Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:

• CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
• The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
• "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"

• Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
• 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
• Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
• Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
• Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
• The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
• Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
• Climate models have no predictive value
• Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

Professor Salby also explains in the 2012 edition of his textbook, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, why changes in global temperature control CO2 levels, not man-made CO2. Salby's findings corroborate the works of Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey et al, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, and others demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or global temperatures.

As stated by Professor and Climate Chair Dr. Judith Curry,

"If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."

Selected slides from Dr. Salby's lecture: 

CO2 lags temperature

  

d13C levels have declined due to increased temperature, not due to man-made emissions

Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present in relatively uninhabited and non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions.

Net global emissions correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes. d13C is inversely related to surface temperature. 

Methane is also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions.

  

 

The IPCC claims that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity," but Salby demonstrates this is impossible.

  

You don't even need a climate model to show what climate models predict - projections are based upon a single  independent variable - CO2

Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 2 decades.

   

 

H/T The Cold Sun [Google translation from German]:

Video recording of the lecture by Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013

10 June 2013 | 07:30

Professor Murry Salby, Chair of Climate Research at Macquarie University in Sydney, made ​​in a European lecture tour on 18 April 2013 held in Hamburg. Professor Salby is the author of the standard works "Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate" (Cambridge University Press) and "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics" (Academic Press) and is recognized worldwide as an atmospheric physicist. He has attracted attention recently with new findings on the relationship of the isotopes 12C and 13C, and the development of CO₂ concentrations. It is concluded that anthropogenic emissions have little effect on the global CO₂ concentration. They were mainly a result of temperature change. This relationship  was previously known only from the warming phase of the last ice age. Professor Salby extended this relationship to our current climate.

The video recording of the presentation is now available on YouTube. The opening words of the host Helmut Schmidt University are German, the lecture itself is in English.

See also our following blog posts with additional information on the topic:

• CO 2 -increase of the last 160 years by degassing from the ocean?
• Cause and effect to the test: CO 2 -change in the atmosphere lags the temperature curve today at nearly a year afterwards

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.

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.

New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2

A new paper published in Deep-Sea Research finds the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists that the ocean removes CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the authors, "At the [research] site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events." The paper also notes, "Astor et al.(2005) observed the interactions between physical and biochemical parameters that lead to temporal [over time] variations in fCO2 [CO2 flux from the] sea, finding that even during periods of high production, the CO2 flux between the ocean and the atmosphere decreased but remained positive, i.e. CO2 escaped from the ocean to the atmosphere."

The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey et al, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, and others demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2. This new work confirms the primary source of atmospheric CO2 is out-gassing from the oceans, which is due to decreased solubility with increased temperature.

The net transfer of CO2  was from the ocean to atmosphere during the study period from 1996-2009, shown by the positive flux values on vertical axis. The flux only dipped to negative values [net transfer from atmosphere to ocean] during brief periods.

Full paper available here:

Interannual variability in sea surface temperature and fCO2 changes in the Cariaco Basin

Y.M. Astor et al

We examined the variability of sea surface carbon dioxide fugacity (fCO2sea) and its relation to temperature at the Cariaco Basin ocean time-series location (10°30’N, 64°40’W) for the period from 1996 through 2008. Periods of warm (positive) and cold (negative) anomalies at the station were related to variability in coastal upwelling intensity. A positive temporal trend in monthly-deseasonalized sea surface temperatures (SST) was observed, leading to an overall increase of 1.13°C over 13 years. Surface fCO2 sea displayed significant short-term variation (month to month) with a range of 330 to 445µatm. In addition to a large seasonal range (58±17µatm), deseasonalized fCO2sea data showed an interannual positive trend of 1.77±0.43µatmyear⁻¹. In the Cariaco Basin, positive and negative anomalies of temperature and fCO2sea are in phase. An increase/decrease of 1°C coincides with an increase/decrease of 16–20µatm of fCO2sea. Deseasonalized fCO2 seanormalized to 26.05°C, the mean Cariaco SST, shows a lower rate of increase (0.51±0.49µatmyear⁻¹). Based on these observations, 72% of the increase in fCO2sea in Cariaco Basin between 1996 and 2008 can be attributed to an increasing temperature trend of surface waters, making this the primary factor controlling fugacity at this location. During this period, a decrease in upwelling intensity was also observed. The phytoplankton community changed from large diatom-dominated blooms during upwelling in the late 1990's to blooms dominated by smaller cells in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The average net sea [to] air CO2 flux over the study period is 2.0±2.6molCm⁻² year⁻¹ employing the Wanninkhof parameterization, and 2.1±2.5molCm⁻² year⁻¹ based on Nightingale's model. To further understand the connection between the changes observed in the Cariaco Basin, the relationships between interannual variability in the temperature anomaly with three modes of climate variability (AMO, NAO and ENSO) were examined.

