Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of 'a few tenths of a degree, if at all'

A recent seminar presentation by atmospheric physicist & professor Murry Salby in Germany strikes another huge blow to climate alarm, demonstrating:

• The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity. 
• The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.
• Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a "strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share."
• His conclusion: "Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then."

Google translation from German + light editing:

New study on CO2 concentration: Anthropogenic share somewhere between 0 and a maximum of 30% 

Seminar presentation by Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen

By Michael Limburg, EIKE

Professor Murry Salby, author of two textbooks on physics of the atmosphere, is one of the most renowned atmospheric physicists in the world. His research work began many years ago at the University of Colorado, then Macquarie University in Sydney brought him much scientific and public recognition- up until he made the mistake of publicly calling the climate doctrine into question. From then on he was bullied by many agencies, with baseless accusations marring the funding of his research and was finally "forced to retire" after 56 years of his academic career.

Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen

Fig. 1: History of change of the total global CO2 concentration per year (green) and only on the surface properties (temperature + humidity dominant parts) induced change in CO2 concentration (blue). Correlation coefficient of 0.93. In contrast to the natural CO2 emissions depend on the "surface properties", do not have the anthropogenic emissions. Graphic M.Salby 

What was the crime of Murry Salby? Well, Salby had methodically by strict and well supported theoretically by such observations and therefore very well argued that almost 80% of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are driven by temperature (outgassing) [1]. Not vice versa. The remaining 20% are driven in the main by the moisture. They both work together on the biosphere and the other sources and sinks of the CO2 cycle. Another important aspect of these results is that the residence additionally injected CO2 is  about 4-7 years. Although the IPCC expects some 100 or more years, motivated by, because of the long-term effects, including the call for an immediate stop of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but the calculations of Salby (and other such as Humlum et al) agree and not the assertion of the IPCC (Fig 2)  That the  Global Carbon Budget Project comes to completely different results, shows that the research also on this important aspect to the driver of temperature is far from "settled".

Fig. 2: the IPCC for the carbon cycle in Gt C / year. Substituting the values ​​specified correctly correlated results in a residence time of 4.1 years, not hundreds of years. (Fig. 3) Figure V IPCC report

Fig. 3: the IPCC Berne model with residence times of hundreds of years (red) vs. Observations (green) and math. Function of the gradient. (Blue). Graphic Salby

After these still very new and important results, Salby turned to in his presentation on how high because of anthropogenically induced share of CO2 is the atmosphere and how it could be determined if necessary. This part of the presentation was very extensive and very theoretical, but always starting from the actual observations. The first of these relates to the fact that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions increased by a whopping 350% faster since 2002 than in previous years. Scoffers would say that this is probably an unintended side effect of the Kyoto Protocol, and a bad omen for the upcoming climate conference in Paris. Yes, and that is the point, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration was total over the same period, constant at the previous rate of 2.1 ppm / year. To Salby this is a strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share.

Fig. 4: Comparison rise in fossil CO2 emissions generated (above) with the total concentration of CO2 below.

Now these two developments he investigated using the known isotopic mixing ratios, and other parameters, and came to the determination that one can only determine the basis of the available data and methods, which currently could be due to the total concentration of the upper limit of CO2 produced by humans. And this limit it to certain complex calculations on the basis by which he led the audience but step by step, with maximum 30%.

His conclusion: Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be  therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then.

Remains to complete and this was his final note that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions almost 1: (Fig. 5) 1 correlate with the development of the world's population.

Fig. 5:. Development of the world's population and CO2 emissions from fossil fuels  graphics Salby

Unspoken the consequence that no general availability of cheap alternatives to fossil fuels, as you currently may only be provided by nuclear energy, which demanded, reduction of fossil CO2 emissions must lead to a drastic reduction in living standards. And this would have led especially in the poorer countries to a massive increase in the death rate. One or the other listeners felt it perhaps the words of the very famous conservationist and diver Jacques Yves Cousteau recalls, in 1991, was allowed to issue an official UN Brochure . We must "In order to stabilize the planet eliminate 350,000 people per day It's terrible that to say, but just terrible not to say it, " Jacques Cousteau, the UNESCO Courier, November 1991st

---

[1] For the purists among our readers: Salby determines the correlation coefficient = the net emissions increase of CO2 concentration for the temperature, with almost 0.8 and together with the moisture to 0.93.

