Human CO2 emissions not responsible for increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore climate change is natural.

By Dr Ed Berry Ph.D., Physics

“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.”

This post expands upon my last post. If you don’t understand the math, just skip the math and read the text. For scientific details, see my preprint. – Ed

According to the scientific method, it is impossible to prove a theory is right. But climate alarmists ignore the scientific method and simply BELIEVE their theory is right. They don’t have time for any stinkin’ proof they are wrong.

This post is “stinkin’ proof” they are wrong. Yes, Virginia, it IS possible to prove a theory is wrong. Read to see how it is done.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims human emissions have caused ALL the increase in CO2 since 1750. They say it was 280 ppm in 1750 and human emissions caused it to rise to 410 ppm today.

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

“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 claims the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere decreases with the level (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere, or

Outflow = constant / Level                                                     (1)

IPCC has inserted its claim into its climate models. IPCC’s Bern model is a curve-fit to the output of its climate models. The Bern model predicts 15 percent of human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere forever and 85 percent remains in the atmosphere much longer than IPCC’s natural residence time of 4 years.

These invalid IPCC claims are the basis of ALL the hype that human emissions cause climate change. These IPCC claims have cost taxpayers and our economy about a trillion dollars. Plus, the climate alarmists have lowered the level of America’s education and intelligence.

Data prove the IPCC claims are wrong.

The 14C (that is an abbreviation of a carbon atom with 6 protons and 8 neutrons) data from the atomic bomb tests in the 1960’s contradicts the IPCC climate change theory and its claims. The 14C in the atmosphere is in the form of 14CO2 (that is an abbreviation of a CO2 molecule with a 14C carbon atom). The bomb tests increased the level of 14CO2 by over 80 percent.

After the termination of the tests in 1963, the 14C level decreased smoothly toward its former equilibrium level of 100 percent. Specifically, the 14C level decreased by one-half its level above 100 percent every ten years from 1965 to 1995.

The following chart shows the 14C data and the half-life levels.

A simple model matches the 14C data.

Here is a very simple model that reproduces how 14C decreased with time. It begins with the reliable continuity equation,

dL/dt = Inflow – Outflow                                                         (2)

where

L = the level (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere

t = time in years

Then it adds the assumption that the outflow of 14CO2 equals the level divided by the 1/e residence time, Te, or

Outflow = L / Te                                                                         (3)

Equation (3) is the inverse of the IPCC claim shown in Eq. (1). Inserting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) gives,

dL/dt = Inflow – L / Te                                                              (4)

To find Inflow, let dL/dt equal zero. Then L will equal its equilibrium level, Le, and Inflow becomes,

Inflow = Le / Te                                                                          (5)

So, the final model equation is

dL/dt = (Le – L) / Te                                                                 (6)

where

Le = the equilibrium level when Outflow equals Inflow

Equation (6) has the analytic solution,

L = Le + (Lo – Le) exp(- t / Te)                                                  (7)

The 14CO2 molecules trace the same carbon path as the more abundant 12CO2 molecules, although 14CO2 will react slower than 12CO2 because it is heavier.

The simple model proves the IPCC is wrong.

Equations (6) and (7) exactly reproduce the 14C data. This proves 14CO2 molecules exit the atmosphere according to model Eq. (3) and not according to IPCC’s Eq. (1). So, the 14C data prove outflow is proportional to level and not proportional to the inverse of level as IPCC claims. Since the IPCC theory does not predict the 14C data, the IPCC theory of climate change is wrong.

Furthermore, the model proves human emissions have not reduced the “buffer capacity of the carbonate system” as the IPCC claims. IPCC’s Bern model is wrong. Therefore, IPCC climate models are wrong.

The level of atmospheric CO2 measured at Mauna Loa was 320 ppm in 1965 and 360 ppm in 1995. This increase in the level of CO2 did not affect the transfer of 14CO2 during that period.

The simple model shows CO2 in the atmosphere behaves like water in a lake.

Natural and human CO2 emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere the same way a river that flows into a lake changes the level of the lake. If a river flows into a lake and lake water flows out over a dam, the river 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.

Similarly, natural and human CO2 emissions simply raise the level of CO2 in the atmosphere until CO2 outflow equals CO2 inflow. Then the level of CO2 in the atmosphere remains constant so long as inflow remains constant. Equation (6) proves that is the case.

The following figure illustrates what the simple model tells us. Inflow sets the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere, according to Eq. (5). The level sets the outflow, according to Eq. (3). And level moves toward its equilibrium level until outflow equals inflow, according to Eqs. (6) and (7). Then the level stays constant until inflow changes.

