tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post5840628610052859500..comments2019-12-08T23:51:18.510-08:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Mathematical & observational proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-51693682485369970622015-08-05T15:31:00.300-07:002015-08-05T15:31:00.300-07:00The Bart/Ferdinand debate continues:
http://watts...The Bart/Ferdinand debate continues:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/28/carbon-sink-detected-underneath-worlds-deserts/#comment-1999370MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-69963927953696751062013-12-17T08:44:20.659-08:002013-12-17T08:44:20.659-08:00Hoser says:
December 12, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Ferdinand...Hoser says:<br />December 12, 2013 at 6:07 pm<br />Ferdinand Engelbeen says:<br />December 12, 2013 at 2:38 pm <br />Regarding how long to remove the extra mass.<br /><br />If the off rate measured for 14C does scale to the whole atmosphere, then equilibrium is roughly maintained by an on rate. A pulse of excess CO2 should be taken up by one or more reservoirs unless there is saturation of these reservoirs or another factor alters the on rate. I suppose we are talking about feedbacks now. But just for fun, let’s say the simple model is correct. What would we expect for an off rate (that is how much CO2 should exit the atmosphere per year)? With 3264 Gton CO2 in atmosphere, a roughly 5 year t1/2 gives us 413 Gton/yr flux. Approximately 450 Gton/yr is estimated from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere.<br /><br />Not bad for a simple model.<br />Hoser says:<br />December 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm<br />To summarize, there are two conclusions I tentatively come to. 1) Humans cannot be the cause of the rise in CO2 because the rise is much greater than the amount of CO2a that should be present given the simple model and t1/2 of 5 years. 2) There is another natural process at work shifting the equilibrium between CO2 reservoirs such that atmospheric CO2 is rising, that is, the on rate has increased.<br /><br />Using Oak Ridge Natl. Lab global CO2 emission data (1751-2010), I estimate anthropogenic CO2 is now about 200 Gton of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. If we removed it all, atmospheric CO2 would be about 375 ppmv. This view seems relatively balanced with what we know.<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/co2-residence-times-take-two/#comment-1499714Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-3260050926361864282013-12-17T08:35:10.019-08:002013-12-17T08:35:10.019-08:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/co2-residenc...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/co2-residence-times-take-two/#comment-1499508Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-43225367360450451122013-12-17T08:06:06.054-08:002013-12-17T08:06:06.054-08:00phlogiston says:
December 12, 2013 at 12:53 am
Fer...phlogiston says:<br />December 12, 2013 at 12:53 am<br />Ferdinand Engelbeen says:<br />December 12, 2013 at 12:27 am<br /><br />Hoser says:<br />December 11, 2013 at 11:32 pm<br />Your calcualtion is for the thinning of 14CO2 by the total CO2 turnover, which gives you the residence time (which is mainly temperature difference dependent), but that has nothing to do with the decay time for a mass pulse (which is mainly pressure difference dependent).<br /><br />NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOO! (adopts facial expression of The scream by Munch)<br /><br />Ferdninand we all respect your erudition in regard to atmospheric CO2 but I fully agree here with Hoser that all this discussion is completely missing what a radio tracer measurement really is. And vastly over-complicating the discussion as a result.<br /><br />A radiotracer measures a single removal term. PERIOD. A pulse of CO2 enters the atmosphere different from the other CO2 due to 14C. So it can be tracked in exclusion of any other CO2.<br /><br />It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT all the other cycling and dilution and dynamics, pressure, temperature etc. of CO2 that are going on, the 14 tracer simply tells us the removal term for CO2. That is the whole point of a radiotracer measurement.<br /><br />From the bomb test data we know that:<br />CO2 removal half life = 5 years<br />CO2 residence time = half life / ln2 = 5 / 0.693 = 7.7 years<br /><br />That is the WHAT. Everything else is the WHY.<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/co2-residence-times-take-two/#comment-1498559MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-58845515367340793702013-12-17T08:03:07.319-08:002013-12-17T08:03:07.319-08:00Hoser says:
December 11, 2013 at 11:32 pm