New paper predicts temperature decrease by 2020 of up to 1C due to low solar activity

A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds long solar cycles predict lower temperatures during the following solar cycle. A lag of 11 years [the average solar cycle length] is found to provide maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. On the basis of the long sunspot cycle of the last solar cycle 23, the authors predict an average temperature decrease of 1C over the current solar cycle 24 from 2009-2020 for certain locations.

The authors also find "solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase" and "For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution [to the temperature increase of the past 150 years]. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal."

A co-author of the paper is geoscientist Dr. Ole Humlum, who demonstrated in a prior paper that CO2 levels lag temperature on a short-term basis and that CO2 is not the driver of global temperature. 


Update: As pointed out by commenters at WUWT, this paper was published in 2012. For some odd reason it appeared for the first time in my RSS feed from the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics today and thus was incorrectly stated to have been published online today. 

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

• Jan-Erik Solheim^a, , , 
• Kjell Stordahl^b, , 
• Ole Humlum^c, d, 

 Show more

DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008

  Open Access

---

Abstract

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least $\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$ from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

---

Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle. ► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations. ► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase. ► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.

Keywords

• Solar cycle lengths; 
• Climate change; 
• Forecasts; 
• North Atlantic climate response

---

1. Introduction

The question of a possible relation between solar activity and the Earth's climate has received considerable attention during the last 200 years. Periods with many sunspots and faculae correspond with periods with higher irradiance in the visual spectrum and even stronger response in the ultraviolet, which acts on the ozone level. It is also proposed that galactic cosmic rays can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which may link variations in the cloud coverage to solar activity, since more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth's magnetic field when the solar activity is low. A review of possible connections between the Sun and the Earth's climate is given by Gray and et al. (2010).

Based on strong correlation between the production rate of the cosmogenic nucleids ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be and proxies for sea ice drift, Bond et al. (2001) concluded that extremely weak perturbations in the Sun's energy output on decadal to millennial timescales generate a strong climate response in the North Atlantic deep water (NADW). This affects the global thermohaline circulation and the global climate. The possible sun–ocean–climate connection may be detectable in temperature series from the North Atlantic region. Since the ocean with its large heat capacity can store and transport huge amounts of heat, a time lag between solar activity and air temperature increase is expected. An observed time lag gives us an opportunity for forecasting, which is the rationale for the present investigation.

Comparing sunspot numbers with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature anomaly, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) noticed a similar behavior of temperature and sunspot numbers from 1861 to 1990, but it seemed that the sunspot number R appeared to lag the temperature anomaly. They found a much better correlation between the solar cycle length (SCL) and the temperature anomaly. In their study they used a smoothed mean value for the SCL with five solar cycles weighted 1-2-2-2-1. They correlated the temperature during the central sunspot cycle of the filter with this smoothed weighted mean value for SCL. The reason for choosing this type of filter was that it has traditionally been used to describe long time trends in solar activity. However, it is surprising that the temperature was not smoothed the same way. In a follow up paper Reichel et al. (2001) concluded that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed SCL and the cycle mean temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature in the 20th century at the 99% significance level. This suggests that there may exist a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

The length of a solar cycle is determined as the time from the appearance of the first spot in a cycle at high solar latitude, to the disappearance of the last spot in the same cycle near the solar equator. However, before the last spot in a cycle disappears, the first spot in the next cycle appears at high latitude, and there is normally a two years overlap. The time of the minimum is defined as the central time of overlap between the two cycles (Waldmeier, 1939), and the length of a cycle can be measured between successive minima or maxima. A recent description of how the time of minimum is calculated is given by NGDC (2011): “When observations permit, a date selected as either a cycle minimum or maximum is based in part on an average of the times extremes are reached in the monthly mean sunspot number, in the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, and in the monthly mean number of spot groups alone. Two more measures are used at time of sunspot minimum: the number of spotless days and the frequency of occurrence of old and new cycle spot groups.”