The simple model and the above figure apply to human and natural CO2 inflows both independently and in total. The inflows create their own equilibrium levels, which add together.

The simple model shows the ratio of human to natural equilibrium levels is equal to the ratio of their inflows. This means natural CO2 emissions cause 392 ppm of today’s CO2 level and human CO2 emissions cause only 18 ppm, for a total of 410 ppm today. If all human emissions were totally stopped and natural emissions remained constant, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would fall by only 18 ppm in about 20 years.

Therefore, Eq. (6), supported by the 14C data, proves IPCC’s fundamental claim that human emissions have caused all the increase in CO2 since 1750, is wrong.

The Bern model contradicts data.

The following plot shows how the Bern model, which simulates climate models that use IPCC assumption of Eq. (1), produces a very different future CO2 scenario than Eq. (6) which reproduces the 14C data.

• In blue: Equation (6) exactly reproduces the 14C data. The 14CO2 curve falls from 80 to 40 in 10 years, a half-life that equals the 1/e residence time of 14.4 years.
• In green: Equation (6) predicts the curve for 12CO2. The 12CO2 curve falls from 80 to 40 in 2.8 years, a half-life that equals the 1/e residence time of 4 years.
• In red: The Bern model curve initially follows the 12CO2 curve but then flattens out because it assumes human emissions remain in the atmosphere.

Discussion

Some scientists argue that the simple model cannot be accurate because it neglects chemical reactions outside the atmosphere. These scientists do not understand how to use systems.

The simple system for the atmosphere includes external effects through inflow and outflow. Think about it rationally. The only way an external process can affect the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is by affecting inflow or outflow. The model does not need to include the specifics of external processes. It only needs to include the ways external processes can change the level which is by inflow or outflow.

In the philosophy of science, Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation of anything is more likely to be the accurate explanation.

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.

Conclusions

IPCC’s claim that human emissions caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is, without question, the most costly deception in the history of mankind. People think they can save the world if they can stop human emissions of CO2, but data and simple physics prove them wrong.

Climate alarmists have money, critical government jobs, control of scientific organizations and journals, influential university positions, and well-funded environmental organizations.

The truth will prevail … when we get money to support the dissemination of the truth.

--------

See also:
                          

                  Climate change emperors have no clothes

                          Australian Climate Sceptics blogspot

If Lewandowsky is a climate scientist then so am I.

Anthony Cox

Shag on Rock
Apologies to Josh

You can’t keep Lew down and he has just co-authored a paper proving the temperature is rising. Lew’s idea is that statements about the temperature pause, including by the IPCC, simply don’t take into account natural variation which in a cooling phase will suppress the AGW warming.

This idea has been around for yonks. 

Cohenite looked at the idea in 2008. Basically the technique is detrend for all natural factors by removing the estimate of their temperature effect and what is left should be the pure AGW signal.

Lots of people have done this; the original paper was Keenlyside et al in 2008. Easterling and Wehner in 2009 extended this concept to the usual grotesque AGW exaggeration. The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW. Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.

The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modelled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW.

The recent definitive paper on this idea by Foster and Rahmstrof in 2011 supposedly extracted a pure AGW signal after removing all natural factors. F and R are a lot of fun.They removed all the natural factors that may have contributed to temperature increase and were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr⁻¹ as the pure AGW forcing. They calculated a rate which was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing. But it seems that their methodology was also flawed. By including a linear trend for warming in their analysis as an independent variable, Foster and Rahmstorf have demonstrated that global warming is well correlated with global warming. Furthermore Bob Tisdale shows Forster and Ramstorf were wrong to consider ENSO as an exogenous factor and to exclude it from their analysis.

Just when you think this nonsense is over along comes Lew. Lew says this:

Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

Credit where credit is due. This is smart. Lew doesn’t remove natural variation he selects models which have natural variation in phase with AGW. AGW is now proved because there is temperature increase when you factor in natural variation.

But seriously this is a dog’s breakfast. What is he saying; that AGW is only to be measured when there is natural warm phase such as in the +ve PDO:

That is AGW is only to be shown when the world is heating through a warm natural phase as shown in the red lines? Is this because natural variation in the cool phase eliminates any AGW signal as shown in the blue lines? And surely in the warm phases of natural variation wouldn’t the warming be especially high if AGW and natural variation are working together?

Desperation and absurdity is now the stock in trade of alarmists like Lewandowsky.

A real scientific paper about Ocean Heat Content [OHC] has just been published by leading oceanographic experts Wunsch and Heimbach. They show that the deep oceans are cooling and that, logically, heat in the ocean probably comes from the bottom of the ocean due to geothermal activity not from the surface down as AGW theory insists in the most ridiculous way [see here and here]. Figure 18 from Wunsch and Heimbach sums up the nonsense about OHC:

That’s it folks; AGW demolished and Lew left like a Shag on a rock.

