R^2 between CO2 and Temp.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/05/05/correlation-between-co2-climate-forcing-and-temperature/
I’ve posted a thousand times a graphic of CO2 and W/M^2, and how it shows a log decay that can easily be demonstrated through experimentation. No one on the face of the earth denies that.
The problem that creates for the Climate Alarmists is that they claim Temp = f(CO2), and because CO2 is relatively linear, they have to “adjust” the Temp data to make that relationship fit. The problem is, Temp isn’t a function of CO2, Temp is a function of log(CO2). In reality Temp = f(W/M^2).
Because of that inconvenient relationship, the source provided by dikranmarsupial literally manufactures a completely unjustifiable manipulation to that formula, and turns a log decay to a log increase. The only way you come up with the concept of dividing by 280 is if you have a conclusion already in mind, and you are torturing the data to get a certain answer. No way in hades would Mother Nature arbitrarily divide CO2 by the exact Pre-Industrial Levels of CO2. Mother Nature doesn’t know what pre-industrial CO2 was, and she once had CO2 over 7,000 ppms, and it didn’t cause warming.
Any computer scientist , econometrician, Statistician, Mathematician or modeler would have seen this as a fraud. Only in Climate “Science” does that nonsense pass the stink test.
Hate to say it again for the nteenth thousand time, but I’m not a climate scientists and I I’ve been saying this for years. If you can’t explain the warming of the oceans with CO2 and 15 micron LWIR, then you can’t blame CO2. I’ve pointed out a thousand times that visible radiation warms the oceans, and that fewer clouds over the oceans would be the cause of the warming oceans. Guess what? Someone actually just published an article proving the point. If I, a non-climate scientist, can discover the scientific truth and the real climate scientists can’t, that proves they simply aren’t looking for the real answers. The true causes of warming are so obvious to anyone that takes 3 seconds to understand the basics.
The upward trend in sunshine duration since the 1980s can easily explain any warming across Europe during this period. Variability in sunshine duration is natural and occurs “without reference to anthropogenic aerosol.”…The authors have found conclusive evidence Mann’s so-called thesis is “inconsistent with both empirical data and modeling results” and, more directly, Mann’s claims are “not reflected in reality.”
https://notrickszone.com/2022/06/16/scientists-link-1950s-present-climate-change-in-europe-to-sunshine-duration-natural-factors/
I hope everyone is enjoying this posting [apart from Ross who has not commented yet].
Biases in climate fingerprinting methods is only one of the many biases shown by proponents of both viewpoints.
–
We are lucky to have an esteemed author of papers commenting here on my critique of his paper even if he is refusing to budge from point 1
–
I see this as a microcosm of the views and biases affecting science today.
DM is a true skeptic and has given opinions commented for a blog about the values of scientific skepticism and not taking peoples views at face value without proper scientific back up for many years.
It is sad therefore to see him tie himself in a knot defending the indefensible over 1 minor point where he is wrong.
He will not agree and gives only one of the definitions of residence time which leads to his quandary.
More on that in a second.
My thanks to Bill Fabrizio and David Wojick for asking more questions in a non judgemental manner, also to RIE and Christos and CO2 is life for engaging. Thanks for the two interesting concepts.
Three problems,
1. the choice of a car behind one of three doors, then the choice after being shown one of the other two doors is wrong.
Amazingly 60% of clever people get it wrong………
2. CO2 is life’s flask problem
Amazingly he and DM get it wrong….
3. The definition of residence time
DM states an example then gives an incorrect answer
CV saves the day with this neat explanation | June 16, 2022 7:11 am |
“If I have a sweet jar with forty sweets in it and every day I pick a sweet at random and eat it and then put in a new sweet to replace it, the residence time is 40/1 i.e. 40 days”. etc.
dikranmarsupial | June 16, 2022 does not get it despite espousing this definition he responds
“For the carbon cycle that hypothesis doesn’t survive first contact with the data”
–
It is not a hypothesis it is probability theory.
The hypothesis cannot be destroyed by data.
Worse his whole paper is built around residence time and probability but he refutes probability theory at the first mismatch.
Unless one is Einstein the choice of whether the data interpretation is right or the probability theory is wrong demands that data interpretation is the culprit.
Interesting?
Dodgy Diagrams #1 – Misrepresenting IPCC Residence Time Estimates
Posted on 19 February 2014 by Dikran Marsupial, John Cook
There are a number of diagrams that frequently crop up in discussions of climate change in the blogsphere that are easily demonstrated to be, at best misleading, if not actually fundamentally wrong. A classic example is shown below, which suggests that the IPCC’s estimate of residence time is at odds with those from a wide range of scientific studies.
