20 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Human-Induced Global Warming

Where's the proof that it doesn't? Again, I'm talking about CO2 concentration retention times; not CO2 molecule retention times.

Looking at the glacial/interglacial trends over the last 1 million years it's not unreasonable to think it could take as many 100,000 years for CO2 levels to halve. Though we don't really have an adequate test case with pulses of CO2 this quick and this high in the glacial/interglacial record.

 

It seems entirely feasible to me that the current observed increase in atmospheric CO2 could well be mainly the result of ocean-outgassing in response to the MWP of about 800 years ago rather than being due to CO2 emissions from industrialized humans. The ice-core data may underestimate true CO2 values, but it does show an 800-year lag between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes, so we should expect CO2 to be rising now regardless of our emissions.

As I’ve pointed out in this thread before, there is only around 6-8% of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (based on the δ13C value of –8.3) with the other 94-92% being isotopically indistinguishable from natural sources, so the isotopic argument can’t be used as proof that humans have increased the CO2 level by 30%.

Even if PCO2(aq) is increasing it is not incompatible with the idea that a large portion of the increase could be natural. Humans have emitted about 2,000 Gts since 1850 (according to the IPCC in AR5) and the increase in CO2 has been just over 900 Gts. Hence more human CO2 must have been absorbed by sinks (primarily by the ocean) than what may have been emitted naturally. Say hypothetically the oceans have contributed 50% to the atmospheric CO2 increase due to the warming, then only about 450 Gts would have been emitted by the oceans and being the main sink they would have absorbed more than what they have emitted, which would increase CO2(aq) in the oceans.

Probably the oceans. Henry’s law governs the solubility of CO2 in water and sets a fixed ‘partitioning ratio’ of about 1/50 for the amounts of CO2 that reside in the atmosphere and oceans respectively. This partitioning ratio implies that for every tonne of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere by humans, only about 0.02 tonnes will remain there and the rest (about 0.98 tonnes) will be absorbed into the oceans at equilibrium.

We CAGW-sceptics are not the ones putting forward a proposal for the radical upheaval and restructuring of world society. AGW-advocates are. So, they need to provide the proof that human CO2 emissions are significantly accumulating in the atmosphere and that this will have a negative enough impact on human society to make it worthwhile on spending resources counteracting it.

The ice-core data may not be representative of ancient CO2 levels. But what we’re probably observing in the paleo-climate record is not a “die-off” of CO2, but rather the oceans controlling how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere, based on their temperature. As you know, as the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere and as they cool they suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

 

Think of smoke. It starts out concentrated at the source, but then disperses, even though the smoke is heavier than air. The southern hemisphere tracks about 2 years behind the northern hemisphere in CO2 levels, because most of the emission sources are in the north, and it takes time for the CO2 to work south.

There is often significantly more CO2 within a few meters of the ground, coming from ongoing biological processes. Go up a little, or add some wind, the air is well mixed again. That's why it's important to put CO2 measuring stations in areas with little biological activity, like the top of Mauna Kea.

 

As you're not doing that with the vast majority of the science, you have no grounds to demand such a thing from me. It's not realistic for anyone to be intimately familiar with every bit of the science. At some point, you have to start trusting authorities in their field.

Well, I could go over McLean's awful science instead. For example, in an older paper, he predicted an epic-scale temperature plunge in 2011. Needless to say, it didn't happen. After seeing the real world contradict his "clouds and ocean cycles" theory, he didn't change his theory at all.

His Ph.D thesis, the 'audit'? Laughably bad. He basically accuses Anglia of fraud because some stations had really bad data, but he didn't realize used an algorithm to keep such data out. An intellectually honest person would have asked of the people he was auditing "Hey, how do you explain this?". He didn't. He assumed fraud, and then recklessly set out to find it.

McLean has also started the talk show circuit as "expert scientist". That is, he's going for the bucks.

And his cloud talk is garbage. He doesn't seem to get that he's just showing clouds changes as a feedback, not a forcing. And he only looks at land temps. The oceans kept steadily warming while he said the clouds were stopping the warming, which destroys his theory.

Yes. And with 20 seconds of work, you could have been sure as well.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-2.html
---
At the majority of 421 analysed sites, the decline in surface solar radiation ended around 1990 and a recovery of about 6 W m^2 occurred afterwards (Wild et al., 2004; 2005)
---

 

Everything you talk about is explainable by 'cloud changes are a feedback'.

As I just pointed out, the oceans just kept steadily warming as the cloud levels said cooling should be happening.

And you still have to explain _why_ clouds changed. AGW theory does that. Your theory doesn't.

 

Higher latitude, less sunlight and lower temps, so less forcing, at least in terms of watts/m^2.

 

If the ocean is outgassing you'd expect pH values to rise. But, we observe the opposite. The current flux of carbon into the ocean is net uptake right now.

Agreed. Regardless of CO2's propensity to catalyze temperature we know that natural emissions increase as the temperature increases.

I'm not sure what to say here. Both ice core and tree ring analysis of the isotope ratios shows little or no variation during the last 10,000 years until about 1750 when a noticeable anomaly in the 13C/12C ratio becomes apparent.

So it is believed that the uptake of CO2 by the ocean is equivalent to about 50% of total anthroprogenic emissions. So of the 2000 Gts emitted about 1000 Gts went into the ocean and 1000 Gts went elsewhere (mostly atmosphere).

1000 [ocean-uptake] + 1000 [atmosphere-uptake] = 2000 [total-emitted]

If hypothetically the oceans outgassed 500 Gts then our carbon budget is no longer balanced.

-500 [ocean-outgassing] + 1000 [atmosphere-uptake] + 1500 [unbalanced-portion] = 2000 [total-emitted]

So where are we putting this 1500 Gts unbalanced portion? It has to go somewhere. Nevermind the fact that for the net flux of carbon from the ocean to be -500 Gts the pH of the ocean would be expected to increase.

What am I missing here?

Well the net flux of carbon is either positive (uptake) or negative (outgassing). It can't be both. If all of that 2000 Gts of carbon were absorbed by the ocean then the ocean couldn't have been net outgassing during this period. So where did the 1000 Gts of carbon in the atmosphere come from?

I could turn that line of argument around on you. Humans have embarked on a global-scale experiment that has already been implicated has having undesirable consequences. Shouldn't the burden be on you to prove that this experiment will not have any unintended consequences? Where is the environmental impact study of this experiment? If proof can't be presented then shouldn't we suspend the experiment until proof can be presented?

I agree. But what's going to cause the geosphere to cool so that the net flux of carbon into the ocean goes positive (uptake)?

 

Exactly. And this statement extends to be many other alternative theories as well. If you want to claim variable X is the cause then you need show how X itself is modulated.

 

I shall study again the winds patterns from west of the big Island, Hawaii but at this moment believe the CO2 there flows from China and it's environs. Also I shall check on co2 levels over that island.

 

Robert puts in from Wikipedia

As you say, it is not decreasing but increasing.

 

Nah, the pH is decreasing. The oceans are becoming more acidic.