It was for a long time thought that the appearance of a solar cycle was a random event, which means that each cycle length and amplitude were independent of the previous. However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept. Richards et al. (2009) analyzed the length of cycles 1610–2000 using median trace analyses of the cycle lengths and power spectrum analyses of the O–C residuals of the dates of sunspot maxima and minima. They identified a period of 188±38 years. They also found a correspondence between long cycles and minima of number of spots. Their study suggests that the length of sunspot cycles should increase gradually over the next $\mathrm{}$. accompanied by a gradual decrease in the number of sunspots.

An autocorrelation study by Solanki et al. (2002) showed that the length of a solar cycle is a good predictor for the maximum sunspot number in the next cycle, in the sense that short cycles predict high R_max${}_{\mathit{}}$ and long cycles predict small R_max${}_{\mathit{}}$. They explain this with the solar dynamo having a memory of the previous cycle's length.

Assuming a relation between the sunspot number and global temperature, the secular periodic change of SCL may then correlate with the global temperature, and as long as we are on the ascending (or descending) branches of the 188 year period, we may predict a warmer (or cooler) climate.

It was also demonstrated (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1992, Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 and Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995) that the correlation between SCL and climate probably has been in operation for centuries. A statistical study of 69 tree rings sets, covering more than 594 years, and SCL demonstrated that wider tree-rings (better growth conditions) were associated with shorter sunspot cycles (Zhou and Butler, 1998).

The relation between the smoothed SCL and temperature worked well as long as SCL decreased as shown inFig. 1. But when the short cycle SC22 was finished Thejll and Lassen (2000) reported a developing inconsistency. In order to explain the high temperatures at the turn of the millennium, the not yet finished SC23 had to be shorter than 8 years, which was very unlikely, since there had never been observed two such short cycles in a row (see Fig. 1). They concluded that the type of solar forcing described with this SCL model had ceased to dominate the temperature change. Since the final length of SC23 became 12.2 years, the discrepancy became even bigger.

Fig. 1. 

Length of solar cycles (inverted) 1680–2009. The last point refers to SC23 which is 12.2 years long. The gradual decrease in solar cycle length 1850–2000 is indicated with a straight line.

...

5. Conclusions

Significant linear relations are found between the average air temperature in a solar cycle and the length of the previous solar cycle (PSCL) for 12 out of 13 meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic. For nine of these stations no autocorrelation on the 5% significance level was found in the residuals. For four stations the autocorrelation test was undetermined, but the significance of the PSCL relations allowed for 95% confidence level in forecasting for three of these stations. Significant relations are also found for temperatures averaged for Norway, 60 European stations temperature anomaly, and for the HadCRUT3N temperature anomaly. Temperatures for Norway and the average of 60 European stations showed indifferent or no autocorrelations in the residuals. The HadCRUT3N series showed significant autocorrelations in the residuals.

For the average temperatures of Norway and the 60 European stations, the solar contribution to the temperature variations in the period investigated is of the order 40%. An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard. This is higher than the 7% attributed to the Sun for the global temperature rise in AR4 (IPCC, 2007). About 50% of the HadCRUT3N temperature variations since 1850 may be attributed solar activity. However, this conclusion is more uncertain because of the strong autocorrelations found in the residuals.

The significant linear relations indicate a connection between solar activity and temperature variations for the locations and areas investigated. A regression forecast model based on the relation between PSCL and the average air temperature is used to forecast the temperature in the newly started solar cycle 24. This forecast model benefits, as opposed to the majority of other regression models with explanatory variables, to use an explanatory variable–the solar cycle length–nearly without uncertainty. Usually the explanatory variables have to be forecasted, which of cause induce significant additional forecasting uncertainties.

Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9 °C in the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0–1.8 °C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al., 2011).

Arctic amplification due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Arctic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3–0.5 °C in SC24.

Our study has concentrated on an effect with lag once solar cycle in order to make a model for prediction. Since solar forcing on climate is present on many timescales, we do not claim that our result gives a complete picture of the Sun's forcing on our planet's climate.

Simple climate model outperforms IPCC models, demonstrates climate effect of CO2 is miniscule

Geoscience professors Dr. Ole Humlum and Dr. Jan-Erik Solheim have described a simple, empircal harmonic climate model that accurately explains global temperature observations since 1850, without incorporating any forcing from man-made CO2 or aerosols. According to the authors, "What puzzles many is that this model does not have contributions from CO2 and aerosols." "If we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950. There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as the IPCC claims in their reports, thus the assumed CO2 effects in IPCC climate models are exaggerated. The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data."