Hoist with one’s own petard, happens a lot when doing up knots
DM on the definition of residence time”
” It is the ratio of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rate at which it is taken out.”
then says
“The definition is the same both in my paper and in essenhigh’s, and in the IPCC report and just about any paper on the topic.
Yet the IPCC disagrees totally
In it’s glossary which DM thankfully appended and is quite detailed it gives no specidic link to residence time at all.
Weird but understandable.
However on looking up adjustment time [ Which DM claims is completely different to residence time at
” – Misrepresenting IPCC Residence Time Estimates Posted on 19 February 2014 by Dikran Marsupial, John Cook”
we still find no definition of residence time or adjustment time but a link to
Lifetime
” Lifetime is a general term used for various time scales characterizing the rate of processes affecting the concentration of trace gases.
The following lifetimes may be distinguished:
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the
ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the
atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M/S.
For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined.
In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.
Adjustment time or response time (Ta) is the time scale characterizing the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir. The
term adjustment time is also used to characterize the adjustment of
the mass of a reservoir following a step change in the source strength.
Half-life or decay constant is used to quantify a first-order exponential
decay process.
See Response time for a different definition pertinent to
climate variations.
The term lifetime is sometimes used, for simplicity, as a surrogate for
adjustment time.
In simple cases, where the global removal of the compound is directly
proportional to the total mass of the reservoir, the adjustment time
equals the turnover time: T = Ta. An example is CFC-11, which is
removed from the atmosphere only by photochemical processes in the
stratosphere. In more complicated cases, where several reservoirs are
involved or where the removal is not proportional to the total mass,
the equality T = Ta no longer holds.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about 4 years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere
and the ocean and terrestrial biota.
However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within
a few years. Thus, the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere is
actually determined by the rate of removal of carbon from the surface
layer of the oceans into its deeper layers.
Although an approximate value of 100 years may be given for the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere, the actual adjustment is faster initially and slower later on.
In the case of methane (CH4), the adjustment time is different from
the turnover time because the removal is mainly through a chemical
reaction with the hydroxyl radical (OH), the concentration of which
itself depends on the CH4 concentration. Therefore, the CH4 removal
rate S is not proportional to its total mass M.”
the IPCC disagrees totally.
I should put in capitals.
The IPCC admits that residence time has a number of definitions enabling them to give a figure of 4-200 years for the residence time when they want to mislead people about the amount of time CO2 stays in the atmosphere.
DM on the definition of residence time”
” It is the ratio of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rate at which it is taken out.”
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the
ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the
atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M/S.
So is he talking about residence time turnover time (T) or global atmospheric lifetime ? Hint they are different DM
DM asks 2014
“Could it be that the IPCC report is wrong and gives an estimate of residence time that is clearly at odds with the peer reviewed research”
–
Yes
O.K. angech, I’ll leave you to your belief/hubris. If you want to make climate skeptics look foolish, it is your choice. I wrote the paper in the hopes that it would prevent that to some extent and improve the dialogue, boy was I even naive! LOL!
dikranmarsupial, your opinions are in accordance with the main stream dominating in Climate Science.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is so much guessing going on with fluxes that subjective “arguments from data lack” could be proposed as a category for logic arguments.
There seems to be no data-based way to determine if a location on the global surface is a source or a sink, apart from direct indicators like vegetation increase/decrease. I know of no instrument that can be placed over a spot of ocean to measure the direction of flow of CO2. Over land, a tree phytometer can sort of answer part of the question.
The NASA global maps showing CO2 abundance in the air column do not allow demarcation of source and sink. In a thought bubble, one can have an area low in CO2 because (a) a sink below is depleting it or (b) another nearby area is a demanding sink that is drawing the gas away.
Most methods to differentiate source and sink are circular because they start with a basic assumption that they then fill. Like, CO2 emissions from global estimates of burned coal, wood etc cause an assumption that this will raise CO2 levels in the air by a corresponding amount before sinks are estimated. What if the emissions from strong point sources are partly absorbed by local sinks before the gas gets close to Mauna Loa? Why is there still no signal of ML CO2 from the Covid lockdowns? Why are large volcanos not detected from their CO2? Why did radiogenic C reach ocean floors so quickly and did that cause large revision of ‘settled’ science?