Hopeless...Hoser says:<br />December 11, 2013 at 11:32 pm<br />Hopelessly over complicated. From Fig 5 and discussion, I question whether the writer understands the system we are talking about. 14C is effectively a tracer. There is a steady state level maintained by adding the same amount to the atmosphere each year from transmutation via cosmic ray interactions with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. The total amount of carbon is essentially unchanged. The atomic bombs did not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but did almost double the tiny amount of 14C.<br /><br />A basic reasonable assumption of a single turnover kinetics is the tracer leaves the reservoir and does not come back. 14C leaving the atmosphere can safely be assumed to not return in any significant fraction. Hence, when we see it leave, that is the off rate cleanly determined. Now when we have an equilibrium level, we can calculate the on rate as well. It doesn’t matter how complicated the reservoir system you create. The only part that matters is the off rate constant. We don’t know how the material partitions into other reservoirs, but that issue is beyond the scope of this experiment.<br /><br />I showed previously [1] the math works out nicely, and essentially you can slice off the steady-state amount of 14C and look at the decay of the excess alone. The t1/2 is about 5 years. Even accounting for the increase in ppmv CO2 diluting the 14C from 1963 to 1993 and beyond, the t1/2 is still about 5 years (at least it was in my hands). Once you know the t1/2 is 5 years, a number of interesting calculations follow.<br /><br />For one thing, it becomes pretty clear the increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly be due to anthropogenic CO2. The CO2 quantity changes simply don’t match what humans have produced given the amount of CO2 we have produced each year from the late 1700s and how much would be left Y years after emission.<br /><br />1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-1481426<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-1481426MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86017062721498632662013-12-17T08:02:31.168-08:002013-12-17T08:02:31.168-08:00Related comments at WUWT:
Hoser says:
November 21...Related comments at WUWT:<br /><br />Hoser says:<br />November 21, 2013 at 7:08 pm<br />The 14C (as CO2) bomb test is pretty close to a single-turnover experiment, essentially measuring the off rate, that is the rate of exit from the atmosphere. There is a steady state level of production from cosmic rays, that sets the minimum level of 14C. So there is an on rate as expressed in the equations above.<br /><br />Lets do math.<br /><br />dC/dt = N – kC (1),<br />where C is 14C as CO2, N is a fixed rate of 14C formation from cosmic rays, and k is the off rate, that is the rate 14C leaves the atmosphere, not to return. If you can’t get past this part, give up.<br /><br />This is a non-homogeneous differential equation. Let assume C can be expressed as the product of U and V where U is the solution to the homogeneous equation.<br /><br />C = U*V (2)<br />dU/dt + kU = 0 (3).<br /><br />With solutions<br />U = A*e^(-kt) (4)<br /><br />Because dC/dt = dU/dt*V + U*dV/dt, we can substitute (2,3) into (1).<br /><br />dU/dt*V + U*dV/dt + U*V = N (5)<br /><br />Rearranging<br /><br />V*(dU/dt + U) + U*dV/dt = N (6), and because of (3)<br /><br />U*dV/dt = N (7) and<br /><br />dV/dt = N / U (8).<br /><br />Substitute (4) into (8) and<br /><br />dV/dt = N*A*e^(kt) (9).<br /><br />Integrating from 0 to t<br /><br />V = N/Ak * (e^(kt) – 1) (10).<br /><br />Solutions of C are A1 * U*V + A2 * U, so after some multiplication<br /><br />C = A1*N/k *(1-e^(-kt) ) + A2 * e ^(-kt) (11)<br /><br />At t=0, C = A2, and at t = inf, C = A1*N/k. Let A1 = k and A2 = N + Xo, where Xo is the excess 14C we start with at t = 0, then<br /><br />C = N * (1-e^(-kt)) + (N + Xo)* e^(-kt) (12).<br /><br />Rearranging we get<br /><br />C = N*(1 – e^(-kt) + e^(-kt) ) + X * e^(-kt) (13), or finally<br /><br />C = N + Xo e^(-kt) (14), and since C = N + X, after rearranging<br /><br />X = Xo e^(-kt) (15).<br /><br />Clearly, we see the fixed amount N and the decay of the excess X with rate constant k. When I fit the data using this equation, I get a half-life of about 5 years for 14C using ORNL data. My previous attempt failed to subtract N from C first. I just fit the fall, which was a mistake.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-5241665679205720192013-12-03T06:21:49.809-08:002013-12-03T06:21:49.809-08:00http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=25...http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/is-the-bern-model-non-physical/#comment-1490103<br /><br />http://climategrog.wordpress.com/page/2/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-9604739331766365682013-12-02T08:00:52.833-08:002013-12-02T08:00:52.833-08:00Satellite movie showing how nature controls CO2 le...Satellite movie showing how nature controls CO2 levels<br /><br />http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50773259400722594122013-12-02T07:59:14.624-08:002013-12-02T07:59:14.624-08:00http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dio...http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-73300605659580445702013-11-25T09:33:55.666-08:002013-11-25T09:33:55.666-08:00http://www.scribd.com/doc/129802522/Natural-or-Not...http://www.scribd.com/doc/129802522/Natural-or-NotAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53495751536846790772013-10-12T09:59:04.908-07:002013-10-12T09:59:04.908-07:00Nothing new. Already addressed. - BartNothing new. Already addressed. - BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-61424652931959412192013-10-09T12:08:28.707-07:002013-10-09T12:08:28.707-07:00I am reacting there...I am reacting there...Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-70132714320105340982013-10-08T08:34:53.019-07:002013-10-08T08:34:53.019-07:00http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/carbon-dioxide-...http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/carbon-dioxide-and-the-ocean-temperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68787783518609499422013-10-07T07:51:12.237-07:002013-10-07T07:51:12.237-07:00http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/13394630...http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1339463007_document_break_paper_apjas_ipa.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68875245280711102012013-10-07T07:48:16.201-07:002013-10-07T07:48:16.201-07:00Arctic Oscillation seems strongly related to globa...Arctic Oscillation seems strongly related to global rate of change of atm. CO2 but with considerable lag.<br /><br />This may explain why the short segment from Barrow has greater variability.<br /><br />The Arctic seems to play a key role in how much of our emissions get absorbed.<br /><br />The IPCC seems intent on avoiding any boarder analysis and is still trying to reduce everything to CO2 plus random stochastic “noise”.<br /><br />http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-15478713971605765422013-10-05T03:20:43.357-07:002013-10-05T03:20:43.357-07:00Bart,
The mix and match of different processes by...Bart,<br /><br />The mix and match of different processes by the T-anomaly graph has never been addressed by you. You simply assume that the perfect match is caused by some natural, temperature dependent process and that it is. But any mix of natural and human releases can be matched with its own set of offset and factor. Here some thoughts...<br /><br />First a comparison <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/scale:0.19/offset:0.14/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/derivative/trend" rel="nofollow">between dT and Tanom</a> and CO2 increase in the atmosphere as observed.<br />The dCO2 variability near perfectly matches dT variability with a lag of about 90°. Indeed Tanom matches dCO2 at exact the same timing, but that is simply because CO2 lags T and all what happened is that by comparing the derivative of CO2 with T, you bring the shift between these two back to zero.<br /><br />In the case of a direct influence of temperature (on e.g. the solubility of CO2 in the oceans), T increase causes (a part of) CO2 increase and dT variability causes dCO2 variability. But dT shows zero contribution to the slope in dCO2 (even slightly negative). Thus the slope in dCO2 is entirely from a different process (temperature dependent or not).<br /><br />WFT doesn't have human emissions in its database, or it would be possible to show that the emissions increase over time with about twice the slope seen in dCO2. But we can simulate that (with realistic figures for emissions and influence of T on CO2 levels, each of which about halve is remaining in the atmosphere:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_co2_temp_95.jpg<br />with its derivative:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_dco2_dT_Tanom.jpg<br /><br />If there is a non-linear temperature dependent natural process involved, the increase in the atmosphere may be caused by a 50:50 mix of natural and human emissions:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_co2_temp_50.jpg<br />in the derivative:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_dco2_dT_Tanom_50.jpg<br /><br />No problem to match the slope and timing of dCO2 with Tanom, only a problem with the amplitude of the variability. But if the underlying natural process shows much more reaction to fast changes in temperature than to slower changes, that may be solved. If the fast and slow processes are independent of each other, then dT still shows the full amplitude and d(emissions) still show the full slope of dCO2.<br /><br />One step further: 90% natural, 10% human:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_co2_temp_10.jpg<br />and its derivative:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_dco2_dT_Tanom_10.jpg<br /><br />Interesting observations:<br />- The more the natural contribution increases, the more difficult it is to match the amplitude of the variability with Tanom, while that is no problem at all for dT.<br />- The slope and the amplitude of dCO2 may increase with Tanom, depending of the reaction of CO2 from some natural process, but in all cases temperature alone doesn't do the job, except for the case that temperature hardly plays a role...