Google translation from Norwegian + light editing, from the geoscience site Geoforskning.no:

A simple empirical harmonic climate model

Jan-Erik Solheim and Ole Humlum  8/5/13  Geoforskning

Jan-Erik Solheim and Ole Humlum describe here a climate model that explains global temperature change since 1850 and gives an indication of trends over the next 20 - 30 years.

In previous posts, we have identified weaknesses in the complex climate models the IPCC uses, and that our government is basing its planning.

The main weakness of these models is that they are unable to predict future climate variations. We have shown that modern climate models are unable to describe the observed climate variations - either in the past or future:

Can we trust climate models? 
Volcanoes and climate models 
Natural variability and climate models

In this post we describe a simple empirical climate model that explains global temperature change since 1850, which gives us an idea of ​​the temperature trend for the next 20-30 years.

Our simple model is based on the fact that a system put in oscillation must continue to oscillate a while before these fluctuations die out. Similarly, fluctuations can be amplified by external influences so that they are maintained over long periods. In the following, we demonstrate a simple harmonic model of the Earth's global temperature.

Initially, we emphasize that our hypothesis is that different regions of the world have different harmonic periods in its climate response. Adding these up, they will in some cases be in anti-phase and zero each other out, other times they can be in phase and reinforce each other. This will particularly be the case if they are controlled by something outside the Earth. Possible candidates for external control is the moon, the sun and the other planets mass and orbits.

The global temperature has risen, but not uniformly, since 1850

Figure 1 Global monthly temperature values ​​calculated by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). The blue straight line corresponds to a temperature rise of 0.47 ^o C per 100 years.

Figure 2 Global temperature curve with trend removed. We see clear maxima around 1880, 1945 and 2005.

If we remove the trend of 0.47 ^o C per one hundred years, we get a curve as shown in Figure 2 Here we see distinct peaks around 1880, 1945 and 2005, ie by approx. 60-65 years. We also see that there are larger variations from month to month until 1900. This is because the time was far fewer monitoring stations than we have now.

From the curve in Figure 2, we find the frequency analysis there are four significant periods (69, 148, 21 and 9.2 years). We therefore create a model based on these four periods + the linear trend. It is shown as a thick red curve in Figure 3 We see that this model follows the observations very well. It indicates that the temperature decline that has been observed since 2002 will last 30-40 years.

Figure 3 Observed monthly values ​​of global temperature with forecast based on 4 periodic variations plus trend.

What puzzles many is that this model does not have contributions from CO2 and aerosols. We can see in Figure 4, where we show variations compared to the simple model. We see that there are rapid fluctuations both up and down, but no systematic trend or slow variations.

We can not look particularly noticeable traces of the major volcanic eruptions Pinatubo in 1991, El Chichon in 1992 and Agnung 1963, suggesting that the cooling effects due to emissions of particles (aerosols) are modest, at least for these eruptions. This strengthens our claim in an earlier post that aerosols in climate models are exaggerated.

Figure 4 Deviation of monthly global temperature variations relative to simple harmonic model as shown in Figure 3

If we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950. There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as IPCC claims in their reports also CO2 effects of climate models for the IPCC based are exaggerated. The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data.

Prognosis based on simple harmonic model and 44 IPCC models compared with observations

We can now compare the observed ground temperatures with average values ​​of the 44 IPCC models we showed in our post of 14 June 2013 . We assume that these models have taken into account the known temperature gradient before 2000. We have designed an empirical harmonic model, also based on data prior to 2000. This model is called Harmonic Model 2000 or HM2000. It has a trend and four periodic variations.

The result is shown in Figure 5 There we see that the IPCC models provide an average of a warming of 0.8 ⁰ C over the period 2000-2025, ie approx. 0.3 ^o C per decade while HM2000 rise until 2005 and then drops slightly over the next 20 years. The observations through May 2013 show that they follow HM 2000 and not the IPCC models. According to the IPCC forecast global temperature would reach in 2013 to 0.4 ^o C warmer than observed.

Figure 5 Global monthly values ​​(HadCRUT4) through May 2013 compared to a simple harmonic model based on data before 2000 (HM2000) (red curve), and 44 advanced climate models used by the IPCC, described in our post of 16 June.

