Eagle's post of Salby's arguments against CO2 forcing

[Crick]

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

• 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.

1) CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales

CO2 can obviously be added to the Earth's atmosphere. Hypothetically, the Martians could fly huge tanker trucks here and simply release it in to the atmosphere. It is not impossible to artificially increase the level of CO2 - or of any other gas - in the Earth's atmosphere. The obvious source for the 280 ppm increase since 1750 has been the combustion of fossil fuels. And since 280 of the current 400 ppm in the Earth's atmosphere present the isotopic signature of having come from burned fossil fuel, the question is settled.

2) The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible

Why? As just explained, that is precisely what the evidence indicates.

3) "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"

Why not? The excess CO2 gives undeniable isotopic indication that it came from burning fossil fuels?

4) Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions

High CO2 levels will be found over large fires. That does not mean they have been the primary source of added CO2 over the last 150 years. CO2 from forest fires does not possess the isotopic signature of CO2 originating from the combustion of fossil fuel.

5) 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made

CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere. The small excess being created by humans will accumulate for centuries. Over the same time scale, investments grow significantly at similar annual rates.

6) Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions

This seems to be saying that net global CO2 emissions correlate well with short term temperature changes. If by "almost perfectly", you mean "within 4%", this would roughly be the case. Humans ARE emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and are responsible for almost every bit of the increase since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That amount is only a small portion of the Earth's natural, seasonal flux. But it IS excess, it IS long-lived and it IS responsible for the atmospheric build up.

7) Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions

No one has suggested otherwise. Relatively small amounts of methane are released through leakage, but keep in mind that for humans, methane is a fuel. We don't want to release it. We want to burn it for energy. Released methane has a much shorter lifetime than CO2 so any excess produced by humans has little chance to build. And enormous amounts of methane are held in solution in Arctic tundra and in methane clathrates on the ocean floor, vulnerable to release from heating. None of this should make you feel any less nervous, of course. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and warming the planet and putting all that naturally sequestered methane at risk of emission is precisely what we continue to do.

8) 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.

Bullshit.

9) The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%

It most certainly can. And, it was 4% a few lines back. What happened?

10) Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years

Most climate models did not predict the hiatus, but they have tracked our climates behavior far better than is generally indicated in denier literature (such as Roy Spencer's embarrassing pack of lies). No one has ever made a CGM that came within an order of magnitude of reality WITHOUT assuming anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions. Ever.

11) Climate models have no predictive value

Just like assholes, everyone's got an opinion and most of them stink. Models most certainly DO have predictive values. Models are the only thing we have, in ANY field, with which to make predictions. If models don't do it, we can make no predictions ABOUT ANYTHING. If you think that's the case, you're simply wrong.

12) 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.

Fine. The data say that humans are responsible for almost every bit of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 is the primary cause of the global warming experienced over the past 150 years. So... what was your point?

 

[Billy_Bob]

When we start examining the numbers from different angles, we continue to find they don't quite add up as AGW proponents models claim.

Total volume of the atmosphere is 5.3 × 1018 kg or 5.3 × 1015 tonnes. Source

If we divide that by one million, it gives us 5.3 × 109 tonnes represent 1 ppm in the atmosphere. If, as AGW proponents claim, background CO2 levels should be at 280ppm without man's CO2 contribution, then the volume of the gas should be 1,484 × 109 tonnes.

According to numbers provided by AGW proponents (Source) annual amounts of CO2 from all sources are (as of 2011):
33.2 billion tonnes - Man's fuel use
3.3 billion tonnes - Man's land use
330 billion tonnes - Ocean-atmosphere exchange
220 billion tonnes - Plant and animal respiration
220 billion tonnes - Soil respiration and decomposition
0.15 to 0.26 billion tonnes - Volcanic activity
The numbers are similar to another source providing an average over the 1990's

A total of 36.5 billion tonnes (0.0246 ppm per yr) from man and 770.15 tonnes (0.5190
ppm per yr) from natural sources; for a total of 806.65 billion tonnes (0.5436 ppm per yr) per year.

According to AGW proponents model, the ecosystem absorbs all natural sources of CO2 with room to spare but only absorbs 57% of man's emissions leaving 43% to accumulate in the atmosphere. That means 16 billion tonnes of man's emissions per year or 0.0106 ppm annually for a total of 2.115 ppm over the last 200 years. And that's if man's output was at current levels over that period.

Of course that doesn't work out to the 120 ppm increase that AGW proponents claim man has added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Since I suspect the numbers they've given as man's contribution are on the high side, I doubt that's where the error is.

We know that CO2 levels from natural sources are not constant and vary according to temperature. As temps rise CO2 levels follow. But as CO2 levels rise in response to temperatures, so does the number of CO2 sinks in the way of plant and algae growth, though the lag time is greater.

2.1ppm/yr over 200 years does not add up to the alarmists magical 120 ppm... So either the uptake is much greater or they have exaggerated mans contribution by 100%.

Sorry.. Crick Loses again..

 

[Old Rocks]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2

Isotopic Signature
Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14. Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in theatmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in theIndustrial Revolution.



Figure 3: Atmospheric carbon-13 ratio observations from Cape Grim, Tasmania

These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes. Some "skeptics" like Murry Salbyargue that the carbon-13 ratio isn't unique to fossil fuels. However, because the carbon-14 ratio has also decreased significantly (Figure 4), we know it's from old (fossil fuel)sources, not modern sources. This is not new science either, it's something we've known for over half a century (Revelle and Suess 1957), and there have been many studies confirming these results. For example, Levin & Hesshaimer (2000):

Real sources of information, not liars like Salby.