<br /><br />Main result:<br />Temperature anomaly matching has zero predictive power for the attribution of the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere...Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-89010199215203406632013-10-03T15:54:56.562-07:002013-10-03T15:54:56.562-07:00These items have all been addressed. There is noth...These items have all been addressed. There is nothing new. You're just not getting the argument, and there appears to be no means to bridge the gap, given how many pages we have dedicated to it here and elsewhere.<br /><br />We will wait and see. -BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68508005212732582232013-10-03T14:19:45.356-07:002013-10-03T14:19:45.356-07:00MS,
If you look at the comments on Dr. Spencer...MS,<br /><br />If you look at the comments on Dr. Spencer's essay, you will find mine too...<br /><br />Bart,<br /><br />The point is not that you need a scale factor and offset to match T and dCO2. <br />The point is that you can match any mix of human emissions and CO2 increase caused (indirectly) by temperature in the atmosphere in the derivative with a different set of offset and factor of T vs. dCO2. Thus your perfect match between T and dCO2 doesn't say anything about the mix that caused the increase in rate of change.<br />But I will work that out tomorrow...<br /><br />Another problem is that the temperature is more or less linearly increasing and thus completely flat in the derivative (including a lag of dCO2 vs. dT), which has no direct contribution to the slope of dCO2. That needs an unknown process which responds non-linearly to a linear temperature increase. That is quite certainly not ocean upwelling.<br /><br />That while the trend of emissions is slightly quadratic itself and largely explains the slope of the rate of change of CO2 (be it that the real slope is from the total increase in the atmosphere above equilibrium, not from the rate of change of CO2).Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19144428461643212642013-10-02T16:26:46.776-07:002013-10-02T16:26:46.776-07:00I didn't notice this before, but kudos to Roy ...I didn't notice this before, but kudos to Roy Spencer for pointing out in 2009 that much of the CO2 rise may be natural<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/spencer-on-an-alternate-view-of-co2-increases/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19818173583213562352013-10-02T13:25:02.397-07:002013-10-02T13:25:02.397-07:00"Starting point is 1960 from direct measureme...<i>"Starting point is 1960 from direct measurements. Any increase in CO2 is from that point on, either from temperature or emissions. No offset needed."</i><br /><br />But, this is a trivial fit. You have two series dominated by linear trends starting at zero, so of course they are scale similar, and integrate into a scale similar total quantity. It's tautological. <br /><br />Moreover, the accumulations start to diverge in the 2000s, right at the time the rate of change of CO2 flattens in lock-step with the flattening of temperatures.<br /><br />Temperature anomaly requires an offset in this model. It already has one built in because it is an <i>anomaly</i>, but that offset is arbitrary. So, there is no basis to object to offsetting it with an appropriate value. Moreover, the offset has no effect on the trend, which is the quantity upon which I am basing my contention that CO2 is not dependent on human inputs.<br /><br /><i>"By your thesis sufficient to declare that temperature is the only variable that controls dCO2..."</i><br /><br />No, again, the model is of CO2 pumping from the upwelling waters which is modulated by the temperature anomaly from a particular baseline.<br /><br /><i>"...while we used 90% emissions and 10% temperature in the simulation."</i><br /><br />I am really not interested in contrived simulations. I am interested in the real world, where dCO2/dt and T are in phase, leading to a 90 deg phase lag in accumulated CO2 relative to temperature. You cannot get this phase response without having the relationship of CO2 being dependent on the integral of temperature anomaly. And, when you integrate the temperature anomaly, scaled to fit the variational components, you fit the curvature. As you must, because the temperature anomaly has a slope which matches the slope of dCO2/dt when it is scaled so that the variability matches. The offset to the temperature anomaly has no effect on that slope.<br /><br />Let me repeat that last: <b>The offset to the temperature anomaly has no effect on that slope.</b> The offset does not create a term upon which I am basing my argument.<br /><br /><i>"- an increased temperature has little influence on an increase in upwelling caused by concentration and non if caused by quantity, besides its own effect."</i><br /><br />Again, I have shown the math. My math beats your assertion.<br /><br /><i>"Agreed, was wrong there. We will see what happens with the sink rate in the near future..."</i><br /><br />That is probably a good point at which to leave off. We will wait and see.<br /><br />-BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-45879645647409438152013-10-02T12:09:43.939-07:002013-10-02T12:09:43.939-07:00Bart,
