Climate study endorses central premise of Air Con

A central premise of my book Air Con, from 2009, appears to have been validated by new peer reviewed research.

My argument, which Climate Change minister Nick Smith and self-proclaimed climate expert - truffle grower Gareth Renowden, tried to challenge me on, was that Earth's natural warming cycle out of the Little Ice Age was releasing large amounts of CO2 from natural sources into the atmosphere, far eclipsing anything humanity had done or could do.

Now, yet again, it appears I've been proven right afer the event.

I'm losing track now of how many studies are backing up what I said in Air Con...

Reaction meanwhile from climate scientist Judith Curry in the US: "If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science".

Comments

[david winter]

I'm not really sure why I bother. But would you mind explaining where all the human-emitted CO2 goes?

[Ian]

Are you suggesting "human-emitted CO2" is special, David?

Perhaps you can address the points actually made in the research.

[david winter]

How could I possibly address the points made in a podcast without slides let alone a paper or data.

I'm not saying human CO2 is special, I'm saying there's more of it than has been added to the atmosphere recently. Your thesis seems to break conservation of mass, which seems like a problem to me...

[Falafulu Fisi]

Dr Judith Curry is the only expert climate scientist who knows really well about feedback control system theory in its application to climate system. I have read a some of her papers on climate feedback which she adopts the proper methodologies used in feedback control engineering where that theory originated. I have to say that not many climate scientists are familiar with feedback theory.

The James Hansen classic climate feedback model is a linear control model which has been criticized as inappropriate because real climate feedback is coupled non-linear.

[RobK]

"I'm not really sure why I bother. But would you mind explaining where all the human-emitted CO2 goes?"

Easy: the trees use it to make wood, eventually.

:-D

[david winter]

Yeah, I don't think you get it. Every year CO2 in the atmosphere increases by about 55% of the amount that we emit. Mainstream science says ~45% of our emissions end up in the sea (that's why the pH is dropping).

But Ian and Salby think all the gain in C02 is from natural sources - if that were the case the rest of out emissions have to go... somewhere.

[AcidComments]

"Mainstream science says ~45% of our emissions end up in the sea (that's why the pH is dropping)."

What does Mainstream science say on the CO2, etc emitted directly into the Oceans by around 5000 so far known active undersea volcanoes?

Funnily enough the marine life seems to often thrive in and around the vent of such an undersea volcano. More nutrients, warmer water. So much for over exaggerated ocean acidification!

[david winter]

"What does Mainstream science say on the CO2, etc emitted directly into the Oceans by around 5000 so far known active undersea volcanoes?"

It's less than 1% of human emissions, and is probably partially offset by lava formation which is a sink (although something a source as it can disrupt ocean sediments).

Now. Where is the human emitted C02 going? Anyone?

[Ian]

Meanwhile, some clear scientific corruption in my view on the endangered polar bear claim. Look who the peer reviewers were:

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe: 'Gleason concedes that study had major impact on controversial listing of bears' under ESA

A Window on Climate Peer Review: 'The reviewers for polar bear article were Lisa Rotterman and Andrew Derocher'

Lisa.Rotterman@noaa.gov

Spouse Review! 'Incredibly, it turns out Ms. Rotterman is his wife – yes, some people are more peers than others – and Derocher was awarded a large research contract by Monnett just before he reviewed the article. Wow'
sourc is ClimateDepot

[Ian]

Apart from the infamous missing carbon sink that creates a little bit of a black box for this discussion, I think you are missing the point David.

What I argued, and what Salby appears to support as arguable, is that the natural variations in CO2 emissions and absorbtion from year to year are so great as to dwarf any human component...man's input is pissing in a lake.

[david winter]

No, you don't get it.

Human emission are larger than the amount added to the atmosphere. That means net emission from natural sources are negative - because they're sucking up the ~45% of our emissions that don't get added to the atmosphere.

We can't know what Salby has done, since it's not available. But I'm willing to bet he made the same mistake Mclean & Defretis did - de-trending the data then explaining variation around the trend. It's no surprise that's associated with temperature.

[AcidComments]

Of interest:

Forests: Damned if they do, damned if they don’t

Increased tropical forest growth could release carbon from the soil

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/forests-damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-dont/

[david winter]

So... no update on how this is physically possible?

[RobK]

Sorry, david, my last post was meant to be a joke... I admit, not a great one :-(

I may be missing something, but nobody seems to be doubting that emissions from man made sources is adding to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

It seems to me the main contention is that CO2 is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gasses, and man's contribution only a few percent of that so is negligible in the greater scheme of things.

[david winter]

Rob,

You can only think that if you confuse flux (the CO2 popping in and out of the system as we breath and rot and plants fix carbon) and the _net_ effect of emissions and sequestrations from all sources and sinks.

As it stands, human emissions are much more than the net increase in the atmosphere. In other words, we are responsible for all the recent additions (or, at least, the effect), and if it wasn't for the various sinks, the biggest being the ocean, we'd be adding even more.

Unless Ian wants to offer another explanation for these observations?

[RobK]

david,

Let's say, even if ALL the increase is due to man's activities:

It seems to me the main contention is that CO2 is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gasses, and man's contribution only a few percent of that - so is negligible in the greater scheme of things.

Or, as Ian puts it: "...man's input is pissing in a lake."

[Ian]

David, that's possibly the biggest load of hooey I've ever seen you write. Got some cites?

[david winter]

Knorr, 2009 has a nice plot of total human emissions v growth of co2 in atmosphere. Reproduced here

I see googling around that Tamino has said the same thing w.r.t. this study.

What Salby does not explain is this: total human emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning are far larger than total CO2 increase. In fact, the CO2 increase has only been about half of human emissions. So, the net emission from other sources has been negative, while atmospheric CO2 has been rising

[Ian]

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/04/hot-topic-gets-it-wrong-again-86.html

[david winter]

I'm not talking about models, I'm talking about observed data. What I want to know is how it can be possible that

(a) Human emissions are greater than the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere and
(b) Human emissions aren't responsible for the C02 added to the atmosphere.