It is shockingly bad science to pretend that all is sorted, to the finality that political decisions of mind-boggling magnitude can be made. Geoff S
DM ” boy was I even naive!”
–
No, not naive.
Do not run yourself down.
You have done a lot of good work over a lot of years and probably taught whole new generations of students
You fervently believe in the science and work you are doing.
There is scope for a warming world with CO2 emissions as you and many others point out.
There is scope for both a worsening world and a better world with more science and an expanding population with wrecking of the environment by humans a major issue.
I enjoy discussing the science and feel much freer discussing some of the ideas with you as you do generally give very considered answers with complete references and put the hard yards in.
No apologies, you have made my mind active and distracted me from the worries of the world for the last 5 days and that in itself is is a fantastic benefit.
You have had the benefit of a free, friendly critique and a review of your ideas. plus a chance to post on another of the better blogs on climate.
Fair is fair.
At least we got to step 1 this time and if you or I can come up with a better definition of residence time[s] please put it up for discussion.
Or not.
There is about 210 gigatons of carbon removed from 800 gigatons in the atmosphere every year – and about the same returned. And it does go both ways – despite diknoramus’ trenchant protestations at the ignorance of Dimitris Koutsoyiannis.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
For climate it means SFA. There is instead a slow accumulation in the atmosphere in recent decades because sources exceed sinks. The 9 gigaton C emitted by people has a big part to play in that.
But we can regenerate landscapes to shift the balance to accumulation. Rattan Lal estimates that the carbon content of 150 ppm of CO2 could be socked away by 2100. Nothing so grandiose as geoengineering – just state of the art land and water management on a global scale. I have read case studies from all over the world.
e.g. https://understandingag.com/case_studies/las-damas-ranch-case-study/
Note the tripling of production with adaptive grazing.
“Carbon dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and other biological materials, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.“
This is the American EPA misinformation
CO2 is always in the atmosphere irrespective of any of the sources listed above.
In a world with no fossil fuels, no trees or cement there would still be just as much CO2 in the atmosphere.
As of 2018, CO 2 constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) which corresponds to approximately 3210 gigatonnes of CO 2, containing approximately 875 gigatonnes of carbon.
Why is the CO2 in the air?
Because CO2 is a substance that can only exist as a gas at the temperatures and pressures found on the earth.
If cold enough to freeze it directly turns into a solid at earth atmospheric pressures.
CO2 in the atmosphere is a stable gas is in equilibrium with the CO2 and CO2/H2O components like H2CO3 .
The CO3 in the water is in equilibrium with the enormous store off calcium carbonate in the earths crust, both at the bottom of the oceans and also with all in ground and underground sources of water.
The oceans are at a pH of 8.10 .
The earth at the ocean floor is ore also at a pH of 8.10.
Why some might ask ?
An easy response was that if the earth was more acid, for instance, it would keep putting acid into solution and the oceans would be more acidic.
Which they are not.
Rain water is generally acidic because the rainwater gets pure CO2 in without having to be in equilibrium with the earth.
When it hits the earth, which is generally basic, having had rainfall on it for eons which eventually runs into the sea ( if it was acid the sea would eventually turn acid , remember) the water becomes basic at pH8.10.
Yes there are exceptions with plants and volcanoes, acid and salt springs but if they were always acid?
The sea would be acid.
Upshot?
CO2 is always in the atmosphere.
It resides there at 875 Gt C
It comes from calcium carbonate dissolving in water.
At the surface at 1earth atmosphere and average temp 15C it keeps the atmospheric CO2 at 875 Gt C
What makes it change on the earth .
A shift in the water atmosphere equilibrium due to the temperature getting hotter or colder.
Who said with childlike wonder
“And it does go both ways – despite diknoramus’ trenchant protestations at the ignorance of Dimitris Koutsoyiannis”
Not the same person who denies that temperature causes a CO2 increase?
Sadly so.
“There is instead a slow accumulation in the atmosphere in recent decades because sources exceed sinks.”
Evidence of this is easily found in the data. When COVID hit, the global economy dramatically decreased fossil fuel consumption, and the atmospheric CO2 didn’t even register a blip.
Excellent!
angech, you explained everything about CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere.
The 0,041% by volume , or equal to 410 ppm should not left any doubt that CO2 content is only Earth’s average surface temperature and 1 atm. pressure dependent figure.
The average temp 15C defines the CO2 solubility-degassing process.