Starting point is 1960 from direct measurem...Bart,<br /><br />Starting point is 1960 from direct measurements. Any increase in CO2 is from that point on, either from temperature or emissions. No offset needed.<br />It is easier to explain an increase in the atmosphere from a known source that shows twice the increase in rate of change and fits all observations than from an unknown source which needs ignoring a lot of observations...<br /><br /><i>At e.g., about 19 years, dCO2(temp)/dt is at a peak, while T(anom) is at maximum upswing. 90 degrees out of phase.</i><br /><br />Sorry, my fault:<br />CO2 lags T, dCO2 lags dT and dCO2 matches T, as good in my simulation as in reality. dCO2(temp) in the graph was in fact dT/dt * 4.5 to show the impact of dT on the variability of dCO2 (which lags dT). I have changed the graph accordingly.<br /><br />Anyway, if you look at Tanom, that matches dCO2/dt perfectly. By your thesis sufficient to declare that temperature is the only variable that controls dCO2, while we used 90% emissions and 10% temperature in the simulation. That works for any simulation of a mix of "emissions" and temperature, as long as you include a lag between T and CO2 and choose the right parameters for offset and slope of Tanom.<br /><br /><i>There are two primary actions occurring: outgassing of CO2 from CO2-rich upwelling waters and a temperature modulation of that process.</i><br /><br />Again, you are mixing in an extra variable which is only partly influenced by temperature.<br />- increased CO2 upwelling (concentration and/or quantity) causes an increase in CO2 influx independent of temperature.<br />- increased temperature causes an increase in CO2 influx and a decrease in CO2 outflux independent of upwelling.<br />- an increased temperature has little influence on an increase in upwelling caused by concentration and non if caused by quantity, besides its own effect. These two influences are practically independent of each other.<br />- the increase in upwelling and/or temperature increases the CO2 level in the atmosphere.<br /><br />But more important: you completely ignore that:<br />- the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the upwelling fluxes and increases the downwelling fluxes.<br />Which makes that after a reasonable amount of time, the influence of temperature and/or extra upwelling is balanced again at a higher CO2 level.<br /><br /><i>No, they weren't. If anything, they accelerated after 2000.</i><br /><br />Agreed, was wrong there. We will see what happens with the sink rate in the near future...<br />Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-82079508465285787722013-10-02T09:57:15.123-07:002013-10-02T09:57:15.123-07:00"No offset needed at all..."
The offset...<i>"No offset needed at all..."</i><br /><br />The offset is in your data. The proxy data which you rely upon for your starting point has been adjusted to flow into the direct measurements.<br /><br /><i>... and without any scale factor, the slope of the rate of change in emissions is already twice the observed slope...</i><br /><br />Which is meaningless.<br /><br /><i>"...dCO2(temp) and T are perfectly in phase..."</i><br /><br />At e.g., about 19 years, dCO2(temp)/dt is at a peak, while T(anom) is at maximum upswing. 90 degrees out of phase. If I didn't know you better, I'd suggest you were trying to fool people. From what I know of you, though, I think you are trying to fool yourself.<br /><br /><i>"Of course I have set it up, but..."</i><br /><br />Sorry, the model fails. You are 90 deg out of phase.<br /><br /><i>"By matching the temperature record with the rate of change of CO2 you attribute both influences to the temperature influence alone."</i><br /><br />Not at all. You are misinterpreting what I am doing. Once again, I am proposing a temperature <i>dependent</i> process, not a temperature <i>dominant</i> process. There are two primary actions occurring: outgassing of CO2 from CO2-rich upwelling waters <i>and</i> a temperature modulation of that process.<br /><br /><i>"Further, integrating the temperature record in this case gives a quadratic temperature function, what kind of physical process is that?"</i><br /><br />It is the very straightforward integration of a temperature modulated process.<br /><br /><i>"The emissions were more constant in the past decade or so..."</i><br /><br />No, they weren't. If anything, they accelerated after 2000. Look at <a href="http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/Bartemis/media/CO2_zps330ee8fa.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2" rel="nofollow">the plot</a>.<br /><br />-BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-35913952759134683722013-10-02T08:05:52.531-07:002013-10-02T08:05:52.531-07:00Bart,