All Quiet except for hammering on the AGW coffin

spaceweather.com reports

THE "ALL QUIET EVENT": For the 4th day in a row, solar activity is extremely low. Compared to the beginning of July, when sunspots were abundant, the sun's global X-ray output has dropped by a factor of ten. Moreover, on July 17th the sunspot number fell all the way to zero. We call it "the All Quiet Event." As July 19th unfolds, the sun is no longer completely blank. Three small sunspots are emerging, circled in this image (above) from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. A similar report from Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), which is the solar physics research department of the Royal Observatory of Belgium. (link) INFO FROM SIDC - RWC BELGIUM 2014 Jul 18 12:47:42 No C-class flares in past 24 hours from the almost spotless solar disk. What does it mean?  Another nail in the AGW coffin.  As NASA's Dr. David Hathaway explains: (link) We are currently over five years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906. (my bold)

CARBON CAPERS in Australia

On ABC's Insiders July 13th, Bill Shorten claimed that the ALP was the only party that had maintained a position on taxing Anthopogenic Global Warming ie taxing the man made global warming hoax. (link)

We've got a strong amendment which is based on consistent views over a number of years from Labor about emissions trading.

Can he be serious? Let's examine the party's positions.

LABOR POSITIONS

Labor knows that to propose/support a carbon tax going into an election would lose votes and probably lose the election so we have seen Labor's position about face post elections.

2007 Rudd:

Climate change is not just an environmental challenge. It is so great we should be at the stage now in this country where climate change is beyond politics (link-youtube)

However after the ClimateGate emails exposed the hoax and Man Made Climate Change got a beating at the Copenhagen Gabfest, Kevin Rudd ran dead on the issue.

Pre 2010 Election:

Although history has been re-written since (a favourite past-time of Socialists) both PM Gillard and Deputy Swan both backed away from the carbon dioxide tax. They knew that there was no chance of re-election if they said: "There WILL be a carbon (dioxide) tax." (See Did Swan Mislead Parliament?)

The Carbon dioxide tax was introduced by the Gillard Government at $23/tonne and became effective on 1 July 2012. It increased to $25.14/tonne on 1 July 2013 and to $25.40/tonne on 1 July 2014.

Pre 2013 Election:

Newly re-instated PM Rudd, campaigning for the 2013 Election:

says Labor 'got it wrong' on introducing carbon tax without mandate

Labor's ally, the Greens party have maintained their support for the falsified AGW hypothesis but this is really their attack on Australian Sovereignty. (Greens Policies)

LIBERAL POSITIONS 

Leader Malcolm Turnbull, with or without his connections to his previous partners -carbon credit traders Goldman Sachs, was for the AGW hoax, was pro carbon tax. At that stage, Tony Abbott disagreed with his leader:

"The argument [behind climate change] is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger." 

When Tony Abbott became leader of the Coalition, he backed away from the "crap" position:

Tony Abbott now claims to take climate change "very seriously" 

Whether Abbott's presumed new position was a political stance or not doesn't really matter as he still maintained Renewable Energy Targets, still talked of carbon abatement and he appointed the warmist Greg Hunt as Minister for the environment.

Larry Pickering

PALMER'S POSITIONS

Before the 2013 Election, Clive Palmer said he was for the repeal of the carbon tax, however he changes his position more times than a baby changes nappies and for the same reason.

Re Palmer's latest amendment, Larry Pickering writes (link)

Clive's new amendment had to be generated from the Lower House and the Reps won’t sit until next week. Oh dear, what a balls up.
Clive immediately went into Clive mode claiming the Government had, “pulled a swifty”. Of course the Government hadn’t pulled any bloody thing, it was Clive doing all the pulling and it wasn’t just swifties.  

He clearly hadn’t realised what he’d done. Nor did the Press (well, you can understand the Press gallery not understanding anything).  

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics  have constantly opposed any form of tax but have had their political success thwarted by false promises and changes of position.

In 2009, NCTCS (although not approved as a party by the AEC) contested two by election. The Pro-Carbon Tax Malcolm Turnbull had just been replaced by Tony Abbott and many of our supporters returned their vote to the LNP Coalition.

By the time of the 2010 Election, it seemed unnecessary for voters to support NCTCS because both major parties were saying "NO CARBON TAX."

Again at the 2013 Election both major parties were saying "NO CARBON TAX."

If only the voters hadn't been sold a PUP, perhaps NCTCS could have swayed Australia away from the fraud of the man made Global Warming Hoax.