My point was that if the ocean were outgassing (losing CO2) then the pH would be rising. But, it's not rising. It's falling. That's how we know the ocean is taking in more CO2 than it's losing.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

You mean the hydrosphere? The oceans don’t have to cool for them to uptake CO2. As already mentioned before, Henry’s law determines a specific fixed ‘partitioning ratio’ between the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and the amount that will be dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature at equilibrium. At the current mean ocean temperature of 15C (at the surface), that partitioning ratio comes out to be about 1:50. If the oceans were to warm to say 20C, the partitioning ratio would rise to 1:40. However, it is only that ratio which changes with temperature, not the oceans’ absolute capacity to absorb CO2, which you can go on adding virtually indefinitely, albeit at the altered ratio.

Perhaps so, but there is still only 6-8% of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere today, with the rest, 94-92% being isotopically indistinguishable from natural sources. So we can’t use the isotopic data as proof that humans have increased the CO2 concentration by 30%. Also the δ13C levels have changed naturally before. Paleo-climate reconstructions have shown that δ13C values “were high until 17.79 Ka after which there was an abrupt decrease until 17.19 Ka followed by a steady decline to a minimum at 10.97 Ka [Ka = 1000 years]. Then followed a general increase suggesting a drying trend to 3.23 Ka followed by a further general decline. The abrupt decrease in δ13C values after 17.79 Ka probably corresponds to an increase in atmospheric CO2, biological activity and wetness at the end of the Last Glaciation”.

Yes, it can be both actually. See reason #20 in my blog-post. Here is a thought-experiment to illustrate the point: Say we had a can of soda-pop with an average temperature of 15°C and added 100 grams of CO2 into the head-space above the water. The CO2 would rapidly equilibrate with the water until about 98 grams has been dissolved and 2 grams resided in the head-space in accordance with the 1:50 partitioning ratio at that temperature. Now imagine at the same time we increased the water-temperature by 5°C and thereupon shifted the partitioning ratio to 1:40. Instead of 0.98 grams being dissolved into the water 97.5 grams would be dissolved, leaving 2.5 grams in the head-space. At the same time, some CO2 would be released from the water due to the temperature-change, let’s assume about 10 grams. The end result is that the water has simultaneously absorbed 97.5% (essentially all) of the CO2 we added while increasing the CO2 in the head-space due to the temperature-change.

Let’s try explaining this better. The oceans could be absorbing more human CO2 than they are releasing from warming. Total human CO2 emissions have been about 2000 Gts and the increase in CO2 has been about 1000 Gts. Say hypothetically, the oceans warmed and released 100ppmv of CO2 corresponding to 780 Gts, and assuming that they absorbed the majority of the 2000 Gts of human CO2 (let’s assume 1500 Gts), then PCO2(aq) can still increase in the oceans even though they have released some CO2 due to warming, because they would have absorbed more human CO2 than they outgassed due to the temperature-change. Also other parameters can determine partial pressure such as changes in ocean biology. According to Jaworowski et al (1992) if all biological activity in the ocean were removed “the partial pressure of CO2 would increase by a factor of 5. Hence variations in marine biologic activity alone could account for larger variations in atmospheric CO2 than anthropogenic contributions from burning fossil fuels at the current rate” and Baker et al (2013) estimates that changes in photosynthetic activity in certain ocean regions could potentially cause “a change in the partial pressure of more than 100ppmv”.

There are problems with the claim that global acidification is occurring and what is causing it. One such issue is that there is no accepted reference pH-scale, as Wikipedia points out: “Seawater pH is typically limited to a range between 7.5 and 8.4. However, there is no universally accepted reference pH-scale for seawater and the difference between measurements (based on different reference scales) may be up to 0.14 units”. Also, pH can apparently change due to other factors, such as eutrophication/degradation, land-based effluents and temperature. There is another possibility as pointed about above and that is the oceans are now absorbing more human CO2 than they are releasing from the temperature-changes. The bottom line is, the oceans must be contributing something to the CO2 increase, because they are warming.

That’s a fair point I suppose.

 

No, of course the ocean doesn't have to cool to take up more CO2. But the more CO2 that gets absorbed into the ocean the slower the rate of uptake becomes. The ocean is trying to bring the atmospheric concentration down, but for each kg of CO2 absorbed the next kg takes longer. In the meantime the still elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere provides, albeit at a slowly declining magnitude, a persistent radiative forcing that keep ocean temperatures elevated which reinforces the slower uptake rates. This is one reason why the dieoff curves of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus atmospheric and oceanic temperatures have really long tails. The pulse of CO2 into atmosphere is rapid, but extraction out of the atmosphere is much slower. Likewise, the warmup is fast but the cool down is much slower.

Ok, sure. Of all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere only 6-8% have the fingerprint of humans on them. But we already know on a per molecule accounting basis that human fingerprinted molecules drop out of the supply without reducing the overall concentration because a human fingerprinted molecule gets exchanged for a molecule without the fingerprint.

To illustrate this idea consider the following scenario. There is a room with two doors. A computer is stationed at each door that controls the entry and exit to the room. We'll label these doors A and B. Anytime someone enters the room she is tagged with the letter of the door. The room starts out with 100 people all tagged as A. Computer A is programmed to let 50 people out and 50 people in per timestep. But it will only exchange an exit for an entry on a 1-to-1 basis. Anytime a person leaves a new person enters and vice versa. Computer B on the other hand is programmed to only add people. It never lets people exit. Specifically it allows 4 people per timestep to enter. The interesting twist though is that computer A is also programmed to allow an additional number of exits without an exchange with an entry based on the number of people computer A is letting in. Specifically the ratio is 1 for every 2. Computer A does not preferentially select people tagged as B for the additional exits. So as computer B adds 4 people computer A lets 2 randomly selected people leave without exchanging them for an entry.

Play this scenario out in Excel and watch what happens. In the first couple of iterations the pool of B tagged people is small so those randomly selected for exit is also small. But the pace of B selections picks up quickly with the iterations until an equilibrium is established after just 15 iterations or so at about 3.85 B tagged people exiting per iteration. If you let this play out for 50 iterations you'll find that there are now 200 people in the room for an increase of 100 people. But, of the 100 additional people in the room only 15 (or 7.5%) are tagged as B. Yet computer B was directly responsible for 100 (or 50%) of those new people.

This is how the climate system is playing out. Humans are behaving like computer B while nature is behaving like computer A. This is obviously an over simplified illustration because humans haven't been emitting CO2 at a fixed rate. The rate has actually been increasing. Likewise, nature's ability to scrub 50% of our carbon emissions from the atmosphere isn't fixed either. As the ocean warms its propensity to take up the extra CO2 gets reduced. Plus there's a bunch of other differences as well. The point is that just because our fingerprint is only on 6-8% of the molecules in the atmosphere doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for 30% of the total number of molecules in the atmosphere.