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

A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans finds the near-shore region in Baja California (Mexico) "was a weak annual net source of CO2 to the atmosphere." The paper joins at least 3 other peer-reviewed publications based on careful in-situ ocean measurements finding the oceans may act as a source rather than a sink for CO2, calling into question the belief that man is entirely responsible for the increase of CO2 levels. Prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey et al, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, and others have demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2.

Air-sea CO2 fluxes in the near-shore and intertidal zones influenced by the California Current

Janet J. Reimer 1,2, Rodrigo Vargas 3,*,Stephen V. Smith 4, Ruben Lara-Lara 2,Gilberto Gaxiola-Castro 2, J. Martin Hernandez-Ayon 5, Angel Castro 6, Martin Escoto-Rodriguez 7, Juan Martínez-Osuna 2

Abstract: The study of air-sea CO2 fluxes (FCO2) in the coastal region is needed to better understand the processes which influence the direction and magnitude of FCO2 and to constrain the global carbon budget. We implemented a one-year (January through December, 2009) paired study to measure FCO2 in the intertidal zone (the coastline to 1.6 km offshore) and the near-shore (~3 km offshore) off the north-western coast of Baja California (Mexico); a region influenced by year-round upwelling. FCO2 was determined in the intertidal zone via eddy covariance; while in the near-shore using mooring buoy sensors then calculated with the bulk method. The near-shore region was a weak annual net source of CO2 to the atmosphere (0.043 mol CO2 m-2 y-1); where 91% of the outgassed FCO2 was contributed during the upwelling season. SST and ΔpCO2(from upwelling) showed the strongest relationship with FCO2 in the near-shore suggesting the importance of meso-scale processes (upwelling). FCO2 in the intertidal zone were up to four orders of magnitude higher than FCO2 in the near-shore. Wind speed showed the strongest relationship with FCO2 in the intertidal zone suggesting the relevance of micro-scale processes. Results show that there are substantial spatial and temporal differences in FCO2 between the near-shore and intertidal zone; likely a result of spatial differences. We suggest that detailed spatial and temporal measurements are needed across the coastal oceans and continental margins to better understand the mechanisms which control FCO2, as well as reduce uncertainties and constrain regional and global ocean carbon balances.

Climate textbook explains why man-made CO2 does not control atmospheric CO2

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in the 2012 edition of his textbook, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, why changes in global temperature control CO2 levels, not man-made CO2. The text corroborates the works of Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, and Francey et al demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or global temperatures.

As stated by Professor Judith Curry,

"If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."

 

 

 

 

 

Climate textbook explains why man-made CO2 does not control atmospheric CO2

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in the 2012 edition of his textbook, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, why changes in global temperature control CO2 levels, not man-made CO2. The text corroborates the works of Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, and Francey et al demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or global temperatures.