And the 1 atm. pressure coordinates the H2O evaporation-condensation processes.
angech: “Rain water is generally acidic because the rainwater gets pure CO2 in without having to be in equilibrium with the earth.”
Let me add to it, that it is the H2O droplets in the atmosphere what absorbs and directs CO2 in the ocean and the land.
The water-atmosphere interface is between those atmospheric H2O droplets surfaces and the CO2 in the air.
The zillions of H2O droplets in atmosphere form an interface area with air’s molecules which is many thousands orders of magnitude larger than the actual Earth’s ocean-air interface area.
That is why we insist on that – because the actual formation and existence of H2O droplets (which are the major mechanism of CO2 absorption from atmospheric air) is dependent on the atmospheric temperature and on the atmospheric pressure.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech,
Your characterization of ocean pH is a bit simplistic. While the average pH for open ocean may be 8.10, it varies with location, season, and time of day (temperature), as does the salinity.
Water does NOT become basic at pH 8.10; it becomes basic at a pH <7.
The ocean floor may be basic, but the water above it has a pH less than 8.1 and typically greater than 7.0. Monterey Bay Aquarium (CA) monitors the pH of the intake of its water. When there is upwelling from the Monterey Bay Canyon, there can be sudden transitions to almost neutral (pH 7) water. The recorded values are available on the internet at their website.
Christos,
You said, “Let me add to it, that it is the H2O droplets in the atmosphere what absorbs and directs CO2 in the ocean and the land.”
That is an important insight. It seems from my reading that most researchers assume that there is diffusion across the water/air boundary and they only apply Henry’s Law to that interface. It is obvious that small water droplets that form rain have a much larger surface area than the oceans immediately below them and therefore more easily absorb CO2 than the water below.
An implication of this is that increased rainfall can shift the balance of CO2 by supplying more to the oceans, and lowering pH.
Yes, Clyde. Exactly, the smaller the H2O droplets in the air – the more effective CO2 “sinks” they are.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clyde Spencer | June 20, 2022
Thank you for your comments, most welcome.
–
“angech,
Your characterization of ocean pH is a bit simplistic. While the average pH for open ocean may be 8.10, it varies with location, season, and time of day (temperature), as does the salinity.”
Yes, I was offering the overall idea.
That is the ph of the water is the pH of the earth it is in balance with the earth/ dissolvable earth minerals.
The pH varies with the multitude of factors listed and more.
For instance pH changes with pressure at depth and coldness at depth so much so that it is not enough to just specify the acid load as it is not just dependent on the amount of carbonic acid present.
PH on the surface varies as one goes to the poles from the equator beaming more acidic due to the greater amount of CO2 it can hold.
Seasons, distance from the sun, gravity, the oblate spheroid earth all have effects.
This does not detract from the fact that the CO2 gets into the water from the earth and then, due to partial pressures with atmosphere goes into the atmosphere.
Completely opposite to the picture of CO2 being generated in the air and then going into the sea.
“Water does NOT become basic at pH 8.10; it becomes basic at a pH 7, not 7.0 is basic. The earth is basic at 8.1.
The acid rain water, pH5.0 becomes basic at the same pH of the earth which changes the water to 8.1 as it is in equilibrium with the pH8.1 earth.
Not that it suddenly becomes a base only at pH8.1.
“The ocean floor may be basic, but the water above it has a pH less than 8.1 and typically greater than 7.0.”
I agree with you
Again A fact that somehow misses the gist of the argument I put forward.
We both agree that pH is variable.
It varies especially with depth and cold.
When we describe the ocean acidity as 8.10 ( approx depends on where it was taken, what time it was taken at).
When we use the term.
We do not mean at the bottom of the ocean or especially only at the bottom of the ocean.
Ocean acidity is (NOAA) “the pH of surface ocean waters”.
Presumably across the globe.
Presumably higher than 8.1 in the tropics,
Presumably lower than 8.1 in the Arctic.
But, all agreed, 8.1 on average across the surface waters of the globe.
Yes?
So when I talk of the earth making the ocean basic at a pH of 8.1 I mean the surface waters of the globe, as do you, and certainly a lot more basic than neutral PH7.0.
The equilibrium occurs at all water earth interfaces.
It has been happening for billions of years.
At depth the ocean floor is basic,Nearly every bit of earth has been underwater in the past. The only reason the interface is less basic at depth than on land is pressure and cold effects.
As you go down in the ocean the pH changes, drops but the balance between pressure temperature and acidity remains constant.
This is the point that DM, fully aware of it, leaves out of his calculations, as do many others.