And of course I'm assuming that nature is programmed like computer B. I concede that this may not be the case. But, if it's not the case then we are just digging an even deeper rabbit hole because not only do we now have to explain why nature changed its programming, but we have to figure out where all of our carbon that we are digging out of the ground is going if it's not half in the atmosphere and half in the ocean. I mean it has to go somewhere afterall.

First, that's a good illustration of your point. Second, I realize that the ocean can both take up CO2 and release it simultaneously. It can act as both a source and a sink and do so at the same time. I totally get that. What I'm specifically interested in though is the net flux of both processes when you sum them together. I am most interested in the final net tally of where the carbon went. Third, to extend your thought-experiment and to link it more closely to reality you need to also be pumping the head space with a new supply of CO2. Let the water temperature increase gradually so that the partitioning ratio changes as you're described. When you do this you'll see that both the liquid and the head space are both seeing increased concentrations of CO2. For example, starting with 100 grams and a partitioning ratio of 1:50 we get a 98/2 distribution of the CO2. Now add 2g to the head space and change the partitioning to 1:45. Our distribution is now split 99.7 to 2.3 for a total 102g. Add another 2g and change the partitioning to 1:40. Our distribution is now split 101.4 to 2.6 for a total of 104g.

I think we're on the same page here. And yes, like I said, I agree that the ocean can take up and outgas CO2 at the same time. Anyway, using your numbers here if the ocean outgassed 780 Gts and absorbed 1500 Gts then the net flux is 1500 - 780 = 720 Gts of uptake that went into the ocean. This leaves 500 Gts that needs to be accounted for. Ya know, because if the ocean absorbed 1500 Gts then 500 Gts went somewhere else.

It's the global mean pH that is decreasing. Sure, some (likely most) areas will be higher/lower than the current mean of 8.07. It's the mean that we're focused on here.

And yes, I agree that the oceans are contributing CO2 to the atmosphere via outgassing processes. But, on a net flux basis the final tally is that it is pulling more out of the atmosphere than it is putting in. Best estimates are that nature is scrubbing out about 50% of the excess CO2 that we pump in. So we pump in about +4 ppm/yr and the ocean absorbs about -2 ppm/yr of that. The net flux into the atmosphere is thus +2 ppm/yr.

As the ocean warms its ability to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere decreases thus allowing atmospheric concentrations to increase at an even faster pace. This is the defining feedback of CO2 behavior. Not only does it catalyze temperature changes, but it also in a feedback with the temperature. As more CO2 builds up in the atmosphere more CO2 is allowed to build up reinforcing the feedback even further.

 

Here is something for both heavyweights on this topic.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-ph...print-a-fatal-flaw-in-global-warming-science/

Look, this is very long. I may have to break it up. It contains so much that the two heavyweights keep discussing, i want you to read it.

PREPRINT: A Fatal Flaw in Global Warming Science
62 Comments / AGW Hypothesis / By Dr. Ed


I presented a summary of this preprint at the “Basic Science of a Changing Climate” conference in Porto, Portugal, on September 7, 2018. – Ed

Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics

Climate Physics LLC, 439 Grand Dr #147, Bigfork, Montana 59911, USA

Copyright © 2018 by Edwin X Berry. This PREPRINT will be submitted to a journal for publication. Therefore the present copyright does not permit republication because journals allow only one PREPRINT for submitted papers.

Abstract
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate theory assumes nature is constant. This assumption forces IPCC’s invalid claim that human emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. IPCC’s argument to support its failed theory also fails logic because the argument itself assumes nature is constant.

IPCC’s theory cannot simulate the carbon-14 data from 1965 to 1995. The carbon-14 data prove human CO2 does not “reduce the buffer capacity of the carbonate system” as IPCC claims.

A Simple Model, based only on the continuity equation with CO2 outflow proportional to level, exactly replicates the carbon-14 data. The Model shows CO2 emissions do not accumulate in the atmosphere as IPCC theory claims but set balance levels for CO2.

Present human emissions increase the level by 18 ppm and present natural emissions increase the level by 392 ppm to produce today’s total level of 410 ppm.

The Simple Model requires us to think in a new paradigm about how CO2 flows into and out of our atmosphere. It changes entirely the dominant worldview of how human emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

1. Introduction
The critical scientific questions about human-caused climate change are about cause-and-effect:

1. How much do human emissions increase atmospheric CO2?
2. How much does increased atmospheric CO2 change climate?

This paper focuses on the first question.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) Executive Summary claims human emissions have caused ALL the increase in CO2 since 1750. They say the level was 280 ppm in 1750 and human emissions added 130 ppm to increase the level to today’s 410 ppm.

The IPCC claims “abundant published literature” shows, with “considerable certainty,” that nature has been a “net carbon sink” since 1750, so nature could not have caused the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

IPCC (2007) claims human CO2 emissions have clogged the carbon cycle and thereby extended CO2 residence time in the atmosphere,

“The fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is taken up by the ocean declines with increasing CO2 concentration, due to reduced buffer capacity of the carbonate system.”

The U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report (USGCRP, 201 agrees with the IPCC and claims,

“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

The IPCC and the USGCRP claim there are “no convincing alternative explanations” other than their theory to explain “observational evidence.”

This paper proves all these IPCC and USGCRP claims are invalid.

“Abundant published literature” is irrelevant because votes don’t count in science. There is no “extensive evidence” except repetition of invalid claims, and evidence does not prove a theory is correct.

According to the scientific method, it is impossible to prove an idea is true, but if an idea makes only one false prediction then the idea is wrong. (Kemeny, 1959; Farnam Street, 2018a, 2018b; Feynman et al, 2011; ScienceNET, 2016; Science Today, 2017).

Many authors agree that human emissions have little effect on the level of atmospheric CO2, even though they used different methods to derive their conclusions.

Revelle and Suess (1957), Starr (1992), Segalstad (1992, 1996, 199, Rorsch et al. (2005), Courtney (200, Siddons and D’Aleo (2007), Quirk (2009), Spencer (2009), MacRae (2010, 2015), Essenhigh (2009), Glassman (2010), Wilde (2012), Caryl (2013), Humlum et al. (2013), Salby (2012, 2014, 2016), and Harde (2017a) concluded that human emissions cause only a minor change in the level of atmospheric CO2.

Segalstad (199, Ball (2008, 2013, 201, and Salby (2014) present evidence that the level in 1750 was higher than 280 ppm. Nevertheless, this paper uses IPCC data. The goal of this paper is to show how the IPCC climate theory fails even when using IPCC data.

Authors who argue for the IPCC view include Cawley (2011), Kern and Leuenberger (2013), Masters and Benestad (2013), Richardson (2013). Most notable is the Kohler et al. (2017) desperate attack on Harde (2017a) which concludes,

“Harde … uses a too simplistic approach, that is based on invalid assumptions, and which leads to flawed results for anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere. We suggest that the paper be withdrawn by the author, editor or publisher due to fundamental errors in the understanding of the carbon cycle.”

There is no tolerance in Kohler’s world for a contradictory opinion. Like other promoters of Lysenkoism, Kohler wants Harde (2017a) withdrawn. In possible response, the Elsevier journal – Global and Planetary Change – refused to publish Harde’s (2017b) rebuttal to Kohler. Harde (2017c) replies to reviewer reports regarding the rejection of his rebuttal.