As stated by Professor Judith Curry,

"If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis finds man-made CO2 emissions only remain in atmosphere for ~5 years, not thousands

The IPCC claims man-made CO2 emissions [only 4% of total CO2 emissions] remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, as opposed to the 96% of CO2 emissions from nature which have a lifetime of only about 5 years. Climate scientist Pehr Björnbom, author of a published paper finding low CO2 climate sensitivity, has a new post today on the fallacy that man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. Dr. Bjornbom reviews the findings of Dr. Gösta Pettersson, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, and author of the book 'False Alarm.' Dr. Pettersson finds the computer model ["The Bern Model'] used by the IPCC to predict CO2 lifetimes of over 100 years is highly flawed and is strongly contradicted by observations from both atomic bomb testing and atmospheric levels of CO2 [the Keeling Curve]. 

Reblogged from "The Climate Scam" (Netherlands, Google translation):

Climate simulations and observations are contrary to each other: Bomb Test Curve

17/05/2013 by Pehr Björnbom .

46 Comments

Picture: Trial blast at Bikini Atoll in 1954, from Wikipedia .

Gösta Pettersson points out that bomb test curve is not consistent with climate models, mainly the so-called Bern model. Here I compare the simulations with the Bern model published by Solomon et al (2009) with bomb test curve. It is clear that theory and observations are strongly in conflict.

Gösta Pettersson, who is professor emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, in his book False Alarm (see references below) and in a guest post at TCS brought the issue of bomb test curve, namely the curve of the reduction of the presence of measurable radioactive carbon dioxide from nuclear bomb tests in atmosphere. I believe that Gösta Pettersson's book is a very valuable popular science topics in climate change. It gives a skeptical, thoughtful and coherent story about climate science. One of the most central parts of the book is the story of the bomb test curve.

It is generally accepted in the climate science of the very long term, then human (anthropogenic) emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the ocean and biosphere was close to 100% because the kolreservoaren in the sea is about 60 times larger than kolreservoaren the atmosphere.The big question is not whether this will happen, but how fast it goes. This is where the bomb test curve comes into play.

Read more in False Alarm 7.6 Carbon Occupy Gets equilibria

Bomb Test curve shows how the levels of radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide has varied over time.What has happened is that the atmospheric nuclear tests, as at Bikini Atoll as seen in the picture, generated large amounts of radioactive C14 emissions. As long as these atmospheric bomb test went so step therefore the content of this through its radioactivity directly measurable carbon drastically over the natural level (due to the formation of C14 due to cosmic rays). But finally came the great powers agreed to stop the atmospheric bomb tests, and so ceased thus these issues. In Figure 1 we see bomb test curve in the upper diagram, which is Figure 31 in the False Alarms, and a comparison of the bomb test curve and Bern model in the bottom, which is Figure 34 in False alaram.

Solomon et al (2009) have used the Bern model simulations of how carbon dioxide levels will evolve under different assumptions about the issues. They have assumed that emissions first increase roughly at the same accelerated rate as today that at a certain carbon concentration suddenly cease.In Figure 2, we see a couple of charts from their article.

In the upper diagram in Figure 2, which is part of Figure 1 in Solomon and others, have been simulated the carbon dioxide content in the air will increase if emissions increase logarithmically with 2% per year to a certain peak value, several different cases, whereupon emissions ceases. The curves after the peak value, which thus assumes that emissions have ceased, are analogous to bomb test curve.

In the lower graph, which is Figure S2 in Solomon and others, announces title that shows decay (U.S. falloff) of the human contribution to atmospheric concentrations (CO2 curves are represented by a gray cone) after the anthropogenic emissions ceased. This description matches exactly with bomb test curve that just shows the decay of the human contribution to C14 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after emissions stopped by the prohibition of nuclear tests in the atmosphere.

In the lower graph in Figure 2 has avklingningsförloppen illustrated with the same sort of scale on the y-axis (0-1 or percentage) of the bomb test curve after the introduction into the atmosphere has ceased, not only carbon dioxide, but to several different topics. The carbon avklingningsförlopp varies according Bern model is dependent on the added amount and therefore illustrated as an ostrich.