A harmonic model is explained by fluctuations linked to variations in the sun, moon and planets. We assume that the trend of 0.47 ^o C per one hundred years due to a period of about 1000 years corresponding to the time between known historical warm periods. This is also found in the analysis of the GISP2 ice core from Greenland (Humlum et al. 2012). This long period, at least between 1350 and 1850 and will probably have a new maximum at the end of this century. This leads to the linear trend to decrease and gradually changing shape.

Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years

A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC. The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Spencer, Segalstad, and others which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.

Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere

Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy

The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.

Related: New paper finds ocean along Baja California coast is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

H/T to The Stockholm Initiative site for finding this abstract [Google translation from Swedish]:

David Coe - another kolcykelkritiker

08/05/2013 by CG Ribbing .

43 Comments

This summer, there have been numerous posts and lively discussion of the carbon cycle.Earlier critics: Jaworowski, Beck, Sail City, Humlum and Kouwenberg have questioned the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and its variation before Manua Loa measurements began in the 1950s. A brief description of this on science page ( link)

Last summer was extended discussion in that Gösta Pettersson book "False Alarm" was published. Among other Pehr wrote a post about this in May ( link ). There is now a question of a much broader criticism of the IPCC's carbon cycle is quantitatively incorrect. An appropriate introduction to this newer criticism is to consider this chart.

The lower blue bars show the atmospheric CO 2 -upptag/år ago Manua Loa measurements started. The red-tagged curve is CO 2 -tillförseln/år measured in Gtons carbon. The difference between these rather precise curves must represent the other CO 2 uptake, ie, in the oceans and the biosphere, ie the green field. On the x-axis has ENSO outbreak, ie emerging warm ocean currents, marked with black arrows. It is obvious that the strong variations in atmospheric absorption - high blue bars - correlates strongly with these ENSO outbreak. There is, however, no correlation with the fossil injections.

I highly recommend anyone interested to read chapter 7-9 in the book that is freely available ( link ). Gösta Pettersson shows that AGW supporters provided that increasing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere solely due to the anthropogenic addition, and this causes errors in the results. It has used the Bern model with three widely different decay times for the natural processes that regulate the addition of CO 2 . Since the longest time parameter is more than a hundred years, so the forecasts landed in the often-quoted long lifetimes of carbon dioxide at 100 and even 500 years. Pettersson describes how this differs from the results that the decay of the 14 C isotope after 50's nuclear tests have shown."Bomb curve" decays much faster, and with only one decay time. The difference between Berne and Bomb curve led here for a detailed discussion, and it became almost an overdose of red and white beads. I do not think a consensus was reached, which iofs is very rare on this forum. However shows Göstas making very convincing that the IPCC's carbon cycle has serious quantitative problem, which in turn is disastrous for the validity of the "scenarios" which is based on a strongly increasing CO 2 content in the future.

Discussion of Göstas preparation was replaced in turn by some messages by Pehrson about Salby and his differential equation for the relationship between the CO 2 -content and temperature. The relationship between Göstas and Salbys criticism he is the right person to explain, so I will instead conclude by mentioning another kolcykelkritiker: David Coe . He observations are collected in four manuscripts of which so far published two at Andrew Montfords blog Bishop Hill ( link ). David deals with the two most recent IPCC reports are making when it comes to the carbon cycle and what is controlled atmospheric levels of CO 2 .Like other critics, he finds inconsistencies which shows that there are major flaws in the IPCC's theory that carbon dioxide is only determined by the anthropogenic contribution. I would have quoted one or two of his figures, but have not managed to copy them. Coe discusses include the concentration measurements of the stable 13 C isotope made. The usual description has been confirm that anthropogenic origin. Coe shows that this pioneer Keeling's 13 δ measurements indicated that there were problems with the evidence. Some time ago I referred Leporis conference paper on a new detailed analysis ( link ) which clearly showed that 13 δ values ​​rather showed that the CO 2 -increase was not predominantly derived from humans. Neither Coe, Salbys or Leporis works have been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Experience shows that this may be because they either  have no weakness that I did not realize. Or it may also be because they are so accurate that they represent a serious blow to climate science theses why the elite of tidkriftsredaktörer not want or dare to publish them.