Kohler claims Harde (2017a) is wrong because Harde uses one reservoir (the atmosphere) and one equation. Kohler does not understand systems.

Science is replete with examples that use a simple system with a single equation for great benefit. The Carnot engine uses one equation to describe the maximum amount of work obtainable from the inflow and outflow of heat. The adiabatic process uses one equation to explain the physics inside one reservoir.

This paper supports Harde (2017a) and its key conclusions:

“Under present conditions, the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012).”

To keep the discussion simple, this paper converts all GtC (Gigatons of Carbon) units into the equivalent CO2 units of ppm (parts per million by volume in dry air), using:

1 ppm = 2.13 GtC

Munshi (2017) shows the “detrended correlation analysis of annual emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2” is zero. Therefore, IPCC’s claim of “considerable certainty” fails. Where there is no correlation, there is no cause and effect.

2. Two models take the carbon-14 test
2.1 The IPCC model
The IPCC theory assumes natural CO2 balances, but human CO2 does not. The IPCC inserted its theory into its climate models. The IPCC “Bern model” (Bern, 2002) is a seven-parameter curve fit to the output of IPCC’s climate models (Joos et al., 2013). The Bern model shows the effect of IPCC’s theory on climate models. It is described in Section 3.

The IPCC claims nature treats human-produced CO2 differently than it treats nature-produced CO2. However, that is impossible because the CO2 molecules from the two sources are identical.

Then the IPCC claims the Bern model applies only to human CO2 emissions. However, the Equivalence Principle requires the Bern model and all CO2 models to apply equally to human and natural emissions.

Einstein used the Equivalence Principle to derive his Theory of General Relativity. The Equivalence Principle says if data cannot tell the difference between two things then the two things are identical.

2.2 The Simple Model
The “Model” is the simplest possible model to describe how CO2 flows through the atmosphere. The Model is based on the continuity equation and the assumption that outflow is proportional to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Model applies equally to human, natural, and carbon-14 CO2. It is described in Section 4.

Models, simple or complex, embody theories. Just as theories must be tested, models must be tested. The proper test is to make a prediction and compare the prediction with data. If the prediction fails, the model fails and maybe the theory fails as well.

Berry (1967) used a numerical model to predict how fast cloud-droplets collect to form raindrops. To test the model, Berry used predictions for three special cases of the core formula that had analytic solutions, and the three analytic solutions bounded the domain of known cloud-droplet collection. The successful simulation of the three analytic solutions gave credibility to the model’s calculation for cloud-droplet growth.

2.3 The carbon-14 data
The above-ground atomic bomb tests raised the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere from the “normal” 100 percent to 180 percent until the tests were terminated in 1963. The carbon-14 atoms are in the form of CO2, so carbon-14 CO2 traces how carbon-12 CO2 flows out of the atmosphere.

Carbon-14 is a natural tracer of atmospheric CO2. The carbon-14 CO2 produced by the bomb tests follows the same carbon path as carbon-12 CO2.

A carbon-14 atom has 2 more neutrons that a carbon-12 atom. Carbon-14 CO2 is heavier than carbon-12 CO2. Therefore, it has a longer residence time.

Fig. 1 shows a plot of the carbon-14 data (Wikipedia, 2017). The natural concentration of carbon-14 CO2 is defined as 100 percent. The “pMC/ percent” is “percent of modern carbon” where “modern carbon” means the level in 1950 (Berger, 2014).

The half-life is the time taken for the level of carbon-14 CO2 to fall to one-half its initial level above its balance level. (Not to be confused with the radioactive half-life of carbon-14 of 5730 years.)

 

Fig. 5. Carbon-14 data before and after the above-ground atomic bomb tests. The natural concentration of carbon-14 carbon dioxide is defined as 100 percent. The pMC percent scale is “percent of modern carbon” where “modern carbon” means the level in 1950. The white circles mark the half-life times.
The carbon-14 level minus 100, loses half of its value every ten years. So, the half-life of carbon-14 CO2 is 10.0 years.

2.4 The carbon-14 test results
All valid CO2 models must replicate the decay of atmospheric carbon-14 data after 1963. According to the scientific method, if a prediction is wrong, the theory is wrong.

Fig. 2 shows how the IPCC Bern model and the Model simulate the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere. The simulation subtracts 100 from the carbon-14 data to simulate the case where inflow is zero. This subtraction does not affect the shape of the carbon-14 decay curve. All models begin the simulation at 80 and assume inflow is zero. To download the Excel file with the calculations, see Berry (201.

The blue curve is the carbon-14 data. This is “ground truth.”

The blue curve also shows the Model prediction using Eq. (. The blue curve falls half-way to zero every 10 years. The simple Model exactly simulates the carbon-14 data.

The green curve shows the Model prediction with the residence time adjusted to simulate carbon-12 CO2. The green curve falls half-way to zero every 2.8 years.

The red curve shows the Bern model prediction calculated using Eq. (A.1). For the first year, it approximates the green curve of the simple model. Thereafter, the Bern model predicts progressively slower outflow. The level never goes below 12 on this plot because IPCC claims 15 percent of human emissions remain in the atmosphere forever.


Fig. 2. The blue curve shows the carbon-14 data. The Model replicates these data.

 

The complex IPCC theory cannot simulate the carbon-14 data. Therefore, the IPCC theory is wrong.

The Bern model is unphysical. It changes its future with time. For example, the Simple Model predicts the level will fall one-half its value in a specific time interval no matter where you start on the curve. But the Bern model gives a different future if you begin at a different time on its curve.

The Model’s exact simulation of the carbon-14 data proves two things. First, the Model predicts the data. Second, the outflow of carbon-14 CO2 from the atmosphere is proportional to level. This implies the outflow of carbon-12 CO2 is similarly proportional to level.

3. Why the IPCC theory fails
3.1 IPCC assumes nature is constant
IPCC assumes nature is constant. This incorrect assumption forces the conclusion that human emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. If the IPCC would simply relax its constraints on nature, it would help the IPCC find the truth.

IPCC (2007) shows its basic assumption in two flow diagrams to represent the carbon cycle. The following discussion converts IPCC’s GtC units to ppm. Fig. 3 summarizes IPCC’s Figs. 3.1a and 3.1b. IPCC claims the “natural carbon cycle” is balanced and the “human perturbation” is unbalanced, leaving 1.5 ppm of human CO2 in the atmosphere each year.


Fig. 3. A summary of the IPCC’s Fig. 3.1a (left) and Fig. 3.1b (right), converted to ppm.
The IPCC inserted its assumption that human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2 into its climate models. IPCC is wrong because its assumption violates the Equivalence Principle and it cannot replicate the carbon-14 data.

3.2 IPCC argument fails logic
IPCC (2007) argues that during the time frame from 1750 to 2013:

1. Atmospheric CO2 increased 117 ppm.
2. Total human CO2 emissions were 185 ppm.
3. This total is 68 ppm more than the 117-ppm increase.
4. Therefore, human emissions caused ALL the 117-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, while nature absorbed the remaining human 68 ppm.