Yes and, to match emissions to concentratio...Bart,<br /><br /><i>Yes and, to match emissions to concentration, you also have to use an arbitrary offset and scale factor. No advantage for you there.<br /></i><br /><br />No offset needed at all and without any scale factor, the slope of the rate of change in emissions is already twice the observed slope...<br /><br /><i>Your temperature variations are 90 degrees out of phase with your dCO2(temp)/dt. In the real world, these are perfectly in phase. Your model fails.</i><br /><br />Have a better look: CO2(temp) lags T, dCO2(temp) lags dT, but dCO2(temp) and T are perfectly in phase, as good as in the simulation as in the real world.<br /><br /><i>Well, of course. You set it up to do that. GIGO.</i><br /><br />Of course I have set it up, but with quite realistic figures for emissions and temperature influence on CO2 (4.5 ppmv/K short term, 8 ppmv/K long term). It simply shows that you can match the rate of change of CO2 by the temperature anomaly, even if temperature has hardly any influence on CO2 levels.<br /><br /><i>The trend in the temperature record integrates into the quadratic curvature in the CO2 record. The accumulated emissions also have pronounced curvature. But, that curvature is already accounted for by temperature dependent term.</i><br /><br />The trend in the rate of change of CO2 is the result of both the temperature influence AND the influence of the emissions. By matching the temperature record with the rate of change of CO2 you attribute both influences to the temperature influence alone. That is circular reasoning.<br /><br />Further, integrating the temperature record in this case gives a quadratic temperature function, what kind of physical process is that?<br /><br /><i>That accelerating divergence between emissions and concentration will become very stark in the not-too-distant future. </i><br /><br />The emissions were more constant in the past decade or so, thus the derivative isn't increasing, but the sinks still are, as the real driver of the sinks is the CO2 level in the atmosphere which still is increasing. That has little influence on the integrals up to now:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2.jpg<br />But it will give a change if the emissions remain constant over longer periods. Then we will see a leveling off of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But that is hardly influenced by a sustained temperature difference. <br />Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-87602304355298402722013-10-01T16:39:06.881-07:002013-10-01T16:39:06.881-07:00"The whole base of your thesis is the fact th...<i>"The whole base of your thesis is the fact that the arbitrary offset and factor of Tanom matches the variability and slope of dCO2/dt"</i><br />Yes and, to match emissions to concentration, you also have to use an arbitrary offset and scale factor. No advantage for you there.<br /><br /><i>"Let us have a look at the derivatives of the above simulation:<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_dco2_dT_Tanom.jpg"</i><br /><br />Your temperature variations are 90 degrees out of phase with your dCO2(temp)/dt. In the real world, these are perfectly in phase. Your model fails.<br /><br /><i>"Something remarkably happened: the temperature anomaly perfectly fits the variability ánd the trend of the CO2 increase, while in the simulation over 90% of the increase is not from the temperature increase."</i><br /><br />Well, of course. You set it up to do that. GIGO.<br /><br /><i>"For the real situation in the atmosphere we have..."</i><br /><br />Poor resolution, and a trivially superficial resemblance. In the real world, the rates of emissions and atmospheric concentration <a href="http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/Bartemis/media/CO2_zps330ee8fa.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2" rel="nofollow">are diverging</a>.<br /><br /><i>"The trend of the temperature derivative is zero. Thus whatever the effect of temperature on any CO2 production process, that probably has zero effect on the rate-of-change trend."</i><br /><br />Honestly, it appears you do not understand the model at all. The trend in the temperature record integrates into the quadratic curvature in the CO2 record. The accumulated emissions also have pronounced curvature. But, that curvature is already accounted for by temperature dependent term.<br /><br />Global temperatures are beginning to fall. That accelerating divergence between emissions and concentration will become very stark in the not-too-distant future. Keep your eye on it. At some point, you will realize I am right.<br /><br />-BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-83892335151954461052013-10-01T15:35:38.679-07:002013-10-01T15:35:38.679-07:00Another one:
The oceans are a net source.
I will...Another one:<br /><br /><i>The oceans are a net source.</i><br /><br />I will comment there...Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.com