These curves according to Solomon and others would thus equally be simulations with Bern model of the C14 carbon dioxide from the bomb sample decays in the atmosphere. To those of Solomon and others called simulations of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, decay (U.S. falloff) in the atmosphere makes no difference (although the radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide from bomb tests, incidentally anthropogenic). It is truly remarkable, then, therefore, that the simulated curves of Bern model differs so sharply against the observed bomb test curve as illustrated in Figure 1, lower graph, Figure 34 from Gösta Pettersson's book False Alarm.

Decay curves can be interpreted with the IPCC's view of the carbon cycle, Figure 3 from IPCC 2007 .

We have a faster decay in the beginning of the Bern model curve. The faster part can be interpreted as the anthropogenic (according Solomons terminology) carbon dioxide is rapidly coming to close to equilibrium only between atmosphere and ocean surface layer, and then somewhat less rapidly between the three reservoirs atmosphere, the ocean's surface and the biosphere on land. The slow continuation corresponds to anthropogenic molecules slowly leaking from ythavet to deep sea and it is this that is the very slow progress in Bern model that enables a portion of the carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for more than a thousand years.

The most notable is that the decay curve of the observations, ie. bomb test curve in the lower graph in Figure 2, no way supports such an interpretation. The observations of bomb test curve says avklingningsförloppet much faster towards a complete removal of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This means that the Bern model and the theory of the so-called Revelle effect limiting slope is not consistent with the observations. This effect was launched by Revelle and Suess (1957).They also based their studies on the effects of anthropogenic carbon in the C14 released from the atmosphere to the ocean, but not on bombprovsskurvan because it did not exist yet.

According to the Revelle effect so can the sea for a long time to admit only about one tenth of its share of the excess carbon dioxide in the final balance due to the peculiarities of chemical equilibria present in the carbon dioxide-carbonate-water system. But there are as bomb test curve no indication whatsoever that this Revelle effect work the way the theory says. In fact, according Revelle effect at least 10 - 20% of the emissions remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. What this disagreement between simulations and observations is due is another thing I can not give a good answer to (a guess, is the theory of deterministic to describe what happens in a complex and chaotic system), but we must face the fact, observations and theory contrary to each other in this case.

Keeling curve for koldioxidhaltens development conforms nor indeed the Solomons with several participants simulations. In the upper diagram in Figure 2 rises from Bern model simulated carbon concentration at an accelerating pace when emissions increase as they have done in reality and which is what the simulations assume. However, as shown in Figure 4, from Wood for Trees , then carbon dioxide levels increased linearly over the last twenty years.

The discussion here about the role of carbon dioxide can be seen in a wider context of the IPCC's view of how much anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions means the climate has been challenged by professors Murry Salby and Ole Humlum. I have read a textbook on atmospheric physics at the graduate level by Murry Salby and has gained a trust in his abilities so his challenge of the IPCC's approach is nothing that I can easily dismiss.

Read more: Is the IPCC argument for carbon dioxide increase is due to human sustainable?

Finally, we note that the theory Solomons with several participants simulations based on strong conflict with the observations of bomb test curve. But neither Keeling curve consistent with their simulations. These are two of several other examples of where climate science has difficulty in theoretical simulations that go together with the observations. These are important warning signs that you have to use findings from climate science theory with great caution. Gösta Pettersson has even written the following in the preface to his book, False Alarm, where he makes a clear statement:

The book's title was initially fitted with a question mark. It stressed when I along the way became convinced that the current state of scientific knowledge does not give any reason for concern that our emissions of greenhouse gases are being induce catastrophic climate change. One should not cry "wolf" whenever you see a four-legged animal.

References

Susan Solomon, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti, and Pierre Fried Ling Stein, 2009: "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions" . PNAS 106: 1704-1709. http://www.pnas.org cgi.doi10.1073pnas.0812721106.

Gösta Pettersson, 2013. False Alarm , published on the Web.

Revelle R, Suess HE, 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an Increase of atmospheric CO2 During the past decades. Tellus 9:18-27.