IPCC’s argument fails because it ignores natural CO2 inflow which totaled 26,000 ppm during the same period, and it ignores outflow. Simply put, IPCC’s core argument does not play with a full deck.

In Section 4, the Simple Model shows that present human CO2 emissions raise the level of atmospheric CO2 by only 18 ppm. If natural CO2 had not increased, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would be IPCC’s 280 ppm plus 18 ppm for a total of 298 ppm. This result is consistent with IPCC’s first three points above.

3.3 IPCC Bern model
Appendix A shows how to remove the integral in the Bern (2002) model to reveal its level equation.

The Bern model Eq. (A.1) predicts human emissions of 4 ppm per year for 100 years will leave 60 ppm in the atmosphere forever.

The Equivalence Principle requires the Bern model to apply to natural as well as human CO2. The Bern model predicts natural emissions of 100 ppm per year for 100 years will leave 1500 ppm in the atmosphere forever. This clearly invalid prediction for natural emissions proves the Bern model is wrong. Therefore, IPCC’s basic assumption is wrong.

The creators of the original Bern model, Siegenthaler and Joos (1992), understood their model should reproduce the carbon-14 data and were disappointed that it did not do so.

The IPCC modified the original Bern model, described by Siegenthaler and Joos, that connected the atmosphere level to the upper ocean level, and the upper ocean level to the deep and interior ocean levels, as can be seen in their Fig. 1.

The IPCC removed the Bern model levels for the deep and interior ocean and connected their rates directly to the atmosphere level. That is why the Bern model has three residence times rather than one. Connecting flows that belong to the deep and interior ocean directly to the atmosphere violates the principles of systems (Forrester, 196 and will give the wrong answer.

The Bern model assumes the flows with these three residence times act in series rather than in parallel. This is like having three holes of different sizes, in the bottom of a bucket of water, and claiming the smallest hole restricts the flow through the largest hole.

3.4 IPCC buffer capacity claim is wrong
IPCC’s Bern model is based on IPCC’s claim that human CO2 has overloaded natural carbon-dioxide sinks and therefore has slowed the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere. IPCC claims,

“The fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is taken up by the ocean declines with increasing CO2 concentration, due to reduced buffer capacity of the carbonate system.”

The IPCC put its unproven claim into its theory. Then the IPCC put its theory into its climate models. The Bern model simulates the climate models.

The IPCC theory predicts the half-life for carbon-14 would have increased from 1965 to 1995. This would have deviated the blue curve in Fig. 2 to look more like the Bern model red curve.

However, Fig. 1 shows the 10-year carbon-14 half-life did not change from 1965 to 1995. Therefore, human CO2 has not “reduced the buffer capacity of the carbonate system” as the IPCC claims.

3.5 IPCC adjustment time is invalid
The IPCC (1990) defines an “adjustment time” to support its claim that human emissions have a long residence time:

“The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.

“This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes for the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change.”

“This adjustment time… is of the order of 50 – 200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean.

“The concentration will never return to its original value, but reach a new equilibrium level, about 15 percent of the total amount of CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere.”

IPCC’s short residence time of about 4 years is correct. The Bern model’s failure to simulate the carbon-14 data and the Equivalence Principle prove the IPCC’s “adjustment time” is invalid.

4. Physics Model for atmospheric CO2
4.1 A Simple Model
The simple model shows how inflow affects level, how level affects outflow, and how balance occurs when outflow equals inflow. Nothing in the world outside the atmosphere changes these conclusions. But these conclusions change entirely the dominant worldview of how human emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

You have a bucket of water with a hole in the bottom. Water from your hose flows into your bucket while water leaks out of the hole. You adjust the inflow until the water level stays almost constant.

The water in your bucket represents the CO2 in the atmosphere. Water from your hose represents the flow of CO2 into the atmosphere. Water that flows out of the hole represents the flow of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

If inflow is greater than outflow, the level goes up, and vice-versa. Also, as the water level increases, outflow increases. The Model puts these two assumptions into a mathematical equation with more precision as applied to the atmosphere. The Model not only explains the simple flow of water in the bucket, the Model also explains the flow of CO2 in the atmosphere.

4.2 Model derivation
A model is a system used to describe a subset of nature. A model is composed of levels and flows between levels. Flows are rates. Levels set the flows and the flows set the new levels (Forrester, 196.

The Model extends the model introduced by Salby (2016) and Harde (2017a).

Fig. 4 illustrates the atmosphere system. The Model includes the level (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere and the inflow and outflow of CO2.

 

The Model does not include processes outside the system but incorporates their effects if they modify inflow or outflow.

The mathematics used to describe the Model are analogous to the mathematics used to describe many engineering systems.

The continuity equation assures carbon atoms are conserved:

dL/dt = Inflow – Outflow (1)

Where

L = carbon dioxide level

dL/dt = the rate of change of L

t = time

Inflow = the rate carbon dioxide moves into the system

Outflow = the rate carbon dioxide moves out of the system

Outflow must be an increasing function of level, or there would be no natural balance. Assume outflow is proportional to level,

Outflow = L / Te (2)

where Te is the 1/e residence time.

(More generally, Outflow can equal f(L) / Te, where f(L) is a strictly increasing function of L. This allows the Simple Model to support analogies where f(L) does not equal L.)

Substitute Eq. (2) into the continuity equation (1),

dL/dt = Inflow – L / Te (3)

To find an equation for Inflow, let the level equal its balance level, Lb. Then the level is constant and Eq. (3) becomes

Inflow = Lb / Te (4)

where

Lb = balance level of L

Substitute Eq. (4) into Eq. (3) to get,

dL/dt = – (L – Lb) / Te (5)

Rearrange Eq. (5) to get

dL / (L – Lb) = – dt / Te (6)

Then integrate Eq. (6) from Lo to L on the left side, and from 0 to t on the right side, to get (Dwight, 1955),

Ln [(L – Lb) / (Lo – Lb)] = – t / Te (7)

where

Ln = natural logarithm, or logarithm to base e

Lo = Level at time zero (t = 0)

Lb = the balance level for a given inflow and Te

Te = Residence time for level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from Lo to Le

e = 2.7183

(The original integration of Eq. (7) contains two absolute functions, but they cancel each other because both Land Lo are always either above or below Le.)

Raise e to the power of each side of Eq. (7), to get the level as a function of time:

L = Lb + (Lo – Lb) exp(- t / Te) (

Equation ( shows that Te is the 1/e residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Model applies independently to all forms and sources of CO2.

4.3 Balance level
Contrary to popular opinion, CO2 does not “accumulate” in the atmosphere. Constant inflows don’t add to the level of CO2.

The Model shows how inflows, human or natural, set independent balance levels. Constant inflows have constant balance levels. The sum of human and natural balance levels equals the total balance level. Fig. 4 shows how nature balances inflow by adjusting outflow until the level equals the balance level.