The elephant in the room is the source of CO2.
CO2 has to come from somewhere.
The majority of CO2 is in the earth.
Even the top 30 kilometres of crust contains so much CO2, mainly inorganic, that the small amount in our oceans and atmospheres is smaller than a grain of sand by comparison
How does it get into the atmosphere?
Really how does it gat out of the crust?
Heat and pressure.
When it is cold there is no atmosphere
As a planet heats up its constituents develop an atmosphere once some of the elements and compounds become gases.
As they do an air earth equilibrium develops which determines how much of the gases stay as gasses in the atmosphere and what atmosphere mix one has.
Water is just an intermediary for the gases to get into the atmosphere.
They would get there whether there was water or not.
The equilibrium of CO2 from water to atmosphere is fixed by temperature and pressure and earth to atmosphere alone.
Pretending that CO2 has a slow dissolution time from the atmosphere to water to earth is just a ruse ignoring the true rapid equilibrium
angech says:
“The majority of CO2 is in the earth.
Even the top 30 kilometres of crust contains so much CO2, mainly inorganic, that the small amount in our oceans and atmospheres is smaller than a grain of sand by comparison…”
Yes, yes, and yes!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Someone asked me
“I notice that your writing style is very different here than when you post at Climate Etc. What gives?”
Interesting observation I was not aware of.
I think different sites have different moderation and different audiences and like most people I adapt to those situations.
I am sure we both have groups of friends where we feel comfortable discussing some issues and remember not to say anything about other issues.
Lucia and Judith both have warm, open, scientific sites which encourage people to raise topics in a non hostile environment.
Lucia talks to her visitors, about life, cats, dancing and current affairs as well as politics and science.
Most of the contributors are like pen pals, I guess.
I feel comfortable, trusting and at home even when taking on subjects in a contrarian fashion.
Judith has a more science only approach with a hint of skepticism that attracts global warming skeptics and and proponents with a more confrontational style.
When I feel riled up, I tend to be a bit too confrontational there though I can regret that afterwards. I also feel able to raise views there that I would feel uncomfortable doing so here because I like the views of the people here.
Doveryay, no proveryay [phonetic spelling]
Suzanne Massie, an American scholar, taught it to Ronald Reagan,
The Problem with a Trust-But-Verify Approach Nan S Russell
said this
“when the outcome is essential and matters more than the relationship, use “trust, but verify.” When the relationship matters more than any single outcome, don’t use it”
Which probably explains my style changes perfectly.
“trust, but verify. seems the basis of Biases in climate fingerprinting methods by Ross McKitrick.
It is also why DM should continue explaining his paper here if he wants.
Fraction of Carbon Dioxide of Anthropogenic Origin in the Atmosphere
The short residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that the mass of CO2 of directly anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere is only a small fraction of the excess CO2 that has built up since the industrial revolution.
Obviously this does therefore intuitively ” support the conclusion that anthropogenic emissions cannot therefore be the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since the industrial revolution.”
an analogy adapted from that of Engelbeen:
“Consider a married couple, who keep their joint savings in a large jar. The husband deposits six euros a week in the form of six one-euro coins minted in Belgium,
His partner deposits 190 euros a week, always in the form of 190 one-euro coins, all minted in France. She takes out 193 euro per week, drawn at random from the coins in the jar. At the outset the couple’s savings consisted of the 597 French-minted one euro coins comprising her savings.
Clearly, if this situation continued for some time, the couple’s savings would steadily rise by 3 euros per week.
Some claim that It is obvious that the increase in their savings was due solely to the relatively small contributions made by the husband, as the wife consistently spent a little more each week than she saved.”
–
Moot point The 3 Euro increase is of course driven 190/3 by the wife’s larger earnings’. At any time the likelihood of the 3 Euros extra coming from the husband is unlikely.
“Hence for the real-world carbon cycle, it is reasonable to expect the proportion of CO2 of directly anthropogenic origin to be very small, and for the bulk of the excess CO2 above pre-industrial equilibrium concentration to be comprised of molecules emitted by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere, even if the observed rise is of purely anthropogenic origin.”
This perfectly natural result is however called a “surprising and counter-intuitive result”
The actual fact is that unlike the frugal french lady There are no savings.
The pernicious Ocean, like the tax collector, comes around and takes any and all extra savings, leaving the bank at 597 one euro coins.
3 of which are likely Belgian.
Pingback: Biases in climate fingerprinting methods - Climate- Science.press