 

[TheOldSchool]

God will handle it you liberal morons. Psh... I bet you dumbasses believe in evolution too.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2

Isotopic Signature
Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14. Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in theatmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in theIndustrial Revolution.



Figure 3: Atmospheric carbon-13 ratio observations from Cape Grim, Tasmania

These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes. Some "skeptics" like Murry Salbyargue that the carbon-13 ratio isn't unique to fossil fuels. However, because the carbon-14 ratio has also decreased significantly (Figure 4), we know it's from old (fossil fuel)sources, not modern sources. This is not new science either, it's something we've known for over half a century (Revelle and Suess 1957), and there have been many studies confirming these results. For example, Levin & Hesshaimer (2000):

Real sources of information, not liars like Salby.

You obviously do not know how to do the math.. Salby is correct and your so called science needs a trip to the math lab.

 

[Old Rocks]

My math is good enough that I will never claim that the water molecule is ten times bigger than the carbon dioxide molecule.

 

[cnm]

Total volume of the atmosphere is 5.3 × 1018 kg or 5.3 × 1015 tonnes. Source
[...]

Sorry.. Crick Loses again..

That'll probably be because your science is too clever for him. It's certainly too clever for me, I've never quite managed to express volume in tonnes.

 

[jc456]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2

Isotopic Signature
Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14. Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in theatmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in theIndustrial Revolution.



Figure 3: Atmospheric carbon-13 ratio observations from Cape Grim, Tasmania

These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes. Some "skeptics" like Murry Salbyargue that the carbon-13 ratio isn't unique to fossil fuels. However, because the carbon-14 ratio has also decreased significantly (Figure 4), we know it's from old (fossil fuel)sources, not modern sources. This is not new science either, it's something we've known for over half a century (Revelle and Suess 1957), and there have been many studies confirming these results. For example, Levin & Hesshaimer (2000):

Real sources of information, not liars like Salby.

dude, like always, you have no evidence that temperatures follow and history has already shown CO2 lags temperature. So, more pointless paragraphs of useless material that doesn't prove any of your claim. Just once, could you do that? pretty please. BTW, what is the exact amount of CO2 for the best life on earth?

And, do you agree that in the past the CO2 levels were in the thousand PPM? And then what happened?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1) CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales

CO2 can obviously be added to the Earth's atmosphere. Hypothetically, the Martians could fly huge tanker trucks here and simply release it in to the atmosphere. It is not impossible to artificially increase the level of CO2 - or of any other gas - in the Earth's atmosphere. The obvious source for the 280 ppm increase since 1750 has been the combustion of fossil fuels. And since 280 of the current 400 ppm in the Earth's atmosphere present the isotopic signature of having come from burned fossil fuel, the question is settled.

2) The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible

Why? As just explained, that is precisely what the evidence indicates.

3) "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"

Why not? The excess CO2 gives undeniable isotopic indication that it came from burning fossil fuels?

4) Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions

High CO2 levels will be found over large fires. That does not mean they have been the primary source of added CO2 over the last 150 years. CO2 from forest fires does not possess the isotopic signature of CO2 originating from the combustion of fossil fuel.

5) 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made

CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere. The small excess being created by humans will accumulate for centuries. Over the same time scale, investments grow significantly at similar annual rates.

6) Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions

This seems to be saying that net global CO2 emissions correlate well with short term temperature changes. If by "almost perfectly", you mean "within 4%", this would roughly be the case. Humans ARE emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and are responsible for almost every bit of the increase since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That amount is only a small portion of the Earth's natural, seasonal flux. But it IS excess, it IS long-lived and it IS responsible for the atmospheric build up.

7) Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions

No one has suggested otherwise. Relatively small amounts of methane are released through leakage, but keep in mind that for humans, methane is a fuel. We don't want to release it. We want to burn it for energy. Released methane has a much shorter lifetime than CO2 so any excess produced by humans has little chance to build. And enormous amounts of methane are held in solution in Arctic tundra and in methane clathrates on the ocean floor, vulnerable to release from heating. None of this should make you feel any less nervous, of course. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and warming the planet and putting all that naturally sequestered methane at risk of emission is precisely what we continue to do.

8) 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.

Bullshit.

9) The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%

It most certainly can. And, it was 4% a few lines back. What happened?

10) Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years

Most climate models did not predict the hiatus, but they have tracked our climates behavior far better than is generally indicated in denier literature (such as Roy Spencer's embarrassing pack of lies). No one has ever made a CGM that came within an order of magnitude of reality WITHOUT assuming anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions. Ever.

11) Climate models have no predictive value

Just like assholes, everyone's got an opinion and most of them stink. Models most certainly DO have predictive values. Models are the only thing we have, in ANY field, with which to make predictions. If models don't do it, we can make no predictions ABOUT ANYTHING. If you think that's the case, you're simply wrong.

12) 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.

Fine. The data say that humans are responsible for almost every bit of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 is the primary cause of the global warming experienced over the past 150 years. So... what was your point?

Can you please explain why CO2 did not level off or decrease in 2020-21 despite a severe, global economic slowdown? It's as if humans have no impact whatsoever on global CO2