Solving Eq. (4) for Le gives

Lb = Inflow * Te (9)

Equation (9) shows how inflow and residence time set the balance level. Equation (2) shows how level and residence time set outflow.

Equation (5) shows how level always moves toward its balance level. If inflow is zero, Le is zero, and outflow will continue until the level goes to zero.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere behaves like the level of water in a lake. If a river flows into a lake and lake water flows out over a dam, the inflow does not continue to increase the lake level. The inflow simply raises the level of the lake until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow from the river. Then the lake level remains constant so long as inflow remains constant.

4.4 Residence time
There are two definitions of residence times, half-life, Th, and 1/e residence time, Te. Both residence times are different measures of the same thing:

Residence time controls how level L approaches its balance level Le when inflow is constant.

When time t equals half-life Th, or

t = Th

then Eq. (7) becomes

Ln [(L – Lb) / (Lo – Lb)] = – Th / Te

Ln (1/2) = – Th / Te

Ln (2) = Th / Te

Te = Th / Ln (2)

Te = 1.4427 Th (10)

Equation (10) shows the relationship between residence half-life Th and 1/e residence time Te.

IPCC (2007) estimates today’s total natural carbon dioxide inflow is about 100 ppm per year. NOAA (2017) Mauna Loa data shows the 2015 level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 400 ppm.

Solve Eq. (4) for Te to get,

Te = Lb/ Inflow (11)

Insert the NOAA value for Le and the IPCC value for Inflow to get the residence time,

Te = 400 ppm / 100 ppm per year = 4 years (12)

IPCC (1990) agrees with Eq. (12) for residence time. This calculation of residence time applies to carbon dioxide levels from about 280 ppm to 1000 ppm.

4.5 Model replicates carbon-14 data
To reproduce the carbon-14 decay curve, use either rate Eq. (5) or analytic Eq. (. Both equations give the same result. Use Eq. (10) to convert the carbon-14 half-life of 10.0 years,

Te = 1.4428 Th = 14.4 years (13)

Set,

Lo = 80 percent

Lb = 0 percent

4.6 Effect of human CO2
Data from Boden et al. (2017) show human carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and gas flaring in 2014 was 4.6 ppm (9.855 GtC) per year.

Using Eq. (9) for the 2014 human emissions to get,

Lbh = (4.6 ppm/year) (4 years) = 18 ppm (14)

Using Eq. (9) for natural emissions to get,

Lbn = (98 ppm/year) (4 years) = 392 ppm (14)

Equation (14) shows human emissions create a balance level of 18 ppm. Equation (15) shows present natural emissions create a balance level of 392 ppm.

The total balance level for human and natural emissions, using the above data for 2014, is the total of Eq. (14) and Eq. (15), or 410 ppm.

If human and natural emissions stay constant after 2014, the carbon dioxide level would reach its balance level of 410 in about 2018. Mauna Loa data show 404 ppm for 2016. These calculations demonstrate the accuracy of the Model.

The ratio of Eq. (14) to Eq. (15) is independent of residence time,

Leh / Len = 18 / 392 = 4.6 percent (16)

Equation (16) shows the balance level ratio of human-produced to nature-produced carbon dioxide is the ratio of their inflows.

4.7 Effect of surface temperature
Rorsch et al. (2005), Courtney (200, MacRae (2008, 2015), Humlum et al. (2013), Salby (2012, 2014, 2016), and Harde (2017a) show how changes in surface temperature precede changes in CO2.

Salby (2012) derives from data how the rate of change of CO2 level is a function of surface temperature Ts, or,

dL/dt = 3.5 (ppmv/year K) Ts(K) (17)

Salby shows how the increase in Ts since 1750 and since the Little Ice Age in 1650 explains the increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 from 1750 to the present.

Equation (2) shows outflow equals level divided by residence time. The carbon-14 data show outflow is proportional to level. Therefore, residence time is independent of level.

Equation (9) shows balance level equals inflow multiplied by residence time. Carbon-14 data show carbon sinks have not saturated and therefore have not changed residence time.

Therefore, in the absence of any other explanation, the increase of balance level after 1750 must be caused by increased inflow.

5. Conclusions
The IPCC theory is wrong because it cannot simulate the carbon-14 data, it claims nature treats human CO2 differently than natural CO2 which violates the Equivalence Principle, and its predictions with natural CO2 are extremely wrong.

Therefore, all climate models are wrong. All IPCC reports are wrong. Carbon sinks are not saturated. Human CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. Human CO2 flows out of the atmosphere just like natural CO2.

The Simple Model is accurate. It exactly simulates the carbon-14 data.

All carbon dioxide emissions – human and natural, independently or in total – create an inflow that sets a balance level. Each level moves toward its balance level until its outflow equals its inflow. Then the level remains constant so long as its inflow remains constant.

Present human emissions create an inflow that adds 18 ppm to atmospheric CO2. Present natural emissions create an inflow that adds 392 ppm. Their total is 410 ppm.

If ALL human emissions stopped and natural emissions stayed constant, the level of CO2 would fall by only 18 ppm.

Nature’s CO2 emissions are 21 times human CO2 emissions. Therefore, nature changes climate. Human emissions do not.

Appendix A: Bern model math
The Bern (2002) model is an integral equation rather than a level or rate equation. The Bern model integrates the inflow of carbon dioxide from minus infinity to any time in the future.

To deconstruct the integral version of the Bern model, let inflow occur only in the year when “t-prime” equals zero (t’ = 0). Then the integral disappears, and the Bern model becomes a level equation.

The Bern level equation is,

L(t) = Lo [ A0 + A1 exp(- t/T1) + A2 exp(- t/T2) + A3 exp(- t/T3)] (A.1)

Where

t = time in years

Lo = the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to inflow in year t = 0

L(t) = the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide after year t = 0

where the Bern IPCC TAR standard values are,

A0 = 0.152

A1 = 0.253

A2 = 0.279

A3 = 0.319

T1 = 173 years

T2 = 18.5 years

T3 = 1.19 years

The A-values merely weight the four terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (A.1):

A0 + A1 + A2 + A3 = 1.000

Here are two easy ways to show the Bern model contradicts real-world data.

Set t equal to 100 years. Then Eq. (A.1) becomes,

L = (A0 + A1) Lo = (0.152 + 0.253 * 0.56) Lo = 0.29 Lo (A.2)

Set t equal to infinity. Then Eq. (A.1) becomes,

L = Ao Lo = 0.152 Lo (A.3)

 

Equations (A.2) and (A.3) predicts a one-year inflow that sets Lo to 100 ppm, followed by zero inflow forever, will cause the level in 100 years to be 29 ppm and the future level will never fall below 15 ppm.

Competing Interests
The author declares he has no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the personal funds of the author.

The author thanks Chuck Wiese, Laurence Gould, Tom Sheahen, and Charles Camenzuli, who provided scientific critique, and Daniel Nebert, Gordon Danielson, and Valerie Berry, who provided language and grammar improvements.

References
(All internet links tested on 9/12/2017)

(“Year” is in two places. Prefer to delete “year” at end if journal approves.)

Ball, T., 2008: Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2258, 2008.

Ball, T., 2013: Why and how the IPCC demonized CO2 with manufactured information. WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11...-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/, 2013.

Ball, T., 2018: What do ice-core bubbles really tell us? WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/20/what-do-the-ice-core-bubbles-really-tell-us/, 2018.

Berger, A., 2014: The meaning of pMC. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_radiocarbon_dating_what_does_pMC_indicates2, 2014.

Bern, 2002: Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model. http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html, 2002.

Berry, E.X, 1967: Cloud Droplet growth by collection. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 688-701. http://edberry.com/wp-content/uploads/Ed/CDG/CloudDropletGrowthbyCollection.pdf, 1967.

Berry, E.X, 2018: Excel file with Carbon-14 calculations. https://edberry.com/wp-content/uploads/Carbon-14-tests.xlsx, 2018.

[dataset] Boden, T., B. Andres, 2017: Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2014. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems, 2017.

Caryl, E., 2013: The Carbon Cycle – Nature or Nurture? No Tricks Zone. http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...es-from-natural-sources/#sthash.vvkCqrPI.dpbs, 2013.

Cawley, G.C., 2011: On the Atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy Fuel 25, 5503–5513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u. 2011.

Courtney, R.S., 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York. https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-iccc1, 2008.

Dwight, Herbert Bristol, 1955: Tables of Integrals and Other Mathematical Data, Item 90.1. MacMillian Company. https://www.amazon.com/Tables-Integrals-Other-Mathematical-Data/dp/0023311703, 1955.

Essenhigh, R.E., 2009: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy & Fuels. 23, 2773-2784. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r, 2009.

Farnam Street, 2018a: Richard Feynman teaches you the scientific method. https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/, 2018a.

Farman Street, 2019b: Who is Richard Feynman? The curious character who mastered thinking and physics. https://fs.blog/richard-feynman/, 2018b.

Feynman, R. P., R.B. Leighton, M. Sands, 2011: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...1&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=WVPOUDQSQTDGBSRG, 2011.

Forrester, J., 1968: Principles of Systems. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1...IN=1883823412&linkCode=xm2&tag=bookfallcom-20, 1968.

Glassman, J.A., 2010: On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere and what is happening with CO2 in the modern era. Rocket Scientist Journal. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more, 2010.

Harde, H., 2017a: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-26. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787, 2017a.

https://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf. 2017a.

Harde, H., 2017b: Reply to Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere” by P. Köhler, J. Hauck, C. Völker, D. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J. B. Halpern, K. Rice, R. Zeebe. https://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/Reply_2017-06-27_F.pdf. 2017b.

Harde, H., 2017c: Reply to Reviewer Reports. https://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/Reply-ReviewReport-Harde.pdf. 2017c.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jgt2Fj1zSSs8yBVdEgukSItG0LGOD0lC/view

Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., Solheim, J.-E., 2013: The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Global and Planetary Change, Vol 100, January, pp 51-69. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658, 2013.

IPCC. Climate Change, 1990: The IPCC scientific assessment. Final Report of Working Group 1. Cambridge University Press. (pages 8 to 56/114). https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf, 1990.

IPCC: Report 3, 2007. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere CO2. https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF, 2007.

Joos, F., R. Roth, J. S. Fuglestvedt, G. P. Peters, I. G. Enting, W. von Bloh, V. Brovkin, E. J. Burke, M. Eby, N. R. Edwards, T. Friedrich, T. L. Frolicher, P. R. Halloran, P. B. Holden, C. Jones, T. Kleinen, F. T. Mackenzie, K. Matsumoto, M. Meinshausen, G.-K. Plattner, A. Reisinger, J. Segschneider, G. Shaffer, M. Steinacher, K. Strassmann, K. Tanaka, A. Timmermann, and A. J. Weaver, 2013: CO2 and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys.. 13, 2793-2825. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/2793/2013/acp-13-2793-2013.pdf, 2013.

Kemeny, J., 1959: A Philosopher looks at Science. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...IN=B0020PK0BM&linkCode=xm2&tag=bookfallcom-20, 1959.

Kern, Z., M. Leuenberger, 2013: Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored. Glob. Planet. Chang. 109, 1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.07.002. 2013.

Kohler, P., J. Hauck, C. V ̈olker, D.A. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J.B. Halpern, K. Rice, R.E. Zeebe, 2017: Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle andCO2residence time in the atmosphere” by H. Harde, Global and Planetary Change, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015. 2017.

MacRae, A., 2008: CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming: the future cannot cause the past. Icecap. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf, 2008.

MacRae, A., 2015: Presentation of evidence suggesting temperature drives atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 drives temperature. WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06...spheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/, 2015.

Masters, T., R. Benestad. 2013: Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature”. Glob. Planet. Chang. 106, 141–142. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.03.010. 2013.

Munshi, Jamal, 2017: Responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions: Updated. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420, 2017.

[dataset] NOAA, 2017: ESRL CO2 data beginning in 1959. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt, 2017.

Quirk, Tom, 2009: Sources and sinks of CO2. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1, page(s): 105-121. January 1. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830509787689123, 2009.

Revelle, R. & Suess, H., 1957: CO2 exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus. 9: 18-27, 1957. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x/abstract, 1957.

Richardson, M., 2013: Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim. Glob. Planet. Chang. 107, 226–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.03.011. 2013.

Rorsch, A., R.S. Courtney, D. Thoenes, 2005: The Interaction of Climate Change and the CO2 Cycle. Energy & Environment, Volume 16, No 2. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958305053749589, 2005.

Salby, Murry, 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmo...0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=, 2012.

Salby, Murry, 2014: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-phy...ry-salby-co2-follows-integral-of-temperature/, 2014.

Also:

Salby, Murry, 2016: Atmosphere CO2, video presentation, July 18. University College London. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-atmospheric-carbon-18-july-2016/ Also: , 2016.

ScienceNET, 2017: 10 times Richard Feynman blew our minds. , 2016.

Science Today. 2017: Richard Feynman’s best arguments of all time. , 2017.

Segalstad, T.V., 1992: The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. AGU Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. March 23-27. Hilo, Hawaii. Abstracts: 25; and poster: 10 pp. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/hawaii.pdf, 1992.

Segalstad, T.V., 1996: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global “Greenhouse Effect”. In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. [ISBN 0952773406]: 41-50. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf, 1996.

Segalstad, T. V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. [ISBN 0952773422]: 184-219. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf, 1998

Siddons, A., J. D’Aleo, 2007: CO2: The Houdini of Gases. http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf, 2007.

Siegenthaler, U. and F. Joos, 1992: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus, 44B, 186-207. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-2-00003.x/epdf, 1992.

Spencer, R., 2009: Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/, 2009.

Starr, C., 1992: Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle. Science Direct, 18, 12, 1297-1310. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900178, 1992.

[dataset] Wikipedia, 2017: Radio Carbon Bomb Spike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg, 2017.

USGCRP, 2018: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/, 2018.

Wilde, S., 2012: Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions. Climate Realists. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508, 2012.

 

Numbers don’t have to match up exactly. It was for illustrative purposes. The point is, Henry’s law makes it possible for the oceans to have absorbed the vast majority of our CO2 emissions while also contributing to the CO2 increase due to a temperature-change. That was the point my analogy was intended to convey. However the IPCC appear to have ignored Henry’s law and have replaced it with the Revelle Factor which appears to contradict Henry’s law (as explained in the Segalstad 1998 paper here). The Revelle Factor allows human CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere over long time-scales. However, by Henry’s law, 98% of human CO2 emissions should be absorbed by the oceans upon equilibrium and equilibrium is fast according to the 14CO2 bomb-spike data. Equilibration of the 14CO2 bomb-spike with the other carbon reservoirs, ocean and terrestrial biosphere lead to a decrease of nuclear-14CO2 after the atmospheric test-ban treaty in 1963 with today’s concentration approaching natural equilibrium levels. Seemingly there is no “long-tail” curve.

It may be true that the oceans have an upper limit for CO2 absorption, but surely that limit could never be reached by any known process. Water has a phenomenal capacity for CO2-absorption, as the existence of fizzy drinks testifies. You say that “as CO2 builds up in the atmosphere more CO2 is allowed to build up reinforcing the feedback”. I don’t agree with this. As a general rule, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere waiting to be absorbed by the oceans, the more partial pressure it will exert upon the ocean surface and the faster it will be absorbed. The change in the partitioning ratio due to the warming ocean is not enough to significantly alter the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 because the change in the partitioning ratio due to the warming is negligible.

Assuming measuring a global average pH-value is even possible (the ocean is a big place and the measurements are bound to be sparse) pH varies continually in accordance with a host of environmental parameters such as temperature, chemistry and biomass. The video here is of Prof. Tom Segalstad explaining how temperature can affect pH, with colder water tending to have a lower pH. So, how do we know that the observed pH changes are not also being altered by other factors unrelated to CO2? Like a warming ocean? If we are doing proper science, we must endeavor to exhaust all of the possibilities – thoroughly.

I agree that the oceans would be absorbing more CO2 than they have released due to a temperature-change. I think the essential question at issue is that of how much CO2 the oceans are actually outgassing due to warming. The calculations quoted from Jaworowski (1997) a few pages ago indicated that the calculated increase in CO2 due to the warming oceans was “similar to the observed average increase of atmospheric CO2 in the years 1958 to 1968”. Also, apparently for every 12C of warming of the Benguela Current, the atmospheric CO2 concentration could increase by 150ppmv (Segalstad 1996) which gives us a linear relationship of 1C per 12.5ppmv. So large regional warming could account for a considerable part of the CO2 increase.

But I did not say that. I said that because human CO2 is sequestrated so rapidly the δ13C measurements (which show only 6-8% of human CO2 in the atmosphere) can’t be used as proof that humans have contributed 30% to the atmospheric increase, as some websites like Skeptical Science claim. I’m not sure I follow your computer-analogy. Also, on a side-note, I would like to re-post my argument from a few pages ago that showed, in a logical step-by-step manner, from the IPCC’s own basic data that humanity cannot be adding to the CO2 component of the atmospheric greenhouse at a rate of more than 0.37C from a doubling of CO2. Granted, it contradicts Feldman’s measurements and the IPCC’s logarithmic equation, but the linear relationship of 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv derived from Feldman would be an overestimation due to the S-B law and because CO2 behaves logarithmically. By the S-B law, regular increments of radiative forcing should produce progressively diminishing increments of temperature. Now coupled with the well-known fact that CO2 behaves logarithmically, these two things imply that the the linear relationship of 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv from Feldman would be an overestimation. The calculation below assumes that the relationship between ΔT and ΔRF is linearly proportional, which it isn’t. The Stefan-Boltzmann law governs the relationship between radiation and temperature and the law deems that the absolute temperature of a body will increase according to the 4th-root of radiation that is warming it. When the Stefan-Boltzmann law is taken into account the effect is to reduce the size of the possible human component to 0.31K. However we do not need to bother with this small adjustment and can simply conclude that the total global warming on a doubling of CO2 must be no more than 0.37K.

I understand the argument that human CO2 is “swapping places” with natural CO2. This idea is shown in the IPCC’s AR4 carbon-cycle diagram (click here) whereby the oceans are absorbing around 22 Gts/year of anthropogenic carbon, and are re-emitting 20 Gts/year of anthropogenic carbon. Of course, these cannot be the same molecules, because once the original molecules have been absorbed by the oceans they become thoroughly intermixed with natural pre-existing CO2. These are just tagged as anthropogenic CO2 since that is how much the IPCC assumes the oceans can cope with. Since there is no logical reason to believe these are the same molecules there is no reason to treat them any differently from the natural oceanic emissions of 70.6Gts. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the oceans are not simply absorbing our CO2, and that this 20 Gts of ‘anthropogenic CO2’ is not just natural. In fact, this is exactly what Henry’s law of solubility says should be happening. If you put more CO2 into the atmosphere above the water you increase the partial pressure and more CO2 will dissolve in the seawater until the equilibrium partitioning ratio of 1:50 between the atmosphere and oceans is restored.

 

We don’t have to know why clouds have changed. The fact that they have changed and that this change could potentially account for the warming is enough in itself to cast doubt over the AGW-hypothesis. But I gather that the PDO is one possibility that may explain cloud-cover changes. Also, apparently, according to some researchers (such as Noor Van Andel and Aaron Donohoe) outgoing IR-radiation has in fact increased, which is contradictory to the AGW-theory.

Okay. So, if global solar radiation increased by 6 W/m2 due to a change in aerosols then why have the IPCC excluded this from the graph that you posted? Is the data unreliable? And if so why? From what I have read (see here) the IPCC has been allowed to just pay lip-service to the scientific method. As an example, one scientist, Tom Segalstad, was chosen as an ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC and they misrepresented his views. When Segalstad attempted to get his name removed from the IPCC report he was precluded from doing so. He says this happened to other scientists as well and the only ones who were able to get their names removed were the ones threatening legal action. That is not the way of scientists whose interest is only in finding out the truth. It is the way of tricky lawyers with court cases to win and corrupt politicians.

 

To see a more detailed description of my calculation, implying 0.37C on a doubling of CO2, you can see my post on Quora here.

 

Carbon Dioxide in soft drinks or other beverages should not be trivial to Alarmists yet they do not bring it up..

So what are the dangers to humans reference CO2. end by Robert

https://www.vaisala.com/sites/defau...Drink-Industry-Application-note-B211532EN.pdf

 

The amount of CO2 in soft drinks isn't substantial enough to be a concern as a biological toxin for humans.

In the context of CO2 being a biological toxin for humans there's not much concern because typical exposures just simply aren't in high enough concentrations.

Either way I have no idea how any of that relates to this thread or global warming.

 

I accept that you do not understand.